"Ordinary citizens are themselves partly to blame, however, because they DO NOT CHOOSE TO VOTE."

[Triana]

MY comment:

It's funny (not in a good way) that American citizens think all that's required to maintain their Republic or Democratic nation is to vote every 4 years (and most of them can't even be bothered to do that). Their own apathy has taken their lives, health, their and their children's future away from them. So, while greedy banksters, corprats and the Kochs deserve much of the blame for our current state of Oligarchy, ordinary citizens are not blameless either.

Democracy is like anything else. It requires constant vigilance and MAINTENANCE. It must be worked at, attended to, people have to pay attention, get involved at least a little bit and vote. But they don't. And when they don't, they're essentially handing their country and its government to whatever rich bastards can afford to buy it and run it for their own purposes. That's what's happened. American citizens handed their government over to the Koch Bros, Wall St. and their friends. So that's who runs it now - corprat AmeriKKKa, Wall St. and the Kochs.

Can they get it back?

No. Too late.

Voter apathy and corprat greed would be the death of any nation - no matter how great it once was or was ever presumed to be. This one is over. It will not be recovered in my lifetime. Maybe not in anyone else's either.

_ _ _ _ _

... ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country. The analysts found that rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups largely shape policy outcomes in the United States:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america

How America’s Middle Class Dug Its Own Grave:
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/how-americas-middle-class-dug-its-own-grave.html/

[global1]

1. This Is A Great Opportunity For People Like Rev. Sharpton & Jesse Jackson To Stress How Important...

voting is. I was heartened to see the other day that someone in Ferguson set up a voters registration desk out on the street. This is what's needed. There is a perfect opportunity now for making the point of how important it is to get out the vote. GOTV.

I heard that the city council of Ferguson is primarily white and we know the police force has few minorities on it.

This whole situation might have been different if there was some sort of balance on the city council and police force.

I'm hoping that this situation in Ferguson will open the eyes of the people and make them realize how important their vote is.

When one says - my vote doesn't count and they don't vote - it is a self fulfilled prophecy.

Everybody's vote is important - otherwise there wouldn't be a need to raise as much money to get people to vote.

All these campaign contributions means that someone believes that a vote is important and they are willing to spend big bucks to get someone's votes or deny others of their vote.

This situation in Ferguson can be used as a perfect example of how important it is for the people to GOTV.

[Atman]

22. Al and Jesse better stop speechifying and actually DO SOMETHING.

I hate to say it, I'm in agreement with a lot of my conservative friends that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't actually do anything. They love the podium, they love the microphone, they love the bullhorn. But in the immortal words of the HR guys in the movie "Office Space"..."What would you say you do here?"

"I have goddamn people skills!" Doesn't cut it anymore. DO SOMETHING or continue to let others die trying.

[Bandit]

24. What exactly do you think they can do except bring public attention to the problems?

Should they get out a machine gun or what? They hold no elected office nor are they in any position of authority except for their megaphone. Tell me what exactly should they do?

[Atman]

33. No, no machine guns.

But can you please explain to me what it is either of these people do for a living? They get paid to shout about injustice. They make millions off of their anger. But what are they actually doing? How are they actually helping anyone? I can make a speech tomorrow...I doubt that a lot of people would listen to me, but why is my opinion worthless when these guys are considered Gods. Yet, they don't do anything. They give speeches. MLK gave speeches, but he rallied support, he walked the walk, he got a bullet for it. Al and Jessie seem to be in it for the paychecks. Sorry if that is offensive to some (many), but that's the way I see it.

I still watch Rev. Al's show online (no cable anymore, have to wait for the internet posts), but I have no use for Jesse Jackson anymore. You don't even see him...he's not part of the narrative. Where is JJ in this debate? He's disappeared. I guarantee he'll re-surface when the timing is right for HIM and his fundraising for whatever the hell he does. But he sure as hell isn't helping the situation in Ferguson. Of course, feel free to disagree.

[global1]

55. Did You Not Read My Post & Why Do You Resort To Violence - Come On Really 'get out a machine gun'?..

Granted the Sharpton's and the Jackson's of the world are getting dated and they probably don't have as many followers as they once may have had - but still a lot of people in the Black Community in this country respect them.

We do need new Sharpton's and Jackson's to emerge that the Black Community can look up to and follow and I do hope some will emerge - but right now I have to go with what is available and still have respect in the Black Communities as older sages.

