Why 90 million Americans won't vote in November

[blackascoal]

They could turn a too-close-to-call race into a landslide for President Obama— but by definition they probably won't.

Call them the unlikely voters.

A nationwide USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll of people who are eligible to vote but aren't likely to do so finds that these stay-at-home Americans back Obama's re-election over Republican Mitt Romney by more than 2-1. Two-thirds of them say they are registered to vote. Eight in 10 say the government plays an important role in their lives

Even so, they cite a range of reasons for declaring they won't vote or saying the odds are no better than 50-50 that they will: They're too busy. They aren't excited about either candidate. Their vote doesn't really matter. And nothing ever gets done, anyway.

"I don't think Obama helped us as much as he promised," says John Harrington, 52, a heavy-equipment operator from Farmington, Minn., who was among those surveyed. Since 2008, when Harrington voted for Obama, the financial downturn has forced him to sell his home in Arizona, move to Minnesota to be near a daughter and put him on the road to Nebraska, North Dakota and Iowa to find work.

His wife "loves" Obama and is sure to vote in November, but he's not certain whether he'll get there this time.

Even in 2008, when turnout was the highest in any presidential election since 1960, almost 80 million eligible citizens didn't vote. Curtis Gans, director of the non-partisan Center for the Study of the American Electorate, predicts that number will rise significantly this year. He says turnout could ebb to levels similar to 2000, when only 54.2% of those eligible to vote cast a ballot. That was up a bit from 1996, which had the lowest turnout since 1924.

This year, perhaps 90 million Americans who could vote won't. "The long-term trend tends to be awful," Gans says. "There's a lot of lack of trust in our leaders, a lack of positive feelings about political institutions, a lack of quality education for large segments of the public, a lack of civic education, the fragmenting effects of waves of communications technology, the cynicism of the coverage of politics — I could go on with a long litany."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/non-voters-obama-romney/57055184/1

The two-party duopoly is a complete and utter failure.

 

[Disillusioned]

Seems like something the democrats are missing here when they scream about the hundreds of thousands prevented voting by republicans.

 

[blackascoal]

Seems like something the democrats are missing here when they scream about the hundreds of thousands prevented voting by republicans.

The choice of millions of Americans not to vote has ZERO to do with those who choose to vote.

 

[Disillusioned]

The choice of millions of Americans not to vote has ZERO to do with those who choose to vote.

It says something about the party. There are 80 million americans, that's over 25% of the population, who think neither party has anything to offer them. Says something about the parties.

 

[blackascoal]

It says something about the party. There are 80 million americans, that's over 25% of the population, who think neither party has anything to offer them. Says something about the parties.

It says everything about BOTH mainstream corporate-owned parties.

What's being said about republicans blocking the vote is still valid.

 

[anatta]

if turnout is that low, means we have a "base election", how this campaign is going. Get your base out, the other guy does the same,Hope you snag a few unlikely voters.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The choice of millions of Americans not to vote has ZERO to do with those who choose to vote.

Democrats want to vote FOR the people who don't want to vote.....

 

[gui1tars]

Democrats want to vote FOR the people who don't want to vote.....

You are an idiot, pimp. Stay out of intelligent conversations. You are not capable of sensible contribution. You lie too much.

 

[gui1tars]

It says everything about BOTH mainstream corporate-owned parties.

What's being said about republicans blocking the vote is still valid.

I think the 90 million estimation largely pessimistic but even if it is I believe the liberal/progressive voters will turn out in larger numbers than the horrendous alternative. Your article does make a great point but in the grand scheme of things what does it matter? I know that you are no supporter of President Barack Hussein Obama, you are somewhat a fatalist, but as a realist my support will go 100% left in this election.

 

[Disillusioned]

Democrats want to vote FOR the people who don't want to vote.....

Both Parties do. It's what they mean when they say "By the people for the people"

Remember the good old days of divine mandate when you could blame god for a king who was stupid? Now we're supposed to blame ourselves for these idiots.

 

[Althea]

I think the 90 million estimation largely pessimistic but even if it is I believe the liberal/progressive voters will turn out in larger numbers than the horrendous alternative. Your article does make a great point but in the grand scheme of things what does it matter? I know that you are no supporter of President Barack Hussein Obama, you are somewhat a fatalist, but as a realist my support will go 100% left in this election.

I think a lot of those who take a casual attitude now, will realize what's on the line as the election draws near.

Likewise, many like myself don't have to vote, because their state always goes the same way in the elections.

When Obama was busy showing us what a coward he was on EVERY issue over the last 3 years, I vowed to go back to my old habits of not voting. He didn't earn my vote.

Even though I could see that his long term plan was to concoct a resume that showed a willingness to compromise....I felt that the only way to break the party of NO's back was to stand his ground.

But...each and every time he caved in the 11th hour. And that's why '10 happened. Democrats sent him a message that they weren't happy with his approach. They essentially let the Teabaggers take credit for the changing of the guard.

I also believe that when there's no re-election looming in his future, he'll actually get down to the business of accomplishing his original goals.

But...on paper, he has a list of accomplishments. DADT repeal for one, at the cost of 400 billion in handouts to billionaires, looks great on paper.


He's been talking tough for the last 10 months, which is about all he can do with this do nothing Congress.



So, the question for those in the OP is....are you willing to allow Romneycorp to usurp control of our future, just to teach Obama a lesson?

