• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abysmal Voter Turnout Implications

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,769
Reaction score
1,936
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Early figures show fewer Americans cast votes in 2012 race than in 2008 | StarTribune.com

According to estimates, voter turnout nationally in the 2012 election will end up being just a bit above 60% of those eligible to vote.

Voter turnout therefore is definitely less than in 2008, more so than can be accounted for by Frankenstorm Sandy .. and that's truly abysmal.

So, what does this mean?

First of all, it means that nearly 40% of eligible voters didn't show up.

And why didn't they show up?

Because the great majority of people, the "silent majority" at the center of the political spectrum, simply had no one on the Presidential ballot to get excited about, without which, they simply stayed home.

It is reasonably safe to conclude that most of the 10% of the population who are truly liberal (Democrat) and the 10% of the population who are truly conservative (Republican), they showed up, and the roughly 5% to the left of liberal and the right of conservative, including schizoid libertarians, most of these voted too, though it does appear that a number of them simply faced reality and voted for either Obama or Romney.

That leaves roughly 75% of the population, those who calibrate at the center of the political spectrum, who had to decide on the lesser of two evils or simply not to show up .. and it appears that over half of them stayed home.

It is truly sad when so many American citizens are unrepresented by the current political offerings that they either have to hold their nose to vote or the stench is so overpowering they can't get within voting distance of a polling place.

If there was ever any indication that the time was right for centrists to come together and create their own party, this was it.

And when Obama commences to resume his dismantling of America via amnesty and legalization of 20 million illegals in "strategic" increments, fueling the race-war he explictly knowingly baited in his campaign rhetoric, more borrowing from non-American sources to increase the foreign ownership of America, increased taxes, increased meaningless unessential spending, increased debt in general, doing nothing to end out-sourcing American jobs and bring our jobs back home ... oh, yes, the great silent majority will indeed become very vocal; they will have to, or, they will die forever as a political force, along with our nation, succumbing to Obama's Multi-Cultural Internationalist ideological mindset fantasy of a one-world nationless borderless U.N. government, with all workers everywhere on the globe earning the same amount of abject poverty wages, and that includes Americans.

The evolutionary phenomenological cycle of the party split, creating liberal Dems and conservative Repubs, the two polarizing so extremely as they have now to create a vast opening at the center for the next evolutionary stage in politics, the emergence of that stage to dominate and render the previous two polemics to "third party" status, the eventual split of the new centrists into two parts, their slow polarization to the degree of liberal Dems and conservative Repubs today, opening the door for another new centrist offering .. all is a normal part of historic political philosophy evolutionary change.

The new centrist offering is most definitely on its way .. let's just hope that Obama doesn't kill America off before the new centrist offering can save America.

For those idealistically fantasizing that The Libertarian Party is a player, it turned out that the comparative microscopic number of votes cast for Johnson was meaningless. Libertarians, it's time to come back to reality. No ideology that is in any way wingish is going to grow at all, and libertarianism, being a schizoid left-wing on social issues and right-wing on economic-fiscal issues, is thus simply not a player. Only in Florida did the tiny half percent of Johnson votes have an effect on letting Obama edge out Romney, and in no other state did Libertarian Party votes figure into the contest in that manner.

And, in California, Johnson garnered only twice as many votes as .. Rossane Barr. If any more proof is needed for libertarians that theirs is a lost cause, I don't know what it is.

It is time for a new centrist offering in American politics, to bring liberty and justice to all American citizens, to bring our jobs back to America, and to restore prosperity to American citizens, all American citizens, regardless of race, color or creed, and to bring America back from the brink of becoming a soverignless and dependent U.N. city-state.

Tick tock, Americans.
 
The silent majority meme makes its comeback!

Thank you Mr. Nixon.
 
Given the choice of Obama or Obama-lite (Romney) was a tough call for me too. Neither will get anything changed (because congress is basically the same), so I am content to let the demorat label remain on the current federal economic mess. Until the US voter grows a pair and votes out all of the clowns now in power during the primaries we will continue to get to "choose" between big gov't fool #1 and big gov't fool #2. USA, USA, USA...
 
