"We know this is like going to work and not drinking but if you could find 5 free minutes, you could help elect the next (president, prime minister, etc.) and we won't bother you after that! Back to the party, dudes and dudettes!"

You think this is what we need in British democracy? This suggestion would completely undermine the whole point of democracy. To get people to vote again, politicians need to actually do what they are supposed to do, which is act in the best interests of people. My God, you have to be an American, only a bloody yank would suggest the best way to uphold democracy was for people only to care about issues when an election is occuring.

But, this in fact IS what we do, including Great Britain. Go to sleep! Wake up when we want you to and vote! Actually, most people want to know what politicians do between elections except get their countries into assorted messes and raise taxes. OR did I miss something during the nap???

Hello, America is a Constitutional Republic; not a democracy. A Democracy has no check on the people.

Evan:
Consitutional Republics rely on democratic principles such as voting to ensure that the Republic stays in line with what the "people want their government to be." Right? I mean, could you have one without the other?

little_whip:
Interesting input, thanks! BTW, why do you think people (in general) weren't interested in the issues? Could it be because they felt a frustration with change or because it didn't effect them personally. It's always been interesting to me that there is the lowest voter turnout for local elections (where decisions directly effect) than state or national, where the connection is either indirect or there may be none at all.

little_whip:
Not to date myself, but haing had voted in the 1970's the current climate is not much more jaded (IMHO) than then. One slight correction, it was Bush senior that said Read my lips, Reagan said many forgettable things too, but not that.
One of the things that has changed since the 1970's is that we know the candidates much better today, but still only get 2 choices for most elections which I think is sad because you are always stuck in a "least of 2 evils" situation. There are many reasons not to vote for Bush and Kerry for example, but what is the choice?
BTW: If you look at voting patterns from 1988, 92, 96, and 2000 it becomes clear that the left votes left and the right votes right regardless of the merit of the candidate and that leaves 20% in the middle (affiliated with neither side) who decides. So the trick is to sway the middle by convincing it that you are one of them (the so-called "move to the middle" dance that candidates do). This means for Kerry that he emphasizes increases in minimum wage and talks jobs programs while Bush infers that the troops in Iraq are not permanently there and talks about business incentives designed to stimulate the economy. The problem is that the middle is more often than not "uninformed and uncaring", often voting the incumbent because they "know that devil".

I think all people should vote.

I'm going out on a limb here to say that I don't agree with this statement. I knew so many people in college who were so set on not informing themselves about the candidates that it would be a tragedy for them to claim they had a preference at all...some hadn't even looked at their own political beliefs. I recall one conversation with a fellow student who I knew had many democrat like beliefs who said "I think I'll vote for _______, he was the mayor of St. Paul for awhile, and I had friends in St. Paul and they never said anything bad about him." What the hell kind of justification is that?

Eventually even a 25 year old will think you are trying to steal his or her six pack of brewskis by parading Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young (who isn't) in front of a camera to say "Whoa, before you do 7 other boring and meaningless acts before 9 A.M., why not vote?" But election after election that seems to be the trend.

Uhhh....who are all these 25 year olds that are sitting around drinking beer? I barely have time to eat while I'm working two jobs and I'm 23....do I get to retire in two years? Maybe you meant 19 year olds.

-SuspeckTed

SuspeckTed:
Didn't mean to offend but there are a whole bunch of 25 year olds out there working minimal wage jobs, living in their folks' house and living pretty mediocre lives. Most of the ones I know (4) won't move to find a good job and can't find a good job in their field in this area.

If someone is too lazy to vote, I would rather they didn't vote.

>Id modify that to say if someone is too lazy to become familiar with the major issues and where each candidate stands on those >issues, they shouldnt be allowed to vote, even if they are energetic enough on occasion to do so


I actually think there's a growing number of people in this country in the "middle" as the popular term has become that have a definite take on issues but only vote for the person they think is going to protect their pocketbook. For example, a man who works out at the same gym as I do is actually gay and well aware of the limitations Bush wants to place on gay rights specifically in regards to gay marriage but just in case he even makes over 150,000 dollars a year and the Bush tax cuts start to actually mean something, he'll vote for Bush. To me, this is so absurd. How could someone vote for a person who wants to limit their freedom? Are people just that greedy?

Another example is a person I have communicated with via email who identifies himself in the middle as well. He has some liberal points of view but he thinks issues like the gay rights issue are just this bogus way to waste more of his tax dollars and is essentially a non issue (he's for gay rights but doesn't understand why the government is making it an issue) So eventually people in the middle will possibly avoid the issues and vote for the candidate who is going to get them closer to this so called American dream (never mind the fact that these people could be unemployed and going hungry but hey Bush may not get them a job but they'll get that tax cut.) It makes no sense.

I'm younger but I grew up with a sense that issues were more important than tax dollars and this is very disturbing to me. I wouldn't vote for someone that was pro life, pro death penalty, or anti gay rights. (and , in this election, we'll add pro-imperialism to the list) I just wouldn't do it. So I have a real lack of understanding of these people.

And I must wonder: will the democrats basically have to lie to people while campaigning in this election and tell them they aren't going to raise taxes because the reality of the trillions of dollars of debt Bush has pushed this country in is just too much of an abstract concept for most people to grasp?

