Suffrage propaganda poster (c. 1910s)
annajcook: Judith, over at Radically Queer, wrote a post recently in response to a conversation in comments at Pursuit of Harpyness about voting as a citizenship responsibility. She argues, in part:
The concept of ‘the vote as duty’ is designed to keep a populous in check. It turns our eyes away from our own country’s horrific abuses of human rights at home and abroad, it keeps us from thinking about the big picture, it keeps us ignorant of how people in power have turned factions that should be working together against each other since time immemorial.
How do you all think about voting in relation to your citizenship responsibilities and in relation to your political activism? Do you vote? Not vote? Have your views on voting changed over time? What are your reasons for either participating or not participating in the electoral process? If you don’t vote, do you have alternative ways of participating in local and national politics?
BeckySharper: I vote every single time. If the polls open, I’m there, even if it’s a small local election. Hell, I was late getting to the office on 9/11 because I voted in a primary that morning—which turned out to be a good thing.
I vote because the memory of all the women who fought for women’s suffrage is always with me. And I vote because there are so many people in the world—especially women—who have no political representation at all, and if I’m given that privilege, I feel I should exercise it. And, as y’all know, I like to have my say about things.
That said, voting is my personal choice, and I believe that people have an equal right NOT to vote if they so choose. There are some religious minorities like the Amish, Hutterites, Rastafarians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses who choose not to vote as a matter of conscience. That’s their right. There are people who don’t vote as a matter of protest–they hate the candidates, they hate the system, they say “fuck it” and don’t go to the polls. That’s their right, too. There are even people who don’t vote because they’re lazy and apathetic. That’s their right, even if I think it’s irresponsible.
I also think that the people who gripe about low voter turn-out always assume that if everyone were forced to the polls, they’d vote for the candidates the gripers want them to. Which ain’t necessarily the case—be careful what you wish for.
Would be curious hearing from people who live in countries where voting is compulsory. Are those laws actually enforced? How are you penalized if you don’t vote? Do you show up and spoil the ballot if you don’t want to choose any of the candidates?
foureleven: Like, Becky I always vote and for the same reasons. Many women and African-Americans fought too hard for me to obtain the right to vote and I never forget that or take it for granted. I have to admit that I was furious that my ex-boyfriend didn’t vote. I complained to him about how many black men can’t vote, but want to because they were one in prison and have subsequently lost their voting rights and that we are underrepresented in voting as a whole. He responded that he doesn’t believe in the two-party system and that the candidates never speak to him personally. After a while, I thought, “I totally get that.” The democrat/republican ideology doesn’t speak to a lot of people and independents rarely get elected, if at all.
When I was studying abroad in England a while back (2005), someone said that non-Americans should have a right to vote in American presidential elections because the president of the U.S. is the leader of the free world and his power affects a lot of countries. I disagreed. Of course, the president has power throughout the world, but we can’t vote in other country’s elections so it doesn’t seem fair in my opinion.
I found this link about compulsory voting around the world. When I was in Belgium, a woman told me about their compulsory voting system and how she wished the same was enforced in the U.S. I’m not entirely sure how accurate this is, but The Guardian lists penalties for Belgium as “People aged 18 and over who do not vote face a moderate fine or, if they fail to vote in at least four elections, they can lose the right to vote for 10 years. Non-voters also face difficulties getting a job in the public sector.”
I don’t think voting should be mandatory in the U.S., but I think people should take the time to research candidates and vote in elections if they choose. The concept of mandatory voting is kind of fascinating to me because what if a voter doesn’t like any candidates? Who would they choose; the lesser of the two evils?
annajcook: I grew up in a family where participating in the political process through voting was considered something to be generally positive, though not practiced consistently. My mother readily admits that there were many years when we were small that she didn’t vote at all — even in presidential elections — and often felt overwhelmed by the responsibility to choose a candidate who even approximated her political positions. My siblings and I were all encouraged, as teenagers, to register to vote when we became eligible and to participate in local and national elections — though we were directly pressured to participate in specific elections or vote in certain ways.
As a feminist and as an historian, I’m acutely aware of the fact that women in the United States have had the explicit right to vote for less than a century … and that people compromised their physical health and safety to protest nationally in order to secure those rights. So as an individual, I feel obligated to exercise that ability to vote, even though I recognize how compromised the electoral system often is. And even though I sometimes don’t vote in smaller, local elections (though I always feel faintly guilty when I don’t).
