Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:03 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Voter Apathy - Is Progressivism the Cause? Back to Topics
MahopacJack

Champion Author
New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2013 1:58:09 PM

Looking at Wikipedia's history of voter turnout since 1828, there is a tremendous change following the 1912 Presidential Election.

The data and the accompanying graph, show stark differences between the years prior to 1912 to those after that election. Of the 22 Presidential elections prior to 1912, voter turnouts were primarily in the 70 to 81.8% range. There were only 7 voter turnouts below 70%

After 1912 there were 25 Presidential elections, every single election was below 70%, 19 were below 60% and 3 were below 50%.

The 1912 election was the last year of non-Progressive Government. Although Progressivism had made inroads into the curtailment of personal liberties, it was not until 1913 when the role of the Federal Government began dramatically imposing its will on citizens. First with the establishment of the Federal Reserve (Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL) and followed with the "Progressive Era" Amendments (16 - Direct Taxation of citizens (Founders were against the direct taxation of citizens), 17 - Direct election of Senators (A possible UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as it violates States Rights) , 18 - Prohibition, and 19- Woman's Suffrage.)

Since 1912 Voter participation has plummeted with the only real change being Progressive Politicians essentially taking over our Government. Has Progressivism risen to the point where it has not only destroyed our freedoms but we also find it impossible to change the direction of our country?

Your thoughts and, if you agree we are headed in the wrong direction, how do we change course?
~
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 3:46:44 PM

SemiSteve, >>I'd say a major reason for voter apathy is they feel the political game is rigged on both sides by big money.<<
~
The a logical conclusion is, "both' sides work against the individual citizen.

An example, the people who were supposed to be helped by the "Affordable" Care Act were the only ones who didn't receive any waivers and resulted in generally higher costs for the people it was supposed to help. Did any of the major Pharmaceutical Companies oppose this legislation? Medical insurers?

Another example, Estate Taxes. The only people effected by the Estate Tax are the ones who cannot afford the legal advice.

Yet another, Corporate Taxes, guess who pays them?

The list could go on for quite some time but these and most other legislated means of separating funds from those with large financial resources some how escape any real harm. This is where those supporting the Progressive Movement are in realty helping those RUNNING the Progressive Movement. Truly a sad state of affairs.

[Edited by: MahopacJack at 9/13/2013 3:49:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,331
Points:439,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 2:55:16 PM

I'd say a major reason for voter apathy is they feel the political game is rigged on both sides by big money.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 12:18:03 PM

gocatgo, >>Maho, since progressives kicked the Gop's butt the apathy of not voting falls in the lap of the Gop that has no doubt lost it's way thanks to their zealots.<<
~
Depends on what you mean as 'zealots.'

The GOP nomination of 'Progressive' Republicans in elections does hinder the vote from many who believe the Government should stay within the confines of the US Constitution. To the Patriots who choose not to vote for lessor of two evils, it matters little what speed you're going towards Perdition. The destination is the same.

If you consider people who believe that a Government should obey the law to be 'zealots,' then your analysis is correct but you labelling is faulty. Your 'zealots' should be called, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, TEA Party members, or principled Republicans.
~
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,062
Points:3,141,635
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 11:35:56 AM

Maho, since progressives kicked the Gop's butt the apathy of not voting falls in the lap of the Gop that has no doubt lost it's way thanks to their zealots.

Pop, "voters are getting tired of it"? Since Syria has entered into the conversation it would appear most dems are against military action. Also some dems are not on board with Obamacare. So your "Obama is always right" remark is not quite true. However "I'm voting against Obama because he is always wrong" pretty much sums up cons in the last 5 years. A vote on "term limits" is asking politicians to police themselves, good luck with that. But I do agree with term limits. I also think politicians should not be allowed to be lobbyist in D C after leaving office for at least 5 years.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,542
Points:1,526,635
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 9:59:46 AM

Term Limits.
No More Career Politicians
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,174
Points:757,155
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2013 12:39:27 PM

PopcornPirate, I agree with you completely. That's what I've been saying for months.

BOTH parties are guilty of it. It's not the exclusive domain of either the left or the right.

This thread, and many others with a similar tone, are good examples of what you're saying.

Until we get beyond this meme of blaming everything on the other guy, never willing to look at our own side as possibly sharing the blame, and never willing to compromise, the country will just sink deeper and deeper into the pit.

Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,542
Points:1,526,635
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2013 9:06:35 AM

You only see Far Left or Far Right candidates.
There are no moderates that are willing to compromise & work out a deal. Every politician thinks that if they compromise their party will see them as weak & drum them out of office the next go around.

ALL Politicians
I'M Voting With Obama because he is always right.
OR
I'm Voting against Obama because he is always wrong.

This is where the politicians sit.
Voters are getting tired of it.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2013 7:02:21 PM

Critique 1, >>No proof of cause and effect. Just clinging to a thin thread of assumption.<<

Critique 2, >>As I said previously, everything you wrote is just another lame attempt to bash progressivism, but none of it has any basis in fact.<<

Critique 3, >>Latest conservative whine. We (cons) cannot win so it is the opposition's fault. Yep, they connect with voter better than you do. It IS their fault!<<

~
For those that don't know it when they experience it - The History of Progressivism in the United States

From the link, "In the early 20th century, politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, Bull-Moose Republicans, Lincoln–Roosevelt League Republicans (in California) and the United States Progressive Party began to pursue social, environmental, political, and economic reforms. "

Based upon the last quote from Wikipedia, it would appear that Progressivism IS certainly a contributing factor in why voters do not appear at the polls as they once did. It would HAVE TO BE as it would be impractical to think that if there is no real difference between parties, why should a rational person take the time to vote.? Over time political parties, especially when there are only two major parties, with the same general agenda would most likely result in lower and lower voter participation. The only real difference is the extent of what one party promises and the other party states that it would be unsustainable to have government fund these benefits in the future.

If the second party is indeed correct that future funding will become impossible, a very serious condition is created. How will the Government raise funds to pay for the promised benefits?

Taxation? There are limits to taxation.

Austerity? WHOA! Mention that and people become enraged that they may have to do with less.

Increase in economic activity? A possible answer as society in general increases its wealth which would allow better funding but how is that accomplished when it is far easier to collect subsidies from a ever generous (with other people's money) government?

So, I again ask (especially of my critics). " Your thoughts and, if you agree we are headed in the wrong direction, how do we change course?"
~
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,331
Points:439,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 12:57:05 PM

As fools can imagine the only thing of consequence that occurred during the era surrounding the year 1912 is that progressivism was undergoing a continuing uptick.

Of course, most people with an open mind understand that LOTS of other things also happened in that time frame. Many of which have been pointed out in the discussion below, and subsequently disregarded and dismissed by closed minds.

In order to stick to an absurd theory that progressivism is bad it is necessary to block out all else and focus on one little thing, and claim that to be the cause of a shift in voting participation. And also to claim that nothing else could have an effect. A little hard to swallow, indeed.

No proof of cause and effect. Just clinging to a thin thread of assumption.

Kind of like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,062
Points:3,141,635
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 10:45:57 AM

Pan, "people of color are a minority", I agree. However in larger cities their vote can make a difference. Many whites do not agree with the new voter I D laws either. "The uninvolved ignorant electorate"? You might want to take a long look at the cons that sat out the last election. Don't be a sore loser attacking those that did get involved in the last election. Nobody likes a cry baby. And you think the Bush response to Katrina was what, a stellar moment in history? Did the media force Bush to say "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie"?

Babe, "Really ......", well put.

Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,626
Points:3,175,245
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 9:34:29 AM

>>The question was asked and supporting information given to present the case that Progressivism has an effect on voter apathy.<<

No, you provided no "supporting information" whatsoever. All you did was provide a list of things you label as "progressive" and appear to be against (like women's right to vote), then CLAIM that this is the cause of voter apathy, and also falsely claim that "voter participation has plummeted" since 1912.

You could just have easily claimed that longer lifespans lead to voter apathy because, look, life expectancy was lower in only 2 Presidential elections since 1912. Or how about the number of people who own cars? In every election since 1912, more people have owned cars. Well, there you have it - let's get rid of cars, and more people will vote!

