Why didn't 94 million Americans vote?

[greenego]

The unofficial tally currently shows Obama with 61 million votes and Romney with 58 million votes. But 94 million chose neither.

If you didn't vote why?

[url="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/nov/08/why-didnt-94-million-americans-vote/?comments_id=2424496"]http://www.knoxnews....ents_id=2424496[/url]

[RichardR]

I have voted in every election since I turned 18, at least up until this last one in which I sat on the couch nursing some herniated disks, had I known earlier I could have mailed in a ballot but I was injured after the deadline so it was "in person or no vote".

[Spots]

Because the greatest thing about living in a free country is the choices. I have some friends that hate both parties, and would rather not, in their words, "contribute to the problem". I voted but sadly I voted against Obama more than I voted for someone.


"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
George Carlin

[TNcitizen22]

In addition to free choice, perhaps because we disenfranchise a large portion of our population.

[Smith]

[quote name='TNcitizen22' timestamp='1352650647' post='843751']In addition to free choice, perhaps because we disenfranchise a large portion of our population.[/quote]
Yeah, that must be the reason:rolleyes:

[Guest HvyMtl]

We do disenfranchise a lot of our population, and the two parties [i]want it this way.[/i] It makes it easier for their candidates to get elected, if those who are not supporters of the party do not vote.

This is why we have all these new Voter ID laws, because the GOP knows those who are put out by having to have ID won't get to vote, and they know those people being put out usually vote Democrat. Block your opponent's voters, win the election. Disenfranchise them, they will quit trying to vote.

Another example is the blocking of third party candidates. They are not on the ballot, they are not threat, and those who wish to vote for them either stay home, or vote for someone they do not want.

[leroy]

Greg's question is a fair one. Lots of people used to (....and may still ....) believe in their heart of hearts that ".... there aint a nickle's difference between either political party...". Thinking that, they are turned off by elections. They think that either way they will get bushwhacked and mistreated, and some son of satan will win and continue to do what they all have done before them, without much real change happening. I think that used to be true. The truth, to me at least, is that while lots of their assumption is true; there are bunches of other even more troubling factors that have entered politics in the last few years that may have escaped their casual view of the political scene. They manifest themselves as not only the setting of fiscal policies; but the meddling in, and the outright attempts of the elimination long held notions about the Bill of Rights, the imposition of moral values (....or the lack thereof; depending on your view....) and a "scorched earth" policy against political enemies and those who dont see things the way the winners see them ALA the re-emergence of the old Radical Republican Reconstruction policies after the Civil War.

This "scorched earth" policy touches both individual citizens and businesses. Something ive never seen before. In the old days, there were simply "winners and loosers". The "winners" were rewarded with "favors" and prospered; and the "loosers" just kept on doing what they needed to do, without being mistreated or criminalized. Now, the "loosers" are persecuted by the alphabet arms of government (...NLRB, EPA, etc...). Some of them are also being pushed around and intimidated by others (...IRS, FBI, etc....). Ala, "Chicago Style Politics". We are morphing into a "Bananna Republic" winner take all government. That is very troubling.

Up until about the seventies; the big difference between the parties was the issue of fiscal issues. The demorats believed in government meddling in everything and "big spending." The republicans were fat cat capitalists who believed General Bullmose business practices and fiscal policies were best.

The sixties happened and the political parties started meddlin in social issues. "Entitlements" were establshed and government moved into the arena of long held personal beliefs in the area of religion (...or freedom from it...), moral issues (....abortion, the illusion of equal rights, gay rights....), and political freedom issues (....protected speech vs "hate speech", right to self-protection via the Second Amendment, ownership of firearms, ect....). I believe that lots of non-voters are either oblivious to the assault on their rights or simply dont believe that it is happening at all. I cant understand either one of these notions; but that is just me. Folks here on TGO tend to be political junkies and prognositcators. We are pretty sensitive (...prehaps ultra sensitive...) to what is going on politically around us. There is evidently a whole world of Rip Van Winkles out there who are asleep; or, worse, yet, a bunch of children who simply dont care. I simply dont know which it is.