Do you guys honestly believe "cutting government down to it's bones" is the solution to our problems?
 
i'd support a national standard for early voting. perhaps a month or so. no one should have to stand in line for even one hour, much less seven.

additionally, every adult American should be registered to vote automatically, and that registration should not end until they die or are otherwise disqualified. tie it to social security number. if you're over 18, you are registered.

after that, it's up to voters to care enough to show up. but i'm for removing obstacles between adult citizens and voting.
 
It's somewhat ironic to see an OP from a conservative bemoaning lack turnout, when the GOP strategy for the past 30 years has been to suppress voter turnout.
 
And when Obama commences to resume his dismantling of America via amnesty and legalization of 20 million illegals in "strategic" increments

That's a dead issue. An uncompromising zero tolerance approach has no political viability. "Amnesty" as it is derisively described was not an important factor in exit polling. It didn't rank on the list of issues garnering support from 4% or more of the electorate.

Exit polls: Top issues for voters – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

At the same time, the large difference in which Hispanic voters cast their ballots for the President (President Exit Polls - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com) presents a serious problem for the GOP, especially as Hispanics account for a growing share of the nation's population and are likely to do so for well into the future.

Those factors suggest that a more realistic immigration stance will be required, unless the GOP wants to write off a sizable chunk of the Hispanic vote for the long-term.

Elements will likely include a degree of forgiveness, providing opportunities for remedying an undocumented status, development of mechanisms to ensure future immigration is largely legal, fast-tracking immigrants currently in the legal process, and offering greater legal opportunities e.g., work-related/temporary stay documentation on a more rapid basis to those who might otherwise seek to come to live/work in the U.S. without seeking the currently slow but legal route. Technology has provided tools for a more efficient and responsive immigration system. Policy should leverage that technology.
 
Voting should be compulsory, as it is in Brazil (where they actually have voting machines that are secure and functional).
 
Given the choice of Obama or Obama-lite (Romney) was a tough call for me too. Neither will get anything changed (because congress is basically the same), so I am content to let the demorat label remain on the current federal economic mess. Until the US voter grows a pair and votes out all of the clowns now in power during the primaries we will continue to get to "choose" between big gov't fool #1 and big gov't fool #2. USA, USA, USA...
Yes .. the US voter needs to vote all the clowns out of office.

To do that, however, they need to have someone less clownishly buffoonish to vote in.

It's difficult for me to be too harsh on centrist American voters. They'd most certainly vote for a great candidate if one was present.

It's time that the number of separate movments to create the centrist offering begin working together to unite in a common foundational philosophy, and break ground in creating a centrist party and attracting solid level-headed competent America-supporting candidates.
 
Do you guys honestly believe "cutting government down to it's bones" is the solution to our problems?
The size of government is comparatively greatly secondary.

Government needs to grow and shrink in situational response to the tasks at hand.

Though extremes in size, microscopically too small or gargantuanly too large, are understandably to most always be avoided, the usual left v. right debate about government size is truly greatly secondary to what is most important about government.

Indeed, what is most important about government is that it truly functions to provide for the common defense and support the general welfare of all U.S. citizens.

That requires government officials who not only realize that is the function of government, but who possess the talent, skills and experience to utilize government well and unto that end.
 
It's somewhat ironic to see an OP from a conservative bemoaning lack turnout, when the GOP strategy for the past 30 years has been to suppress voter turnout.
Your phrase "it's somewhat ironic to see" is a fantasy, as the OP was not written by a conservative, obviously. Thus your point is rendered meaningless from the get-go.

Whether or not your assertion of the GOP strategy is true, or even if the Dems have done similar, is irrelevant.

What's relevant is that a ton of people didn't show up to vote because neither of the two main candidates represented them, nor did any of the "third" parties as well.

For 75% of eligible voters, they will show up to vote when they know the party and candidate represents them .. or if they can find a clothespin large enough to pinch their nostrils sufficiently closed to stomach entering the voting booth and voting for the lesser of two very stinky evils, the case so many had to deal with yesterday.
 
