General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Do So Few Vote In US?
Compared to other advanced industrial democracies US voting rates are abysmal. In presidential elections about 50-55% of the voting age population (VAP) votes... and in off-year elections it's about 35%. Which means the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994 represented the "consent" of about 18% of the VAP. Pretty pathetic.
There's a vast voter reserve out there that can be appealed to. For example when Reagan brought into the GOP coalition right wing Christians which my understanding was tended not to vote.
So why don't people vote? Obviously there's felon disenfranchisement and the last number I've hears is this may be 5-6 million people. This is criminal in itself. But what about all those others? Is it they're not moved by the issues the candidates run on? Or is it that our very system discourages voting? After all... what's the point of voting if a candidate rejected by the People can become president? What's the point of voting if an antidemocratic Senate can block anything coming out of the House? What's the point of voting when winner-take-all elections disenfranchise up to 49.9% of voters? What's the point of voting when one can't vote their conscience and be sure of representation for what one believes? What's the point of voting when the system seems reformproof?
Our very system makes a mockery of the idea of self-government. On some level I suspect people know that but since we're also brought up to believe we have some grand political system... they can't connect the dots to see that it's really antidemocratic and dysfunctional. In such a case apathy is a pretty reasonable response.
Zoonart
(11,862 posts)They don't want to be on the voter rolls because they do not want to be called for Jury Duty.
I kid you not.
I makes no difference any-a-ways... they're all the same.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)But it's probably a good thing because she likes Trump.
This is also a stupid way to form a jury pool. One keeps getting the same people over and over.
I generally do not mind jury duty. It's kind of interesting, and you get a few bucks from it, and sometimes even lunch.
chowder66
(9,067 posts)CrispyQ
(36,462 posts)If you drive, you can be called for duty.
on edit: our county, not country.
Freddie
(9,265 posts)Pretty sure years ago it was registered voters - why my late MIL refused to vote. Didn't keep her from complaining about politicians endlessly.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)In Mass, it was by driver's license. Unfortunately, in NM, it's voter registration, so a lot of people just don't register. It's a nuisance to go to the courthouse to register, anyway, so having jury duty hang over their heads is the disincentive most need to abstain. People can't afford to be off work for token jury duty pay.
If they want people to vote, then registration should be online, automatically at the MVD, or by mail. Voting needs to be by mail, something that will also give a paper trail to check if results are hinky (Ohio, I'm looking at you). Trying to register illegally via ID theft will result in a visit from some very rude cops who will hit the perp with a felony ID theft charge and probably more. You want people to vote, do these things and untie jury duty from voter rolls.
None of this will be done, of course, because low turnout protects the plutocracy from too much democracy.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And that gap obviously has favorable implications for Republican/right-wing policies benefiting the richest Americans.
Nonvoters are more liberal than voters
This class bias is a persistent feature of American voting: A study of 40 years of state-level data finds no instance in which there was not a class bias in the electorate favoring the richin other words, no instance in which poorer people in general turned out in higher rates than the rich. That being said, class bias has increased since 1988, just as wide gaps have opened up between the opinions of non-voters and those of voters.
Recent research tells us that this voting disparityin class and in opinionhas tremendous impact on policy. State-level research suggests that higher voter turnout among the poor leads to higher welfare spending. A 2013 study found that turnout inequality directly predicts minimum wages, childrens health insurance spending and anti-predatory lending policies. And studies at the state level have found that a higher class bias in the electorate actually leads to higher levels of income inequality.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/income-gap-at-the-polls-113997
alarimer
(16,245 posts)It might be difficult to take time off to go vote.
I think election day should be a holiday. As a state employee, it is for me (though I had to work that day anyway because I was in the field), but most people don't have that luxury.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... there hasn't been a Germany to fight
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,855 posts)From needing to live some minimum time in your state or city -- sometimes as long as a year -- to making the voting location hard to find. The very requirement to find the correct voting place is ludicrous, especially in our modern era of computers.
No early voting in too many places, resulting in abysmally long lines for too many people to stand in.
Then there's the often accurate perception that your vote doesn't count, which is absolutely true at the Presidential level. Gerrymandering House districts and the districts for the state house and senate likewise doesn't help. People vote but nothing changes because so many politicians are only beholden to their donors.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)We can't escape the fact that in the US we could have
100% public financing of elections
100% voter participation
100% vote count accuracy
100% non-gerrymandered districts
and
A candidate REJECTED by the People can still become president
18% of the US population will still get 52% of the seats in the Senate where they have a veto over the House
States with 4% of the population can block any reform amendment
up to 49.9% of votes count for nothing in winner take all elections
voters can't vote their conscience and get representation for what they believe.
gopiscrap
(23,759 posts)putitinD
(1,551 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,855 posts)Think of the retail opportunities and that every single person who works retail, and probably in restaurants and various entertainment venues, will not be getting that day off.