I’m usually a pretty big proponent of stepping outside of the system rather than trying to change it from within … because I do see how participation in “the system” (in whatever context) often leads to the agent of change adapting to the status quo rather than the other way around. So I’ve been trying to think all day about why I feel so strongly on a personal level about participating in the political process in this way. I don’t really have any well-formed answers yet. But I’m enjoying this conversation!
Marie Anelle: Personally I only vote if I have a viable candidate to vote for. Otherwise, I don’t. That’s democracy too. I don’t bother spoiling my ballot because those aren’t actually counted and I shouldn’t have to feel obligated to choose between the lesser of all evils. Pressure to/forcing people to vote does not sound too democratic to me and instead of blaming youth or apathy, maybe we should blame the politicians and the system. There’s only so many broken promises and lizard behavior you can take before you get disenchanted and just not want to do it anymore.
I’m also sick and tired of the “youth” excuse. Young people don’t vote enough and it’s all their fault. Yes, they mobilized for Obama, and yes, that fell to pieces, but maybe it’s not because we’re a bunch of young punks….as I said, disappointment ties into that. Seriously, though, we need something else other than “damn those lazy kids and their nonsense no voting”.
BeckySharper: The other issue here in the US in presidential elections is that the electoral college system makes presidential voting a joke unless you live in a swing state. The reality of representation in our country falls pretty short of the one-man/one-vote ideal. I voted for Barack Obama because I believed in him and his election was a tremendous moment in our nation’s history, etc. But he got 75% of the vote in NY, so I could have stayed home with a clear conscience (this is why I’m considering voting in Virginia in 2012, since it was a battleground state for Democrats). Until we have direct popular election for the presidency, the system is so inherently flawed that it’s not a true representational democracy. Just ask Al Gore.
Marie Anelle: Yeah, we have the parliamentary system up here. We don’t vote for our leader, we vote for a party….which can suck if you like your party but the leader is a joke.
annajcook: Marie Anelle, I’m totally with you when it comes to the generational slagging. My “hell no!” radar goes off whenever people start making generalizations about how a generation or cohort of people move through the world, or what their attitude is. Age is just too broad a category for meaningful analysis. Yes, you can talk about some demographic trends, but it’s really difficult to assign any sort of meaning to those trends without a lot more data. Instead, the mainstream media latches on to any sliver of age-based difference and starts bemoaning “kids these days,” which has got to be the world’s best ANTI-motivator when it comes to encouraging young people to feel invested in a age-diverse world. By painting disparaging caricatures of young people, we reinforce the idea that society should be age-segregated and everyone can only really meaningfully exist within their own little camps. Which is the opposite of what we would need in a healthy, functioning democratic system.
PhDork: While I understand that a small percentage of people choose to “not be political” (which, come on, now: there ain’t no such thing), most people are just. not. interested. Maybe they’re lazy or maybe they’re just trying to feed themselves and their families.
The truth remains that even if you’re not interested in politics, politics is interested in you (so to speak), and I think that most people are bloody fools for not paying attention. And while most of my typical college-age students are apolitical, I don’t attribute that to their age, I attribute it primarily to their class habitus. They don’t care because they don’t need to care. Their lives are generally pretty sweet. Middle to upper-middle class, mostly white, mostly Christian, suburban/exurban, native-born US citizens. There’s not so much to complain about, really, when you’ve got yours. I can’t say that I was terribly different at age 19 or so, and there are plenty of people who are “old enough to know better,” but are just as insulated by their privilege, and just as apathetic.
I always was excited at the prospect of voting, although once I learned about the Electoral College–and what that really means–as an undergrad, the bloom has faded. But regardless, being a citizen in democracy doesn’t mean “voting.” It means being attuned to and active in what’s happening in your neighborhood/borough/city/state/province/region/etc. That’s hard. It’s hard to sort through all the shit to find reliable sources. It’s hard to think critically about different viewpoints. It’s hard to figure out where to put one’s energy. I have trouble keeping up, myself, now.
Which is exactly how to end up with un-democracy. I am for mandatory voting, in theory. I think it should be a day off work for most, a sort of civic duty-party. People fucking love to wave flags and shit, but that’s not what makes you a citizen.
Re: age generalizations: It wasn’t me this time!
I’m with Dorkie. Regardless of whether or not you choose to participate in the electoral system, elected officials are going to make decisions about your life. Opting out only makes it easier for them to do what they want instead of what we want.
