Americans deeply split over politics

[grinner]

Americans deeply split over politics


By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Americans are as deeply divided over party, ideology and values as they are over the legitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush, a new poll shows.
The splits are so profound that Mr. Bush and his Democratic challenger might as well be campaigning in two different, but parallel, worlds, said John Zogby, who conducted the survey for the O'Leary Report, published by political analyst Bradley S. O'Leary.
The survey also found that the most important "gender" gap is not between male and female voters, but between married women and single women, Mr. Zogby said.
"That gap is enormous — married and single voters live not on different planets, but different solar systems, when it comes to their politics and values," Mr. Zogby said. "Republicans have a problem with single voters, especially single women. The Democrats' problem is with married people, especially married women."
Among other survey findings, married voters approved of the Bush tax cuts by a margin of more than 2-to-1 — 51 percent of married voters said the tax cuts were a good idea and 20 percent said they were a bad idea. By comparison, single voters said the tax cuts were bad by a 34 percent to 25 percent margin.
The Dec. 15 to 19 survey compares the views of 1,200 likely voters on abortion, same-sex "marriage," religion, gun rights, tax cuts, Social Security reform and other issues.
The results highlight the division of views between the 30 so-called "red states" won by Mr. Bush in 2000 and the "blue states" (20 states and the District) carried by Democrat Al Gore.
The views in the red states and blue states are so divergent that they can be considered as two nations, Mr. O'Leary said at yesterday's press briefing with Mr. Zogby.
Mr. O'Leary said the poll revealed the most meaningful divisions emerged not in the usual geographic categories of East, Midwest, West and South familiar to political strategists and the press, but in groupings he called "precincts," where there are concentrations of voters who share the same social and economic interests and the same values.
"Within this poll, we identified 10 very important social and economic precincts that deliver money, votes and volunteers in the presidential election and live within the blue and red states," Mr. O'Leary said. "We identify the issues that divide these precincts. The results demonstrate that each of these precincts split the American electorate almost evenly, or at worst between 42 [percent] and 52 percent."
"The poll is an attempt to get at the core of this division," says Mr. Zogby. "We see significant demographic and ideological differences between ... blue and red states. The blue states have fewer Republicans, 55- to 69-year-olds (the most conservative age group), rural dwellers, conservatives, born-again Christians, daily or weekly attendees at a place of worship, local sports fans, gun owners, investors, military veterans and married voters."
"These differences portend a harder sell for Republican candidates [in blue states]," Mr. Zogby said. "On the other hand, red states have fewer younger voters, single voters, college graduates, liberals, Catholics and Jews, union members, and non-prayers. In short, the two regions think and vote differently because they are different."
In red states, he noted, 62 percent of voters said Mr. Bush is the legitimate president, while 32 percent said the election was stolen from Mr. Gore. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040106-103400-7397r.htm

[Judith]

Argh.

I didn't vote for Bush, supported Gore, but they have checked and rechecked the votes. Bush won. He IS the president.

[grinner]

last I looked he is.

[PrairieScaper]

So where are the purple states?

[grinner]

That would be Minnesotta

[Judith]

Originally posted by grinner
last I looked he is.

You know what I mean. I'm sick of people saying "Well, he's not MY president". Yes he is. He won. He won fairly.

[grinner]

No... I was agreeing with you. He won. Gore lost. I agree with you on those people who say he isn't their President. I could say that about Clinton... that he wasn't MY President as I didn't vote for him and I detested him. However he WAS the President of the United States... so he was my President.

[Judith]

Originally posted by grinner
No... I was agreeing with you.

Oh, I see that now.

I get confused sometimes.

[grinner]

no worries.

[UTChick]

The article is so true. I wonder what this next election is going to bring. I sure hope the voting booths will be operating correctly!!:D Don't want to go through another recount thing!!

I wish people could learn to unite again after the elections. The elections are becoming so devisive, that unifying afterwards isn't easy & isn't happening. I would like to negative campaigning made illegal - it's not doing anyone, any good.

Oh well, that's my :box: & 2 cents. Thanks for the article! Interesting read.