That's a dead issue. An uncompromising zero tolerance approach has no political viability. "Amnesty" as it is derisively described was not an important factor in exit polling. It didn't rank on the list of issues garnering support from 4% or more of the electorate.

Exit polls: Top issues for voters – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

At the same time, the large difference in which Hispanic voters cast their ballots for the President (President Exit Polls - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com) presents a serious problem for the GOP, especially as Hispanics account for a growing share of the nation's population and are likely to do so for well into the future.

Those factors suggest that a more realistic immigration stance will be required, unless the GOP wants to write off a sizable chunk of the Hispanic vote for the long-term.

Elements will likely include a degree of forgiveness, providing opportunities for remedying an undocumented status, development of mechanisms to ensure future immigration is largely legal, fast-tracking immigrants currently in the legal process, and offering greater legal opportunities e.g., work-related/temporary stay documentation on a more rapid basis to those who might otherwise seek to come to live/work in the U.S. without seeking the currently slow but legal route. Technology has provided tools for a more efficient and responsive immigration system. Policy should leverage that technology.
None of what you posit here has any political relevance if the great majority at the center of the political spectrum can be represented by a new centrist party and candidates in the very near fuure.

Then, race, color, creed, none of that will matter, as the great centrist majority could care less about such things, such things which are only of pandering value to the extreme wings of liberal and conservative.

What the great majority of American citizens care about is that illegals not be pardoned with amnesty and legalization, that American laws be enforced, that wage-scales not be made to plummet by legalizing 20 million illegals, and that American jobs be returned to American citizens.

But if all that we have left are liberal Dems via conservative Repubs, complete with race-baiting and threats of race-wars to compel capitulation to do the wrong thing by American citizens, then America will continue to spiral downward, and it will be increasingly harder for American citizens to stay out of poverty.

There is nothing wrong with our present great laws on the matter that enforcing them, in the name of all American citizens, would not truly reflect.
 
Yes .. the US voter needs to vote all the clowns out of office.

To do that, however, they need to have someone less clownishly buffoonish to vote in.

It's difficult for me to be too harsh on centrist American voters. They'd most certainly vote for a great candidate if one was present.

It's time that the number of separate movments to create the centrist offering begin working together to unite in a common foundational philosophy, and break ground in creating a centrist party and attracting solid level-headed competent America-supporting candidates.

Staring a new party is far harder than to control the outcome of either the demorats' or the republicants' primary outcomes. It is only at the primary level that change can occur, as the incumbent gains too much power in the general election. Change has to start at the local/state level and during the primary elections or too much national funding has to be overcome. Starting a "fringe" party requires far more effort than "steering" one of the existing parties a bit, IMHO.
 
What the great majority of American citizens care about is that illegals not be pardoned with amnesty and legalization...

The problem with this hypothesis is that national polls (not just exit polls among those who voted) also reveal that the immigration policy issue is a relative non-factor when it comes to national priorities. Immigration garnered no more than 5% support in all of this year's national priorities polls.

Priorities
 
Staring a new party is far harder than to control the outcome of either the demorats' or the republicants' primary outcomes. It is only at the primary level that change can occur, as the incumbent gains too much power in the general election. Change has to start at the local/state level and during the primary elections or too much national funding has to be overcome. Starting a "fringe" party requires far more effort than "steering" one of the existing parties a bit, IMHO.
It is completely impossible to steer a fringe party to the center, as short of renaming that party and completely changing its foundational philosophy, there's a reason it's a fringe party. There is likely just as much legal administrative work in hijacking a pre-existing party structure and renaming and gutting it as there is in simply creating something new.

As for primaries, all the pre-existing parties fielded some kind of clown this year, because such was the fringe wingish philosophy of the party under which the understandable clown ran.

There simply was no centrist candidate, no candidate to represent the philosophy of the great "silent majority" of 75% of American citizens, offerred by the pre-existing parties in the primaries, and understandably so.

As is historic in political evolution, a brand new party at the center of the political spectrum that represents the great majority of Americans now bunched up there, is absolutely required.
 