What I expect Rev.Al and Jesse to do right now is to bring attention to the lack of representation that this community of Ferguson has in its city council and police force.

Now that might be a result of people saying that their vote isn't important and doesn't count and therefore they didn't vote. Well they got what they didn't vote for - lack of representation.

If Rev.Al and Jesse can bring attention to that and stress the importance of the people of the community getting out and voting - they can help change things in that community. That's what I think they can do.

If they can deliver the same message to other minority communities around the country perhaps we'd get more minorities out in Nov and in subsequent elections.

That's exactly what they can do.

[earthside]

54. It is bigger than voting, unfortunately.

I heard a woman caller today on Thom Hartmann's radio program expressing a kind of wonderment as to why the 70 percent African-American population in Ferguson just doesn't vote the corrupt, and mostly white local government out of office.

And the impression I got from this caller was of a person living in an affluent suburb where everyone votes and la-de-da isn't democracy wonderful ... so what is wrong with the residents of Ferguson?

Well, guess what ... the entire electoral system is undoubtedly rigged against voting, especially any voting that might challenge the entrenched powers. Elections in April for city council? How are the council districts drawn? How much money does it take to run a real campaign? Is there a fair, impartial news media?

There are a host of reasons why the 'just go vote' mantra is not the complete answer. Voting actually can be the end result of a reform of a system that discourages voting -- and that has to come before winning at the election polls can take place.

This is a problem in local governments all over the country and not just in minority communities. I live in a virtually all-white, middle class Denver suburb where the system is rigged so that essentially the same power structure has held all governmental authority for over 50 years.

I believe in voting; I always vote and I would always encourage everyone who is eligible to vote -- but let's not kid ourselves -- there still has to be an honest, fair and just election system in place for an individual's vote to be worth something.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Chicken or egg?

ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country.

That right there is why most Americans DON'T vote. They know it in their guts. They've seen it even more blatantly since the 80s, that what they do at the voting booth means far less to EITHER party than what the rich want. That the 'two party system' is a trap meant to ensure that no matter who (of the two choices) voters choose, the only difference will be on social issues, and that on economic issues, their voices will never be paid attention to at the national level. We'll keep getting bread and circuses, and keep on being exploited.

So no, I'm not going to blame people who simply give up on politics in disgust, when our supposed 'good guys' are also mostly helping the rich stay rich, the middle class get poorer, and the poor stay poor. It's the same reason they mostly stay out of the stock market. Everybody knows that the dice are loaded.

[Triana]

5. from global1, above:

"When one says - my vote doesn't count and they don't vote - it is a self fulfilled prophecy"

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Yes and no.

If you're vote already isn't going to matter, then you're not 'fulfilling' a prophecy - that's like saying you prophesy that you'll get hit by rain because it's raining - you didn't cause it, you just saw that it was happening.

The only instance in which it is a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' is if your vote actually did change something or would have if you had voted.

So the self-fulfilling prophecy line is glib and witty, but not really true.

[Chathamization]

17. The politicians pretty accurately follow the will of the voters

The problem is that the will for most people is “I don’t care” or “I vote based on TV ads” or “I vote based on sound bites in the media.” When we have posts talking about “the two choices” (and there are a lot of these on DU) it underscores just how apathetic the public at large is – even those interested in politics. No one shows up to the primaries, people act like the primaries don’t exist, and then complain that the candidates who win the primaries are handpicked (by the small percentage of the people that bothered to show up and vote). And that’s for fairly high level offices.

Consider that there’s a whole political ecosystem. The city council candidate you’re ignoring in today’s primary will be the mayoral candidate ignored in the primary some years from now and the senate candidate ignored in the primary several years from now and then the senate candidate in the general election that people will say was “handpicked by a small group of elites.” Yes, handpicked by the very, very few people that pay attention to these things; and most of them aren’t voting on policy. People will complain about how the local party calls the shots, and ignore the fact that the officers in the local party are elected (often unopposed).

[RobinA]

36. Well Said

One thing that always amazes me is when people say, Why do you care about what Candidate X for Dogcatcher thinks about your favorite issue here, he doesn't have anything to do with decisions on that issue. Hello? Where do you think the people who DO affect policy on your favorite issue here come from? Most people don't parachute into the Senate from never having been in politics.

I do my part to weed out the Neanderthals at a low level whenever possible. I'm still up in the air about what to do with the Neanderthals that get by me, but I'm leaning in a direction I used to argue against.