A lot of people that don't vote, shouldn't vote. Democracy shouldn't be about a million monkeys on million typewriters.

There's compulsory voting in Australia and this tends to lead to very disappointing election results. The way I see it voting should be a responsibility, not a right. Before anyone should be able to vote (the current electorates included) they should be forced to pass classes in the political system and be able to state when asked the political ideology of those parties that got over 5% of the vote. Anybody who can't do this is too stupid to understand anything much beyond who's the most attractive.

N.B. By political ideology I mean their alleged basis or reason for existence as well as their "primary issues". It doesn't need to very difficult, and it doesn't have to be especially partisan.

One reason I think that young people are so largely courted is they're often swayed by emotion rather than reason, and often have more limited life experiences that tend to color their view in one way or another. This is why a certain party tends to target the young people more heavily (playing the sax on TV in the early 90's comes to mind...but, no names here...lol).

2/3 of them would have to ratify it for the change to occur.

2/3 of the legislatures, that is...or, are you sure it isn't 3/4? I'm pretty good with this stuff, but I get confoozled from time to time...lol

The larger issues of why I oppose certain legislation are beyond the scope of this article. I'd be happy to exlain them in GREAT detail but not on this blog. Here is a very cursory look because I don't think it really fits here (but haven't, at my age, developed the will power to completely walk away from discussing it period):

I will specifically say that to not recognize the right to marry is to take away a right. How would you like it if someone told you that you couldn't marry the person you fell in love with? Regardless of what 3/4ths of the states ratify, and how the congress votes, from the perspective of someone who is gay, it sure looks like the President is trying to limit the rights of its citizens.

To fully cover abortion and the death penalty would take a large amount of time....suffice it to say that I don't believe our legal system can be 100% sure that someone has truly committed a heinous crime. DNA evidence is helping with that but the very fact that there have recently been people cleared because of the DNA evidence proves that a whole lot more people than we previously thought in this country could be imprisoned and or sentenced to death because of circumstantial evidence. If you are of course poor and a minority, it gets worse. The prison system is a fast growing industry in this country.... Here's a link just in my area to people getting released on the basis of DNA: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-dplegacyofwrongfulconvictions-special,1,7726908.special?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed

And btw, I am personally opposed to abortion but feel women should be provided that right and there are several times such as in cases of incest, rape, finding out the baby will most likely be born still born, or in cases where the mother is at risk for her own life where I think abortion is warranted.

So that's a very cursory way of dealing with those three things. I could write a great deal on all three of those topics. If you'd like me to, feel free to start your own debate and write an article.

But to honor the original topic, let's overlook my personal views and look at just the idea of why someone might vote tax cuts over issues (no matter what your personal opinions are on these issues).

When I talk about the American Dream, I discuss it as flawed in the sense that I think it makes people unrealistic while voting. I do very much believe that there are people out there who are unemployed and would still vote for Bush because they feel that the American Dream is always in grasp . There's nothing wrong with having dreams and wanting to live a good life but to not vote for someone specifically because you think at some point, you might just be making greater than 100-150 grand a year might not be your best individual option. It sort of has to do with the balance between being realistic and being idealistic.

Getting farther back to the original topic of voting....there are a couple of additional things that were brought up that might be useful to really discuss-the issue of young people in particular voting and the issue of web voting. I've always been a little cautious of web voting on a personal level because of a couple of factors-one is that it does keep people without internet access out of the picture. The government would have to make sure these people were not left out by setting up computers vs. punch ballots at all of the polling places...I'm not sure if that is what has been assumed would take place already. I also feel it might be confusing for some people. For example, my husband and I taught a computer class for homeless men at the church we were attending for a couple of years post 911 and most people were very confused with understanding what the internet was. I was shocked about this myself but it's important to realize how easy it is to get isolated and think most people are as computer savvy as you are (and i really don't consider myself computer savvy at all compared to others). Of course, you could argue that the current ballot system (case in point the butterfly ballot) is confusing to some right now. The other thing I'd worry about is of course the security involved and possible irregularities. After the whole Florida debacle in last election (even if you are pro Bush, to deny that any irregularities took place is completely absurd) I am thinking that the current system might even be more open to irregularities.

Then, there's the seperate issue of younger people voting, Rock the Vote campaigns and all of that. I'm not sure I would say that the younger population is any more disollusioned with voting than other demographics but perhaps this is because of my specific personal experience anyhow. I do think there is, in general, a feeling of disconnection between one's vote and an actual result.

One more thing, I did find that the personal experience you (little whip) posted about people voting for a name is an interesting one too look at (and perhaps, what I find most interesting about the replies) I'm wondering if what happened in the case of the cali. governor election is that people recognized Arni'e name and voted based on that over the issues. I'm not a Californian but I have read a bit from people there who don't understand how he could have been elected (of course, this isn't the first time that someone with fame and little political experience has been elected governor). But I still wonder whether it was disollusionment over previous Gov. Davis or whether it was really mainly the fame-name recognition thing that got to people....perhaps, if we can understand voting on a microcasm then we can better understand it nation-wide.