Political Crossfire Forums

[Questinz]

What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?

[Vexillum]

Questinz wrote: What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?

More people are realizing that voting is a waste of their time and gas.

[wyldejackyl]

I think two reasons is people realize that A) voting either way means more of the same, and B) the integrity of the vote isn't intact with all the electronic voting machines, miscounts, etc.

Low participation rates are a problem because it shows just how separate we have become from those who we give the power to govern. Sad really.

[lovebush]

Lack of interest and knowlage. its a good thing if less people vote, it gives my vote more power. :-D

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Vexillum wrote: Questinz wrote: What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?

More people are realizing that voting is a waste of their time and gas.

And more people realize if their vote doesn't coincide with the mob, then their vote doesn't matter.

[ieatfood]

lovebush wrote: Lack of interest and knowlage. its a good thing if less people vote, it gives my vote more power. :-D

no it doesnt
your vote has as the same amount of power no matter how many people vote, which is to say, no power at all.

[agentkgb]

Questinz wrote: What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?
I would say lack of interest and the belief that one's vote doesn't matter, which in many cases is unfotunately correct.
I'm not sure if it's a problem or not. If someone doesn't care enough to vote in the first place I'm not that inclined to care either.

[californian conservative]

agentkgb wrote: Questinz wrote: What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?
I would say lack of interest and the belief that one's vote doesn't matter, which in many cases is unfotunately correct.
I'm not sure if it's a problem or not. If someone doesn't care enough to vote in the first place I'm not that inclined to care either.

1. As to the vote not mattering: yes it is a problem. Politicians collude with other politicians to rig their districts so that it is increasingly difficult to change parties in the districts. A third party (not politcal party, just someone whose vote isn't tied to it) should be the one drawing up legislative districts. Until we get rid of politicians gerrymandering there will usually be a heavily favored candidate that will win guarentedly, discouraging voting.

2. As to if its a problem: Yes and no. Its not a problem because people who don't know what's going on are more likely to not vote than the informed. Which is good because we don't want the uninformed to make decisions that affect the country. Which means less people are politically active as a whole. So the decline is people who are politically active and knowledgable. Which is the problem. If people don't care enough find out about the issues, we have a less informed populace.

But my biggest complaint is people who don't vote and just complain 24/7 about how the country is doing. Yet when it comes down to actually doing something about it, they just sit on their ass and do nothing except complain. Its the most annoying thing in the world. /rant off

[exploding_onion]

I think the Electoral College has something to do with it. Unless you live in Ohio or Florida, why bother? And because the only thing that is any worse than the Democrats is the Republicans. By not voting for anyone, you are voting against everyone.

[usa-1]

Questinz wrote: What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?

Voter apathy I believe is linked to a lack of qualified candidates that can relate to the voters needs and act on those needs once elected.

Yes, low voter turnout is a problem because it shows people have lost self-repect in themselves as Americans and their country of freedom.

The conditions need to be right to shake this nation's foundation enough that nonvoters feel the earth shake - then they will vote if it isn't to late at that point. Revolution is a Solution. :wink:

I have always said that if the right politican just tapped the nonvoters needs, he would be our next President. And that representative candidate needs to stand at the podium and ask American nonvoters that question; "What are your needs?" And will you vote for me if I represent those needs.

[Lumina]

I'd like to see some evidence of voter-decline. From what period to what period?

When I was growing up, "everybody" voted--the problem was that my understanding of "everybody" was seriously limited, LOL.

I have been active in politics all my adult life and can testify that in off-years (meaning a few Congressional seats and local issues) in my community, only about 7-10% of registered voters actually do. The number increases, of course, during gubernatorial years and, of course, hugely increases during Presidential years.

I mean, voter apathy has been a constant in my adult lifetime. So has voting declined since the '80's? '90's? What?

[eynon]

Questinz wrote: What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?

it's declining?........everything I've seen says it's been steady for the last 40 years........
2004 221,256,931 174,800,000 122,294,978 55.3%
2002 215,473,000 150,990,598 79,830,119 37.0
2000 205,815,000 156,421,311 105,586,274 51.3
1998 200,929,000 141,850,558 73,117,022 36.4
1996 196,511,000 146,211,960 96,456,345 49.1
1994 193,650,000 130,292,822 75,105,860 38.8
1992 189,529,000 133,821,178 104,405,155 55.1
1990 185,812,000 121,105,630 67,859,189 36.5
1988 182,778,000 126,379,628 91,594,693 50.1
1986 178,566,000 118,399,984 64,991,128 36.4
1984 174,466,000 124,150,614 92,652,680 53.1
1982 169,938,000 110,671,225 67,615,576 39.8
1980 164,597,000 113,043,734 86,515,221 52.6
1978 158,373,000 103,291,265 58,917,938 37.2
1976 152,309,190 105,037,986 81,555,789 53.6
1974 146,336,000 96,199,0201 55,943,834 38.2
1972 140,776,000 97,328,541 77,718,554 55.2
1970 124,498,000 82,496,7472 58,014,338 46.6
1968 120,328,186 81,658,180 73,211,875 60.8
1966 116,132,000 76,288,2833 56,188,046 48.4
1964 114,090,000 73,715,818 70,644,592 61.9
1962 112,423,000 65,393,7514 53,141,227 47.3
1960 109,159,000 64,833,0965 68,838,204 63.1

it was a bit higher in the 1960s.......but has been in low to mid 50% since the 1970s....... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

[bigstick61]

Personally, I have no problem with people not voting, especially the stupid, ignorant, apathetic, the unvirtuous, the lazy, etc. I'm against votign drives to try to get these people to vote. Personally, I think suffrage needs to be limited, with the primary basis being land ownership. Ironically, in the case of my State anyways (California), the rules I think should be in place would only disqualify 25-35% of active voters, possibly a little more or less, based upon the statistics relaeased by the State. It would disqualify a majority of those who do not vote anyways, or vote seldomly, in my State. Voting is a privilege, one which, like jury duty and the chance for nullification, should not be taken lightly.

