The DAMNING Truth About Democracy in America

[ulTRAX]

Here's just one example. It's important because this election was considered a landslide.

In the 1980 election only 52.56 of the Voting Age Population (VAP) even bothered to vote. Source: http://www.fec.gov/votregis/turn/natto.htm

Of that Reagan received 50.7%. Source: http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/northamerica/usa.html

If my math is correct... Reagan was elected with only 26.6% of the total voting age population.

Some landslide.

So who are these non-voters and how can they be reached?

[tkmorris]

1. They can't be

Seriously. Half of the people in this country really don't give a flying fig who wins elections and they won't anytime soon. They are by and large happy with their lot in life, or at least where they are unhappy they don't perceive it to have anything to do with who is in office.

What would make them care? Total national economic breakdown. Unemployment approaching 20%, inflation in the teens, war, gas prices at $3.00 per gallon and above, and so on. Even that would only have a marginal effect. Some people just like feeling helpless.

[ulTRAX]

4. voter apathy may be a rational response to a dysfunctional system

tkmorris wrote: "Half of the people in this country really don't give a flying fig who wins elections and they won't anytime soon."

Of course this could be a direct consequence of a system that is both dysfunctional and anti-democratic. Our first past the post election system guarantees about half of the voters will never be represented at any given time. Combine that with practices like Gerrymandering... a anti-democratic federal system that allows for morally illegitimate minority rule... a reform proof Constitution.... and a Democratic Party that's AWOL in the fight for democracy... then that apathy is petty easy to understand. It's almost a rational reaction.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Then how do you explain significantly higher turnout in Europe?

Western European countries have significantly higher voting turnout than the US -- some approaching 90% in national elections, compared to our paltry sub-50%.

http://www.yvoteonline.org/noshows1996_poll_foreign.shtml

The simple truth is that there are significant obstacles built into our system for no other apparent reason than to make voting more difficult, thus suppressing turnout.

One would think that, in a democracy, we would be interested in ways of making it EASIER for people to vote. I guess it just goes to show how interested we truly are in "democracy".

[ulTRAX]

19. obsolete 18th century views on democracy

IrateCitizen wrote: "The simple truth is that there are significant obstacles built into our system for no other apparent reason than to make voting more difficult, thus suppressing turnout."

Or back in the late 1700s... the only voting they knew was first past the post. I think a strong case can be made that it as been perpetuated because our reform-proof Constitution has set the politics of the era in cement... which also sets in cement the idea that we must vote as set districts or states. Ideas such as proportional representation are outside the realm of permissible thought. Not everything must be a conspiracy to have similar effects.

[whistle]

2. In 1980...

...a large number of adults were still not registered to vote throughout the country. The easiest way to get voting up in this country is to allow people to register on-line and vote on-line. Why we are farting around with voting machines when the web is so much cheaper and easier, I just don't understand. We could also do the 2010 Census on-line when the time comes. Not with Re-Thug-Licans in charge though. Just nice honest democrats running the show. We could out-source the over-sight of the entire process to Canada:kick:

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. Vote on-line?

Are you crazy or sleeping? BBVer's have been fighting that since it was first proposed. Get on board the BBV train and learn. Sheez...I was in a bad mood now I am in a foul mood.

[BeFree]

5. Internet voting

Ya know.... if you and Bev et. al., can get the BBV stuff straighened out, it may just lead to safe and secure Internet voting. But I doubt it.

Still....if there was a way to vote on things pretty much instantly, democracy would flourish. We'd be rid of the backroom deals, etc.

Eventually it will come to that, if we live that long. </grin>

[bread_and_roses]

11. Lots of poor/low income people

do not have computers. Turning them out is going to require both hard grass roots work AND a candidate who addresses issues that matter to them.

[Crachet2004]

6. The GOP wants a low turnout.

They have always strived to alienate voters...turn people off to politics.

Democrats keep asking for civil discussions of the issues, but this is why they will never get them. The GOP knows all their acrimony, shouting and browbeating turns people off.

Except the type of bullying personality that enjoys all that, and loves to hate. You know, ditto-heads. The same guys who used to wear sheets.

