How on earth can you write an editorial on voter turn out without mentioning
laws to make voting easier? And how can you also fail to highlight
the attempts by Republicans in swing states to make voting HARDER!?
Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. Parties are the problem - not the
solution. The bickering and posturing are a turn off to any thinking person. One
party trying to undermine the other and working to ensure failure of the other
is a race downhill. Issues matter, party affiliation does not. Instead of
forcing candidates into toeing the party line we should promote free expression
on issues. Don't force labeling one as a Democrat or Republican.
The political process has been largely taken over by the extremes, and until the
main source of the problem (Redistricting) is fixed the silent majority
moderates who make up most of the country will continue to be apathetic.
Low voter turnout helps Republicans (thus their attempts to make it as difficult
as possible to vote). Imagine how much Obama would have won by if we had had a
show that audience attention is held more easily with stories that shock,
disgust and arouse indignation. "and to the constant drum beat
of "the other side are immoral idiots" and you wonder why people are
leaving the parties. Perhaps more people are tuning in to FoxNews..... but it
is like the Jerry Spring Show, for a while his ratings were going up, but
overall viewership of people watching TV at that block went down because they
were no longer interested in what was being offered.Shock News has
its place, but eventually, just like shock radio, it gets old, and people move
on to other things. Shock news has absolutely identified a demographic that
loves that kind of messaging... but that group is fortunately small compared to
the rest of the nation... and getting smaller.
A "non-vote" is emotionally a "no" vote against the choices.
There was disappointment in President Obama, disappointment with Congress, and
disappointment in the candidates offered by the Republican party.
"And how can you also fail to highlight the attempts by Republicans in swing
states to make voting HARDER!?"That is a bogus claim.
Maybe voter turnout would be greater and even more meaningful if there was an
option on each ballot to vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE.
People should be able to vote on their home computers, or smart phones.time to pull ourselves out of the 19th centuryonce this happens the
number of people voting will go up.I suspect that the reason this has not
happened yet; is that it would cause more young, and working people, the
opportunity to vote.
There was lots of high voter turnout in states that don't require photo ID.
Many inner city districts in Cleveland and Philadelphia had 90% turnout without
a single vote for Romney. I guess booting the GOP observers and stationing
black panthers outside, really helped turn out the vote in Philadelphia.One precinct in Florida with 27 registered voters managed to turn out
A "bogus claim" mattrick78? Do a little research and focus on what went
on in Penn. A Republican congressional leader is on the record that the new Penn
voter ID law was put in place to see to it that Romney was elected. It
did't work because the Penn courts delayed implementation. Also see what
happened in Texas and Florida. The claim that Republicans were doing this is not
bogus, but the suppression was largely ineffective, thank Providence.
Viva la Migra -- let's see some PROOF for those claims. It simply does not
exist, does it?
In all credit due to the Dems, they didn't self-cannabalize, like the Reps
did, during the GOP primaries. What Santorum and Gingrich did to Romeny would
never have been done in the Dem circuit. They were like piranas feeding frenzy
on a hot Brazilian day. Romney was already battered, before he even got started.
Then, the image-maker machinery if the left wing media finished him off, once he
got the nomination.
@Mike in Cedar CityYou said, "...A Republican congressional
leader is on the record that the new Penn voter ID law was put in place to see
to it that Romney was elected. It did't work because the Penn courts
delayed implementation."What's the Congressman's name
and what district does he represent? If he's on record, we should know who
he is, right?@one old manThe Philadelphia Inquirer
reported on November 13th that 59 Philadelphia districts had 100% of their votes
cast for Obama. Trust me, if even one district anywhere in the U.S. had 100% of
their votes for Romney, you and many others would be screaming, "Voter
Fraud!" from the mountain tops.@Viva la MigraPlease
cite your source about this district in Florida with only 27 registered voters.
VIDAR, the reason voting on the Internet and smartphones hasn't happened is
due to security. If you google the words "michigan fight song election"
you'll see that they tried a program for the military to vote online. They
invited researchers to try and find any security holes. Well one group hacked it
so that it played the Michigan fight song whenever you submitted your vote. The
point is there are plenty of people inside and outside the country who would be
motivated to hack into an online voting system and change the results. So
don't expect internet voting to happen anytime soon. It has nothing to do
with voter suppression. In fact some areas are going back to paper ballots
because of the difficulties of working with electronic machines.
This one's easy. Obama wasn't new and different anymore, and Romney
didn't appeal to the GOP base.
It's interesting to see several posts here in which claims about what Obama
has said or done are nothing other than total fabrications.When did
outright lying become one of those vaunted Utah conservative family values?
Turnout is low in Utah because, let's face it, your vote really
doesn't matter much. Why should I stand in line for 2 hours when I know the
Republican will win 66%-33%. Nationally.... well it was the choice between the
status quo and a business suit who managed to insult over half the the country
in just under a year, that's certainly not a recipe for high voter
enthusiasm. I suppose that's what you get when you don't care who
wins, so long as it's not the other guy.It's laughable to
hear the election post postmortems, A lot of Republicans saying that they lost
because Romney wasn't conservative enough. I strongly disagree. If someone
truly moderate who didn't pander to the extremes, such as Huntsman, had
been the candidate, we would probably have a Republican president elect. As a
Democrat I would have voted for Huntsman over Obama, but by all means, keep
sabotaging your party by thinking the answer is more extremism, that will ensure
a nice long run of Democrat presidents.
What was the voter turnout in the battleground states where a few votes really
could turn the tide? I know that we're technically a republic,
not a pure democracy, but the democratic parts really need participation in
order to keep us a free nation.
@Clark HippoThe statement by a Republican legislator in Pennsylvania
was made by Pa. House Republican Leader Mike Turzai on June 23, 2012. Google
it. There is a video of him making the remark, in which he said "Voter ID,
which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania -