grassroots progressivism

Those aren't "real" Americans

technically. But theres more landmass of small towns. Therefore they tend to get more of the vote.

This is why Missouri is so pro-rural and anti-city in all its lawmaking decisions.

edited 1st Aug '11 4:14:18 PM by Midgetsnowman

The Left doesn't need a radical grassroots movement, they just need to get off their lazy asses and vote more.

When the chips are down, a large chunk of Democrats just decide "It's hopeless" and stay at home on voting day. When things aren't looking good for Republicans, most of their base votes anyway.

Ding Ding Ding.

edited 1st Aug '11 5:05:44 PM by Thorn14

^^ But a grassroots movement seems to be the only effective way of getting out the vote. There was a huge surge in conservative voter turnout (relatively) in 2010 due to the tea party.

We need a way to make sure that liberals and moderates actually vote this time and that requires a message people can rally behind.

edited 1st Aug '11 5:12:08 PM by storyyeller

It helps that cops don't administer body cavity searches when they try to vote.

^

Well maybe if a large majority of the Left weren't drug users, it wouldn't happen.

^^

That message is "Stop being so fucking lazy and apathetic"

It's disgusting that they need some sort of big event or message to get them to vote, you would think the discontentment of this recession would be enough. Or basic humanity.

Your inspiration is how fucking crazy most of the right is and the damage they will cause if they win, enjoy.

edited 1st Aug '11 5:57:35 PM by Barkey

This is why if I were ever supreme ruler of the US... or at least in some kind of position to do so... I would make voting compulsory, period. I don't care what or who you vote for, but you will vote. Democracy cannot represent properly if everyone isn't voting, so, therefore, everyone has to vote. I think it's rather simple, honestly.

Before we make voting mandatory, we should at least make it a holiday and force employers to let people off work.

That isn't a bad idea. It would also have to be over more than one day, so that the emergency services and whatnot could vote without shutting all that stuff down. It would probably only be for Federal elections, as well; I don't know how I'd force it on all the states.

I wonder how I'd get all the soldiers to vote. There's a fun one... they'd have to do it in advance, I imagine, but it would be no fair if they hadn't seen any of the commercials and whatnot...

Apart from the Equal Protection Clause, the federal government has no official constitutional power over state elections. However, when you set rules for federal elections, the states tend to have the same rules in order to simplify things and save money.

Ah yes, democracy at gunpoint. (Not So Different from tyranny really.) It's working really well in Australia with their Great Firewall Imported From China and their vicious censorship laws lately.

Gunpoint? Hardly. Fine for not voting? Probably. But never gunpoint. Really now, is democracy really working if everyone isn't voting? Like I said, I don't care what you vote for, but dammit, you will vote.

I always admire our infinite ability to point out the flaws in others systems and take none of the lessons from them.

Yes. Democracy embodies choice in government. To choose one guy or another or to not vote at all.

To restrict choice by force means taking away democracy.

What would make more sense is a "none of the above" option, or in other words, "get your asses back to real work so we can elect someone competent."

edited 2nd Aug '11 4:39:46 AM by GameChainsaw

Democracy is also about representing the majority and defending the minority. How can we be sure we're anywhere near doing that if everyone doesn't vote? What, isn't it only like a third or, at best, half of the US that votes? That's part of the problem. We wouldn't need grassroots movements if everyone already voted. I don't want to have to make it compulsory. But if we don't, then most people aren't going to vote. Even if we do the national holiday thing, I doubt more than 2/3rds of people would vote. It's sad, really.

Yet there was a time in US history where voter turnout (the 1836 election comes to mind) was 80 percent or higher.

Find out why it dropped before trying to institute democracy at gunpoint. I know the reason and it's not pretty for those who propose compulsory voting.

Then would you mind sharing it with us instead of dropping cryptic hints?

It's called partisan politicking and proposing bandwagon solutions. "Do this because Europe did it, don't do this because Europe did it", things like that and excessive use of the filibuster (in contemporary times first abused by Democrats in 2001, then comes 180 degrees post 2008.). Over the long term people became disillusioned with the prospect of voting if that was all they had to choose from.

Where did the innovation go? Where did the politician who actually knew something other than being a lawyer or community organizer go? Where did answers that didn't involve Jumping On The Bandwagon go? They've all vanished in favor of what I said.

Um... well, besides some ideological drift, the lack of trust in government—which is understandable, given the Cold War—and general cynicism, I would most say it's because the country is fucking huge and there's like 10 times as many people in it now than there was at the time...?

^ People in the 19th century had to wait sometimes months for their vote to be counted owing to the system of horses and walking being the primary modes of travel. Yet they still voted even if their vote wasn't counted until after a winner had been declared three weeks earlier.

The politics were no less corrupt. The people were just more idealistic and there was no TV to remind them why that was a stupid mindset to have and that the politicians are, in fact, all corrupt or well-meaning but inept... or both.

Well, can we at least agree that corporations should not be allowed to sponsor politicians? For that matter, I'm for a campaign spending cap which limits how much each party can spend.

Aside from anything else, the amount of money and work that goes into a presidential election can only be described as decadent from an outsiders point of view. This is what televised debates and manifestos are for.

Hardly, I absentee voted from the sandbox when I felt ready to turn it in.