All that being said, the current Nabama administration has upped the ante on the war; and have managed to push this "intrusion of rights" and "entitlements" a long way down the road in a short amount of time. They have pushed hard enough to realize some pretty nasty setbacks in the area of assaults on the Bill of Rights. They will get their way on some things (...givin money away, etc....). I believe they will loose on the assault on the Bill of Rights and States Rights. I also believe at the end of this next four years, lots more people will be poorer, out of work, out of health insurance, etc; and more of them will wake up and vote. The jury is still out on how they will vote; but my guess is that they wont like the policies they voted for (...either by direct vote, or by not voting at all....). Time will tell.

leroy

[greenego]

The two parties are failing the Republic. When Lincoln was elected, there were four candidates. Original chose for Vice President was the presidential candidate that came in second. Keeping so called third parties out is limiting our chooses to the same old thing. I voted against Obama more then I voted for Romney. I truly believe Obama will alter the country in a way that we may not recover from.
Bottom line, I believe people don't vote because they believe it doesn't matter who gets elected.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Good ideas from all. Have not been paying attention to the post-mortem after the election, but happened to hear Rush Limbaugh claim that R's lost because of not "getting out the vote". That 3 million registered R's didn't show up this time around.

Taking that on face value, I doubt it is because the GOP didn't run enough ads or knock on enough doors or make enough robo-calls. I doubt even that the R's who previously voted, didn't show because they didn't care about the country or forgot that it was election day. There were so many robo calls I quit answering the phone, and so many ads I quit watching TV, so the answer ain't to run more ads or make more robo calls.

Maybe the reason some folks hardly ever vote, is different from the reason so many folks who usually vote blew it off this time. Or maybe there is some overlap between the groups.

Just wild guessing, maybe the 3 million missing R's, the dog don't like the dog food? Either didn't like the R candidates or didn't expect that the R candidates had enough odds of improving anything, to bother wasting time and gas money going to vote?

Maybe some of them were Paul/Johnson supporters who believe the proposition that a third-party vote is wasted? Nobody I voted for won. So it really was wasted time and gas money to show up. Maybe those three million are smarter than me.

Its hard to say just judging about how many registered R's or D's show up. I registered D in 1970 and voted about every election, but tis been a long time since I voted for a D. Just never changed my registration because I'm no more an R than a D. So they probably count me as a success in getting out the D vote, though I didn't vote for any D's. Didn't vote for any R's either of course. Edited November 11, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[leroy]

I love this great observation from Lester:

[quote]....Just wild guessing, maybe the 3 million missing R's, the dog don't like the dog food? Either didn't like the R candidates or didn't expect that the R candidates had enough odds of improving anything, to bother wasting time and gas money going to vote?....[/quote]

I think it's dead on. The "R" brand tasted bad to some of us old dogs.

Keep up the good work!!

leroy

[Guest ThePunisher]

Does the platforms of each party, and what they stand for or represent really matter to voters anymore? Do voters have any core beliefs of how their representatives should govern anymore? Is voting today all about getting something free? Has it come down to what the country can do for you, instead of what you can do for your country? Do the voting electorate only know what they've heard since they were small kids that the democrats are for the little man, and the republicans are for the rich man?

Until the people realize who they are, and what their roles are in a civil society, then I'm afraid that voter apathy will prevail to the point of ruination of our country. The most precious right of voting will one day be deprived to us because of apathy, and everyone will wonder what happened to our nation. When the people realize that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, then our nation will stand on a firm and solid foundation that cannot be divided. Edited November 11, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, keep hammering people in the head that third parties can't win, and that third party votes are wasted, and that third party votes are implicit votes for the greater of two evils. Then the folks who like neither the D or R will stay home because they have been convinced that voting is futile.

edit: The alternative is that either the D's or R's could run candidates that those people like. Doesn't happen very often but occasionally it happens. Edited November 11, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest zort]

it would help if third party nominations were allowed in the debates so more americans can hear them speak. so many people never even heard of gary johnson. its a shame we let the r and d partys run the show

[Wingshooter]

[quote name='Flatwoods Forge' timestamp='1352648984' post='843737']
Because the greatest thing about living in a free country is the choices.[b] I have some friends that hate both parties, and would rather not, in their words, "contribute to the problem".[/b] I voted but sadly I voted against Obama more than I voted for someone.


[/quote]

I hear people say that, too and that they did not want to be responsible for the outcome. However, one could say that the 94 million people that did not vote resulted in obama getting 4 more years. Their lack of desire to have a say in the election indeed HAD A SAY IN THE ELECTION. Millions of potential Romney voters stayed home so now those that didn't vote still get to deal with obama. Romney was not my first choice either (I still voted for him), but I don't understand how so many people stayed home thinking that one was just as bad as the other. There's no way romney could have screwed things up more than obama has or will.

[u]No decision IS a decision in my book[/u].

Edited November 11, 2012 by Batman

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Lester Weevils' timestamp='1352655972' post='843805']
....I registered D in 1970 and voted about every election, but tis been a long time since I voted for a D. Just never changed my registration because I'm no more an R than a D. So they probably count me as a success in getting out the D vote, though I didn't vote for any D's. ...[/quote]

Just a note, the only way to "register" in TN by voting in a primary. You're only "registered" as to the one in which you last voted.

Hell, I strongly considered voting in Dem primary in '08, to vote for Obama. Thinking that Hildebeeste would be the worst thing imaginable. Silly me.

And btw, y'all, total voter participation this time seems to have been about the same or just slightly more than in 2008 at around 57.5% of all eligible voters. And actually, this is highest since 1968, so this is not some new phenomenon or anything, it's the norm.

- OS Edited November 11, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

Regardless of how much anyone complains about the candidates we can chose from, we can only chose from those who are willing to serve and frankly, I think that with every election cycle, there is less and less reason for anyone to want to do so except, unfortunately, reasons that appeal most to those with the worst reasons for running. I'm more worried about the lack of good people stepping up to run than I am who doesn't vote or why.

I believe it is also true that there are a lot of people who shouldn't vote either because they are truly too stupid, too uneducated or simply chose to be completely uninformed of the issues....when such don't vote; that's a good thing.

I voted in my first general election in 1972 and haven't missed a general since even when deployed...I've only missed a couple for primary votes and only because there was nothing I felt I needed to vote on. Even so, I'm seriously considering not voting any more...I don't see the point. Edited November 11, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Steelharp]

[quote name='Flatwoods Forge' timestamp='1352648984' post='843737']
"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
George Carlin
[/quote]

He was a funny man. But that's one of the stupidest pieces of I've ever read.

[Garufa]

AFAIK, if you don't vote you have no right to complain or comment on the state of local, national or any other issues in which the government is involved.

[Guest zort]

i agree, if u dont even participate in the system then u shouldnt complain about it.

[Mark@Sea]

158% turnout in Allen Wests' district. Fraud on a masssive scale.

[Guest ThePunisher]

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1352664264' post='843856']
it would help if third party nominations were allowed in the debates so more americans can hear them speak. so many people never even heard of gary johnson. its a shame we let the r and d partys run the show
[/quote]

It would not really matter if they let all the third party or fourth party candidates in the debates. Mathematics is the name of the game. Simply put, one party outnumbers all other parties, because of generations of lifelong biases, and being told how to vote because they can't think rationally for themselves. Because in many instances that they get to do the counting, you can add the fraudulent voting to their numbers total.

You can tell them the house is burning down and they are not going to believe you- until it's too late. They like to hear the promises of free stuff from their lying and crooked politicians, but are not smart enough to realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. They don't know that you have to pay the piper sooner or later.

So, put as many independent candidates involved in the political debates that you want, and you are still going to lose in the game of mathematics. Their party numbers add up more than every other party's numbers. They are going to win every time, until they realize that the house is no longer standing, and the free stuff is no longer free. Edited November 12, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Mark@Sea' timestamp='1352680864' post='843996']
158% turnout in Allen Wests' district. Fraud on a masssive scale.
[/quote]

That could be easily proven if true. Haven't seen West state anything like that?

- OS Edited November 12, 2012 by OhShoot

[Mark@Sea]

West is contesting. He asked that all ballots and machines be impounded but judge denied. The lowest turnout in any ward was 113%. Right now they are focusing on recounts, and one of his staff said it was ridiculous to do recounts, it doesn't address the issue. I don't know when or if the question of fraudulent ballots will see airtime, suspect there is a reason this isn't getting any. Edited November 12, 2012 by Mark@Sea

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Mark@Sea' timestamp='1352684348' post='844055']
West is contesting. He asked that all ballots and machines be impounded but judge denied. The lowest turnout in any ward was 113%. Right now they are focusing on recounts, and one of his staff said it was ridiculous to do recounts, it doesn't address the issue. I don't know when or if the question of fraudulent ballots will see airtime, suspect there is a reason this isn't getting any.
[/quote]

Seems to me only way you could know if votes were "over 100%" would be by comparison to voter registration list? Which should be easily shown? If they're claiming voter registration list itself were doctored, how could you have a figure?

I guess you could compare to the 2010 census, but would seem that's somewhat of a leap.

- OS Edited November 12, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Perhaps complicated in determining "over 100 percent turnout" or fraud, because the districts were freshly gerrymandered since West's first election 2 years ago and he was running in a different and "changed" district.