[generic_screenname]

If TV keeps going the way it is, in 2008, the president will be chosen out of a group of 16 contestants on Fox's reality series "Who Wants to be President?"

[grinner]

Originally posted by UTnewbie
The article is so true. I wonder what this next election is going to bring. I sure hope the voting booths will be operating correctly!!:D Don't want to go through another recount thing!!

I wish people could learn to unite again after the elections. The elections are becoming so devisive, that unifying afterwards isn't easy & isn't happening. I would like to negative campaigning made illegal - it's not doing anyone, any good.

Oh well, that's my :box: & 2 cents. Thanks for the article! Interesting read. http://jenkinsonline.net/Pics/smilies/icon_twocents.gif

[stellar]

This is one of those "beware of deviation" threads, isn't it?

I try never to talk politics... it never ends well. If you're of different idealology (fundamentally) then open debate quickly escalates into who can debate the loudest.

But I agree with Judith and grinner... whoever is the president of The United States of America is my president because I'm a citizen of said USA. The Electoral College may be dated, but until it's changed by a thought out and lucid (yeah right) act of congress, then we go by the Electoral College. If you insist on wanting to change the rules at the end of the game then you're deluding yourself, or you're Pete Carroll... or is that a redundancy?

[TheBladeRoden]

Now how did they manage to lump Catholics and Jews with younger voters, single voters, college graduates, liberals, union members, non-prayers?

[grinner]

Catholics and Jews tend to vote Democratic. BUT that has started to change over the past 10 years.

I also don't care for the generalization that College Graduates vote Dem.

[Sawyer's Miller]

They're all cannon fodder when the Scarrens invade?

[Antrobus]

This is one of those "beware of deviation" threads, isn't it?

Yes, it is! So I guess I'll keep my mouth shut other than to say the discrepency between the red and blue states is very real...and I don't think its going to change any time soon.

Just glad I live in a blue state!!

[AgentSun]

i tend to not discuss politics either, because i know we all have differing opinions and it can get off topic really quickly, but to add my two cents...

i didnt vote because i couldn't, but i will be voting in the upcoming election. i support bush because given our current events, he's doing a pretty good job at what he's doing. i didn't like gore and i certainly don't like lieberman or dean.

i don't like the generalizations the article made, but i appreciate the article itself...it makes for good conversation.

[waltersgirl]

The elections are becoming so devisive, that unifying afterwards isn't easy & isn't happening.

if you study American electoral history, you will see that devisive politics and elections has been in existence since the nation was created, and politics as we know it now are actually mild by comparison. the negativity and dirty politics waxes and wanes but never goes away, because people are who they are.

[JadedLegend3]

Originally posted by grinner
No... I was agreeing with you. He won. Gore lost. I agree with you on those people who say he isn't their President. I could say that about Clinton... that he wasn't MY President as I didn't vote for him and I detested him. However he WAS the President of the United States... so he was my President.

You guys have hit it right on the head. Such violence! :D But seriously, people have to look at the facts, and not what they want the facts to be.

And that's all I'm going to say because I too feel that this thread could turn ugly quickly. Scaper love to all! Red, Blue, or Purple, as the case may be! :rollin:



Jacqui :love:

[darius]

I don't have a problem with the US political system except that I think voting should be mandatory for everyone. You'd just get a ticket if you didn't, like in Australia. Any changes to the electoral college should reflect that change. That would help limit the effect of special interest groups.

[Saajak]

That would be Minnesotta

Is that the problem with Minnesota? We're purple? :D

That would explain the whole Jesse Ventura thing.

[Beaulah]

Yes, it is! So I guess I'll keep my mouth shut other than to say the discrepency between the red and blue states is very real...and I don't think its going to change any time soon.

Just glad I live in a blue state!!

Here, Here!!! :aok:

Great article, Thanks Grinner!

[Frellster]

Well, college grads do tend to vote dem, unless they become wealthy. My Dad, bless his soul: lives in FL, is old, married, retired military and still as liberal as they come! I'm so proud.

I was bothered by the "quotes" around the word "marriage" in the article.

[waltersgirl]

You'd just get a ticket if you didn't, like in Australia.

that isn't really democracy then is it?

[StephX]

I don't know what I'm going to do for the next election.

