One more datapoint about citizen apathy concerning government

[Platapus]

Tuesday was election day in Virginia. It was a single party primary for the candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General. Neither position is high on the citizen's radar. Voter turnout was not expected to be high. I was only issued ballots for 10% of my precinct's registered voter population.

In my precinct, we had 32 people vote out of almost 3000 registered voters. Our actual turnout was 1.27%. :nope:

32 people. :/\\!!

To me this one more data point that indicates that while Americans like to bitch and whine about their government, deep down, they really don't care.

And it probably does not matter to many citizens. No matter who is in power, which party is in power, they will bitch and whine. It has become a national past-time in America.

Polls were open for 13 hours and only 32 people gave a crap enough to vote.

Yeah, I am pretty depressed about this. And a little angry.

1 percent voter turnout. In my years as an election official, I have never heard, no less experienced, such a low turnout.

People just don't care. :nope: They just don't.

[Sailor Steve]

It does bring up questions, such as how many people knew about it? How do people react when they see it in the paper? "Lieutenant Governeror? Attorney General? Are they even important?" Maybe people don't care about those positions. Maybe people don't believe there is difference enough to care. Sometimes on a ballot I'll see "Should Judge Thomas be retained in his position?" I don't know who he is, which means I haven't heard anything bad about him, which means he hasn't done anything that anyone has raised a stink about, so I'll vote "Yes". Sometimes I think about voting "No" as a joke, but I don't joke when someone's actual life is on the line.

When people have said "If you don't vote, you can't complain" I'll come back with "If there's no box marked 'None of the above' I sure can!" In big elections I get annoyed when none of the major candidates are anything like myself, so I'll find a minor candidate who is closer to my own thinking. Then people say I wasted my vote, or hurt their candidate.

I'm thinking most people don't care because while complaining is nice what goes on in government is so far outside their own experience that it's not really real to them. On the other hand if someone complains loudly enough I tend to ask what they've done to change it. I don't care enough to run for office myself, but I do care enough to vote. Most of the time.

[Spiced_Rum]

Not sure how the what level of importance is concerning a single party primary is. Does this mean that only one party, i.e. Democrats, have all the candidates which anyone can choose to vote for? And is Lt Governor a key role, like VP? In contrast voting for a Congress or Senate position would effect state/national politics and so be worth bothering about. But I know what you mean about apathy. If you do not use your right to vote then you really cannot complain about which party wins.

[Sailor Steve]

Not sure how the what level of importance is concerning a single party primary is.
That's a good point. I belong to no party, so I don't vote in primaries. It used to be that there were no primary elections. The party organization put up the candidates and if you wanted to be part of that you got into the party organization.

[Platapus]

"If there's no box marked 'None of the above' I sure can!"

There is. Submit your ballot with no candidate selected. It is called casting a null ballot and the number of null ballots is recorded and is available to the political parties (and everyone). Casting a null ballot is a good way to send a strong message to the parties.

A person who casts a null ballot is a person who cares enough to vote, but chooses not to vote for any of the candidates. The political parties get these numbers and it is these voters that the parties want to win. A person who casts a null ballot will probably vote again in the next election. An election where they get 10% null ballots is sending a strong message to the parties.

A person who does not vote at all is sending the message that they probably won't vote in the next election either so the political parties write those non-voter off and ignore them.

Because our elections are decided by a plurality and not a majority, non-voters don't affect the election.

A null ballot is a powerful tool for the citizen to communicate dissatisfaction with the current candidates. I do wish more citizens would use this tool.

A null vote says that you care, but are not happy
A non vote says that you don't care.

[Platapus]

That's a good point. I belong to no party, so I don't vote in primaries.

Whether a primary is open or closed varies between the states. Virginia is an open primary state. Since voter registration in Virginia is party independent, any registered voter can vote in any primary in their precinct.

Other states have closed primaries which are restricted to those who registered and identified with a specific political party.

[Platapus]

And is Lt Governor a key role, like VP?

This reminds me of a favourite story about Calvin Coolidge when he was Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts. After being re-elected in 1916?, Coolidge, who had a well earned reputation of having a very dry sense of humour, was attending a political dinner.

When he was introduced to some high-society lady, he said "Hello, I'm Calvin Coolidge, the Lieutenant Governor"

The socialite responded "oh, how interesting, you must tell me all about it.