Brackets don't work in posts????

[csziggy]

49. Brackets don't work in posts - they are used for HTML commands

If you use the commands at the top of the post editor window (b, i, u, link, excerpt, blockquote) then look at your message before posting it, you will see that all the commands in the message window are surrounded by brackets ][ rather than the <> that normal HTML uses. This is part of the forum software.

You can use some other HTML codes not included in the message window, but not all.

I substitute the curly brackets {} for the regular brackets ][ when I don't want to use parenthesis () - they are almost the same keystrokes and do show up in the forum software.

[TheKentuckian]

38. This effect I believe is overstated, perhaps greatly. Of my rep and two Senators

only one served in local government and that was at a high level as Judge/Executive for McConnell.

Our Governor did do three terms in the State Legislature and the went to the Executive, I do see the higher state offices as a possible springboard but I don't see the often espoused lineage. Very few folks are going from school board to city council to Mayor to state legislature to US Rep to Senator, most of the stops seem dead end to me at the lower levels with a little more track advancement from Rep to Senator.

Seems to me the way to break into national politics has FAR more to do with deep pockets and/or name recognition than promoting up from lower office.

[Chathamization]

40. Even the ones that don’t tend to rely on the local party apparatus

A big part of running is getting support from local officials, people on the state committee, local organizers, local fundraisers, etc. People who have an impact in their community. Look at how many local Dems ended up supporting Chris Christie. The New Yorker had a good article about how Obama (who also started at the local level) spent a ton of time trying to win over local figures in Iowa. And if you’re interested in getting people elected who lack money and name recognition, it’s particularly important to promote them from the bottom up, because they’re not going to be able to just start out by throwing their hat in the presidential ring and expect to win.

The state legislatures are also particularly important and get ignored much too much. Things like gerrymandering and ID laws often affect what happens at the national level. They are also often the places where stuff like marriage equality, the end of drug prohibition, environmental policy and (now) single-payer first gains a foothold.

[TheKentuckian]

47. I'm not belittling the importance of local offices at all but questioning the

validity of the promotion argument presented here and often.

Fucking A, you better vote for your school board, city council, and state legislature but don't count on those folks ever being your US Senator or even your House Rep, maybe sometimes (mayor perhaps here) but not much, if any more likely than random business man or random retired military personnel.

There used to be more that had worked up unelected ranks so they knew about the machinery and such but I think those are yesterday's story and we are still talking about the one before that.

Now the TeaPubliKlan can be any random nut job (with some predilection for quack doctors and shady business people but seemingly anyone will do) and the DNC has actively seeking whoever has or seems capable of raising money with an extreme prejudice for Chamber of Commerce friendly.

I think increasingly that lack of experience is preferred for the clean slate/project values and policy factors while just painting the other as an insider and/or a puppet of their party leadership and then work the game from there.

[Chathamization]

50. True, people jump in at different points, but a lot work their way up after jumping in.

Many politicians will eventually try to move up higher. You have a valid point, that getting the right people isn’t just about electing that individual at the lower level, and many jump in at higher levels. But the argument is often that there aren’t progressive choices. If people are truly missing progressive choices at the higher levels, they should encourage them from the lower levels. That’s where many progressive choices I’ve seen recently have come from. Most didn’t win, however. The problem wasn’t that there wasn’t any choice and that voting didn’t matter, it was that people didn’t care enough to vote for the good candidates.

Electing better people at the lower levels is one of the ways we can help to ensure that progressive win higher up, since those are the people whose support is needed much of the time when someone jumps in at a higher level (you’ll notice one of the first few things a candidate starts doing is trying to gather political active individuals that will support them). Just having a bunch of money doesn’t mean a whole lot – I’ve seen a number of politicians defeat their better funded foes.

Channels to supporters and networks of organizers are also important. I know the DFA tries to do some of this, and seems to do a decent job, letting people know about good progressives that need support. Elizabeth Warren has been doing some of this too. It’s good, but a lot more people need to get tuned in. I see more posts here about Fox news than DFA. Fox probably gets at least 100 times the attention.

The real difficulty in getting good politicians is getting people to care.

[riqster]

3. Voting isn't everything. But it is foundational.

If it weren't a threat to the oligarchy, why would they be working so hard to take our right to vote away?