It seems like during the past 12 years that I've been able to vote, voting is standing in the booth tyring to figure out who I like the least and voting for the other guy. :idea:

[Scarran Raptor]

I didn't vote for him, I don't like him and I think he's a frelling idiot....but he does sit in the big chair and I respect the office and what it stands for, and while I may not like him I'm thankful for the freedom to openly voice that optinion and If you disagree with me, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but then who's to say what's right, democracy is not an exact science and it'll take more than one flawed election to bring it down and so long as people can openly discuss their opinions, the problem comes in when people try to silence the contrary opinions

[ranger1]

thanks for the article. very interesting read. i will keep my comments brief - i agree with what someone else posted saying that we can't change the rules at the end of the game just because we don't like the outcome. also, i would like to consider myself non-partisan in my voting record (i'll vote for anyone i think will do the best job), but in-fighting [re: the dem. presidential candidates right about now] just makes me want to shake my head. :shrug: :wingnut: rhetorically speaking, what gives?

[Judith]

Originally posted by StephX
I don't know what I'm going to do for the next election.

It seems like during the past 12 years that I've been able to vote, voting is standing in the booth tyring to figure out who I like the least and voting for the other guy. :idea:

I can't say I'm entirely thrilled with any of my choices right now.

[Twich]

Here's a peeve I have. I have this friend...and this is HONESTLY the way he votes.

He looks at all the choices, figures who will win, and votes that way. He LIKES the other choices better, but figures they are "losing" votes that basically become "throwaway". I keep telling him that the problem with voting that way is that if say, 100,000 other people in the US vote that way and we added up all of their votes to who they "liked" then maybe the election results would have been something they WANTED rather than EXPECTED. Too many people don't vote responsibly. They don't know enough about what they expect/need from a candidate and they just vote for whomever. Makes no sense.

And for the record, I am a college graduate who is definitely not wealthy. I am a conservative and usually vote Republican. Sweeping generalizations assume entirely too much.

[fermicat]

Originally posted by grinner
I also don't care for the generalization that College Graduates vote Dem.

I read an article recently that said among college graduates there is a wider gender gap in voting trends than there is in the general population. Basically, those researchers found that the higher the level of education, the higher the liklihood that males will vote conservative/Republican and the higher the liklihood that the females will vote liberal/Democrat. The percentage gap between the R and D leaning people grew larger as the amount of education went up, and was opposite for men and women. They said that among highly educated voters, the males were more likely to vote based on what is best for their personal interests, and that females were more likely to vote based on what they felt is best for society in general regardless of their personal situation.

It was an interesting article... I will see if I can dig up the reference for it.

[stellar]

I've also heard that the younger generation (I guess gen-Y?) is more conservative than previous generationa at the college level.

A lot of the division between Dems and Reps come from the hot button topics, some of which are banned for discussion. People identify some of those hot button topics with one party and gravitate toward it... then they become entrenched and open themselves to the rest of the party ideallogy. That's how I disect it, anyway.

[fermicat]

Yup, and some people are single-issue voters.

[stellar]

Yes there are those.

My wife is a Republican (I'm not); but the last Senate race we had the Republican candidate wrapped herself around one issue (the big one that's banned)... My wife voted Democrat for the first time, as did a lot of women Republicans. That's a big reason why Mary Landrieu (D, LA) is enjoying her second term right now.

[Judith]

Originally posted by Twich
Here's a peeve I have.

My peeve is people who vote according to party when they don't bother to do any research. I'm not talking about people who have done research and genuinely believe that everyone in their party is the best possible candidate. I'm talking about people who don't do the research and just vote, say, republican, because they are republican and therefore the republican candidate MUST be the best one. (I'm not trying to single republicans out. I had to pick one. People in all parties are guilty of this).

And yeah, this does happen. I know a lot of people who vote this way.

[DentArthurDent]

Originally posted by darius
I don't have a problem with the US political system except that I think voting should be mandatory for everyone. You'd just get a ticket if you didn't, like in Australia. Any changes to the electoral college should reflect that change. That would help limit the effect of special interest groups.

