Wednesday, November 03, 2004
« Make sure to vote | Main | TheServerSide.NET interview »
High voter turnout?

“If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice” - Rush

According to this article yesterday's turnout was the highest in 3 decades, with just under 60% of eligible voters actually giving any thought regarding what happens to them.

It boggles my mind that over 40% of Americans chose to allow the rest of us decide their fate.

Look around you. Of every five people you see, two of them abandoned their civic and patriotic duty yesterday. Effectively they surrendered their rights as American citizens and gave them to the rest of us.

What are you people? Apathetic? Disillusioned? Dim?

To make matters worse, we already have people claiming that Bush had a “decisive” victory. Nothing is decisive when nearly half your population has decided to be voiceless chattel...

What this really means is that the results are more along this line:

Bush

30%

Kerry

28%

Nader or other

1%

Voiceless chattel

41%

So Bush’s “decisive” victory is due to less than 1/3 of the eligible voter support.

 

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:01:34 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [11]  | 

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:45:32 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I hear ya. It may be a little harsh, but I wouldn't mind seeing a fine imposed on citizens who neglect to at least attempt to cast a ballot (even if they choose "other"). Voting is a *duty* not a *right* of citizenship.
keith@mindfusioncorp.com (Keith Rome)
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:43:08 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
The views of eligible voters who don't vote almost always line up very closely with those that do, which is the main reason why "A majority didn't support Evil Incumbent X"-based campaigns almost always fail.
anon
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:53:15 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
You're missing the point of the wonderful lyric that you're quoting. (One of many that Neil wrote, but that's another thing). The people who didn't vote did make a choice. They chose to allow others to decide what's good for them. While they may be chattel, they're not voiceless. They chose to let others speak on their behalf. That might make them dummies (as in a ventriloquist's :), but not voiceless.

In fact, I'd suggest that it is irresponsible to vote without understand the issues on which you are voting, especially in a world where public opinion is so easily swayed by how a particular issue is presented in the media. Rather than forcing the masses to vote on propositions and races about which they have little or no understanding, I'd rather make anyone who wants to vote pass some kind of test. Doesn't have to be a difficult one. Just enough to show that some thought was given to the choice. Want to vote for the president? Describe the difference between the positions of Kerry and Bush on social security reform. Might even force the candidates to be clearer on what they stand for. ;)
Bruce Johnson
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 6:23:22 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
No, I don't think I'm missing the point. I am saying exactly that over 40% of the eligable voters DID make the choice to allow the rest of us to decide their fate. That was their choice, and they made it. They specifically chose to abdicate their rights and turn them over to us.

They voluntarily gave up their voice, and thus they are voiceless. They voluntarily allowed the rest of us to choose their future and thus they are chattel.

With the notable exception of people who just couldn't make it. A friend of ours ended up working an unexpected double-shift and was prevented from voting due to work. He may sue his employer (since that's illegal in MN), but the damage is done. He has to evaluate whether he'll be able to replace the job or not...

I do count myself fortunate to live in Minnesota where around 77% of the eligable voters did turn out yesterday - even without hot-button measures like gay marriage or stem cell research.

I think 100% turnout is totally unrealistic, but it certainly seems that 80% should be. At least then it would be possible for a candidate to have a realistic chance of having the support of a majority of eligable voters rather than a substantial minority as we have today.

Rocky
Rockford Lhotka
Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:14:15 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I like Bruce's comments.

I was in the grocery store on election day. As I was checking out, the female taking my money asked me if I voted and asked who I voted for. I simply informed her that I voted for the "lesser of two evils" in this election. She informed me that she had voted for Bush because, and I quote, "He is cuter than Kerry."

Uninformed voters should not vote. People should make the choice to be informed on the issues, at least a little, and then vote. The presidential election is not a beauty pageant!!
Brian
Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:05:39 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Our country is built on Freewill.

If I feel what qualifies a candidate is their looks then my vote is just as important as Tim Russert's.

If I choose not to vote then I am in deed chattel. However, I am chattel by my own freewill. I am choosing to be chattel.

My reasons for expressing my Freewill at election time are mine. I may choose solely based on Religious reasons, social reasons, economic reasons, looks, or just plain instinct. It doesn't matter.

I often think too many people choose not to vote because they are afraid that they don't know enough or aren’t informed enough to make a good decision. Phooey. If you are an American, you are just as important as any American, regardless of what is motivating your decisions.

I don't understand why a person would choose to be chattel, but thats their choice.
scott stewart
Friday, November 05, 2004 5:02:05 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
It seems a matter of historical coincidence that a third of the American population sets the course for our society. I remember my high school history saying that 1/3 of the colonist supported the [American] revolution, 1/3 supported the Brits, and 1/3 didn't care.

In the end, it really doesn't take a majority to win. Rather, a significant minority that is very dedicated to their cause.
jeff
Sunday, November 07, 2004 3:27:15 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Well, the american system is not made to favour a majority of expressed votes, let alone a majority of registered voters and off course even less a majority of the eligible voters (and that is not just because of the electoral vote... even at state lavel, a substantial minority is enough to win all electoral votes).
malek
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:53:35 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Bruce Johnson's comments sound "elitest" - ie only the "educated/informed" should vote. I don't like to consider myself to be an elitest, but when I see/hear the people that Jay Leno gets on his JayWalking segments, I sure hope they don't vote.
Ray Klaassen
Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:08:24 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Hey, guess what people???

Bush Won Baby!!!

I love it.
John Doe
Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:29:49 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Vote Early. Vote Republican.

This country's left is crying like the child it is. We never cried when the peanut farmer was in, or even when Slick Bill decided to disgrace the Oval office (and the Office of the President). And, when the media's south paw came hurling at a good man, an honest and decent man... We didn't cry. Instead, we showed up to vote. Thanks God (and we can still use His name in this coutry) Bush Won! If Kerry had won, we would be greatest kiss-assers in history. Now, Germany and France kiss our ass!

So, don't cry my child. That 1/3 of the country new their vote was in good hands, and that's why they didn't need to show up and be ridiculed by the minority left at the polls. They knew we would cast it for them... The decisive victory.

Hail to the Chief!
American Joe
Comments are closed.