Why are voter turnouts so low? How do we fix it?

[Harshaw]

"The party" is made up of individual people and isn't some force in and of itself. And the party only has the control that the voters of the district, who are free to vote however they like, allow it. But it should be no surprise that a district made up of voters who generally vote for a particular party will elect a representative from that party . . . though of course that's not a guarantee. It's majority rule.

I don't say this denying that there are problems; gerrymandering is underhanded and illegal in most jurisdictions. But I do reject the idea that voters are helpless as you say.

 

[Harshaw]

People acting individually make up the whole. The "machine" is an illusion. There is no collective mind; there are only individuals acting individually.

As dubious a claim to being a "science" as I find psychology to have, what do you suppose I think of sociology's claim to it?

Seriously, if you're a Libertarian, it must be because you have faith in individuals . . . else it makes little sense.

 

[Patrickt]

"Gerrymandering is illegal"

No, it's not illegal. The courts on review may invalidate a redistricting for a variety of reasons but gerrymandering in and of itself is not illegal.

 

[Harshaw]

I didn't say it was illegal *everywhere*, now, did I?

"Gerrymandering is illegal"

No, it's not illegal. The courts on review may invalidate a redistricting for a variety of reasons but gerrymandering in and of itself is not illegal.

 

[Harshaw]

I believe in individuals, thus why I'd like to see them have power restored to them.

As is the system minimizes the importance of public effect on government. People, as a mass, act fairly predictably, changing slowly over time, but most of the time you can figure out if I inset input A, I'll get output B. Due to this there are many systemic things that take what can be predicted about their future actions and use it to minimize the amount of say they have in government.

I don't believe the "system minimizes the importance of public effect on government."

You keep referring to things like "government" and "parties" and the like as though they are sentient entities in their own rights. They're not. They're made up of individuals all making individual decisions.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. It's up to them to understand the effect of their votes and their responsibilities regarding their votes. If an individuals allows someone else to do their critical thinking for them, well, the responsibility falls on that individual.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

In 2004 for example, roughly 50% of voting population people voted. The country with the highest percentage of voters is Australia but that's because they have mandatory voting laws.

It's called laziness and "I don't care-itis." We all hear it everytime an election comes, we hear on how they and you had to vote for the lesser evil because no other candidate was available or had a chance. For some strange reason this same person for 2-4 years did nothing to support or help this third party who didn't "stand a chance" because they were so busy with their hobbies, WWW, drinking, tv watching, etc.. So the choice is to get really involved or just awash yourself in your trivial hobbies, WWW, drinking, tv, etc. We can see why we have such a turnout--for even those who vote are in the majority just arm-chairs participants--just going to vote.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

It's called laziness and "I don't care-itis." We all hear it everytime an election comes, we hear on how they and you had to vote for the lesser evil because no other candidate was available or had a chance. For some strange reason this same person for 2-4 years did nothing to support or help this third party who didn't "stand a chance" because they were so busy with their hobbies, WWW, drinking, tv watching, etc..

Totally agree with you. If you don't like the candidates, I would say, run for office. Some Iraq War vets are doing so and they are the kind that thought their was no way they could be elected, until they decided in their own mind that anything is possible. Nothing is more powerful than the human mind or ideas. Nothing is powerful enough to destroy ideas. I personally believe that anything is possible once you genuinely set your mind to it. Ideas are what motivated the 9/11 hijackers to crash to their deaths into the World Trade Center. What motivates people? Ideas. It is what makes people survive the un-survivable or to defeat the undefeatable. Ideas is what enabled a rag tag Continental Army to defeat the seemingly invincible professional British Army. Their is a myth about mighty armies and mighty nations. It is that they cannot be defeated and that they are invincible. But they can and it is through the power of ideas. They myth of invincibility can be shatterred through the human mind and the power of ideas. Osama Bin Laden is more an idea than person and it will take ideas, not bombs or bullets to defeat him. It will take ideas for the American people to choose their own destiny wisely. The most powerful weapon of the soldier, the guerrilla or the terrorist or any ordinary person is not his weapon or a bomb or gun, but his ideas. Try to defeat ideas with material things and you will be humbled and defeated yourself.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

Here is an idea I have. The reason why people do not turn out to vote because powerful people who seek to protect their interests wish us to believe that we are wasting our time by participating in the political process. It is part of their information warfare against the people of the nation. What do you guys think? Propaganda is a major part of our system and it is up to us to not allow information warfare being used against us to marginalize or keep us out of the political process.

 

[niftydrifty]

Why are voter turnouts in past elections so low ...

In the 1800's voter turnout was very high. But then, the situation was different. Only white men voted back then. But, still, I believe it is no coincidence that the last national election in which there was a great turnout was when William Jennings Bryan, a Christian populist, ran for president. National candidates nowadays are soldout to monied interests. The two major parties are corporatist, not populist. Industries are very well represented. Regular people aren't.

... and what should we do to fix it.

