Did you miss the "encourage low voter turnout" part?

Yes, and? You were positing two separate reasons why Republican's keep control of certain states. How does one encourage low voter turnout and even if it is possible, what is wrong with doing that? Would you like to encourage lower voter turnout amongst ultraconservative evangelical types? I suspect you would, without doing actual suppression, and I think that is perfectly fair.

Well in the end if you have a solid candidate that is appealing he can win almost anywhere.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... s-20111003

In addition to gerrymandering to divide districts in politically convenient ways (which in turn demoralizes voters who realize their district has been divided to re-elect the incumbent politician) we've already seen a coordinated effort to suppress certain demographics from voting. The calls to protect from voter fraud have been shown to be a ruse to keep minorities, young, and the elderly from being allowed to vote in the first place. I'm sure I don't need to explain how that is unfair and stifles democracy.

No, I wouldn't. I would actually be in favor of compulsory voting because my moral hypocrisy apparently doesn't run as deep as yours. Low voter turnout is the death of representative democracy and the death of American civic and social society.

Seriously, did you miss out on the Texas gerrymandering clusterfuck from a couple of years ago?

You mean where the Democratic Party members fled to a different state? Yes and it was not the death of democracy in Texas.

I am no moral hypocrite. I may be immoral as far as your view is concerned, but I do not see the hypocrisy angle. I think it perfectly fine for both parties to gerrymander and encourage low voter turnout.

Compulsory voting strikes me as fascistic and anti-democratic. What would your view be in places where there are runoff elections and two conservatives are the only two remaining that are running for a position? Must a liberal then vote for a candidate that they loathe or face jail time or a fine? Poor people disproportionately have lower voter turnout and minorities are disproportionately poor. If you elect to go the fine route, it would seem to me to me that you are basically setting-up a tax on folks who could least afford it. These folks are no doubt the meant to be the intended beneficiaries of your proposed law.

I was giving you perhaps too much credit, then. No, I think it is the duty of every citizen to vote, and it is a hideous corruption of democracy (and profoundly UNdemocratic) to discourage people to engage in it. Civic engagement is in serious decline and it is a serious hazard to community health. When there is no faith or investment into a democracy, it is going rotten.

What would you have preferred the Ds do to stall DeLay? I never said this turned the state into an authoritarian place, but it certainly revealed a disturbing amount of corruption, though one that is not limited to Texas at all. And not just in gerrymandering, either.

Fascistic? Is there no end, then, to voter turnout to decline in that case?

It's called community service.

It amazes me that we put so many restrictions on voting. Instead we should be doing everything possible to encourage it.

I wish more places would allow mail-in voting and open the polls for a week instead of just a day and otherwise make it easier to people to participate.

Isn't that what democracy is all about? Why is it instead treated like some sort of game where if you don't follow the exact restrictive rules set up, you can't play?

Because we've established in this very thread that some folks would prefer to intentionally suppress and demoralize citizens to fit their political persuasion.

I am just being honest, unlike some folks here. As long as there is no violence or coercion or property destruction, I find nothing wrong with discouraging people from voting. This is part of living in a free society and having freedom of speech, which some people, in the name of not discouraging voting, are willing to suppress.

If a fat cat Wall Street corporate pig in a BMW drove through a poor area of town with a sign that said "Vote for Obama: The election is the first Wednesday after the first Monday of November." Well, I would have no problem with that. If the same person slashed people tires so that they could not go to the polling place, then I would have a problem with that.

I would like to see either the voting day changed to Saturday or make it a true national holiday and make places close for people to vote. Saturday to me is a better option. Countries like France and other European nations do this and they have a 80% turnout. They also have no compulsory voting in those nations.

You have got to be kidding me. "I am the only honest person here!"

Actually the quote is "I am just being honest, unlike some folks here." So technically, you are being dishonest in that post.