Originally posted by waltersgirl
that isn't really democracy then is it?

agreed... deciding NOT to vote is a decision too. It's only foolish if you dont think about it or don't do it on purpose...

I love when local campaign people come through my neightborhood...

"Are you a Republican?"

'no, I vote my conscience, I'm an independant' [flashing my best wolfish grin!]

[gives the 'looking at evil incarnate' stare]"Oh, well have a nice day then, and be sure to vote..."

'You can COUNT on that.' ;)

that's funny. Neither party bothers me any more... :ewink:

AFD
'demon-child. Independant.'

[AgentSun]

here's how my european history professor phrased it: i'm not a republican and i'm not a democrat. i vote according to the person that is a candidate and the fact that they are a democrat or republican does not matter to me.

i tend to vote the same, but i admit that the republican party tends to represent the views i hold in my own life. there are things i don't agree with but overall, the republican party supports more issues that i also support.

[fermicat]

Originally posted by fermicat
It was an interesting article... I will see if I can dig up the reference for it.

Found it! It was in USA Today on 12/18.

-------------------

'Til politics do us part: Gender gap widens

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Lynne and Scott Albert readily agree on family finances, summer vacations and the perfect holiday gifts for their 5-year-old twins — Care Bears for Cammie, a toy monster truck for Josh.

But when it comes to politics, Lynne, an attorney, and Scott, a venture capitalist with an MBA, often disagree about candidates and issues. He's a Republican worried about taxes and government regulations who is "definitely" voting for President Bush next year. She's a Democrat concerned about policies that affect women and children, and she's shopping for the candidate with the best chance of beating Bush.

The couple from Chapel Hill, N.C., aren't unusual. Highly educated men and women increasingly view the political world in dramatically different ways: Men are mostly Republicans, women are predominantly Democrats. A modest gender gap among Americans who don't have college educations balloons for those with a college degree or more.

The political divide between college-educated men and women has been growing for a decade. And the trend has become more important as the number of women getting undergraduate and postgraduate degrees has surged.

"Highly educated women are a new Democratic base, almost to the same extent as union voters and ethnic voters," says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. Meanwhile, Republicans have made gains among all blue-collar workers, especially men.

The result: The stereotypes of the two political parties — Democrats as the party of the working stiff, Republicans as representing those with money in the bank — no longer fit. Each party has become a more complicated coalition in which social issues and "values" are as much a unifying force as traditional bread-and-butter concerns.

Candidates in both parties are shaping their messages to hold new supporters and win back voters they are losing. Bush's "compassionate conservative" appeal in 2000 was targeted to white-collar women worried about the impact of his agenda on the vulnerable, though a record gender gap indicates he had limited success. The leading Democratic presidential contender, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, caused a controversy last month when he said he wanted to be a candidate for "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks."

He apologized for his reference to the flag but reiterated that Democrats must attract more support from men, especially blue-collar workers. "The gender gap today is driven by the Democrats' inability to get male votes," says Matthew Dowd, a senior strategist for the Bush campaign.

'We write conflicting checks'

In any case, couples in which the husband and wife have college degrees are more likely than ever to disagree when they vote. "We write conflicting checks all the time" as contributions to competing candidates and parties, says Lynne Albert, 41. "We just look at different things as important to us."

Scott Albert, 48, says his experiences as a businessman have made him more concerned about issues Republicans emphasize. "I have to spend surprisingly large amounts of time figuring out the tax ramifications of issues" and dealing with government regulations that are "frankly not quite understandable in many cases," he says. He calls his wife "a little bit softer on the use of tax revenue to help the government largesse."

Not all couples are as forthright with one another about their political differences as the Alberts are. In the last presidential election, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake asked married voters if their spouses had voted the same way they did. Three-quarters of the men said "yes," compared with just half of the women.

That disparity may mean some husbands simply assumed their wives were voting for the candidate they supported. It's possible some wives didn't bother to correct that impression. "We call it the 'Sure, honey' factor,' " Lake says.

Degrees of difference

As education increases, the gender gap grows.

An analysis of more than 40,000 interviews for the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll from January through November this year shows the trend. Among those with a high school diploma or less, men were inclined by a single percentage point, 45% to 44%, to vote Democratic. Women leaned toward the Democrats by 11 percentage points, 50% to 39%. That's a partisan gap between the sexes of 10 percentage points.