Eliminate all lobbyists. Influence is bought. It ought to be illegal. And many lawmakers go on to become lobbyists.

Ban negative campaign commercials. Commercials should only promote the candidate, not denigrate the other one. It should be illegal to even mention the other candidate. How refreshing this would be.

Regulate campaign contributions. Establish a ceiling that a candidate can spend. Everyone knows that the candidate with the most money usually wins.

Get rid of the 527 nonsense.

For the presidential election, get rid of the staged televised debate, have a real debate, and allow third party candidates again.

More choices. Look at any book or website that has info about each of the presidential elections. In the distant past, you might have had many candidates from many parties running. And turnout was higher. The two major parties have begun cooperating with one another to ensure that they will stay in power, and that no other new parties will emerge or get elected to the higher offices. If there were more choices, you'd have a higher turnout, guaranteed.

 

[MrFungus420]

If they cared enough to be sick about it they'd care enough to vote. Personally if someone doesn't have the interest or motivation to go out and vote then I prefer they don't.

Not at all. When people are given the choice of two different faces on essentially the same pile of garbage, then what difference does it make?

About the only difference between the repulicrats and democans is that they make slightly different noises.

Both parties are primarily concerned about one thing, keeping themselves in power. The only differences in their rhetoric are geared towards that goal. Neither party cares about the country or the people in it, just in their own power.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

 

[Harshaw]

Well, I think then that you've identified a larger problem, that you and I as Libertarians can agree on.

I've been taking what you're saying in the context of the voting system, and it might be that you've talking about something bigger.

As Libertarians, we both want to see the size and scope of government drastically reduced. If we had our way, the representatives we elect wouldn't be in a position to do all that much, because their powers would be quite limited.

After all, it was only intended for the federal government to do a few specific things, and being a representative was never meant to be a full-time job.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

For the presidential election, get rid of the staged televised debate, have a real debate, and allow third party candidates again.

Agreed. Two-thirds of money coming into fund the main parties is from corporations--conglomerates and not from the total sum of private US citizens. So if money gets the attention of the voters because of advertisments and this money is mostly from the bigwigs; then the people haven't spoken--hence, no one can say, "the general populace" isn't interested in no one else so therefore we cannot have them debate. No, the money has drowned them from not being heard; not the people rejecting them.
Polls = big $ = deception.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Wouldn't it be great to beat the money?
Wouldn't it be great to beat $45,000,000.
Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton is running the most expensive senatorial campaign in the country. She has the most money of any senator in the country.
She got most of that money from big money corporations and big money people.
One of the biggest is Time-Warner, the company who regularly jacks up your cable fees. The venue for political debates in New York is their cable station....

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_larry_be_060814_wouldn_t_it_be_great.htm

I'm willing to bet she and her campaign will act like they're for and by the people, especially for poor and colored and alternative. The big ambigous lie is that the average citizen funded it. I'm not bashing Hillary, plenty of Gop and Dems are just as big money funded.

 

[Patrickt]

Here you go, voting proxies. That's the solution for turnout. People can go around collecting voting proxies and turn them over to the party of their choice. It could even be a new industry. Five dollars for a proxy for a living American but if it were for someone who is dead or a foreign national it would only be worth $2.

 

[Benchman]

First. I don't think it's broken, so it doesn't need "fixin" Doesn't our Constution let us NOT participate in the democartic process if we so chose? Besides, I am unawares of any evidence that high voter turnout equals better government in any way shape or form.

Second, Do we want people to vote for someone or something if they just don't really care about what they are doing? It would be nice if all eligible persons would get out and vote and do so with clear and specific reasons, but if they aren't, maybe it would be best for the rest of us if they just stayed home.

 

[faithful_servant]

Alright, here are my ideas

First, redistricting. We must take districting ability away from partisans, who (although not allowed to technically) will inevitably end up gerrymandering. The effect of this is that we end up with as many non-competitive districts as possible, where voting is meaningless. Instead we need to form an a-political group, like the Fed, which is in charge of redistricting, which instead maximizes competition and representation.

Who appoints the members of the Districting Bureau? I'm assuming that this Bureau would be appointed and not elected, otherwise we end up with the same old, same old.

Next, change the primary system. As is, it's entirely in the hands of the party elites, the ones who are comfortable classifying themselves as one party or the other (or others, like me, who change parties regularly, but we are a vast minority), and so our candidates are picked by people who are either completely comfortable being a democrat, or those who are completely comfortable being republicans, neither of which is at all representative of the public. And considering other aspects of our system, this leads to people having to choose between two radicals that they don't agree with, and thus a lot of people think "Who gives a ****, why does it matter, they both suck!" and thus don't vote.

Why not just dump the primaries? Get rid of them altogether. If a political party wants to narrow down their choices and give their blessing to their members popular choice, then they should be the ones footing the bill and sponsoring the election.