Not really, the pomposity and acting like he's being honest is still absurd, and that's what I'm pointing out. Compulsory voting suppressing free speech or making a society less free is absolutely absurd, as if one can't write in Mickey Mouse or in some cases None Of The Above, and especially now political apathy has diluted representation and opened the door for disturbing aspects of authoritarianism since turnout plummeted after Watergate. "I'm honest in that I have no issue with making voting less attractive, as part of living in a free society..." what? Especially in the light of the voting fraud boogeyman that's being pushed these days. It syncs perfectly with allowing effective political disenfranchisement of certain demographics and undermines the purposes of modern democracy. And this isn't an uncommon thought among the cleverer portions of the American right. If I could only have a nickel for every time I heard about bringing back restrictions on voting rights for the poor from odious toads like Matthew Vadum...of course, few really would go that far, or admit to it in public at least.

No, I am not for suppressing the vote turnout of fundamentalists. Why? Because it's fucking wrong. Because like all humans, they have interests too, and not all of them are religious concerns either. And because I do truly believe that democratic participation to be the bulwark of all citizens against plutonomic interests, otherwise that freedom is skinless.

And I never said putting up signs misinforming people of election dates should be illegal, necessarily. Maybe if they are paid and working in a campaign. But is it vile, hell yes. Anyone that doesn't have an issue with stuff like that or gerrymandering has to be morally and ethically vacant. I guess stuff like Lee Atwater or the Southern Strategy is a-okay too.

Strange Career, eh? That reminds me, The Strange Career Of Jim Crow is a fine book.

Do you think if we had compulsory voting that it would result in better politicians being elected or in better policies enacted? If so, why? I figure that politicians would simply pander to the lowest common denominator (lower than now).

If we required everyone to vote for the Best Picture of the year, do you think that better, meaning more aesthetic, well-written, and acted films would win? I don't. Stuff like The Blind side or The Help would win more often than something like The Last Emperor or The English Patient. Not to mention the fact that many, many people do not even go to the movies and would have no clue which film to vote for. The same would occur when voting for politicians.

You posit that Watergate resulted in lower voter morale/disengagement and therefore lower turnout--a fair point. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections 2008 was the highest turnout rate since 1968. Also, I don't really think much should count before that due to restrictions on voter eligibility. I.e., minorities faced severe restrictions on voting (some would say they still do) at least through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and probably later than that since it took years to enforce. Further, women could not vote for much of our history.

If we were to vote for musicians, when Katy Perry or J.S. Bach win?

"Stuff like The Blind side or The Help would win more often than something like The Last Emperor or The English Patient. "

?

Ummm, Confused over your point. The First two films are much better then those two overrated borefests.


lol

I agree there, I am big moviegoer and I couldn't sit through either one. There are much better examples than those two. The English Patient is considered one of the worst best picture winners by critics. Of course, it won because it was an awful year for movies. I am not for compulsory voting, though, I think there are other ways to get the turnout up.

Did you really just compare civic involvement to aesthetics? The current system's problem is exactly that the dispassionate don't bother. Passion is what allows for the lowest common denominator. In fact, that's probably why Twilight wins the People's Choice Award, if I'm going to jump on comparisons.



You're ignoring midterm elections too, which I would not recommend doing (in fact, the 2010 midterms were near or at all-time lows). Those numbers are also a tad problematic because it says Voting Age Population, too. I've seen numbers that showed 60% in 1972, then 55% in 1976. That was probably registered voters.

The 1966 midterms had a turnout at almost 50%. You'd be lucky to hit 40% now (it was 37-38% in 2010).

I'm also not arguing that we aren't under uncertain times/a paradigm shift right now. The nadir of involvement was probably the 90s, though the 2010 midterms weren't very promising. The idea that it took economic collapse to reignite the embers of civic duty for the American populace at what isn't even historic highs for a year is pretty disturbing.

Turnout was 41 % in 2010 and up from 40% in 2006 and 39.5% in 2002.



http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2006G.html

The 2010 election was simple math that benefited the GOP. Democrats past victories were from GOP losing support during Bush Years and Obama having a Coattails effect in 2008.

In 2010, many people were angry at Obama and GOP voters were riled up and the young and minority voters for Obama do not vote in Midterm elections.


It had nothing to do with people stooping to vote, the number of people who voted was actually slightly above normal.

that is still low most people only vote every 4 years. I have several friends who have admitted that to me.

Point is, turnouts for midterms are increasing, not the opposite like the stereotype goes.