Coolidge responded, "I just did."

:)

[Cybermat47]

32 people?

That's really, really disturbing. Perhaps voting should be mandatory like in Australia.

Or at least lure people in with a Church barbecue :)

[August]

We had a guy run for Lt. Gov in Rhode Island a few years back on the platform that if elected he'd abolish the office Lt. Gov.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/142200/thumbs/s-HEALEY-large.jpg

[Platapus]

32 people?

That's really, really disturbing. Perhaps voting should be mandatory like in Australia.

Or at least lure people in with a Church barbecue :)

We had cookies! :yep:

[Wolferz]

A primary isn't an election of a public servant. It's the choosing of a party candidate to run for that office.
Which party was it? The answer will probably determine the reason for the apathetic turnout.:hmmm:

I consider primaries to be a total waste of time and something that the parties could find another method of deciding. Like at their conventions. But, they only put on that dog and pony show for major elections. It would save much time and money, in the case of two minor offices, if the state legislature took care of it until the next election cycle. Then the candidates can tell their lies, get elected and make good on those lies by doing nothing but collecting a pay check as usual.

[Sailor Steve]

There is. Submit your ballot with no candidate selected. It is called casting a null ballot and the number of null ballots is recorded and is available to the political parties (and everyone). Casting a null ballot is a good way to send a strong message to the parties.
Seriously? Forty-one years in the voting booths and I never knew that.

@ Calvin Coolidge: :rotfl2: Go Silent Cal! :rock:

[Red October1984]

32 people?

That's really, really disturbing. Perhaps voting should be mandatory like in Australia.

You should only vote if you're properly informed. I agree it's a terrible statistic...something needs to be done...

Maybe have an unbiased media? Idk...

[TorpX]

Tuesday was election day in Virginia. It was a single party primary for the candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General. Neither position is high on the citizen's radar. Voter turnout was not expected to be high. I was only issued ballots for 10% of my precinct's registered voter population.

In my precinct, we had 32 people vote out of almost 3000 registered voters. Our actual turnout was 1.27%. :nope:

32 people. :/\\!!


I have to ask is this precinct a rural, or urban one?

In Illinois, local off-year election bring few voters out. Most people, myself included, know little about the judges, county board members, village mayors, etc.

When the established political powers really want something, they can schedule referendums at these times, or simply implement the policies they want before the public can do anything about it. To many people, elections have become rather pointless.

[the_tyrant]

I have never even been to court, so I don't even know who my local judge is. Of course I don't vote in those elections!

I'm pretty sure lots of people think like me on these issues.

[Skybird]

Giving an empty ballot still legitimizes the system, and when you see the system as being the real problem, you would violate your own logic if going to vote and give an empty vote. The strong message to parties? They take the empty ballots, make them count for the total turnout quota, and then sell it as a huge participation in election that expresses how satisfied people are with the political status. Nobody reads the smallprint.

When you meet the devil and he offers you to play a game, there is only one way to save your soul: do not play at all.

Obligation to vote? No go, you cannot intimidate people to go voting if they do not want to vote - and still call that "freedom". It's tyranny that blackmails people to give it moral legitimation and forgiving of all sins.

[Tribesman]

When you meet the devil and he offers you to play a game, there is only one way to save your soul: do not play at all.

Thats a good notion.
However in practical terms you are already stuck in the game with no real sensible way out, so pretending that you are not playing is just bending over and asking the system to bugger you roughly.
Now there is the real unsensible way out. You can Hop into the fanciful world of tyranny that the rather vile 20th century dictatorships could only dream of achieving.

[Spiced_Rum]

So many dilemmas for those of us with the right to vote, and how we use our freedom:
Be apathetic and do not bother going to vote.
Be apolitical, go and vote but not care who you choose.
Vote but spoil your ballot paper.
Vote by posting blank ballot paper (not really certain whether this is any different from spoiling the paper).
Vote and chose a candidate/party closest to your viewpoint, or most important issue(s).
Tactical vote and choose a candidate/party to block the candidate/party you really would not want to win.
#
IMO freedom gives me the right to vote if I want to and allows a choice of several different parties. I may complain about who is in post/power but at least I made an effort to vote.

[August]

We really do need a None of the Above choice, even if it is just advisory.

[Betonov]

We really do need a None of the Above choice, even if it is just advisory.