I was brought up in a family in which being a Democrat was as important and fundamental as being a Jew. I’ve never missed an election in…let’s see now…39 years. We brought our kids to the polls with us from the time they were infants, and made sure to talk to them about the issues and the candidates. And they got to pull the levers and push the buttons!
To me, voting is the most radical act of self-determination we can perform as citizens. If it weren’t critically important, political parties wouldn’t work so hard to influence voters and even manipulate and steal votes. They know that we as citizens have the ultimate power over them-if we choose to exercise it. That’s why I think Judith’s point of view is self-destructive. If you want to change the system, first you have to control it. And short of revolution, you do that by voting.
Opting out because none of the candidates is perfect is just giving the opposition an easy win. We liberals/progressives are constantly guilty of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But you don’t see the right doing that. They understand that voting for a candidate is also voting for the party, and it’s the party that is the critical factor.
We totally should have election days as days off. And we should make it easier for people to participate remotely, as with early absentee ballots. It can be very difficult to get to the polls when you work a long day, have young children, or depend on public transportation. I think that being creative about access to voting would increase participation across the board.
Dorkie totally hit the nail on the head with this: ‘the truth remains that even if you’re not interested in politics, politics is interested in you (so to speak), and I think that most people are bloody fools for not paying attention.’
I also agree with MM that ‘Opting out because none of the candidates is perfect is just giving the opposition an easy win’.
THAT SAID – I already get annoyed now that so many people vote without bothering to inform themselves about the issues (going off soundbytes, whether or not they can imagine having a beer with a candidate, how they look, etc. instead). So if people aren’t willing to think through the issues to the best of their ability, I almost think it’s better for everyone if they stay at home.
@Endora: Sad but true. I used to volunteer as a poll worker, and it was horrifying how many people walked in and said, “What are we voting for this time?”. This is exactly why candidates hand out junk outside polling places. They know that a voter may well choose the last name s/he saw. Still, I think I’d rather have them participate than not, even granting Becky’s point that fuller participation may not get the people we want elected.
I don’t know if this is happening over there, but in the UK now, lots of people have a big investment in politics. Some very precious sacred cows are being lead to the slaughter in the name of saving the economy, whereas there’s a tremendous amount of tax injustice. Even many right-wing people are angry about cuts to public services, education and the arts.
So lots of people are participating, on varying levels, in political activism. At the very least people are making the effort to sign petitions, write to their MPs etc, and many people are going on marches who have never marched before.
*But* if there was another election tomorrow, I imagine turn-out would be rock bottom. We’ve had a coalition government since last year and most people who voted for either party are utterly disillusioned. And the opposition were the ones who got us into this mess to begin with (well, it’s a global thing, but they only dug us deeper).
Sorry, very long-winded way of saying that non-voting is not necessary non-political. I have always voted myself, and am just now more politically motivated than ever (frankly, my quality of life is under threat). But right now I’m not sure I could vote for any of the existing options.
@foureleven – “someone said that non-Americans should have a right to vote in American presidential elections because the president of the U.S. is the leader of the free world and his power affects a lot of countries.” My first reaction to this was to scoff but I actually think it’s an interesting idea. The thing is that of course you’d have to extend it so e.g. Americans could affect the makeup of the Chinese government, or everyone who buys oil gets to vote on OPEC policies. In other word, new world order! Perhaps not what this guy meant to get at. The other interesting thing there is that that statement sort of implies the belief that if non-Americans got to vote, they’d be in general agreement, but that’s not true. I know there were several countries (Israel included) who were very disappointed when we elected Obama.
@Becky – totally on board with you about the EC, what an outdated and ridiculous system.
@MA – “Young people don’t vote enough and it’s all their fault.” As a “young person”, I actually sort of agree with this. Not that we’re all punks or whatever, but it is true that some demographics vote at significantly higher rates than others, which means that their interests are represented more *both* because they have more hand in choosing who gets voted in and because elected officials sure as hell pay attention to who voted for them. It’s like calling up a business you don’t patronize and saying, “I don’t like this policy” versus calling and saying, “I spend $150 at your store every week and I’m going to stop unless you change such and such”. I understand the disappointment, and believe me, I feel it too, as well as the urge to work outside the system. But I’ve never understood why people feel averse to doing both. Voting is something that people do once or twice a year — it’s not a gigantic time commitment compared to other forms of activism, and voting in my mind does not invalidate other forms of activism. There’s also the question of third-party candidates, of course, and if someone *already* doesn’t vote because they don’t like either of the main candidates, I’m not sure why they’d feel like they were “throwing their vote away” by voting for someone 3rd party. It’s true that no one who’s not Dem or GOP is going to get elected to any major office for the next few years but the only way to get 3rd parties to the tipping point where they become viable is to work our way up there.