 
As I said previously, everything you wrote is just another lame attempt to bash progressivism, but none of it has any basis in fact.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 7, 2013 12:22:13 AM

NickHammer, >>Guess what that means, genius? Voter participation HAD ALREADY PLUMMETED BY 1912. Duuuuuhhhhhhhh!<<
~
And that level of voting was only exceeded 6 times in the next 100 years. But if you insist that 1912 was not a watershed year then using the previous election results in voter apathy participation NEVER exceeds 1908's level.
An even more dismal result.
~
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 7, 2013 12:12:26 AM

Nick Hammer, >>There is no question mark in "Since 1912 Voter participation has plummeted with the only real change being Progressive Politicians essentially taking over our Government." Nor is there one in most of your sentences blaming progressivism as the cause of voter apathy. BTW, this is what a question mark looks like: "?" (HINT: it's the thing between the quotation marks) .
~
Did you bother to read the Topic HEADLINE?

It reads: "Topic: Voter Apathy - Is Progressivism the Cause?"

The question was asked and supporting information given to present the case that Progressivism has an effect on voter apathy.
~
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,626
Points:3,175,245
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 11:02:55 PM

>>Thank you for the display of your chart reading prowess and the ability to completely ignore a question mark. I would not fill out any job applications saying that either is a mastered skill of yours.<<

There is no question mark in "Since 1912 Voter participation has plummeted with the only real change being Progressive Politicians essentially taking over our Government." Nor is there one in most of your sentences blaming progressivism as the cause of voter apathy. BTW, this is what a question mark looks like: "?" (HINT: it's the thing between the quotation marks) And, frankly, I'd pit my "chart reading prowess" against yours any day, since you apparently have no idea how to read one. And, while we're at it, let me introduce you to the definition of plummet - "to drop sharply and abruptly".

>>As most, if not all of your liberal comrades replied to the QUESTION with ridicule, one can only assume that you and your comrades have nothing to dispute the premise and consequently resorted to Saul Alinsky' Rule # 5 of his "Rules for Radicals."<<

I already disputed it and gave several reasons why your premise was wrong. Obviously, your reading comprehension skills are no better than your graph reading skills.

>>Getting back to your inability to read a graph, 1912 is a watershed year for our country. Prior to that election, voter participation was higher in EVERY SINGLE YEAR DATING BACK TO 1836. A span of 76 years.<<

Guess what that means, genius? Voter participation HAD ALREADY PLUMMETED BY 1912. Duuuuuhhhhhhhh!

>>Going forward from 1912, voter participation exceeds 1912's watershed mark in only 6 elections.<<

Watershed means "turning point". 1912 cannot be a "watershed mark" since voter participation had been plummeting since 1896. The only way 1912 could have been a watershed mark would be if you claimed that voter participation STOPPED PLUMMETING IN 1912, but that goes against every ideological bone in your body.

>>Perhaps if make a copy of the graph, and then draw a parallel line at 1912's data point to the horizontal axis you might better see the correlation that Progressivism has had upon voter apathy.<<

You righties love to cherry-pick starting points and ignore everything before your magical date. You're only fooling yourself and other easily-duped righties.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 6:28:53 PM

NickHammer, >>>>Since 1912 Voter participation has plummeted with the only real change being Progressive Politicians essentially taking over our Government.<<

No one in their right mind would think that after looking at that graph. In fact, voter participation "plummeted" PRIOR TO, not "since 1912", dropping by over 20% in the 4 elections preceding 1912.

Since 1912 voter participation has had ups and downs, falling temporarily right after women were given the right to vote and falling more permanently when the right to vote was given to those under the age of 21, a group that has always had low voter turnout.

So, pretty much everything in the OP (except for a few cherry-picked numbers) is wrong. The premise is wrong, the conclusion is wrong, the statements that contradict the graph are obviously wrong, and the blaming of constitutional amendments is wrong (really? "Woman's Suffrage"? Women vote at a higher percentage than men!).

This is just another example of the right basing their opinions on what they want to believe rather than on any facts, and other righties blindly accepting a fellow righty's anti-liberal rant.
~
Thank you for the display of your chart reading prowess and the ability to completely ignore a question mark. I would not fill out any job applications saying that either is a mastered skill of yours.

As most, if not all of your liberal comrades replied to the QUESTION with ridicule, one can only assume that you and your comrades have nothing to dispute the premise and consequently resorted to Saul Alinsky' Rule # 5 of his "Rules for Radicals." But I digress.