Since this type of personality is a minority in this country, it is good for them, their tactics work so well. None of their people could EVER hold office if everyone voted.

The other part is the Democrat Party itself. In recent years, people got the idea there was not that much difference between the parties. And the Party DOES need to concern itself more with the needs of people, rather than signing Naafta and gutting Welfare, like Clinton did.

But it took Bush to make a lot of people see the difference that DOES exist between the parties...I think he has almost completely discredited the conservative movement in this country, and good riddance.

But one final thing I advocate. Talk to people. Don't browbeat, or get excited...just talk, and try and help. Three out of four people you know, don't vote. We must all it take upon ourselves to get them to do it, at least one more time in their lives. Have a party and everyone go vote at the same time...have one earlier, and get them registered...just 4,5 or ten people. Pay for the whole thing yourself. That's what I'm going to do, among other things. Do what you CAN do!

We have to do it ourselves.

[ulTRAX]

20. I don't share your respect for the Dems

Crachet2004 "The GOP wants a low turnout. They have always strived to alienate voters...turn people off to politics."

I'm not sure that's always the case. Granted the GOP typically has a minority agenda and they need to find wedge issues to divide the opposition or disgust voters so much that they stay home. But there are also times they feel they can win.

"The other part is the Democrat Party itself. In recent years, people got the idea there was not that much difference between the parties. And the Party DOES need to concern itself more with the needs of people, rather than signing Naafta and gutting Welfare, like Clinton did."

I wish I shared your respect for the Democratic Party. Quite frankly they disgust me. They have totally been corrupted by our anti-democratic federal system. They have given up the fight for democracy itself.... that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Dems have no long range plans to make the US political and electoral system more responsive to the "will of the people" and are probably MORE guilty than the GOP in making self-government irrelevant to most Americans. Why? Simply because they have the goddamn nerve to call themselves Democrats.

"But it took Bush to make a lot of people see the difference that DOES exist between the parties...I think he has almost completely discredited the conservative movement in this country, and good riddance."

Obviously even someone as despicable as Bush has not motivated the Democratic Party to call for reform of our anti-democratic Constitution. Of course they probably see this system occasionally working to their benefit. What percentage of the vote did Clinton first get? 40%? 43%? What Democrat then was calling the EC anti-democratic?

[Cleita]

7. My vote don't count!

I vote but I sympathize with the non-voters who, like me, know it doesn't count like it should because we are too far west for it to really count; we are too densely populated for it to count; we know the system sucks for it to count. I still vote but many not so dumb about the system don't because things scream, "my vote don't count" to them, and you know I sometimes think they are right.

My point is that we have to make all people feel that voting will work for them, not the politicians.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Hitler got in with less than 16% of the vote, didn't he? There were 30 or

so other candidates on the slate, so the plurality helped him like it helped another Austrian opportunist, Arnold Schwartenegger.

[Disturbed]

12. Fla.

How many votes did shrub decietfully win by?

gas prices at $3.00 per gallon

When they go to $5 then maybe people will ask themselves why but will they attribute that to the Govt.?

Most people feel that there is little dif. 'tween the parties. Voting doesn't make a diff. to them. They feel that the Govt. is their boss, not their servant. They feel hopeless and helpless.

Most of the people that vote, especially in local elections, are staunch believers in a political party and pay attention to the issues. They feel that their vote could make a difference. A tiny minority of Americans are active in politics beyond voting. A real tiny percentage of Americans are in other parties aside from the Dems/Repubs. Many of their votes don't count toward the actual nomination of State or Natl. candidates. The smaller the turn out, the more people's vote matter.

[ulTRAX]

14. florida was not to blame for 2000

Disturbed wrote: "Fla. How many votes did shrub deceitfully win by?"

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

It's clear that Gore won a plurality. I don't consider that a real win. If we had a run-off no doubt Nader supporters would vote Gore.

Florida... while it was a travesty... was not to blame for the Bush Junta. I don't even totally blame the USSC's coup... their attempt to rule on a recount. I blame our anti-democratic Constitution which let each vote in Bush's Florida lead weigh as much as 1000 votes in Gore's national lead.