Also, completely change the electoral college. I do believe in the merits of the electoral college, in the same way that I believe in the merits of a bicameral congress. What I don't see any merits in is the winner takes all way that the electoral college works. All electors should be bound electors, and it should be proportional. So if Bush got 67% of a state, he should get 67% of the electors, and if Nader got 5% of a state, he should get 5% of the electors.
This does not neccisitate the presence of actual electors, but instead just a way of weighing votes. For example, Wyoming has 3 electoral votes, which cannot really be divied up very much. But still this is more sway than it would receive if all states were treated the same. Thus we keep the 3 electoral votes coming from Wyoming, but instead of the winner getting 3 electoral votes, say Bush instead got 80% of the vote, he would get 2.4 electoral votes from Wyoming, while Kerry (more than likely) would've gotten the other .6.

Civics class again: The electoral college is part of the concept of separation of powers. The people elect Congress, the states elect the President and Congress and the President working together appoint the SCOTUS. Your concept eliminates the Constituional right of the states to elect the President and places it in the hands of the people who are already electing Congress. This violates the concept of Separation of Powers and allows for th eabuses that SOP was intended to prevent.

This will increase voter turnout in all states that are not swing states, because all of a sudden, your vote matters. I know how this feels, because I'm probably gonna leave Iowa before the 2008 presidential election, and chances are I'll be in Illinois, where my vote won't mean ****.

Voter apathy about being in the minority has NOTHING to do with poor voter turnout. If that was the case, then we'd see much higher turnouts in the mid-terms when their vote matters just as much whether they are in the minority or majority.

Next, eliminate the majoritarian system, and replace it with a plurality system. This is to say that, barring one candidate initially getting 50% of the electoral votes, there will be a runoff election between the top two candidates. Although this itself is not perfect, it would loosen the Democrat and Republican stranglehold on America. It would allow people to vote for other parties without having to worry if voting for Nader will lose Gore the white house.

No, it wouldn't, it would just make it more expensive, complex and confusing to implement. People in Florida couldn't figure out a butterfly ballot, do you honestly believe that these same people would be able to figure out a ballot with a ranking system of voting.

All of these are things that would increase the representative nature of our government. This is the largest reason why people don't vote, say what you will, but our votes don't really mean anything. Institutions matter, and all of the institutions are there to make sure our votes mean as little as possible. If we were in a system where we grew up knowing that we can actually have an impact in how things turn out, even if you're a republican in Chicago or a democrat in Plano, it would produce a completely different cultural outlook on government, and our role in government, and thus would lead to voting being more important culturally.

Very little of what you proposed would have any effect on voter turnout. If you want to have a real impact on voter turnout, send your congresscritter asking him/her/it to support the implementation of Vote by Mail. Send letters to your States Attorney General (or whoever oversees elections in your state) and ask for the saem thing. VBM is by far the best method of voting. It enfranchises people who have difficulty getting to a ballot box, it leaves a paper trail and it gives people beau coup time to fill out their ballot and actually know what it is they are voting on. VBM eliminates the asinine exit polls and allows for election results to be held confidential until all voting has ended and the votes counted. Think about it: Voting closes on Tuesday and then the states spend the next 10 days tallying the votes and checking for fraud. After ten days, all election results are tabulated and sent to the top dog at each level of gov't and the results are announced. No more stupid election night theatrics and no more media interference with elections by way of "calling" elections.

 

[faithful_servant]

I think voter turnout is low due to apathy and feeling impotent.

That's it, we need Voter Viagara!!!

 

[faithful_servant]

Gerrymandering is illegal, but that doesn't stop it. Tom Delay, for all practical purposes, publicly admitted that he was gerrymandering in Texas, and no one did ****.

People in and of themselves can be expected to do other things. We can say "If you don't like him, then don't reelect him" to individuals, and hold them accountable for that.

If you're trying to imply that gerrymandering is a conservative issue, you should see the election districts in the city of Bend, OR. Right smack in the middle of everything is a circle. This circle comprises the most liberal part of Bend. They sued to have thier own district becuase they felt that their voice wasn't being heard. Gerrymandering has it's roots in the Boss Tweed era (JIC you didn't know - he was a Democrat) and has developed into a science of incredible complexity. I believe that it's immoral, unethical and should be forbidden by law. Develop a computer program that draws out districts by population with no regard for anything other than head count and let it fly.

 

[Stinger]

Gerrymandering is illegal, but that doesn't stop it.

Not according to the Voting Rights Act, it sanctions it and requires it is some instances requiring lines be drawn to create black districts.

We just had a case here where a "black district" elected a white person in the Democrat primary. The black state congressional democrats refused to certify her and brought up an old law that said each winning candidate had to file a financial discloser statement with the state party chairman. Of course that hasn't been done by anyone since the early 80's when the law was changed so that the forms were filed with the state not the party. In fact not one candidate in this election cycle had done it including the black candadidate they wanted in that slot. But they claimed it was a "black seat" and a "black" had to be nominated not a "white"

My what "civil rights" have really turned into.