I also wish that people took local elections more seriously (myself included, to a certain extent). I know it always seems like no big deal compared to the pageantry that is a presidential or even senatorial/gubernatorial campaign, but local elected officials have more of a hand in affecting everyday life than the President does by far. There are a ton of little quality of life issues that are controlled almost entirely by local and state governments and changes in those governments are more likely to be felt quickly than changes on a national level. To me it’s very silly to opt out of local elections because you don’t like the two party system or similar reasons because most of what a local official does every day is not related to their party, it’s related to potholes or the local schools, etc. Voting in national elections is important for the nation but voting in local elections is important for one’s immediate community and to me it’s very sad when people opt out of that.
@PhD – Amen!
It’s hard to figure out where to put one’s energy.
QFT
I vote religiously but it’s pretty clear it doesn’t do much. Lately I think activism is truly the only way, but… dayam how exactly? I’ve got a tentative answer that is working ok for me now. Still, the accent is on the tentative.
@Becks, in post: I’m a citizen of a complusory voting nation- Australia, so I can telly you, yes, the laws are enforced. There are only two types of elections- state and federal. No faffing about with local elections or primaries, so everyone is *well aware* when an election is coming up. The campaign lasts a couple of weeks and will be everywhere, so there’s no way you an be oblivious. Also voting is always on SATURDAY!!!! so you don’t have to miss work to get out to vote. People who observe a religious day on Saturdays (or people who know- or suspect- they’ll be away that day, can send in a postal ballot in advance). My mum made sure to send in her postal ballot when she was pregnant with me in 1980, on the chance that she’d be in hospital on the day. Lo, I was indeed born on election day that year.
I’ve been fined a few times for missing a state election: for five years I was registered to my home address in Sydney, NSW, but attending university in Canberra, ACT, so I missed the vote and copped a $50 fine. That said, I never had to pay. It’s pretty simple to show that you were out of the state on the day and so unable to vote. I fully accept that I was an irresponsible youth and should have voted, or changed my address to vote in ACT. Idiot me.
I am really, really, in favour of compulsory voting. When it’s accepted as the norm, people *do* engage more in the political process. People *do* think about who they are going to vote for. And they *do* show up to vote. Australia has a voter turn out of above 95%. Even people who have lots of life-stuff that might prevent them from voting here (like a job they can’t take time from, not a huge natural interest in politics, family members to care for, a long trip to the polls, or whatever)can and do vote, if voting is expected of them.
The best arguments for compulsory voting are threefold: 1. It’s your job. If you want the benefits of democracy, you have to show up to make it happen. 2. It makes for a more engaged citizenry. If you have to vote, even under duress, you have to turn your mind briefly to whose policies who think are better. That’s good. 3. It makes the politics better. Parties don’t have to appeal to the fringe to get out the vote. Parties can engage in more substantive policy debate to win over a center group of voters.
I’m not under any illusion that politics in Australia is *substantially* improved over, say, Canada or the UK (US, you got your own issues), and I’m pretty confident that if only the 50% of intrinsically motivated voters showed up, the results would largely be representative of the population. I just can’t see any real argument that not engaging in the process of democracy is a good thing.
I remember feeling voting was a privilege (still do) when I voted for Nixon in my first prez election in 72. I’m still wondering WHY I voted for Nixon however…
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the U.S. Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ID – 77%, ME — 77%, MT – 72%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, OK – 81%, RI — 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT — 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA — 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, OR – 76%, and WA — 77%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
I always vote and I often work on campaigns for candidates I support and donate to parties and lobby groups (Fair Vote, etc) that I agree with. As others have said, women and minorities have gone without a voice for too long for me to give it up.
The political situation in Canada is different than it is in the US but it is still important to me to fight the social conservatives and libertarians who would remove rights and protections and generally pull us in the wrong direction. I’m not letting us go down the drain without a battle, by Crom!
Oh and Marie Anelle, this is for you.
I currently live in Saanich-Gulf Islands, Gary Lunn’s riding. Elizabeth May has moved out here. I’m an NDPer full-through as I believe they are the closest thing Canada has to a social conscience (even though I don’t agree with everything, of course). But we don’t have a good candidate in Saanich Gulf Islands, at least not in the last election, and the area tends to vote split a lot between Libs, Greens, and NDP, which is what lets the Cons win time after time.