[curisz]

bigstick61 wrote: Personally, I have no problem with people not voting, especially the stupid, ignorant, apathetic, the unvirtuous, the lazy, etc. I'm against votign drives to try to get these people to vote. Personally, I think suffrage needs to be limited, with the primary basis being land ownership. Ironically, in the case of my State anyways (California), the rules I think should be in place would only disqualify 25-35% of active voters, possibly a little more or less, based upon the statistics relaeased by the State. It would disqualify a majority of those who do not vote anyways, or vote seldomly, in my State. Voting is a privilege, one which, like jury duty and the chance for nullification, should not be taken lightly.


Hmm, yes, lets go to those who are powerless in society and take away the little remaining power they do have. Sounds fair.

As long as no laws apply to them and they don't have to pay any tax on anything.

[thundertaker]

bigstick61 wrote: Personally, I have no problem with people not voting, especially the stupid, ignorant, apathetic, the unvirtuous, the lazy, etc. I'm against votign drives to try to get these people to vote. Personally, I think suffrage needs to be limited, with the primary basis being land ownership. Ironically, in the case of my State anyways (California), the rules I think should be in place would only disqualify 25-35% of active voters, possibly a little more or less, based upon the statistics relaeased by the State. It would disqualify a majority of those who do not vote anyways, or vote seldomly, in my State. Voting is a privilege, one which, like jury duty and the chance for nullification, should not be taken lightly.

I think any attempt to prevent a taxpaying citizen from voting would be outrageous, landowner or not.......

[bigstick61]

Why would it be outrageous? Especially considering voting is a privilege, not a right. How else will you ensure republican institutions remain intact, and ensure a higher degree of virtue among the electorate, and thus also among elected officials? How else would you do this while maintaining equality of opportunity, as anyone would have the potential to vote, especially considering the nature of our country and what made it great in regards to opportunities? The people who would be excluded would be the lawbreakers, the stupid, the apathetic, those who covet the property of others because they have little or none, the ignorant, those easily swayed without the use of logic, and such. Limited suffrage is a necessary republican institution; once that institution is done away with, the demise of the others becomes inevitable, barring unprecedented reform to restore republican institutions. I our day and age, it is even more necessary than before.

[curisz]

bigstick61 wrote: Why would it be outrageous? Especially considering voting is a privilege, not a right. How else will you ensure republican institutions remain intact, and ensure a higher degree of virtue among the electorate, and thus also among elected officials? How else would you do this while maintaining equality of opportunity, as anyone would have the potential to vote, especially considering the nature of our country and what made it great in regards to opportunities? The people who would be excluded would be the lawbreakers, the stupid, the apathetic, those who covet the property of others because they have little or none, the ignorant, those easily swayed without the use of logic, and such. Limited suffrage is a necessary republican institution; once that institution is done away with, the demise of the others becomes inevitable, barring unprecedented reform to restore republican institutions. I our day and age, it is even more necessary than before.

1. There are millions of good honest hard working people who live in apartments and rented properties in this country.

2. Taking away the franchise is tantamount to stripping someone of their citizenship. To what country do all these millions of non citizens now owe their allegiance?

3. Why should someone with no right to vote have to pay taxes? Why should they have to obey any law when they have no right to have anyone speak on their behalf within the legislature? Its one thing for instance to say, "Well you voted for the guy who wanted to legalize pot, but he lost, so its still illegal, deal." It's another thing to say "You don't have the right to vote for the guy who wants to legalize pot, so he can't win, so its still illegal, so deal."

4. Here's a possible result of this: a handful of very wealthy people buy up property left and right and become mega landlords, and in addition have a monopoly on political power.

5. I think you might actually get an armed insurrection on your hands. Have fun!
2

[Thrilla]

I dont think the main reason for poor voter turnouts are sinister things like vote rigging..or electoral college issues.. or " my vote dont count" syndrome.... i think the main reason is because people have friggin jobs and responsibilities to tend to... had it not been for early voting... i would have totally missed the polls on the tuesday of the last election... i didnt get off base until after 8 pm

give up this whole .. "vote on tuesday and tuesday only" crapola... open the damn polls for a few days... work with peoples schedules a bit more.... open the polls sunday through wednesday
its obvious that more effort needs to be made to enable people to get to the polls

[perdidochas]

Questinz wrote: What do you think are two reason for voter decline? Do you think these low participation rates are a problem?

Apathy and the ease of voter registration. Personally, I think the best thing we could do would be to make it harder to vote. The harder we make it to do, the more people will want it. Things that are easily obtained are not prized.

I don't think it's a problem--I vote, regardless, and the less other people vote, the more my vote counts.

[perdidochas]

wyldejackyl wrote: I think two reasons is people realize that A) voting either way means more of the same, and B) the integrity of the vote isn't intact with all the electronic voting machines, miscounts, etc.

Low participation rates are a problem because it shows just how separate we have become from those who we give the power to govern. Sad really.

Your B answer is plain stupid. Voter apathy long predates the electronic voting machine.