Getting back to your inability to read a graph, 1912 is a watershed year for our country. Prior to that election, voter participation was higher in EVERY SINGLE YEAR DATING BACK TO 1836. A span of 76 years.

Going forward from 1912, voter participation exceeds 1912's watershed mark in only 6 elections. That is in a span of 100 years! This was explained in my September 4, 8:02 PM post which you either did not read, or did not comprhend or ignored in your haste to post your derogative post yesterday.

Perhaps if make a copy of the graph, and then draw a parallel line at 1912's data point to the horizontal axis you might better see the correlation that Progressivism has had upon voter apathy.

TTFN
~



[Edited by: MahopacJack at 9/6/2013 6:33:16 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,331
Points:439,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 3:25:25 PM

Letting 51% of the population vote is progressive?

I suppose; if the other option is regressive.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,626
Points:3,175,245
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 11:05:08 PM

>>Your thoughts and, if you agree we are headed in the wrong direction, how do we change course?<<

My thoughts are that this is yet another lame attempt by a righty to blame liberalism or progressivism for all the world's perceived ills. The OP either does not know how to read a graph, doesn't think his fellow righties on this board can't read a graph or will simply take him at his word, or has chosen to ignore actual data in favor of cherry-picked numbers in order to make his obviously wrong conclusion.

>>Since 1912 Voter participation has plummeted with the only real change being Progressive Politicians essentially taking over our Government.<<

No one in their right mind would think that after looking at that graph. In fact, voter participation "plummeted" PRIOR TO, not "since 1912", dropping by over 20% in the 4 elections preceding 1912.

Since 1912 voter participation has had ups and downs, falling temporarily right after women were given the right to vote and falling more permanently when the right to vote was given to those under the age of 21, a group that has always had low voter turnout.

So, pretty much everything in the OP (except for a few cherry-picked numbers) is wrong. The premise is wrong, the conclusion is wrong, the statements that contradict the graph are obviously wrong, and the blaming of constitutional amendments is wrong (really? "Woman's Suffrage"? Women vote at a higher percentage than men!).

This is just another example of the right basing their opinions on what they want to believe rather than on any facts, and other righties blindly accepting a fellow righty's anti-liberal rant.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,912
Points:890,535
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 7:37:11 PM

Latest conservative whine.

We (cons) cannot win so it is the opposition's fault. Yep, they connect with voter better than you do. It IS their fault!
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,159
Points:1,273,075
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 4:21:00 PM

"The truth doesn't matter to the left when they get on one of their feeding frenzies though - pointing fingers at everyone but those responsible."


Yeah...Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,569
Points:3,141,560
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 3:54:04 PM


sgm4law, "Katrina showed us all how the ideal Republican federal government would work: get government out of the way"

The State and local governments are supposed to be the first responders - and had the opportunity and the means to evacuate most of the people, but they sat on their hands instead. Bush urged them to move days before Katrina hit, but they chose not to do so.

The State and local politicians were all Democrats, and had been for generations.

The truth doesn't matter to the left when they get on one of their feeding frenzies though - pointing fingers at everyone but those responsible.

Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,174
Points:757,155
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 2:39:07 PM

RNorm "EJ you know you're in the EXTREME minority."

Really?

Take a closer look Norm.

He takes the Bush WMD mistake and tries to blame it on Clinton.

Did Bush not appoint his own advisers? Was Bush not capable of telling his people to tell him the truth, not something that Clinton wanted him to hear? Who was POTUS during the Bush years, Bush or Clinton?

The thing is, and conservatives keep saying this, (at least when it's a Democrat in the Oval Office), that the buck stops on the President's desk. The President is the one who is responsible, even when he has nothing to do with it.

So how come we're hearing the excuse that what happened in a different administration several years after Clinton retired that it was still Clinton's fault?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,133
Points:2,989,595
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 1:43:14 PM

<<"'Katrina showed he is incompetent,' says Howard Dean, outgoing chairman of the Democratic National Committee. 'Before Katrina, everyone, including America's friends and enemies, believed if something awful happened in the world, you could call in the Americans and they'd fix it.'>>

<<The government response to the hurricane, which devastated New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast, ruined that reputation, Dean argues">>

I think Dean drew the wrong conclusion. Katrina showed us all how the ideal Republican federal government would work: get government out of the way. And it did. And then people complained. There's just no winning with some people.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,159
Points:1,273,075
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 1:27:12 PM

"Short memory, Norm?"


