Does low voter turnout move us further toward plutocracy?

[lovemydog]

Plutocracy
1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

Every adult citizen has the right to vote. Something said about rights - use them or lose them.

The fewer people exercise their right to vote, the more likely we cede government to conservative plutocrats. Who gladly restrict our rights even further in order to make themselves richer. They thrive on apathy and ignorance.

That's just my unscientific opinion. Somewhat based on the last Congressional election, in which 2/3 of those eligible to vote failed to do so and we got perhaps the nuttiest, most dangerous right wing Congress in our lifetime.

What do you think?

[merrily]

1. Doubtful. Plutocracy long pre-dated the modern vote. However, plutocracy may well have moved us

toward low voter turnout.

[OnyxCollie]

3. +1. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

4. exactly. It is not low voter turnout that causes plutocracy. It is the other way round.

People don't vote because they feel neither party represents them and they know the whole damn thing is corrupt.

[lovemydog]

2. That''s a good point.

I didn't think of that before my post.

Maybe I should have said 'further toward a republican-controlled Congress.'

I know it's pretty common that in off-years, the incumbent President's party usually has big losses in Congressional elections during the second term. From what I've read though, this past one was the worst in a long time.

It still pisses me off. I feel like a lot of gains we were making can be be ripped to shreds if this republican congress gets its way. I also feel like the less people vote the more we cede to the right. But I don't have much basis for my opinion, or even know if political scientists might agree or disprove my theory completely.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. I am pissed at both parties. My 20 year old daughter is trying her best to get through college

knowing that incomes are falling and that she will be saddled with massive college debt. She is under a lot of pressure, is scared, and I don't blame her. This is the future that both parties have created for our next generation; massive debt and low income. It really pisses me off.

[lovemydog]

7. It really pisses me off as well liberal_at_heart.

I agree with those who are realizing now that democrats in the 80's, 90's, & well into the 00 & up the present day, far too many democrats gave far too many concessions to republicans & trickle down nonsense.

I hope democrats in the present & future can & will help turn the tide. They need to go full on 100% with reducing or relieving debt for college. It's absolutely atrocious how high those costs have gotten.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. Well, Arkansas had one of the highest turnouts in the nation

and the state's Democratic Party suffered its most ignominious defeat in 140 years.

[lovemydog]

8. From your perspective, what do you think caused that?

[Art_from_Ark]

11. There are several reasons I can think of

Obama's approval rating in the state is less than 40%. There was a Republican campaign against Obamacare which seemed to be effective. There is also a lot of opposition to some of the Democrats' more visible social issues, like gay marriage, abortion, immigration. For their part, the Democrats had a lot of weak candidates. And the Democrats' main issue that could appeal to a wide variety of voters in the state, raising the minimum wage, was "hijacked", if you will, by turning it into a ballot initiative, which was probably one of the main reasons why there was such a high turnout.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. One more observation

Arkansas has traditionally been a poor state. But the northwestern part-- especially along the I-49/Old US 71 corridor-- has long been one of the richest parts of the state. And it has voted Republican for decades. I get the feeling that people in other parts of the state might look to the northwest and think that their areas might become wealthier if they vote for Republicans.

[BainsBane]

9. MN has THE highest turnout in the nation/ AK is 47

near the bottom in 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/12/the-states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-turnout-in-2012-in-2-charts/


MN is progressive.

[Art_from_Ark]

10. Arkansas is not AK

AK is Alaska.

And the link you provided was for the 2012 election (when Arkansas was ranked 25th in voter participation, in large part because there were no major state races and everyone knew Romney was easily going to take the state). I was talking about the 2014 election, in which voter turnout in Arkansas was close to 50%.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2014/11/06/voter-turnout-up-in-arkansas-in-2014-contrary-to-national-trend

[BainsBane]

14. Regardless, the data from the post shows it is 47th for 2012

You'll note that the high turnout states have over 70 percent participation. Midterms are different for a variety of reasons. I don't think you can claim an overall high turnout from one election. MN has had the highest for a few presidential years in a row.
The reason we do is that we have same-day registration at the polls. You can show a utility bill or have a neighbor who is a registered voter vouch for you. That all encourages higher voting rates. The GOP sought to change this via constitutional amendment but the people defeated it.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. The most recent election was 2014

As I explained earlier, the 2012 election in Arkansas was bound to have a low voter turnout, because everyone knew Romney was going to win, there were no elections for state offices, no election for US Senator, and in my district, there wasn't even a Democrat running for Congress.

