Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
Actually the

vote usually goes about 40/40/20 with the 20% being independents, small parties and such. Those voting in the 40/40

groups usually vote right along party lines. Over the years both major parties have lost huge portions of their

membership through disenchantment with party policies. As a result of that and other factors, the non-voting

majority tends to be closer to 25/25/50 with a large percentage of the 25'ers likely to vote their mind rather than

any party line. Of the 50%'ers, most are completely disgusted with the way the government operates but feel they

cannot do anything about it so don't bother. The error is obvious. That 'inbalance' is one of the reasons that

both major parties try so hard to register new voters to their party. They hope that by getting them signed up

themselves they will have some influence in how they vote.

What would actually happen if participation went

up to 90% is anybody's guess, you have your opinion and I have mine. But right now many in politics seem to feel

they can rest on their laurals because nobody's watching them very closely. Consider the potential of 40 percent or

more of the voting population unalianged to any particular party. It doesn't take much imagination to see that

there would be numerous changes within our country. Exactly what they would be is anybody's guess but at the least

I think it would result in greater accountability.

Additionally, I think Tim has it right that participation

is discouraged, that the government would really prefer our opinions be suppressed.
Okay, so you're

talking about the classical "swing" group. I classify this group as moderates who's votes can be bought, more or

less, with catch phrases, punch lines, and commercial bombardment. They have no strong identity. You buy that

group, you win, basically. They go one of two ways for the most part, right or left depending on the weather.



I felt that you and Tim were trivializing how difficult it is to impose real change. It's not as simple as

just getting 90% of the people to take 1 hour out of their day every election cycle (say every 2 years) to punch a

card. Would that automatically mean that foreign wars would stop, that government would shrink, that politicians

would suddenly become transparent, that somehow utopia is otherwise achieved? Unfortunately, I think more voters

just means more voters, that's it. It might make us feel better about our "representative" government, but I

don't go on feelings.

It takes organization to effect change. Let's look at the NRA, as an example.

I don't know if this is still true, but Fortune mag ranked the NRA as the #1 most powerful lobbying group in

Washington a few years ago. We're talking a group of 4 million citizens, or little more than 1% of the population,

who have had a big hand in re-shaping congress over the past decade. Why? Because they're active, they understand

the mathematics of the political system and the nuances of law, they have sharp lawyers, and they know how to

communicate effectively. This takes skill and intelligence to put it all together into a winning package.

Basically, you need a plan. Just speaking idealistically like "go rock the vote" a la MTV ain't gonna cut it.

Sorry.

The smart man invests his time and energy into things that are likely going to net a return. Not

things he hopes and prays will net a return.