You purposely missed the point, so let me spell it out for you:

"Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for Katrina"

Obama wasn't even president or running for president then; but yet Louisiana Republicans blame him for the government's pathetic response to Katrina...

ODS at its best!

SMH!!
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,569
Points:3,141,560
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 1:01:00 PM


RNorm, "Nah, its just that the ODS we now see is so bad that BDS pales in comparison: Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for Katrina"

Short memory, Norm?

New Jersey Sandy victims suffering; Democrats who blamed Bush for Katrina silent on Obama

"In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, national networks sent their anchors to New Orleans to cover the federal response and laying blame whenever possible to a president they didn’t like.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the national media seemingly don’t consider this a story as there is also a president they do like whom they may not want to see get blamed for what local NBC affiliate is showing"

Democrats blame Bush for Katrina's slow recovery

"Two leading black US House Democrats say Hurricane Katrina's anniversary underscores what they call the Bush Administration failures"

Hurricane Katrina Left a Mark on George W. Bush’s Presidency

"'Katrina showed he is incompetent,' says Howard Dean, outgoing chairman of the Democratic National Committee. 'Before Katrina, everyone, including America's friends and enemies, believed if something awful happened in the world, you could call in the Americans and they'd fix it.'

The government response to the hurricane, which devastated New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast, ruined that reputation, Dean argues"

Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,159
Points:1,273,075
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 12:27:21 PM

EJ you know you're in the EXTREME minority. Pretty much most of the conservatives around here Defend Ol' Georgie to the death, even when they know he's wrong...I guess its that circle the wagons thing or something...
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,775
Points:140,190
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 12:20:29 PM

"I've yet to see a conservative accept that their guy has ever made a mistake."

Really? I have been outspoken for years on Bush decisions -- most of them in fact! I can't think of a single conservative GB author doesn't think Bush was full of mistakes.

#1 mistake of all times was Bush carrying the 1998 WMD theme Clinton and Democrats hatched to make themselves appear strong on foreign policy.

I remember vividly the first time I heard Bush utter those words on TV -- "WHAT???!! Have you lost your mind!". Biggest mistake ever.

Jay, your wide paint brush is dried up and no longer useable.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,159
Points:1,273,075
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 11:09:29 AM

"You have clearly forgotten the BDS of the Bush years."



Nah, its just that the ODS we now see is so bad that BDS pales in comparison:

Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for Katrina


Next they'll be blaming Obama for World War II (if they already haven't)...SMH!!!!
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,387
Points:150,775
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 10:47:53 AM

The biggest cause of voter apathy is apathetic outcomes.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,782
Points:2,209,590
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 10:28:54 AM

"I've noticed the same thing Norm. In all the time I've been on this forum, I've yet to see a conservative accept that their guy has ever made a mistake. Any hint that conservatism has been at fault is vehemently denied, always, even when there's no chance that any other factor was involved."

Brilliant observation Babe!
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,569
Points:3,141,560
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 10:27:46 AM


gocatgo, "Obama did not get elected because of voter apathy. Thanks to the photo I D law push, people of color helped reelect Obama in record numbers"

People of color are a minority of the electorate.

Obama would never have been elected without white voters and his black skin. Obama was inexperienced and unaccomplished when he was elected.

The largely white and largely liberal media in this country portrayed Obama as a historic figure and proof that America had gotten past its racist history. That, and an ignorant and uninvolved electorate voting on their emotions, manipulated by Democrat propaganda.

How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters

All sizzle and no steak.


[Edited by: Panama19 at 9/5/2013 10:28:58 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,062
Points:3,141,635
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 10:17:44 AM

Obama did not get elected because of voter apathy. Thanks to the photo I D law push, people of color helped reelect Obama in record numbers.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,569
Points:3,141,560
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 8:06:44 AM


SemiSteve, "What I see is that in 1840 voter turn-out drastically increased"

And what might have caused that?

The fight over slavery, the expansion of the country westward, free states vs. slave states, the Civil War, Reconstruction ... the vote was important to survival and in maintaining/preserving people's way of life.

Today's apathy may be a reflection of much softer times in which people are not as worried about or have less stake in the outcome of elections.

Or perhaps our government has gotten so large that the people don't feel their input matters much.

And the "motor voter" and other similar registration drives of recent years has filled the voter rolls with people much less motivated to vote; if the simple act of going down to the court house to register was an impediment to some voters, they would swell the rolls but would be much less motivated to vote on election day.

Ignorance of the issues, lack of concern about their easy lives (compared to the past), and apathy at the polling place all go hand in hand.

IMHO.


[Edited by: Panama19 at 9/5/2013 8:08:03 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,569
Points:3,141,560
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 7:47:57 AM


btc1, "Fewer and fewer voters appreciate the negative views your side expresses at every opportunity and the gridlock in Washington they see as the result of your party of NO!"

Age does that to the memory.

You have clearly forgotten the BDS of the Bush years.

Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,159
Points:1,273,075
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 7:47:54 AM

"If progressivism was the cause of voter apathy then why do conservatives not win every election since they are the opposite of progressive?"


Obviously, conservatives aren't winning because its the progressive's fault; EVERYTHING is the progressive's fault..

SMH
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,835
Points:778,225
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 6:39:36 AM

If progressivism was the cause of voter apathy then why do conservatives not win every election since they are the opposite of progressive?
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,174
Points:757,155
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 5:45:08 AM

RNorm "Its ridiculous how these conservatives will always blame everyone else for whatever problem exists, even for THEIR OWN self-inflicted wounds..."

I've noticed the same thing Norm. In all the time I've been on this forum, I've yet to see a conservative accept that their guy has ever made a mistake. Any hint that conservatism has been at fault is vehemently denied, always, even when there's no chance that any other factor was involved.

But except in the JFF threads, every other thread on the forum they're blaming liberals, even when politics has nothing to do with it.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,280
Points:2,417,800
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 8:06:19 PM

NO. It's negativism. Attack ads turn off a lot of people. It's money. Joe lunch bucket reasons his vote won't matter.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 8:02:25 PM

SemiSteve, >>I don't see any big change in 1912. The trend at the time was for less turn-out and that simply continued in 1912.<<
~
1912 marked the end of an era where voter participation was higher in all Presidential elections since 1836. A span of 76 years.

1912 also marked the beginning of the Progressive movement becoming a dominating political force. For the next 100 years, only 6 Presidential elections would have greater voter participation.
~
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,606
Points:1,861,000
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 7:41:08 PM

SemiSteve, >>1912 was simply part of that trend. Turn-out increased again for 1916 but then dropped even lower in 1920 and 1924. After that it seemed to settle into a range between around 50% and 64% and has stayed in that range every since.<<
~
Wrong again Steve. There are only 6 Presidential election from 1916 to date where voter participation exceeded 1912's.
~
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,797
Points:4,261,510
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 1:41:14 PM

"Since 1912 Voter participation has plummeted with the only real change being Progressive Politicians essentially taking over our Government. "

To name a few other real changes:

Women's suffrage
World War I & II
lowering the voting age

The biggest causes of voter apathy IMO, is the lack of excellent candidates who will make a difference and the gridlock that has gripped our country for the past 20 years. It's to the point where it doesn't seem to matter much who wins an election.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,159
Points:1,273,075
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 1:11:54 PM

Its ridiculous how these conservatives will always blame everyone else for whatever problem exists, even for THEIR OWN self-inflicted wounds...

SMH
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,331
Points:439,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 1:11:02 PM

Ya know, when I look at the graph I get quite a different impression.

I don't see any big change in 1912. The trend at the time was for less turn-out and that simply continued in 1912.

What I see is that in 1840 voter turn-out drastically increased. Were we very progressive prior to that and suddenly progressivism waned in 1840?

Voter turn-out levels remained high until 1900 when they began to plummet.

1912 was simply part of that trend.

Turn-out increased again for 1916 but then dropped even lower in 1920 and 1924.

After that it seemed to settle into a range between around 50% and 64% and has stayed in that range every since.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,912
Points:890,535
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 1:04:16 PM

MshopacJack, this is a prime example of how out of touch conservatives are with the state of politics today. Fewer and fewer voters appreciate the negative views your side expresses at every opportunity and the gridlock in Washington they see as the result of your party of NO!

Whatever name calling you care to provide or death spiral antics you want to elude to, the voter apathy lies squarely in your sides lap.

It has nothing to do with The Progressive Movement except that, obviously, the Progressive Movement has gained so much headway since 1912. It's popularity attests to this.


[Edited by: btc1 at 9/4/2013 1:10:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,856
Points:1,880,710
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 12:39:50 PM

mj: "Has Progressivism risen to the point where it has not only destroyed our freedoms but we also find it impossible to change the direction of our country?"


That's the whole point of giving people something for nothing. You buy their votes and if someone even suggests cutting back, or even cutting back the rate of increase, it sets up the diatribe that they are trying to take food out of starving children's mouths. Lyndon Johnson said as much himself as he was signing the pieces of the so called "Great Society" into law.

These policies are also why we are on the path to a has been country. When it's easier, and makes more sense economically, to not work and collect benefits and/or engage in behaviors such as having more children you can't afford to take care of in order to get more benefits, a country just can't continue indefinitely along that path because enough of the remaining producers either leave or give up and become takers under such a system. That's where we are headed and progressivism/liberalism/socialism (whatever word you choose to use) is responsible.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,331
Points:439,685
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 12:12:39 PM

No. I don't think it is progressivism. If that were the case conservatives would be motivated to get out and vote in greater numbers. I can not imagine that a rise in something you oppose would cause people to avoid voting...

Also, a lot of things happened after 1912. There was a big war. Women got the right to vote. Radio became a common media. Automobiles and airplanes became more widespread. The world changed.

I've got my own theory to explain US voter apathy. I believe it is because technology has made life much more complicated. People in the 1800's and early 1900's didn't have a lot of distractions. Life was simpler, more mundane. There weren't so many options of what to do. Not so much entertainment. Cities were not as large and more of the poulation was rural. Farming and ranching accounted for a larger percentage of the population. People knew their neighbors and talked. News was scarce and when it came around it represented a major diversion from the mundane. If a campaign train came, people were interested and turned out to hear speeches.

When the nation grew to a point where candidates could not visit most of the population, and people were presented with a widening myriad of distractions interest in voting declined.

Now we live in the rat race world. People trying so hard to make ends meet that many work several jobs. It doesn't leave much time to be informed, no small task in the overwhelming array of information sources. And so many 'news' sources don't really present very much news. Instead they are merely placating viewers with tidbits, opinion, sensationalism and commercials. Who could blame people for tuning out?
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,542
Points:1,526,635
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 10:43:35 AM

Voter appathy.....Oh Yea NJ is there.
Poor , stupid, low life drones pulling the Democrat lever because they were told to.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,919
Points:3,045,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 9:09:13 AM

I think that the Super Bowl and the American Idol finals should both be on TV the night before Election Day (with no early voting).

And then the voters who care will be the ones voting.
Profile Pic
calwdstk
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:1,421
Points:413,000
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 8:55:59 AM

Your explanation for less voters makes good sense. I hate to say it, but I think this is our future. Cause of which is lack of education in the Public schools in the Constitution, and allowing minority control. But the word Minority, does not involve race or such, just the persons of extreme minority beliefs, such as religion versus atheist-ism. Changes to this nations original belief in UNDER GOD, IN GOD WE TRUST, removal of Ten Commandments, removing Pledge of Allegiance to nation and Flag. The public schools no long work on training students to be the best, but mediocre and every one is tops, not so in the real world. In the past 50 years or so how many of us were harmed by losing grades, or not being like the top notch kid in the class, or even not being a popular student. It trained us for the work environment, where none of this matters, it is what you do to produce and help the company you work for.



[Edited by: calwdstk at 9/4/2013 8:58:38 AM EST]
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,289
Points:417,640
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2013 6:12:40 PM

It is difficult to choose a decent leader for this country when the only choices you get are the lesser of two evils. And it gets even harder when most of the population are TV idiots that don't know the issues, they just know who looks/sounds better to them.

IF I were a conspiracy advocate, I would say the leaders of both major parties are hand picked and cultivated to lead this country down the primrose path to destruction by a select few in the background.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,569
Points:3,141,560
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2013 2:33:10 PM


I don't care if I never see another progressive politician.

Post a reply Back to Topics