Why do you suppose there is so much voter apathy, as reflected in turn out #'s at the polls? I think heard there was somewhere around 50% turnout during the last Presidential election
It's not a uniquely American phenomenon, either. Voter turnout has been pretty much decreasing across the board in democracies around the world the last several decades. I wonder why?
People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor
I don't think we need to look much further than the current debacle in Washington. People have become so disillusioned by politics and the failure of our elected representives to solve problems, pass budgets, or really do anything that doesn't cause more harm than good. So they figure why bother voting, what good will it do to change things? For the first time in my life I've started to think this way myself.Originally posted by Maister
I stand corrected. I looked up the voter turnout numbers and it appears the last Presidential election had 57% turnout. Take a look at these historic voter turnout figures over the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_t...tial_elections
It's interesting to note that the highest turnout ever was on the eve of the Civil War in 1960. The lowest was in the years before the stock market crashed. What does that suggest?
People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor
An in general lack of civic engagement by the populous. Election and politics has turned into just another form of entertainment. A massive disconnect between the election process and actual governing. Chunks of the population simply don't care and are wrapped up in their daily lives.
When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?
We had a Second Civil War?
I found you a new motto from a sign hanging on their wall…"Drink coffee: do stupid things faster and with more energy"
Don't you remember? It was held in Alabama and Mississippi mostly - something to do with Gov. Wallace & schools right?
As far as voter apathy is concerned, by the time the actual election is held, I'm so tired of the negative advertising - I mean campaigning.
"Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
Some of it has to be how we don't exactly make it easy to vote in this country. People have jobs, kids and other responsibilities and can't necessarily wait in line to vote on a work day. I'm not even getting into allegations that politicians are trying to make voting more difficult. Would it really be that hard to make election day a holiday in place of some other holiday? (I'm looking at you Columbus Day).
Good news is around 1985 it seemed things were much better. The New South was back in the fold. People kept collecting Confederate money, not because they thought it was coming back into circulation, but more as a keepsake. The Deep South embraced the Party of Lincoln to their collective bosom, because it became something Lincoln would not have liked.
"I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."
~ Otterpop ~
[doubles down]Yeah, you heard me right. That wasn't a typo!![/doubles down]
The fact that numbers are dropping around the world suggests that there's large scale disenchantment with the process of democracy. For instance, the infotainment of American politics might explain a drop here, but what about somewhere like India?
People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor
I think Democracy (or any governmental form that involves the people as opposed to enslaving them) runs on a societal mixture that is made up of three parts: Necessity, self-interest and altruism. As society "progresses" we are slowly seeing an erosion in the altruism, and people are becoming more ignorant of even their own self interests (you heard all those people not knowing that the Affordable Care Act IS Obamacare on Jimmy Kimmel, wtf?) And even beyond not knowing they're the same thing they don't understand what it means. And it's not complicated (as an idea, not as legislation) so what I assume is that people don't care....or more correctly they don't care as much as they care about the current flame war they're having with their neighbor on Facebook, or the latest video clip of some ass-hat getting hit in the crotch with a football.
You can't make people care. Not about society, not about their neighbor, and not even about themselves half the time. It's why I enjoy Cyburbia so much. Love all the Cyburbians or hate them, at least they're ENGAGED in what's going on around them. We're all (or mostly) planners. As such, we were naturally engaged in and intrigued by society and the world. That's how we all came to the profession. Spend a little time observing the conversations of a bunch of people who are not really engaged (e.g. those Jimmy Kimmel interviews) and it's not very affirming.
Just my view.
"...I would never try to tick Hink off. He kinda intimidates me. He's quite butch, you know." - Maister
One reason may be due to the sheer number of people that now exist. There has been a number of studies that examine democratic governance function in relation to organizational size. Dunbar's number is around 150, other sociological research puts the number closer to 200. Basically, for a true democracy (voting is not the end all be all of democracy), it is theorized that one must have a small relatively homogenized group that can come to agreement on issues. Too many people, too much disagreement. That's one of the reasons why Occupy failed.
Another reason may be due to the increasing urbanization of the world, and in particular, those areas we attribute to being democracies. Generally, we are talking about westernized countries engaging in democratic voting, as opposed to say communes. Those countries, like India, are becoming more urbanized. Urbanization is directly linked to anomie, the feeling of isolation and declining community. Why vote when the social capital of the vote is so low?
Voting may be declining, but I personally think that is more of a function of centralized governance. Here are three links to an ongoing series about Global Left changes The emerging left in the emerging world introduction; part 2; part 3. Part 2 has a section directly on democracy. Basically, the gist is that globally, we are seeing increased ballot box democracies but also a growing pluralism that doesn't enjoy top down bureaucratic party politics.