[Triana]

6. Exactly! n/t

[Romulox]

4. It's been shown that our vote is meaningless as to policy. nt

[Triana]

7. Especially when 70% of Americans don't bother to do it. n/t

[Romulox]

9. Why should they, when their policy preferences aren't reflected in the candidates? nt

[Triana]

10. No doubt the throwing up of hands and handing over the country

to whoever can buy it is what got us into the mess we're in. So let's do more of that?

I don't think I've ever voted for someone whose policy preferences matched mine perfectly. I pick the best candidate for me and I vote nonetheless.

I really don't think this is a great time to be encouraging or coddling people who don't vote and at the same time whining that the country's gone to shit in the hands of the Kochs et al. That started in the 70s if not earlier. (JBS was at its heyday in the 1950s and 60s I believe). And voter apathy was a problem then too.

I'll admit I have little patience for people who don't vote. Even if they write in someone. IMO, it ought to be a requirement for citizenship. And a national holiday.

[Romulox]

19. Oh gimmeabreak. The country was bought + sold, not "given up".

I really don't think this is a great time to be encouraging or coddling people who don't vote and at the same time whining that the country's gone to shit in the hands of the Kochs et al. That started in the 70s if not earlier. (JBS was at its heyday in the 1950s and 60s I believe). And voter apathy was a problem then too.

At some point reality has to become a factor.

I'll admit I have little patience for people who don't vote. Even if they write in someone. IMO, it ought to be a requirement for citizenship. And a national holiday.

Right. But we get to vote between Corporate Candidate A and Corporate Candidate B. Make people vote for one of two Corporate Candidates, and corporations will still rule. Nothing shows that moreso than the Obama administration.

[global1]

26. So I Take It Romulox That You're Not Going To Vote In November Because Your Vote Won't Make A.....

difference.

[Romulox]

28. Likely, I will not bother. My Rep. is retiring, and his wife is a shoo in. nt

[Chathamization]

13. If a voters votes don’t reflect their policy preference, then voting doesn’t work?

That’s like saying that it’s impossible to buy orange juice, because each time I want orange juice and go out and buy milk I end up with milk. People are getting who they vote for. They just aren’t voting for people that do the things they say they want (for a variety of reasons).

[Romulox]

20. Um, nonsense. There's no OJ available at the store. It's Skim Milk or 2%.

I say, "But I am lactose intolerant!" and you say, "Just drink it!"

[Chathamization]

30. There’s plenty of OJ. But you can’t wait until the day of the presidential election to expect to

have a big influence. Presidential candidates don’t magically appear, they’re the result of a whole political ecosystem. The people who have influence are those who are involved in this ecosystem; those who show up to vote once every 4 years, unsurprisingly, don’t have much influence. If someone ignores local party elections, local primaries, and hell, a lot of the time even statewide primaries, they probably won’t have much of a difference. There are plenty of progressives trying to win in these elections where there’s a miniscule turnout and the people that do show up don’t even bother learning the positions of the candidates. Hell, there’s usually even a number of progressives in the primaries at the top (like Sanders in 2016) that just don’t get support. People don’t bother to vote for them and then pretend they don’t exist.

[jeff47]

18. Cart before the horse.

Public opinion is meaningless to policy because people don't vote.

Politicians only have to please those that bother to show up. Thus the "will of the people" doesn't matter. The people don't show up.

[Romulox]

21. No. Our politicians sell *their votes* for $$$. That's the problem.

We showed up for Obama...

[jeff47]

23. That only works when turnout is low.

We showed up for Obama

No, we didn't.

Turnout in November 2012 was 50-some %. Half of the public did not bother to show up. So politicians, including Obama, did not need to give a fuck about half of the public. In fact, they only needed to worry about 25.1% of the public.

Turnout in November 2010 was 40-some %. Which is why we have to give a fuck about the Republicans anymore - 20.1% of the public inflicted their insanity upon us. If we had shown up, they wouldn't have been able to gerrymander themselves into power.

Even 2008 only got to 60-some %.

[Romulox]

25. But there is zero evidence that higher turnout would change Obama's "centrist" orientation.

That's the unspoken assumption of all these posts: that existing Democrats, like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, would magically be less influenced by corporate dollars if only more people voted.

There's simply no evidence for that assertion.


BTW: I live in Michigan, the state in which the DNC infamously invalidated our early 2008 primaries, and my Representative has served for something like 50 years, after having "inherited" the position from his dad. His wife is the favorite to take his seat!