On the other hand, my old riding has a great NDP candidate that will be running federally in the next election: Randall Garrison. I’ve campaigned for him before and I think he is smart, thoughtful, trustworthy, and well-qualified. So, I am vote trading with a green friend – I’ll vote for Elizabeth May (and even as an NDPer, I strongly feel that the Greens deserve some seats in the HoC), if she votes for Randall to keep Troy DeSouza (Con) out. DeSouza nearly beat Keith Martin (Lib, but previously a Con, he crossed the floor) in that riding last time out, and Keith Martin won’t be running again.
We’re talking about setting up a more formal vote swapping site for other people in the same situation – it doesn’t feel as morale-undermining as constantly being forced to “vote strategically” (ie vote Lib to keep out the Cons) and never giving your party a voice. It just means that you are concentrating your party vote in an area where you can do the most good. The main thing is that you trust each other to vote the way you promise to. Maybe something like that would work for you, if you have a preferred party/candidate in another riding but are unexcited by the choices in your own?
@anyone who thought this: yes, I know there are local govt. elections in Australia. What I meant was that there are only two types of elections for which you would get fined if you didn’t vote . I’ve never heard of anyone being fined for missing a local council election, for which turnout is a lot lower.
I vote in every election that I can. I am a naturalized US citizen, so it is a right that took a very long process for me to gain and I don’t take it lightly. I remember how bad I felt when I wasn’t able to vote and people would ask me whom I was voting for (didn’t help that I was studying poli sci).
Another reason why I vote, is to honor those who fought for a person like me to vote — out of respect for what they did.
In Oregon, we all vote from home and have generally higher voter turnout than the rest of the country (although tiny local elections still get pretty low turnout). That said, we also have voter initiatives and in 2000, the year I moved out here, the voter guide (also mailed to your home) was two books and over 300 pages. I’m pretty sure I was the only grad student I knew who read the ridiculous thing. A phonebook of information is a pretty big barrier to being actually informed, and I don’t have it in my to blame people who either can’t get up the energy to vote at all when faced with that, or just vote the way their newspaper of choice tells them to.
Also, I have seen absolutely no evidence that our generally high voter turnout has improved anything in our state. The populous urban western section always goes democratic, the less populous rural section always goes republican. Our unemployment is super high, our budget a disaster, and our school system broken. I don’t know what more voters could do to help.
The Australian system as SkipToMyLou describes it sounds pretty good, but in a country that prizes individuality so highly and freaks out at the suggestion that the First Lady would like us to eat better and considers seat belt laws evidence of a nanny state, I don’t see how compulsory voting could (a) ever happen or (b) fail to be a disaster.
Although if the right wingers who are determined to freak out about the nanny state were to decide to stay home in protest the terrible indignity of compulsory voting . . .
@Becky – PLEASE vote in VA in 2012. I’m DYING here lately. There isn’t enough glue to keep putting my head back together after each new explosion.
@Tmae: Working on it! Fortunately there are no big races in New York in 2012, so I’ll register in VA at my family’s home address. I’m hoping Tom Periello will run so I can vote for him—the state government has been a fucking horrorshow since 2008—but it’ll be enough just to give Obama my vote in the national election.
@Avogadro: My mother lives in Seattle, and is able to vote by mail and it seems like the best system ever. I wish we did it in NY. I’d be curious to know if voter turnout is higher in states where you can vote by mail. It’s a hell of a lot easier than going to the polls, especially if you work long hours, are disabled, elderly or have to drive long distances to get to polling places.
@wondering
I’m lucky enough to live in an NPD stronghold. Long live Pat Martin’s riding, lol.
Everybody has the right not to get picked for dodgeball if they don’t want to play. I think that privilege should be guarded.
Judith’s first paragraph is typical firebagger bullshit I read over and over about how both parties are “the same,” mainly based on the fact that legisltion doesn’t move and Barack Obama didn’t wave a wand and make everything okay. Sure, insert something about the alleged meeting between him and the insurance industry that sealed the death warrant of the public option, or drone atacks, or free trade agreements. But the main culprit behind the death of liberal legislation is the filibuster.
Yeah yeah, LBJ and FDR. They had larger senate majorities and LBJ even had some cross-party support. Now the parties have shaken out ideologically (the GOP, anyway), and the cloture rules that Robert Byrd instituted AFTER Medicare/Medicaid allow for the “polite filiuster” that allows people to break quorum without invoking cloture and requires huge waiting periods between cloture votes.