Looking at the U.S., we only have, at most, two legitimate choices for national politics, and both of those choices are pretty much the exact same thing. Voting is a paradox, it serves no economic purpose for the person voting. (In certain areas, it actually becomes an obvious hindrance. I know that my voting information can be bought and sold, inviting capitalism into the process) Any one person's vote will never matter in a large election. Given these truisms it would only seem natural that people would stop voting. Change in governance can still occur, but it takes pluralist organizations. Look at the Tea Party. They are the modern democracy, even if they aren't nationally popular. Of course this type of democracy is problematic in the U.S.. A meta study just came out showing that people really dislike activists. Going further, it could be surmised with that research, that people in the U.S. actually dislike democracy.
Wow, that is a rough conclusion. It may be right. With approval of congress at 12%, what larger percentage of the population would actually care if it went away? I could take that one far down the rabbit hole. That is a very scary thought.
I think structural barriers to voting account for much of the % that does not vote. I will call it half. The following voting changes could help immensely:
Voting should take place over 3 days
the last day should be on a national holiday.
The national holiday should be on MONDAY or Friday
Early, email, and absentee balloting should be expanded
I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(
That is why it has work well in places like Switzerland, Austria and the such. Conversely, democracy hasn't worked well in Russia for the same reason.
When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?
And even that 57 percent turnout for the presidential election was so much better than non-presidential elections. I think 2 things really drive the lack of turnout. 1) It's not always easy to vote. It often requires taking time off work, losing money in the process. It's too bad we are actually making laws recently making it harder to vote. 2) Fear, hate and anger are the biggest drivers of bringing people to the polls. There is a reason why the tea party people are much more represented in elections than their numbers would otherwise indicate. I do think that the hate and anger represented by these people will end up backfiring at some point, but so far that anger has been a successful motivational strategy. If you aren't terribly unhappy with things you are less inclined to take the effort to vote.
Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.
I think it might be because people either don't think their vote counts or they don't trust those who are running. Elections today are all about money. If you don't have major funding, you don't stand a chance. Most of the time, only the top two money earners actually have a chance (although Ross Perot showed that it could be 3 if the funding was there... But that handed the election to Clinton)
On the other hand, in the book Freedom Shift the author says that most major political decisions are guided by 5%, and that in reality it takes about 3% of these "decision makers" to make things happen. These are the political elite, the mass media, and the big money people. Everyone else who votes based their judgement from what they hear from the 5%. That is why the small guy does not stand a chance of winning a national election without their backing.
However, I think that hot button local issues have a better chance of getting larger voter turnouts because then the vote matters and it becomes personal.
Me: "I am sorry, but the Ordinance and the Master Plan does not permit that at this time. But if you would like to request amendments, this 355 page document outlines the procedure. You will need…. (CLIPPED TO ACCOMMODATE LIMIT) …. It will likely take 36 to 48 months to get final approvals. Then you can submit for a building permit and break ground Would you like to get started with the process?
Applicant: "Geeze, a simple No you can't do that would have worked"
Thats not how it actually works. The more local the election on average, the lower the voter turn out. Here in WI, Town government may have way fewer than 100 voters in a Town with a population of 1,500 to 3,000 people. WI has one of the highest rates of political participation in the country. If small government is your belief in higher turnout, I think you need to keep searching for a better model.
Hot button issue do bring out a higher vote turnout, but only marginally so. In the case of a Town in the County next door to me, they wanted to turn almost 1/8 of the county into a CAFO. It had high participation... of a few hundred individuals. Way below even mid term election levels. Maybe 15% at best.
I have no idea why people do not participate. Take all of the ideas I have read here and everywhere else and they all have some bit of truth. I think there are as many reasons as there are people. Most people have bad explanations for not participating.
I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(
Agree. the city i work for has a population of roughly 40,000. Mayoral elections rarely turn out more than 700 to 900 voters. Councilmen are elected on total vote counts of less than 400. Turnout is abysmal.
"...I would never try to tick Hink off. He kinda intimidates me. He's quite butch, you know." - Maister
I agree that this scenario can create feelings of individual apathy, but I don't think that this scenario is inherently a bad thing. I presented a paper at a Transnationality, Citizenship, and Identity conference, where I argued that the people that create the decision making environments are advocacy planners. The planner utilizes the elites you mentioned to accomplish plan goals, whatever those goals may be. This is like grasstop/grassroot organizing, where campaigners seek those individuals with large social networks (grasstops) to disseminate information to others (grassroots). The network may involve power elites, but the actual decisions can be fabricated by those creating the network, which can in turn be the small guy. I used Muhammad Yunus' personal Bangladesh independence narrative and reflections from Anonymous members during Occupy Wall Street to establish the parameters of advocacy planning.
Quote