It is completely impossible to steer a fringe party to the center, as short of renaming that party and completely changing its foundational philosophy, there's a reason it's a fringe party. There is likely just as much legal administrative work in hijacking a pre-existing party structure and renaming and gutting it as there is in simply creating something new.

As for primaries, all the pre-existing parties fielded some kind of clown this year, because such was the fringe wingish philosophy of the party under which the understandable clown ran.

There simply was no centrist candidate, no candidate to represent the philosophy of the great "silent majority" of 75% of American citizens, offerred by the pre-existing parties in the primaries, and understandably so.

As is historic in political evolution, a brand new party at the center of the political spectrum that represents the great majority of Americans now bunched up there, is absolutely required.

Good luck.
 
The problem with this hypothesis is that national polls (not just exit polls among those who voted) also reveal that the immigration policy issue is a relative non-factor when it comes to national priorities. Immigration garnered no more than 5% support in all of this year's national priorities polls.

Priorities
Your spin is irrelevant and meaningless, and thus your take on the matter is erroneous.

The issue is about law enforcement and about the dire economic consequences of failing to enforce our laws.

As your link presents, the economic matters were foundational in this election, however too many people voted ideologically, blinded to the grave economic consequences of failing to enforce our laws against trespassing, identity-forging, and job/classroom/other-resource stealing. It is indeed economically paramount that we enforce these laws.

Here is a relevantly presented link on dealing with law-breakers, specifically those breaking the laws I just listed: ~

This is not a euphemistically spun "immigration" issue.

It's purely a law enforcement issue with respect to the relevant laws being violated.
 
Yup. As I've argued from the beginning, this was a "base" election. The Democrats were able to bring their base out - Republicans were not.
 
Your spin is irrelevant and meaningless, and thus your take on the matter is erroneous.

My position is supported by concrete polling data. If you believe my position is erroneous, please provide some credible empirical data that shows that a significant slice of the population considers the immigration issue a national priority. Your link to your post (which also contains a reference to a blog) provides opinion, but not the kind of empirical data to show that my conclusion is incorrect.
 
My position is supported by concrete polling data. If you believe my position is erroneous, please provide some credible empirical data that shows that a significant slice of the population considers the immigration issue a national priority. Your link to your post (which also contains a reference to a blog) provides opinion, but not the kind of empirical data to show that my conclusion is incorrect.
You're being purposely obtuse, either that or you simply do not comprehend the dire economic consequences of providing amnesty and pardon to trespassers, identity-forgers, job-stealers and related criminals.

This is not an "immigration" issue.

It is a law enforcement issue motivated by economic concerns with respect to justice for all American citizens.

The link I provided presented those valid economic and justice concerns.

Either learn about the economic cost of failing to enforce our laws or stop being so purposely obtuse .. and that will further discussion in this thread.
 
You're being purposely obtuse, either that or you simply do not comprehend the dire economic consequences of providing amnesty and pardon to trespassers, identity-forgers, job-stealers and related criminals.

I was looking to see if there was some new empirical data on the topic indicating that there would be "dire economic consequences." All the economic iterature I've seen suggests costs in some areas, benefits in others, with a modest net impact (positive or negative depending on the study).
 
The Democrats are not "truly liberal" and the Republicans are not "truly conservative".
 
I was looking to see if there was some new empirical data on the topic indicating that there would be "dire economic consequences." All the economic iterature I've seen suggests costs in some areas, benefits in others, with a modest net impact (positive or negative depending on the study).
:roll:

3k9c11a5u1q7
 
Voter turnout in the US has always been pathetic compared to other industrialized countries and even compared to most 3rd world countries that have a democracy. That the turnout will be lower this time around is not a big shocker, but you have to look at the different parts of the electorate and state wise. Much of the lower turnout came actually in red states like Texas and not so much in blue states. So the enthusiasm gap the GOP kept ranting on about did exist... among their own people.

And 60% voter turnout is bullcrap... it is 60% of registered voters, but far from all eligible citizens are registered... which they are in other countries. Regardless, it is pathetic numbers for a country that claims be the banner democratic voice on the planet.
 
Back
Top Bottom