It needs an empty seat then. No vote is no politician. Now (at least here) it's the percentage of votes that count. 10% for the right, 10% for the left and 80% for noone still means that 45 left and 45 right seats will be taken.

They want null ballots, it leaves the party sheeple to decide :nope:

[August]

It needs an empty seat then. No vote is no politician. Now (at least here) it's the percentage of votes that count. 10% for the right, 10% for the left and 80% for noone still means that 45 left and 45 right seats will be taken.

They want null ballots, it leaves the party sheeple to decide :nope:

I agree but I think it'd be a lot easier to get it going by making it an advisory. Election do-overs can come later.

My thinking is that a "none of the above" choice would serve to consolidate the politically disaffected into a statistically significant group that cannot be ignored by the pols or the media. Right now it's too easy to dismiss large percentages of the electorate as just the supporters of fringe groups when the overwhelming majority of them are really just expressing dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties.

Give the people a recognized way to protest the current slate of candidates and it won't be so easy to ignore them.

[Wolferz]

Give the people a recognized way to protest the current slate of candidates and it won't be so easy to ignore them.


There is another way...

Go in the voting booth to relieve yourself of yesterdays meals and then mark your ballot.

[August]

There is another way...

Go in the voting booth to relieve yourself of yesterdays meals and then do the paperwork.

Yeah because forcing poll workers, mostly little old ladies to clean up human feces is a great way to win support for your position. :roll:

[Platapus]

I have to ask is this precinct a rural, or urban one?


Suburban. just under 3,000 registered voters in a precinct about 3 miles in diameter, if that.

[Platapus]

We really do need a None of the Above choice, even if it is just advisory.

I wonder what would happen if our elections were moved from a plurality to a majority form?

Run-offs and they can be expensive. :yep:

[August]

I wonder what would happen if our elections were moved from a plurality to a majority form?

Run-offs and they can be expensive. :yep:

Very true.

How about a run off only if None of the Above gets more votes than any other candidate?

[Platapus]

Very true.

How about a run off only if None of the Above gets more votes than any other candidate?

How about if "none of the above" gets more votes, the government considers doing away with that position. :D:yeah:

[Spiced_Rum]

What about allocating the total number of seats based purely on percentage of ballots cast.
For example, there are only 100 seats in government (as if that is likely); Party A get 35% of the national vote and so they have 35 seats allocated to them, Party B get 30% so they gain 30 seats, Party C 12%, etc, and None-of-the-Above have 20% of votes so 20 seats are unavailable to anyone.
This way it is real proportional representation and voting for None-of-the above does have an impact. Too simplistic a concept but it lays out a framework idea to start developing a working system.

[Cybermat47]

There is another way...

Go in the voting booth to relieve yourself of yesterdays meals and then mark your ballot.

That reminds me of an Alexei Sayle skit where to vote, you dunked your head into some disgusting substance. I guess that's what it feels like after the election :haha:

[August]

What about allocating the total number of seats based purely on percentage of ballots cast.
For example, there are only 100 seats in government (as if that is likely); Party A get 35% of the national vote and so they have 35 seats allocated to them, Party B get 30% so they gain 30 seats, Party C 12%, etc, and None-of-the-Above have 20% of votes so 20 seats are unavailable to anyone.
This way it is real proportional representation and voting for None-of-the above does have an impact. Too simplistic a concept but it lays out an framework idea to start developing a working system.

That might work in a Parliamentary style system but when I vote it's for a candidate, not a party.

[Tribesman]

What about allocating the total number of seats based purely on percentage of ballots cast.
For example, there are only 100 seats in government (as if that is likely); Party A get 35% of the national vote and so they have 35 seats allocated to them, Party B get 30% so they gain 30 seats, Party C 12%, etc, and None-of-the-Above have 20% of votes so 20 seats are unavailable to anyone.
This way it is real proportional representation and voting for None-of-the above does have an impact. Too simplistic a concept but it lays out an framework idea to start developing a working system.

Like party list voting?
Our current constitutional convention is apparently proposing that change to the Irish electoral system.

[TarJak]

That reminds me of an Alexei Sayle skit where to vote, you dunked your head into some disgusting substance. I guess that's what it feels like after the election :haha:

You'll know once you're old enough to vote.:O:

The freedom to choose from a bunch of bad choices is no freedom at all.