[jeff47]

34. Existing democrats wouldn't matter. They'd lose.

The candidates on your 2014 general election ballot were selected by the 18% who bothered to vote in the primary.

To keep the numbers simple, let's assume a 50/50 D/R split. Your representative's wife needed to convince 4.6% of the public to vote for her - half of the 18% for her party, then half of that 9% + a smidge.

[Romulox]

44. You forget: the PARTY chooses the candidates. "Super-delegates", etc.

The candidates on your 2014 general election ballot were selected by the 18% who bothered to vote in the primary.

What primary? For President? A half a dozen states plus the "super-delegates" (i.e. well connected insiders) choose the national candidates. As for other Federal representation, my one Senator has been in office since before I could vote, and my US Representative, before I was born (before him, his dad!)

[jeff47]

56. Not really.

President is selected from all the other political positions - it's going to be a governor or senator or similar.

And those people are elected from lower position - House member, state senate, etc.

And those are selected by the 4.6% of the population that bothered to show up for the primary and voted for them.

You want to fix politics? Get people to bother to show up to every election. Pseudo-Republicans will find it difficult to win primaries, instead of easily picking up 4.6% of the vote. That controls who gets on the general ballot. The people who win those general ballots end up being the most likely candidates for higher office.

The alternative is to sit there and impotently whine that no one is good enough.

How 'bout fixing it instead?

[Romulox]

57. People in Michigan had no choice as to who the candidate for President was in 2008. Period.

Short memory, eh?

[jeff47]

65. One election 6 years ago is not every election of all time

Also, if you're going to claim primaries are so utterly important to Michiganders, you should probably not just had a primary with 18% turnout.

[Triana]

68. That was not my assertion. My assertion was...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025410744#post46

You vote for them anyway - 'centrist' or not. Because you KNOW Republicans will vote for their candidate - whether or not they believe theirs is conservative enough or not - they still vote for their candidate. They don't sit home and whine that theirs isn't conservative enough or is too centrist. They VOTE for them - anyway. They might complain about their candidate not being conservative enough - but they more often than not vote for them. And that's not because they expect their vote to "change the centrist orientation". It's because they expect all of their collective votes to change the outcome of the election so their candidates win. When they do this in primaries and mid-terms (like 2010) - and Dems don't bother..well - just look what happened.

[RobinA]

39. Well, There's Only So Much

you can do. But not showing up guarantees you will not be heard. Showing up makes being heard a little more likely if there are enough people saying what you are saying.

And in reference to Obama - Anybody paying attention knew what they were showing up for, but too many were hearing what they wanted to hear.

[Romulox]

43. Your second paragraph kind of negatives your first though.

What if we "knew what (we) were showing up for," and disagreed with it? Then what? VOTE! isn't much consolation.

Nor would a bigger margin for Obama make him any less of a "centrist". On the contrary politicians call such a margin a "mandate".

[napi21]

32. That's not true. What has been shown is

policy is made by the people MOST of the voters elected. If MOST of the voters elect GOPers, thats the policies you get.

What do you think thhings would look like if most of the Obama voters had just stayed home in the last Presidential election? America led bby a "President Romney" (GASP!!!) would be very very different.

Try listening to Norm Goldman's radio show sometime. He's very good at explaining why YOUR SINGLE VOTE doesn't count, but "YOU" togethher with other like minded people can change EVERYTHING!

Go to Normangoldman.com and check the times in your area. You can access his show right from his website if it's not onair in your area. Hes also available on youtube and several other options.

[Romulox]

42. Actually, there no evidence of that whatsoever.

What has been shown is policy is made by the people MOST of the voters elected

No, recent studies show that policy is made by the wealthy. There's no evidence that more people voting (for the same raft of candidates, presumably!) will change that in any way.

[LanternWaste]

41. Hence, the tighter and tighter restrictions being put on voting are merely for show?

Hence, the tighter and tighter restrictions being put on voting are merely for show?

[world wide wally]

11. You're both right…. OUR vote does not count… but THEIR'S does

[spinbaby]

12. It would help if it were easier to vote

I have be registered a month or so ahead of the election and then drive to a polling place about eight miles away. When I was still working, it was a major hassle to vote on a workday and often there were parking shortages and long lines during the hours when working people came in to vote. I vote in every election but it's not always been easy. No same-day registration, no early voting--PA doesn't believe in making voting easy.