For those who had taken some college courses but not graduated, that gender gap grew to 15 percentage points. Among those with a college degree, it rose to 20. And for voters who had taken postgraduate courses, it reached 28 percentage points — almost triple the gender difference among the least-educated voters.

Men tend to become much more Republican as education and income rise; women move slightly toward the GOP. But there is a twist at the top, among those who have taken postgraduate courses: The number who lean toward the Democrats increases significantly within both groups, although men are still predominantly Republican.

Just why attending college seems to affect the political outlooks of men and women in different ways and to different degrees is the subject of a fair amount of research at, well, colleges.

John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, co-authored a study that concluded the votes of men and women were driven by the state of the economy. But they assessed the economy by different standards: "We found men tended to vote in terms of their personal economic situation, and women were more likely to vote on the nation's economic situation."

Whether that's because of biology or socialization or something else is the subject of academic study and ideological debate. Whatever the reason, women are more likely to agree with Democrats about the need for a safety net of government social programs. Even upscale women are more likely to imagine that they might one day need it.

"It's left-brain/right-brain," says Nancy Hurlbert, 56, a civil engineer in Deerfield Beach, Fla., who usually votes Democratic. "Women are just more inclined to be socially aware, and perhaps even from their own personal experience or their mother's experience understand the need for social programs. They know that the government can't be run like a business."

She grew up in a Republican household but as an adult switched her registration to Democratic. Her husband, Thomas, 54, a structural steel supervisor on big construction projects, grew up in a Democratic household but is now registered as a Republican.

"I like smaller, efficient government" — one run more like a business, he says. He likes the idea of relying more on the private sector for government functions — for instance, using government-financed vouchers to help parents send their children to private schools. She opposes that idea. "I don't like too many welfare-type programs," he says. "I don't think the government should be responsible to help somebody from cradle to grave."

President Dole?

The tendency for men and women to vote in different ways isn't new. Women were more likely than men to vote Republican in the 1960s. With Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, they began to be more likely to vote Democratic. But the gender gap has become more potent:

•It's gotten wider. In the past two campaigns, men and women would have elected different presidents. In 1996, surveys of voters as they left polling places showed that most women voted for Bill Clinton; men more narrowly supported Bob Dole. In 2000, women by a yawning 11 percentage points voted for Al Gore; men by an equal margin supported George W. Bush.

Some analysts say the Sept. 11 terror attacks narrowed the gender gap. Women who have been leery of Republicans for being too quick to use military force may now see it as essential to protecting their families. The "soccer moms" seen as swing voters in 2000 may be better dubbed "security moms" in 2004.

•The gap between college-educated men and women has grown even more. In 1996, college-educated women voted for Clinton by 12 percentage points; men for Dole by 2 percentage points — a gap of 14 points.

By the 2000 election, that divide had more than doubled. College-educated women voted for Gore by 17 points, men for Bush by 18 — a gap of 35 percentage points.

The differences between men and women in their political views grow as they become more informed and interested in politics, Hibbing says, something that typically happens with more education. Knowing more makes both sides hold their views more strongly. "Liberals become more liberal, and conservatives become more conservative," he says.

•The ranks of college-educated women are exploding. In 1960, nearly 3 million women were college graduates, 5.8% of all women 25 and older. By 2000, that percentage had quadrupled to 23.6% — to more than 22 million people. What's more, the most highly educated men and women are the most likely to register, vote and contribute money to campaigns.

In a closely divided electorate, a swing in the preferences of even a small number of voters can make a big difference. Democrats have appealed to many highly educated women with a commitment to addressing workplace discrimination. The Bush administration has tried to woo some of them with programs designed to help female small-business owners.

June Coldren, 48, says her financial interests as the owner of an oil consulting firm in New Orleans pull her to the Republicans. But she usually votes Democratic. One major reason is her concern about equality for women on the job, a cause she says Democrats have done more to address.

"When I went to law school, I read all these cases where women were still discriminated against, even in this day and age," she says. But her husband, Clint, a businessman who also works in the oil and gas industry, is a reliable Republican. "He's all about cutting taxes," she says.

