For those that are disheartened by the ‘overwhelming’ victory by Obama last night
Obama won popular vote over Romney by about 2,650,000 out of nearly 118,000,000
In other words, a swap in vote by only 1 out of every 90 voters would have caused a tie vote
I never understand why anything under 60-40 is considered a landslide - since 1 out 10 changing sides leads to 50-50. Instead we look at 53-47 and “OMG he killed it, landslide, etc”
Second number 218,000,000 ELIGIBLE voters and 100,000,000 can’t bother to even vote???
What do you think is the best way to change this in the future?
I don’t have any ideas about improving voter turnout, but I am tired of each side beating the other up after winning an election by the narrowest of margins. IMO…when the population seems split so evenly it should take more than a simple majority to get laws passed.
[quote]treco wrote:
Second number 218,000,000 ELIGIBLE voters and 100,000,000 can’t bother to even vote???
What do you think is the best way to change this in the future? [/quote]
Those that can’t be bothered with participating in the election of their public officials without some outside motivation aren’t worthy of the right to vote in my opinion. And frankly, I don’t want them to vote even.
[quote]treco wrote:
Second number 218,000,000 ELIGIBLE voters and 100,000,000 can’t bother to even vote???
What do you think is the best way to change this in the future? [/quote]
Those that can’t be bothered with participating in the election of their public officials without some outside motivation aren’t worthy of the right to vote in my opinion. And frankly, I don’t even want them to vote.
I looked back historically and the US has had underwhelming voter turnout even going back to early 1800’s.
I guess it is a sign of our modern times (last 50 years) that it hangs in the 60ish % for presidential elections, and of course, a lot lower than that otherwise.
[quote]treco wrote:
I looked back historically and the US has had underwhelming voter turnout even going back to early 1800’s.
I guess it is a sign of our modern times (last 50 years) that it hangs in the 60ish % for presidential elections, and of course, a lot lower than that otherwise.[/quote]
And keep in mind the massive effort to get those people to actually vote. Can you imagine what it would be if there were get out the vote effort? About 25% of the populace would vote and there would never be one stinking democrat elected–HAY HAY…WAIT JUST A MINUTE THERE ZEB! Okay, okay sorry I got carried away
[quote]treco wrote:
Second number 218,000,000 ELIGIBLE voters and 100,000,000 can’t bother to even vote???
What do you think is the best way to change this in the future? [/quote]
Those that can’t be bothered with participating in the election of their public officials without some outside motivation aren’t worthy of the right to vote in my opinion. And frankly, I don’t even want them to vote.
[/quote]
Very well said. There are good reasons to not vote: because you support neither candidate, because you don’t care, because you don’t know enough.
If any one of those is true, the common interest is best served by your absence at the polling place.