[napi21]

35. Here's a link to other posssible voting options in Pa.

http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt/community/how_to_vote/13515/hide_-_voting_by_absentee_ballot_-_vpa/1174088

I used to live in Pa. Voting used to be fairly easy, but I moved a long time ago. I have seen the video of the Pa. Puglican who openly patted himself on the back for passing the "New votter id laws" that were supposed to make it a sure thing that Romney would get the Pa. vote. (HA. Didnt work to well for him thoug, did it?)

You didn't say if you just quit working or retired or what, the at the link it gives you an option to check on special circumstances and possible solutions.

Good luck. Hope it helps you.

[spinbaby]

45. I always vote

I certainly always get out to vote, but PA makes it as cumbersome and difficult as they can get away with. In 2008 when I was canvassing for Obama, several poor areas in the area I was working suddenly had new polling places and people wouldn't have known if we hadn't been going door to door to tell them.

[pinboy3niner]

14. Be careful not to blame the victims

When the system teaches them it can't be trusted, don't be surprised when they don't trust the system.

[Triana]

63. What do you suggest we do? n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

15. Choices sometimes get taken out of our hands.

[Trekologer]

16. Wrong. The voters' indifference absolutely is to blame

Remember the old saying "all politics is local"? That's absolutely true. Almost all politicians start in their local, county, or state governments and the elections for those have abysmally low turnout.

Less than 12% of registered voters participated in the last local election. I'm sure that there are plenty of more individuals who are eligible to vote but aren't registered. In many areas, a mere 100 vote swing could change the outcomes of elections.

If the people of Ferguson, or any other town in the USA, want their local government is change they have to demand it of their elected officials. And if the current elected officials won't do it, the people need to organize and elect candidates who will.

[Chathamization]

37. Yes, and many national politicians start at the local level, so if we’re electing awful people there

it shouldn’t be surprising that we get awful people at the top (and national and statewide campaigns rely on local surrogates, so they have a strong role). Working on the local level one tends to see a ton of apathy and ignorance. Most people don’t even know who’s running, those that do often have no idea of the positions (voting for personal reasons a lot of the time). When people do vote on policy reasons locally, it’s often for selfish reasons (“I won’t vote for the honest politician that will marginally increase my taxes, I’ll vote for their corrupt opponent and then complain about corruption.”).

And after seeing good progressive candidates abandoned by a theoretically progressive public time and time again, the kicker is to find people supposedly interested in politics saying that voting doesn’t accomplish anything and that there aren’t any progressive choices..

[Triana]

46. Exactly. I understand the "well, no politicians support all the policies I want" argument

However, NO politician will likely ever support all the same policies each voter wants - or support them in the same way each voter wants. It's impossible. Obama had views on certain things I didn't like. So does Hillary. Too corporate/hawkish/free-tradish. Absolutely. But if she's the Dem candidate, she WILL get my vote. Because I can promise that EVERY fucking conservative will be voting for their idiot Teabagger/CON candidate. That's one area where conservatives got it all over on us - they goddamn vote for their candidate - even if said nominee isn't as conservative as they'd like or even if said nominee supports policies that the voter doesn't agree with. They STILL vote for them, even if not perfect on every issue. And if Dems don't vote and THEY do - guess what? We end up with the idiot Teabagger/CON. That simple.

I don't find most Dem candidates liberal enough. But I also know the Repubs will vote for theirs no matter what. And if I don't want to end up with theirs...I need to do my part and vote. It's that simple. I suppose it's the 'hold your nose' argument - but I'd like to see someone offer up another viable, workable alternative right now. One that will WORK in 2014 and 2016.

We have to start to re-take control of this country somewhere. And the only place we can do that is right here where we are. And this is where we are. Otherwise, we can just forget it.

Another person here asked: "if voting does no good then why are they trying SO hard to keep us from doing it?"

I want an answer to that. And a workable alternative that will get us somewhere in 2014 and 2016. Absent that, I'm voting. Every chance I get. Voter ID or none. Reduced hours or not. Absentee if I must. But I'm voting.

[JEB]

27. Cut the cops budget by 90% and put that money

into the Public Schools. Then you might get more folks voting. Fuck the police.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Police budgeting is a local issue, voters can have very direct influence and yet almost none take

part. That's the subject of the thread. To say 'put in place officials who carry out policy I like and I will then come vote to retain them' is not reality based.
The world is run by those who show up. The end.