She never misses an Election Day. "I have to vote to make sure I cancel him out," she says.

Contributing: Jim Norman and Paul Overberg

[Judith]

This is from the article Fermicat posted...

Originally posted by fermicat


That disparity may mean some husbands simply assumed their wives were voting for the candidate they supported. It's possible some wives didn't bother to correct that impression. "We call it the 'Sure, honey' factor,' " Lake says.



I just don't get that. When you're in a relationship with someone of a different politcal persuasion, you can have the most interesting discussing. As long as respect is there, of course.

[fermicat]

Originally posted by Judith_Shakespeare
I just don't get that. When you're in a relationship with someone of a different politcal persuasion, you can have the most interesting discussing. As long as respect is there, of course.

It is difficult to have a political conversation with some people, and if you are married to one of those it would be far easier to just let them think you agree than to launch into a tiresome argument about it.

I'm glad I have a man I can discuss politics with and it never gets ugly. We do not agree on everything, and sometimes even if our opinions are on the same side of an issue we differ in intensity, but the discussion is usually fun. We are both well informed but tend to come at issues from different perspectives so it can be informative to discuss things with him. I also like to find out from a discussion why he thinks the way he does.

[darius]

that isn't really democracy then is it?

Democracy just means that the people vote or decide for decisions or elect leaders that make their decisions. Nothing about not voting or deciding in it's definition. They look at it like a civic duty like jury duty, which you still have to go to in america. I don't think you should be forced to vote for a candidate if you don't support any of the available ones, so that should be a valid choice when voting.

[Judith]

I don't know. I think inaction is definately a decision.

[Kurt_eh]

Inaction is NOT the answer.

Skirting a banned topic, there are Americans (and Canadians, and British among others) dying all around the world so that OTHER PEOPLE can have that simple right. And I'm not just talking about recent unmentionable topics. WWII anyone?

And people "here" (aka USA, Canada, UK, etc) have the audacity to not even BOTHER to go out and vote.

Even if you hate ALL the candidates on your ballot, spoil it.

At least you've made your mark, and are not disrespecting the memory of those who've died. Harsh words, but that's honestly what I believe.

[grinner]

Amen. Vote or don't complain.

[Kurt_eh]

And on the other, lighter, side. I often wondered what would happen if someone legally changed their name to "None of the above" and ran for President with a minumum of campaigning.

Just imagine all the ballots:

[_] Presidential Candidate # 1 (R)
[_] Presidential Candidate # 2 (D)
[x] None of the Above (I)

:D

[JadedLegend3]

Originally posted by Kurt_eh
Inaction is NOT the answer.

Skirting a banned topic, there are Americans (and Canadians, and British among others) dying all around the world so that OTHER PEOPLE can have that simple right. And I'm not just talking about recent unmentionable topics. WWII anyone?

And people "here" (aka USA, Canada, UK, etc) have the audacity to not even BOTHER to go out and vote.

Even if you hate ALL the candidates on your ballot, spoil it.

At least you've made your mark, and are not disrespecting the memory of those who've died. Harsh words, but that's honestly what I believe.

Nicely said!!!


Jacqui :love:

[Judith]

Originally posted by Kurt_eh
Inaction is NOT the answer.



I don't think it's right, but I think it should be a right. If someone feels strongly against voting, for whatever reason, they should not have to vote.

I feel it's my civic duty to vote. I also believe it's my civic duty to help others when I have the means, through volunteering or donation. That doesn't mean I think everybody should have to.

[Kurt_eh]

Why not?

Spoiling one's ballot is for all intents and purposes "not voting" and by doing so, one says "I don't like any of you/the system/(or whatever)."

Abstaining from voting is saying "I just don't care."

Now lets just imagine a scenerio here:
I am by no means discrediting ANY government of the USA. This is mearly a hypothetical situation.

Candidate Kurt_eh wins an election with a 75% victory.

Based on the 2000 numbers:
The voter turnout is only 105 Million of a total 205 Million people. That's 78.75 Million votes to 26.25 Million votes.