Better have uniform and plentiful early voting in every single state.
Make it easier in other ways. Make registration automatic. Have computers at every voting location so that you can simply show up at whatever one is convenient, give them your name and DOB and address, and they print out your ballot. That's actually how early voting works for me here in New Mexico, and it's fabulous.
A paid holiday isn't going to happen, except perhaps for Federal employees, and maybe some state and municipal ones. Private businesses won't go for it. And if schools are closed on election day, millions of working parents will have to scramble for child-care, which adds another layer of hassle.
putitinD
(1,551 posts)That is why I was thinking it would be better if it were a National Holiday, because the school kids are off. But I guess that isn't so everywhere.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,855 posts)In more than one state.
Too bad your schools don't stay open. Kids ought to see democracy in action.
A couple of weeks ago there was a school bond issue in my current city. I voted at a school, and the very best part was that students were working the computers where they checked us in and gave us that ballots. I thought that was beyond cool. Adults were also there, but in the short time I was there they simply pointed me in the correct direction and then made sure I put my ballot in the scanner and gave me the "I voted" sticker.
putitinD
(1,551 posts)them, too many pedophiles! My local school district has 274 sex offenders within a 2 square mile area.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,855 posts)Depending on the layout of a given school, the voters often don't need to go near the kids at all.
Often the voting is done in the gymnasium, which should have doors directly to outside, and you go in those to vote. With plenty of signs pointing the way.
And somehow, I don't think pedophiles slipping into a school on election day is really a big problem. About the same level of threat as men dressing as women to molest females in public bathrooms. Someone bringing a gun to school and opening fire, now that's a genuine threat.
putitinD
(1,551 posts)situated quite a distance from the main entrance near the cafeteria, not a good layout for any kind of separation.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,855 posts)But it really wouldn't take too much to set up a pathway to whereever the voting would be. Maybe free up a classroom near the front of the school.
I do understand that it might not really be possible in your particular school, but I still think it's a shame to close schools on election day. I think the kids seeing voters coming in, even if only from a bit of a distance, is good.
And I still think fear of pedophiles is ludicrous. If they're going to target school kids, they're not going to do it by walking into the school, least of all on election day. They'll go after kids in the neighborhood, going to and from school, not within the school building itself.
haele
(12,652 posts)Other countries with robust electorate turn-out have a "voting holiday" - either voting is done over the weekend, or there's a specific day set aside to vote where work stops.
Most actively democratic countries also have a civic requirement to vote similar to our supposed civic requirement for jury duty, and make arrangements for those who can't set aside time from their schedule to cast a ballot.
It really depends on how important "citizenship" is in the society. Which is a very sad reflection on the current United States...
Haele
Yupster
(14,308 posts)When I looked at the rolls at the end of the day, I could see all the people who didn't vote. A lot of them I knew no longer lived in the district. That was especially true of apartments. People move around and don't tell the election people they're moving so their name stays on the rolls. It may also be on the roll of their new place but they only vote in one of them.
It makes the percentage of voters look lower than it is.
unblock
(52,212 posts)though there's still certainly a major drop-off looking at mid-term/off-year election. many people feel these don't matter.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You mean someone at a precinct level?
I'm using national numbers from http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout
Ace Rothstein
(3,161 posts)bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)People that bothered to register are more likely to vote, so you saw most of them coming out.
The %'s quoted were Voting Age Population regardless of registration. A lot of folks don't register and the GOP is doing it's best to make it harder to get or maintain their registration as well as just harder to get to the polls generally.
unblock
(52,212 posts)disenfranchisement laws
voter roll purges
voting made difficult (fewer voting places) instead of voting made easy (mail-in)
skepticism about whether votes are counted properly if at all
electoral college vs. popular vote means many voters are in states where the winner is a foregone conclusion even when the national race is very close
gerrymandering means many house races are foregone conclusions
the incumbent advantages in congress make serious challenges difficult, many races are foregone conclusions if not unopposed
heavy, heavy media emphasis about presidential politics means that mid-term and off-year elections are treated as unimportant
heavy emphasis on character/horse race means local elections, propositions, and issues are treated as unimportant
...
