01-01-2004 13:34									#91
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Actually, both groups are correct. Low voter turnout comes from a combination of complacency, and distrust. The complacent believe, incorrectly as far as I am concerned (I sort of hint at that in my posts ) that there's nothing that important at issue. I'll give you one example, the reason I believe I may have stated that is the first of three that caused me to vote against Bush Jr.

While I suspect I am preaching to the choir here, only a small number of Americans pay attention to a presidential candidates' statements about Supreme Court nominess. Look at the number of 5-4 major decisions in recent years, and try to tell me that your vote doesn't make a difference. Bush stated his kind of Surpreme Court justice was Scalia or Thomas. As a social libetarian, he lost my vote in that minute. If he had said Rehnquist and Kennedy, I might have looked at other issues as I disliked Gore. I might disagree with Rehnquist, who has done outcome based decisions. Kennedy is the closest thing this court has to a strict constitutionalist, and is hardly a liberal.

No, Bush was for two right-wing judicial activists, and lost my vote. If he appoints another one or two justices like them, he will seriously erode the "people" part in Article X of the constitution.

quote: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Scalia and Thomas are for states rights, to the exclusion of the people. In almost every case where the two have collided, they have voted against the people. So there is complacency, because most people don't bother to pay attention to one of the most important things a President does. I think it was somewhere around 90% or over of the voters don't consider a presidential candidates intentions reference the surpreme court. Complacency.

A parliamentary system would grant what are now marginalized, disgruntled voters the opportunity to make a difference. Their numbers are probably smaller than the complacent and/or just downright lazy voters discussed, but considering the razor thin non-majority Bush won by, it would be significant. I may disagree with the Greens or the anti-immigration people, but if they can get the votes shouldn't they have some representation, unlike our winner-take-all system?

	01-01-2004 20:43									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

If you really don't care enough to get off your ass and drive to polling place and vote, does the country really need such people's opinions influencing things.

	01-01-2004 20:53									#93
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sadly, people who don't vote still think they can complain..

Make it a crime to complain about goverment services unless you have voted! Nah, unworkable..unless you brand voters.

GIve people "I voted" bumper stickers that allow them to ignore the speed limit, or park more widely and get lower arking tickets... nah.

Simplest thing was alreayd stated, make voting day a holiday. Remove the " was at work" excuse.

	01-01-2004 23:46									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi If you really don't care enough to get off your ass and drive to polling place and vote, does the country really need such people's opinions influencing things.

That's actually my usual feeling on the matter.

Go ahead and don't vote -- it just makes my vote that much stronger.

	02-01-2004 23:05									#95
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor That's strange, my courses of participatory science do give a high importance to party distrust, but none to complacency with the system. Maybe that's because none of the many scientosts striving for the reason of low turnout cared to measure it Besides, most non-voters I got to talk to during campaigns were rather talking about how they wouldn't give their vote to corrupt politicians, rather than how the system was so perfect they didn't want to have a say in it...

With rare exception, US politicians are "honest." They are not elected only to feather their own nests and ignore the people.

There is the problem of campaign contributions driving votes, but that is largely part of the system and not corruption. Still we have been addressing that issue with campaign finance reform.

We also attack corruption by putting term limits on legislators, governors and presidents.

Still, a lot of the vote is motivated by the urge to "throw the bastards out." So the corruption of those in power can motivate votes.

As to the majority of people though, they don't vote because they simply do not know enough about the issues and the people to make an informed vote. Why don't they know, you ask? Well everything here works fairly well government-wise. There is no need to pay attention -- on the average.

I must admit that I am one of these. I know nothing about local politics, and until this last election, I knew nothing about state politics. I therefor never voted in these elections - that is until I voted to throw that major screwup Grey Davis out of office.

I do care about national politics, but even there I have failed to vote if the parties are not running someone whom I really like. I sat out the Clinton-Dole election, for example.

	02-01-2004 23:25									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: With rare exception, US politicians are "honest."

	02-01-2004 23:30									#97
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: With rare exception, US politicians are "honest."

I would have guessed a instead...

Isn't Ned's world just wonderful? Maybe we can arrange daytrips or something.