To all citizens of the US of A!

I totaly agree with Joq, voting is very imortant, but you got a problem it seems.
I know that you got more then two partys, but it seems that they don't have the mony to finance a election tour, therefor they wont be known...
This is said, and its also said that the companies and banks got so much power in politics...The world aint democratic, more plutocratic...

Ok, I don't agree with you blackthorn, though I understand thy plationistic wievs, why shouldnt the most fittest rule?

Well, do humanity a favor and vote for the socialist party! (And if the CIA comes after you, fight them!)

 

Actually, I'll agree with joacqin here. The first time I voted, I was 18 and clueless. Not so anymore. And, in discussing voting in general with friends and coworkers, the majority admitted that they never really paid attention to politics until after the first time they voted, no matter what age they were.
So, from an informal kinda sorta not really but seems like a survey point of view, voting in and of itself cured the voter's apathy. So yes, I will still ancourage people to vote, even if they are apathetic. Personally, I don't think they'll stay that way.

Edited for spelling

[ November 06, 2002, 07:37: Message edited by: Stefanina ]

 

I don't vote. Why not? Because I don't have the time to follow all of the issues in all of the different elections and determine who would be best to lead us. And everyone knows that politicians change their stance on issues at the drop of a hat anyway "read my lips, no... new... taxes....".

I don't want to screw the system up by voting when I don't have a clear understanding on what all of the issues are, or how they affect me personally. If more people were like me and left the politics to those who knew what they were talking about, this country would be a better place.

 

Um...That's called Fascism or Totalitarianism. No thanks! I'd rather have uninformed voters casting ballots rather than a few people ruling who "know what's good for me"

 

Word up Sir Bel! I heard that the turnout was only around 30%...if that is true it is disatrous. What do you americans think is the reason for this apathy? I cant imagine that the people that dont vote agree with the people in power or else they would vote to make sure they stay there, or? Why didnt 70% of the eligible voters vote? I would also be happy if someone could confirm that number as I only heard it quickly in the news.

 

Well if 70% of the pop dont think their vote matters or they dont like the candidates there must be a golden oppurtunity for some new blood. In my eyes a low turnout is a serious threat to the democracy as it tends to solidify what is make it more difficult for change to happen. When the turnout here in Sweden dropped below 80% there were more or less panic in the media and among the politicans. Not that it helped much most nation are closing in on the US in turnout numbers and political apathy.

 

Living in Quebec, I find myself torn on this issue.

On the one hand, I don't want uninformed buffoons casting uneducated or random votes - I don't feel people should have a say in something they know nothing about. You bring your car to the garage because trying to fix it yourself would likely only make things worse.

On the other hand, I feel compelled to vote for one particular party, not so much because I embrace what they stand for but rather becase I know they are the only party that stands a chance of defeating the one party I really don't want in power.

Unlike the United States, we do not have a two-party system. While one would logically think this would give voters more choice, voting for any other than one of the two major parties is tantamount to throwing your vote away.

In theory, getting more people more informed about, and more actively involved in, the political process could help to reverse this trend. To have a multi-party system where you are free to cast a vote for the party of your choosing without the fear of throwing away your vote - with each party (or at least several parties) actually standing a chance - would be a blessing. Two problems arise here; first, how to remedy voter apathy (or should I say non-voter apathy?), and second, to get people to break old habits, to learn to vote for the issues they believe in, not simply voting for the same party they have always voted for in the past.

Of course, I have no solution to either of these problems. Forgive me if this makes little to no sense, my thoughts are a bit of a jumble on this...

[edited for spelling mistakes]

[ November 07, 2002, 02:15: Message edited by: JohnnyRTFM ]

 

I'm not sure where you heard the 30% numbers, but around here voter turnout was nearly 70%. We approached a record for non-presidential-year elections.

 

For those people who don't think thier vote counts, explain the closeness of the last presidential election.
If anyone is near, in, or heard about the govenor's race here in Alabama, it was a close race. In fact, both the Democratic and Republican candidate are claiming victory.
There is some controversy whether some votes count, etc.
The thing is, is your vote didn't count, this wouldn't happen.

 

Hee- several elections ago in Canada, the conservative candidate in my riding came to my door and when I told her I was voting Libertarian, she told me I was "throwing my vote away" on a party that didn't stand a chance. That was the election that resulted in the brain-dead conservative PM being turfed and the conservative party being de-registered because they didn't have enough votes! I didn't think my vote was wasted at all...

That's a funny definition of Fascism, above- here's a more usual contemporary one: "centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." The original, but now obsolete, meaning was of a leadership created by demanding allegiance to a symbol or flag (such as the swastika) - note the etymology. You can imagine why that definition is out of vogue. Not a word in either case about people voluntarily choosing not to vote, in the interests of the greater good, in the elections they don't fully understand...

 

Shralp - National voter turnouts for this election were higher than the latest non-presidential year, but still very low:

W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 6 — This year's midterm congressional election apparently attracted more voters than the last one, in 1998, according to a survey on voter turnout.

Curtis Gans, director of the independent Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, estimated Tuesday's turnout at 78.5 million, more than 39 percent of voting-age citizens.

Here's the rest of the article if you want to read it:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021106_2542.html

 

My voting theory (and I am a voter, so I am allowed this theory) is that if you don't excercise your duty to vote, you have no right to gripe.

And yes, I did say "duty" to vote. Not a duty to the government, a duty to yourself: to attempt to give to yourself the best representation available (even if all of them are terrible, one of them is not as bad as the others). If you cannot do this duty, including keeping up with issues and showing up on the right day (and checking for hanging chads), than you deserve the political pain and anguish that the government may put you through. Just don't gripe to me about it if you didn't vote!