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Since the Shelby County decision by the Supreme Court, I think the biggest impediment to citizens voting has been a concerted effort by Republicans to make it as difficult as possible for some citizens to vote. As one court mentioned, reviewing Republican fuckery, their work in disenfranchising citizens proceeded with an almost "surgical precision."
If hostile citizens do manage to get on the voter rolls, Republicans leave it to their 501(c)(4) "educational" non-profit organizations to scare hell out them with ads and billboards reciting the maximum fines and jail terms for voter fraud. People who can barely make ends meet get frightened by the prospect of a $5,000 fine or a year in jail (Am I 100% sure I'm eligible to vote?), and don't show up.
Low voter participation doesn't happen by accident, and the citizens who are discouraged from registering to vote or cast a ballot are targeted quite specifically.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)about this before 2018. It is a serious problem.
Here is a decent look at the problem. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/why-dont-more-americans-vote-in-presidential-elections/?utm_term=.e0e5fc95448f
Initech
(100,068 posts)It's an old, archaic system and if we want to restore dignity in voting, in 2018 that should be one of the first things discussed is its' removal.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)In our federal system the "weight" of one's vote is determined by one's state residence in all the areas where there is state suffrage. Obviously states don't really vote... the PEOPLE in them do. So state suffrage means any voter in WY has a 3.5x bigger presidential vote than any voter in CA... and a 70x bigger Senate vote.
Retrograde
(10,136 posts)I'm in California: it's generally given that we'll vote for the Democratic candidate for president. Candidates rarely bother to campaign here. But we have higher than average voter turnout because IMO the state and local races are often hotly contested. I think a lot of this is because there's a good chance the voters have actually met the person they're voting for (or against): to judge by yard signs the big contest was for state assembly.
My county - the heart of Silicon Valley, diverse and affluent - had an 83% turnout last November (that's of registered voters), over half of them mail-in votes. We make it easy to vote, and provide some nice websites at both the county and state level that appeal to the geeky side of the population.
Initech
(100,068 posts)We had some extremely hot races for the state house and Senate that were decided by a very small handful of voters. I'm very happy that the liberal candidates won, and both had Obama's endorsement. But it's scary how close they came.
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)8% turn out. State of Wisconsin.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)If it's winner-take-all, and you know your vote won't make any difference, why vote?
If you didn't pay attention in school, and checked out of any civics' responsibility as an adult, and you don't even understand what the daily news is talking about, why vote?
Considering how appallingly stupid people are, are we not better off that they don't vote?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Maybe as a remnant of the Cold War America even organized labor worked to get rid of the Marxist idea of class consciousness... and yet without it... people tend to see themselves in non-economic terms... gun owners, gay, Christian, anti-abortion, white, black, hispanic, whatever.
Yet if class consciousness is promoted as a frame to interpret the world... even many right wingers would see through the Trickle Down nonsense of the right. They'd see through some of the divide and conquer tactics of the right.
I think the Dems have been dragged too far into the realm of identity politics by some of the groups in the Dem coalition... and I believe economics is a better issue to unite the masses.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)a) not feeling represented - none of the candidates views represent mine.
b) feeling disempowered - no matter who I vote for, the pols will do what they want anyway. The house always wins, and I always lose, so why play?
The reason Trump did as well as he did was that his supporters felt that their views were well represented, and they felt empowered. So they voted.
If I lived in the USA I would have felt unrepresented by all the presidential candidates. I don't vote against things - I vote for them. If there is no view on display that I agree with, I won't vote.
Phoenix61
(17,003 posts)whoever wins. If you don't care who wins then it doesn't matter.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)There is a price for every decision. Luckily, in Canada I've never seen a political party I couldn't live with.
Phoenix61
(17,003 posts)No sarcasm intended. Just pure old jealousy.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"The reason Trump did as well as he did was that his supporters felt that their views were well represented, and they felt empowered. So they voted."
Trump did miserably by any democratic standard. Trump only won because we have a mindless, antidemocratic, winner take all vote rigging system called the EC that turned his REJECTION into a win.
We should NEVER use Trump's "win" as proof of anything OTHER than our system is nuts. We need to reframe the 2016 election http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028681654
Kimchijeon
(1,606 posts)they really just don't know any better, or give a shit.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Thanks for this post.
Phoenix61
(17,003 posts)doesn't matter. They hear it so many times that they start to believe it. It is the single most effective form of voter suppression. It tells people there is no point in paying attention to politics because there is nothing they can do about what happens anyway. Once you have lost the battle in your mind passing laws to disenfranchise voters is easy, they already disenfranchised themselves.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If votes didn't matter the GOP would not spend so much time trying to suppress the Dem vote.