The system’s fucked due to ridiculous extra-constitutional rules, and the “populous” isn’t educated enough to demand it be changed. Sen. Udall tried, but it was squished.
Gah…”legislation,” “filibuster”. Fuckin’ A, I guess this stone thrower lives in a big ol’ glass house!
I didn’t vote in college because I was studying in Florida and a resident of Georgia, so I decided that I just didn’t want to deal with it all. That was really stupid of me (but I did NOT want to be fined for not showing up for jury duty that I didn’t know about).
Now, I vote religiously, even though the selection is frankly heartbreaking. (Seriously, do any of these candidates actually care about people?!) I do spend a lot of time on the internet trying to evaluate which candidate is the lesser of two evils. ;_;
You know, I’m usually not a conspiracy theorist, but the older I get the more I’m sure that the reason why voting isn’t compulsory or strictly popular (and why it’s still on a damned Tuesday) is simple–lower voting turnout in a parliamentary format is a hell of a lot easier for politicians to manipulate and control.
Think about it: originally only white, landowning males over the age of 21 could vote. Why? That was the demographic the Founding Fathers trusted to “make an informed decision”–in other words, they consolidated power in the hands of those just like themselves with the hopes that they would all vote more or less the same way. Now, everyone can vote, but if a majority of the population is indifferent, at work, or hopelessly confused by rhetoric…well then, that’s fewer people that will vote for the other guy. More time to concentrate on brainwashing specific segments of the population in those prime swing states! >_<
@Becky – My hubs and I volunteered for Periello this summer and were very disappointed (though not surprised) to see him lose his seat to Hurt. I hope he runs for Webb’s Senate seat. I’d rather see him than Kaine run. And the state? I can’t even talk about that right now because I’m so pissed about it all.
I vote in any and every election because, I too, believe it is necessary to do so out of respect for the women who protested, and advocated, and went to jail to procure my right to do so. I don’t take it for granted, so I exercise the opportunity.
@tmae, @becky OH MY FUCKING GOD VIRGINIA! Although I am a proud Australian, I currently live in NoVa and agree that this state has gone completely, utterly bonkers in the last year. I volunteered for Creigh Deeds and it was the most dispiriting political experience of my life. He was always a loser. Since then, between McDonnell, Cucinelli, the abortion clinic shit, Liberty University’s fucking health care lawsuit, oh my god- removing the RED LIGHT CAMERAS becuase they are indicative of some larger nanny state issue, blargh, I can’t even end this sentence. God, VA’s insane. Would compulsory voting change this? I don’t know. I can’t believe anyone voted for these clowns. Sometimes I look around at my neighbors and think, you? Was it you? Did you do this?
I’ve always voted, mainly because the class habitus that Dork describes wasn’t at all my reality. I knew how badly things could suck, and I saw voting as the only real way I could influence whether programs and services to help the less fortunate were implemented and/or maintained. I have, however, become more cynical and frustrated with politicians of all stripes over the years. I almost bowed out of the last election, but as crappy as any Democratic politician may be, most Republican politicians scare the bejesus out of me these days. So I vote for the lesser of the two evils.
@SkipToMyLou: Hey, thanks for trying to improve the state by being politically active even though you can’t vote there! But…um…yeah, it’s completely batshit. It’s like Virginia had some kind of nervous breakdown in 2008. On one hand, it went blue for Obama. On the other, it sent all those GOP birthers and Jesus freaks to Richmond. The only saving grace about VA’s politics is that even if you get a batshit governor, he only gets four years to be batshit in office. Of course, sometimes this encourages them to do wildly batshit things because they’re not going to run for re-election.
And..uh..my father was one of those people who voted for McDonnell (although not Cucinelli, I think). We don’t talk about it. Well, not anymore. The first few conversations didn’t go well.
As another Australian, I agree with what SkipToMyLou said. Though at uni there was an interesting discussion in a political philosophy course where some US students and Aus students had a debate over voluntary v/s compulsory voting. I’m still not convinced about the “freedom from voting” (ie negative freedoms) argument that is espoused against compulsory voting.
From watching other countries’ elections, especially where it is voluntary, the system of compulsory voting seems to lessen the influence of fringe groups on election outcomes.
Even with compulsory voting, I’m still involved in other forms of political action – working on campaigns that I care about, engaging in protest, etc.