I know... I know... but the GOP thugs... Kate Harris... the people taken off the voting list... the USSC...

OK... suppose Bush had a CLEAR 20,000 vote lead in Florida... but still lost nationally by 530,000. The EC STILL hands Bush the victory. Would you accept Bush as legitimate?

I didn't think so.

The next election might be won in the popular vote yet lost under totally different circumstances than 2000. What then? What if there's no Kate Harris... no GOP thugs... no hanging chads...

Unless the blame is placed where it belongs... with out anti-democratic Constitution... elections will ALWAYS be under the cloud of illegitimacy.

[Ysabel]

23. even when gas was 13 cents...

it still cost too much - i remember - i never did like the stuff...

[bread_and_roses]

9. Some ideas...that boil down to

Dems acting like Dems, for the most part.

Good article at:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/0104cervantes.htmlv
including graphs of voter turnout (and Dem voters) by income quintile.

" Nonvoters need a reason to vote, and this is where the "economic populism" so reviled by the DLC fits in—taking on corporate power, reforming labor law, slowing and reshaping the free-trade juggernaut, returning to a more progressive tax structure. Writing last year in Dissent, Benjamin Ross noted that while DLC-ers often point to George McGovern’s 1972 loss as the nightmare result of a Democrat moving too far to the left, the "New Democrat" strategy actually has a lot in common with the McGovern campaign: both give up on white, working-class voters and organized labor, hoping instead to win with a coalition of upscale suburbanites plus African Americans and other ethnic minorities. But as Ross suggested, economic-populist policies have the potential to appeal in different ways to all of these groups: "Today, there is the organized corruption of campaign finance and the malfeasance of the Enrons and Worldcoms. These issues engage the moral indignation of the affluent and educated—in the case of stock market scandals, their pecuniary interests too. And a focus on such matters is no impediment, to say the least, to winning votes among the working class."

Also see: Six Ways Kerry Can Win
By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet
www.alternet.org

" 3. Don't fall back on the tried-and-untrue swing voter strategy that has led to the prolonged identity crisis of the Democratic Party. Fifty percent of eligible voters did not vote in 2000. Speak to them – to the young, to the poor, to single women. Speak to those who have given up on our democracy, who are struggling without health care, without decent schools, without jobs. The dithering poltroons offering you focus group-tested advice on how to triangulate your way to victory won't like it. But you'll feel better about yourself, and you'll win."

edit: attribution

[G_j]

10. here is one group

Single Women,

http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10072Sorry,

NASCAR dads, your 15 minutes are up. Single women are the new flavor of the month for the political punditocracy. Inspired by a survey conducted by Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake showing an untapped gold mine of votes among women sans men, the buzz is all about how these babes can swing the election. With 16 million unmarried women now unregistered and 22 million unmarried women who are registered but didn't vote in the last election, this could be a formidable bloc.

..more..

[ulTRAX]

13. now there's a demographic

Now THERE'S a demographic that might finally get me interested in voter registration! ;-)

[bread_and_roses]

15. "Waking Up the Vote"

Incredible article:

"It is a time to look at the deep needs of such communities...

"... It is no good for the Democrats or anyone else to show up in these communities a few minutes before each election and ask for votes, when poverty and agony are never improved by it...

... "These people see the elites of the right fighting with the elites of the left. And that is all it is, usually. Even when the elites of the left are elected, there are never enough resources provided to really solve problems of the poor on the required scale. Unless we address this failing on our part, we have no right to ask people in poor communities to register just because we want them to..."

more at:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18057

edit to get rid of extra space

[ulTRAX]

16. good article

thanks!

[IrateCitizen]

18. God, I absolutely love Granny D!

That woman is a treasure not just to progressives, or our country -- but to humanity. And to be doing all of this in her mid-90's? Simply amazing and inspirational.

[ramapo]

21. What would happen?

If 60% or even 70% voted. Apathy has been a strong contender in most recent elections. I suggest that is why the average citizen has gotten screwed.

There is power in numbers just as there is power in dollars. Up to now the dollars have been winning.

[ulTRAX]

22. when citizens bow out...

something else will fill the vaccuum... money, special interests... etc.