[JEB]

59. All part of the plan.

Dumb down, disenfranchise, incriminate, enslave.

edit to add link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025413841

[The2ndWheel]

29. "It requires constant vigilance and MAINTENANCE."

Right, which is why people vote for career representatives to do that, because nobody has time to be constantly vigilant about and maintaining anything. Normal life is tough enough.

However, it's also tough enough to represent yourself, let alone even one other person, but somehow 1 person is supposed to represent thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people at one time. There's really no good way to do that with a country of 300+ million people. There's just too much distance. Too much physical, emotional, and mental distance. That's why it's easier for politicians to listen to, and take the money from, a handful of lobbyists, instead of listening to the particular problems of thousands of people at the same time.

Someone mentioned all politics being local. Yeah, but our current reality is anything but local. Everything is about the large scale. Right now, the whole country is focused on one city, for example. Everything is about one size fitting all.

They say think globally, and act locally. How has that worked? That's trying to have the best of both worlds, without the downside of either one. That's not how life works. The pieces of the puzzle don't fit together, because they're two different puzzles.

[conservaphobe]

31. People who simply exist and don't participate are part of the problem in this country.

I make no excuses for people who don't vote.

[Triana]

48. I agree. They're not the only problem but definitely part of it.

Between voter apathy and corporate greed, we're screwed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Make election day a holiday or make voting by mail/electronically universal.

Many people find it a pain in the ass to take time off work, stand in the rain, drive, etc. Not to mention disgust with the political system that offers only two items on the menu both funded by corporate money and both for sale to the highest bidders.

[Triana]

52. I agree with that. Voting should be sacrament. Holiday. Weekends. Electronic.

And a requirement for citizenship. It's only not because Repubs/racists are scared shitless what that would do to them. They wouldn't survive it. Demographics are changing. And they are hellbent that they will not change with it. But eventually - they are going to have no choice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. I don't like making it a requirement.

People should be free not to vote if they choose to. Maybe a "none of the above" line would suffice.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. States make their own election laws, some States already vote entirely by mail

People in those States that stand in line and such should be organizing to change their methods.

[raouldukelives]

61. Yep. For every person legitimately trying to GOTV for liberal candidates

There are a hundred people whose investments in money & labor for Wall St push back against those efforts.
Some of those people even try to GOTV for liberal candidates themselves. Which is better than nothing. But at the end of the day, a wash at best.

[Triana]

62. Fabulous. Then we suggest libs just don't bother voting now.

No wonder we're f*cked over the past 50+ years with that attitude.

[raouldukelives]

64. Well, I wouldn't suggest it. But thanks to the efforts of Wall St investors.

We have a harder hill to climb for sure.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Collective action problem, one vote makes no difference and everyone understands that on some level

I'm not saying that people shouldn't vote, I vote and you should too. But at the end of the day, people who do vote do it because they feel it's important that they participate in the system. They're not seriously convinced that their one vote will alter a Presidential election. Though ironically it has a somewhat reasonable chance of altering a local election, yet people are MUCH LESS likely to show up for these than for Presidential elections.

People who feel the system is just totally stacked against them simply won't give a shit about participating in said system. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can bitch at them about it all they want and maybe it will get some of them to start showing up, but not in any unprecedented earth shattering numbers.

There is no quick and easy solution to this problem, including shaming the non-voters. It simply doesn't work.

[Triana]

67. A few things:

Make voting easier, not harder ie: vote electronically, or by mail.
Make voting day(s) a holiday and require employers to give time off for it.
Make voting mandatory.

Instead, of course, the US is moving the opposite direction - as it most often is bassackwards on this and most other issues. That is because it helps the Republicans, who are owned by the corporations/Wall St/Kochs and are in control (even though we have a Dem Pres and Dem majority in the Senate - Republicans are STILL in control). They don't want Democrats voting. So they make it harder. In many places near impossible. And millions of Dem voters just don't bother anyway. (would rather whine)

Viola! Republican majority/rule forevah.

We're done.

[Cosmocat]

69. You are absolutely correct!

I have fought the fight, I have run for and held office and been active in the county democratic party.

As time has gone on, I have come to know that our government is a reflection of US.

There are about 25%of the VOTING public making sober, common sense decisions.

A greater portion of the voting public greedily lap up republican bullshit.

A FAR greater portion of the public at large don't vote.

And, it isn't going to get better.

[TorchTheWitch]

70. when the chioice of who to votte for is

six of one, half a dozen of the other I can see why people don't vote.