This article tries to fathom why so few Americans vote. It finally gets around to saying that the nonvoters just aren't "connected."
Most broadly, the poll found that nonvoters are not just disconnected from politics, but also from their communities. Nonvoters were less likely to trust others, to have a strong support network of friends and family or to know their neighbors than regular voters were.
Among those who were unregistered, only 14 percent said it was complicated to register where they live. Most had not done so because they lacked the time, had not gotten around to it, had no confidence in politicians or just did not care.
The United States lags about 130 countries in voter participation. Discount ones that enforce compulsory voting laws — fewer than a dozen — and America's standing hardly improves.
I'm not so sure about that. I think even the dullest or most "uninvolved" of us do things if they think there is some benefit in it. Nonvoters obviously see no connection between voting and what goes on in their daily lives. Most of those who write about the subject -- including me -- put some kind of negative spin on it. Either the voters just don't get it, or the politicians have abused us to the point that we let cynicism get the better of us.
But if a great many people indeed feel they can live their normal lives no matter what the "ruling class" does, isn't that at least in part a positive thing? Maybe it's a sign that, no matter how much we gripe about intrusive government and diminishing rights, we really do have a great deal of freedom in this country. There are certain things we would never give up and no government would dare try to take away, so the restrictions we suffer are within fairly well defined and understood parameters that really don't change much no matter who is in power.
If you look at it that way, "voter apathy" can be taken as a sign that our representative democracy is actually pretty healthy and working just the way it is supposed to.
Comments
You just keep thinking that way, ... Instead of "Nonvoters obviously see no connection between voting and what goes on in their daily lives" I tend to think it's "Nonvoters obviously see no connection between voting and what goes on in Washington.", ...seems to me that between the far left and the far right (which seems to be all that's represented) the moderates (most of the people in the country) have no-one to vote for.
Leo, you make an interesting observation. It's pretty apparent to most folks, if they don't vote on Tuesday their life really won't change one iota. I think there really is a sense that things really won't change a hell of a lot for most folks no matter who is in Washington, and I guess that bodes well for our style of democracy. Even with all it's flaws (which truly are minimal compared to other forms of government) this system pretty much hums right along allowing the passionate partisans of both sides equal time and representation.
From a historical perspective, our form of government, with all it's freedoms, is in it's infancy. It'll be interesting to see if voter participation increases as the threat to our way of life gets closer and closer.
That may be true some of the time but not now.
If the desperate Democrats get back control of this government now, a lot of important matters will go topsy-turvy, because the liberals will see to it, while the getting is good.
The only thing that will prevent a complete socialist revolution is the probable lack of 2/3rds majority to overrule presidential vetos.
It's far better at this time to elect better coservatives than to send a liberal to Washington.
A socialist revolution? From the party of Bill "NAFTA" Clinton? I don't think so.