However, voter turnout in Arkansas (AR) in 2014--the most recent election-- was close to 50%-- well above the national average of 36.4%. And yet, Democrats in the state had their most miserable showing since Reconstruction.

And Minnesota might be a progressive state, but a lot of non-progressive Minnesotans are moving to Arkansas--especially Benton and Baxter counties-- and making that state even less progressive. While I had known that for some time based on what I had heard from a Minnesota transplant who was living in one of the state's retirement villages, it was reinforced by fellow DUers I met in Minnesota who told me about Minnesotans who had migrated to Baxter County.

[BainsBane]

25. It's not genetic

and the conservative politics is almost certainly part of why they moved there.

As I said, voter participation rates is determined over a series of elections, not just one. There is a reason the GOP works so hard to suppress the vote. They generally do better when turnout is low.

[HereSince1628]

17. We had ~72% turnout of registered voters in WI.

It looks good on paper, but I wonder what the trend in registered voters vs general population is.

The big turnout went biggest for the tea-party faction.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. That was double the national average

And yet, like in Arkansas, it was the tea-partiers who benefitted from the high turnout.

[HereSince1628]

20. Yes, the TP are exceedingly well motivated in off-year elections in WI

It's a curious consequence of somewhat racialized voting trends. Young and urban voters usually vote democratic in WI, but across multiple strata democratic voters have weaker turnout in off-year elections.

The strongly racially biased and anti-urban tea-party voters know it's the off-year elections that really provide them control of state government. In WI governors are only elected in the off-years.

The consequence is that on paper WI looks like it should be bluish purple, but it's elected state government is dominantly red.

Mike Tate, like WIDem chairs before him, has had little to no answer for this.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

12. When the choices for voting are all/mostly lackies for the plutocrats

it does not matter at all if people vote when all the choices policies result in the same thing in the end.

[freshwest]

13. Yes, it does.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. If the choices in 2016 are the corporatist Clinton or the corporatist Bush what

difference does voter turnout make? In fact, I feel completely safe in suggesting that even if voter turnout exceeded 100% the plutocratic candidate would still be declared the winner.

[Oilwellian]

22. Exactly

The game is rigged and the people lose every time.

Mandating our vote for the monied candidates will not solve a damn thing.

Money MUST leave our election process if we're to truly have a government of the people again. That should be the people's first fight, and it is one that even Republicans would join. I live in a very red county of Virginia and every conservative acquaintance I have, strongly agrees with getting money out of our lobbying and election processes.

Our plutocracy laughs at the idea of mandating our vote for their bought candidates.

[hifiguy]

26. Yep. That is a lose-lose choice for all but

the tenth-percenters.

[Rex]

21. No, we've been living in a full blown plutocracy since the 1980s.

When the governing elites decided to do the bidding for the non-governing elites, democracy died. Now it is a pure plutocracy with a multi tier justice system that doesn't punish the very wealthy and places cruel and unusual punishment on the poorest of the poor.

We can vote, but gerrymandering and unlimited secret donations are the real power behind elections now. If we still lived in a democracy with regulated capitalism, we would see wealthy people going to jail with no special treatment.

[Orsino]

23. Yes. It's aso a symptom of encroaching plutocracy.

The two problems tend to reinforce each other as voters see less and less return for their efforts to vote.

[99Forever]

24. I'm personally quite tired of....

... the "blame the voters" or conversely *blame the nonvoters" excuses. If people don't show up at the polls and vote for your candidates, then that IS ALWAYS the fault of the political party. ALWAYS. Either the party has the wrong candidates or they failed to keep the promises made in previous campaigns. Weasel words don't motivate, real sustained efforts towards PROMISED goals does.


One quick example. "Comfortable walking shoes" vs TPP.

[fredamae]

27. Yes. Regardless of why a person

refuses to vote when they are otherwise able to do so, supports the plutocrats agenda.....whether or not they intend to.

I still believe when Dems get out the vote...the GOP loses.

When Dems decide to "punish Dems" by withholding their votes then the Crazies (who always turn out) make the decisions - then more Dems get pissed and then the Next election cycle...More Dems stay home...and More crazies get Into and the crazed incumbents get to Stay in power.
Vicious cycle....

[upaloopa]

28. People who complain don't vote then complain

even more as if complaining will change the outcome.
Not voting is as much a choice as voting.