It turns out that Mr. Eh is a maniac whose only goal once elected is to renounce his platform, and proclaim that every American must now "enjoy and participate in the sports of curling and hockey on pane of forced John Edwards viewings."

Civil disorder ensues, and it's all because 100 million people (assuming 74% of whom would probably have voted for Candidate Grinner) "couldn't be bothered to go out and vote."

But since Candidate Eh wasn't born in the USA, it's a moot point ;)


Source: http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm

STATE 2000 | VAP 2000 | REG % | REG of VAP | TURNOUT* %| TO of REG % |TO of VAP

UNITED STATES | 205,815,000 | 156,421,311 | 76 | 105,586,274 | 67.5 | 51.3

Where REG= registered voters, and VAP=Voting Age Population

[Judith]

I believe that people who don't bother to vote shouldn't complain.

And it is POSSIBLE that maniacs could be elected even if EVERYONE voted.

[generic_screenname]

If I was president, every problem would be solved with rock, paper, scissors.


Some old senator guy: What do you mean you're reducing my salary?!
President Me: Sorry dude. Paper covers rock.
Some old senator guy: Sh*t.



Vote g_s!

[Judith]

Originally posted by generic_screenname
If I was president, every problem would be solved with rock, paper, scissors.


Some old senator guy: What do you mean you're reducing my salary?!
President Me: Sorry dude. Paper covers rock.
Some old senator guy: Sh*t.





Poor dependable senator...always picks rock.

[DentArthurDent]

Originally posted by Judith_Shakespeare
I believe that people who don't bother to vote shouldn't complain.

That's a good point. If you don't vote, it should be a conscious decision. But one thing we might be missing here is that usually voting is done at least once a year. Sometimes the issues are great, sometimes small. If you decide to ABSTAIN from voting in A race because none of the candidates is worth a damn, vote in all the others... or shut the frell up... choosing not to decide IS a decision.

AFD

[Antrobus]

One of the biggest problems in this country is voter apathy. Many people just don't care and they're not encouraged to care. I don't know how the problem is solved. It has to be from a grass roots level. But the "grass roots level" in this country is so vast now that there are just too many areas where no one picks up the reigns to take on the the issue of voter apathy.

I had a g-g-g aunt who lived to be 101 (her sister, my g-g-grandmother lived to be 107, 6mos.) who voted in 1945 when she was 100. I have a newspaper clipping about the town officials bringing her her absentee ballot. She was quoted in the article as saying that she was a lifelong Democrat and that she was voting for Roosevelt - and if Roosevelt won it was the women who did it! She also said that she was more excited about this election than any others.

I've asked myself why would a 100 y.o. woman be SO anxious to vote. And the only answer I can come up with is that she was not voting for selfish reasons (due to her age), but because she COULD vote and she was voting for the future of her country!

She voted that fall and died the following April. But, there was NO apathy there!!

Today's mind set regarding voting has changed greatly from those who preceeded us! I believe that earlier generations considered it a privilige to vote!

[grinner]

It is also because she was alive before women were allowed to vote... so went thru Sufferage and KNEW the VALUE of her vote.

[Antrobus]

Exactly - so when and how did all the apathy sneak in. Somewhere along the way it seems that people became indifferent. Something caused that. The feel good 80's?

[grinner]

I think it may have been the mid to late 70's into the early 80's. that was the time when sex didn't kill you... and people were only in it for the fun of life. maybe?

[Lord Loser]

In 1933 the seed was planted. Now it has sprouted, taken root, and is bearing the fruit of which you speak.

[grinner]

the fruit of Apathy?

[Lord Loser]

That and a lot of others.

[ranger1]

commercial break: i just want to say how pleasantly surprised this thread has taken me. don't think i've ever read something like this that lasted so long without degenerating into dren. scapers rock.

that being said (along with the general strong consensus here that ppl need to be responsible & informed about thier vote/no vote), is there something people here want to DO about it? or will this end with just discussion. i am not having any ideas of my own about possible action items; i'm just throwing this idea out to see if some people wanna 'bite' & offer some discussion for action items. something like a society or foundation for public awareness (the FFFPI, or Farscape Fans For Political Intelligence).

we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Twich]

Maybe Scapers "rock the vote" or something??