But our antidemocratic system has more variables. In our system even election winners can lose elections... as Trump did. In our system it's not what the People vote for... it's what some people vote for in particular states. So 80k voters in 3 states can weigh more than 3 million in the other 47 states.
Phoenix61
(17,003 posts)If anything it shows how important it is for everyone, everywhere to vote. Complaining about the system feeds into the myth and keeps people from going to the polls. Would it be great to change the electoral college? Sure, but that isn't going to happen. The only way Dems are going to get back on at least a level field with the Repubs is to get people to buy into the idea that their vote does, indeed matter.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)" Complaining about the system feeds into the myth and keeps people from going to the polls."
But if our system IS antidemocratic... then it NEEDS to be openly critiqued... AND DEMS SHOULD BE LEADING THE CHARGE... first because they are clearly the victims of this antidemocratic system and second, BECAUSE DEMS SHOULD BE STANDING UP FOR MORALLY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT. If we listen to you nothing will change and demographics will continue to make the system more and more antidemocratic... AND more reformproof. Where once the population differential between the largest and smallest state was about 16:1... it's now about 70:1... and what the hell do you think happens when reform is held hostage to STATES instead of the general population?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And Republicans do everything in their power to fuck the system up, rig it and make it very difficult for some people to vote exactly for that reason. It's not hard to discourage folks from voting.
Everyone should be registered at birth and voting day should be a holiday.
gopiscrap
(23,759 posts)ymetca
(1,182 posts)that our system is representative, rather than direct. A popular public referendum will drive people to the polls. Then our representatives, after having done everything possible to prevent the referendum in the first place, pass legislation to chop the referendum off at the knees.
We've all bought the bill of goods that things will improve if we just elect better representatives. That's just hogwash.
We need a Direct Democracy where everybody votes on everything. And it must be global. A Global Direct Democracy.
If such an idea frightens you then maybe you are part of the problem.
Ohhh snap! Did he just say that? Oh yes he did!
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"I think one of the bigger factors is that our system is representative, rather than direct."
Our electoral/political system has many disincentives to voting. Winner take all elections toss out up to 49.9% of the vote... more with the so-called spoiler effect. We can have imposed on the nation presidents who were REJECTED by the People. In the Senate states with a minority of the US population can veto the House AND the Senate has special powers over nominations.
A representative government CAN have decent turn out if it eliminates the defects our system has.
moondust
(19,980 posts)As mentioned in the very good video in this thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028697994 , many districts are now so uncompetitive due to gerrymandering that people in those districts know their votes are not going to change anything. So they may not bother going to the polls especially if it could be a time-consuming hassle standing in line, etc.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)We vote for stuff....and we don't get it. Neither party--as a general rule--makes big changes that benefit everyone: Democrats because they seem to be weak even in the majority, and Republicans because they are malevolent.
This election just might change that in the future.
Calculating
(2,955 posts)Partially due to the unequal weight of votes, and it also discourages people from voting if they're a minority party in their state. Until this disgusting, rotten at the core, slavery compromise of a system is removed, we will always have low turnout.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)but, based on my experience, a lot of people just think that government sucks and politics is a disgusting, dirty, boring "hobby" that they'd just as soon not deal with, especially with so many other entertaining things to do- or just so busy trudging through another day of life until they die that they don't pay enough attention to what's going on in the world outside of their enclave. The irony is that, while many people I know complain about how much their life sucks in terms of their lack of healthcare, low wages, high cost of living, etc., they don't seem to make the connection between being politically active (unless maybe voting for President every 4 years) and the quality of their lives (or lack thereof). I always try to encourage people to get involved politically and get out to vote every election even if I don't agree with them politically but it seems hard to motivate people much, especially when they're being bombarded with media coverage that seems to dis-incentivize people's engagement in politics and negatively broad brushes politicians as all being roughly the same amount of corrupt and out to make everybody's lives worse (except theirs). For instance, there were too many people I knew personally whom were equally turned off by both Clinton and Trump this past election and considered them to be about equally negative despite obvious differences. Some of them held their nose and voted for Hillary and some just didn't vote for either.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)" For instance, there were too many people I knew personally whom were equally turned off by both Clinton and Trump this past election and considered them to be about equally negative despite obvious differences. Some of them held their nose and voted for Hillary and some just didn't vote for either."
As a Bernie Guy, HRC just didn't cut it... and I never believed her rejection of neo-lib economics was sincere. Since I live in MA... a safe blue state, I could vote for a Green without hurting a Dem. But I voted HRC... and given the utter psycho in Trump, I GLADLY held my nose.