 

[blackascoal]

I think the 90 million estimation largely pessimistic but even if it is I believe the liberal/progressive voters will turn out in larger numbers than the horrendous alternative. Your article does make a great point but in the grand scheme of things what does it matter? I know that you are no supporter of President Barack Hussein Obama, you are somewhat a fatalist, but as a realist my support will go 100% left in this election.

I always appreciate your perspectives brother, but not voting for Obama hardly classifies me as a "fatalist" and voting for Obama does not classify you as a realist .. nor does it suggest that you're voting left.

BOTH parties are corporate-owned .. as are votes for corporate-owned candidates.

 

[blackascoal]

I think a lot of those who take a casual attitude now, will realize what's on the line as the election draws near.

Likewise, many like myself don't have to vote, because their state always goes the same way in the elections.

When Obama was busy showing us what a coward he was on EVERY issue over the last 3 years, I vowed to go back to my old habits of not voting. He didn't earn my vote.

Even though I could see that his long term plan was to concoct a resume that showed a willingness to compromise....I felt that the only way to break the party of NO's back was to stand his ground.

But...each and every time he caved in the 11th hour. And that's why '10 happened. Democrats sent him a message that they weren't happy with his approach. They essentially let the Teabaggers take credit for the changing of the guard.

I also believe that when there's no re-election looming in his future, he'll actually get down to the business of accomplishing his original goals.

But...on paper, he has a list of accomplishments. DADT repeal for one, at the cost of 400 billion in handouts to billionaires, looks great on paper.


He's been talking tough for the last 10 months, which is about all he can do with this do nothing Congress.



So, the question for those in the OP is....are you willing to allow Romneycorp to usurp control of our future, just to teach Obama a lesson?

Personally, I couldn't care less about teaching Obama a lesson. If he loses he's out of the political picture forever .. so what would be the point of a lesson?

I'm voting my conscience just like many others who've had enough of the dog and pony show.

Start from here .. Obama is a corporatist. The choices are Corporatist 1, Corporatist 2, and Other.

I choose other. I choose to help build the alternative.

 

[gui1tars]

You are indeed a fatalist, BAC. You desire an impossible and personally defined Utopia and that is always suicide at best. As a realist, which I am very much, I examine my viable choices and vote accordingly. Does President Barack Hussein Obama fit my overview as the perfect candidate and President? No, no, HELL NO. Is he the best and most viable candidate to represent me and my better interests as well as what I perceive to be the overall better interests of the country? Yes, yes, HELL YES. That is defined as "realism".

I've spent my life in the trenches agitating for the changes I want in government. As old as I am now I am still battling for respectable and responsible changes in our government and in our very flawed society. I hope the day I die that I will have just left a good protest for truth, justice and the true American Dream.

 

[blackascoal]

You are indeed a fatalist, BAC. You desire an impossible and personally defined Utopia and that is always suicide at best. As a realist, which I am very much, I examine my viable choices and vote accordingly. Does President Barack Hussein Obama fit my overview as the perfect candidate and President? No, no, HELL NO. Is he the best and most viable candidate to represent me and my better interests as well as what I perceive to be the overall better interests of the country? Yes, yes, HELL YES. That is defined as "realism".

I've spent my life in the trenches agitating for the changes I want in government. As old as I am now I am still battling for respectable and responsible changes in our government and in our very flawed society. I hope the day I die that I will have just left a good protest for truth, justice and the true American Dream.

Please tell me who said anything about a utopia? Why is it necessary to reach for an extreme that I've never mentioned?

If you consider voting for more unnecessary wars, more deaconian attacks on civil liberties, and for the corporate will that owns your candidate :0) Be my guest .. call that bullshit "realism." :0)

YOUR candidate is murdering innocent people all over the world .. You capitulators with evil don't want to talk about that .. don't even want to hear it.

Those of us who actually have a conscience and principles .. the exact same conscience and principles that people like you used to have when a republican was in office .. if we choose to act on that conscience, who are you to question that and tell us what we should do with our votes?

I've spent as much or more time in politics, community, and working for change as you have .. and most likely with a more up close and personal view of the workings of politics. I know what works for me. When I die all that counts to me is that I've lived my principles and that I did not vote to murder innocent people. Can you say that?

Talk about fatalist. What you do isn't only fatal .. do you know what they call doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different resilt?

It's called "insane."

You should seriously reconsider telling other people what to do with THEIR vote brother.

It doesn't matter what you call it, I'm voting my conscience .. the capitulators to evil can do whatever they want with their votes.

I intend no offense brother.

 

[gui1tars]

Please tell me who said anything about a utopia? Why is it necessary to reach for an extreme that I've never mentioned?

If you consider voting for more unnecessary wars, more deaconian attacks on civil liberties, and for the corporate will that owns your candidate :0) Be my guest .. call that bullshit "realism." :0)

YOUR candidate is murdering innocent people all over the world .. You capitulators with evil don't want to talk about that .. don't even want to hear it.

Those of us who actually have a conscience and principles .. the exact same conscience and principles that people like you used to have when a republican was in office .. if we choose to act on that conscience, who are you to question that and tell us what we should do with our votes?

I've spent as much or more time in politics, community, and working for change as you have .. and most likely with a more up close and personal view of the workings of politics. I know what works for me. When I die all that counts to me is that I've lived my principles and that I did not vote to murder innocent people. Can you say that?

Talk about fatalist. What you do isn't only fatal .. do you know what they call doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different resilt?

It's called "insane."

You should seriously reconsider telling other people what to do with THEIR vote brother.

It doesn't matter what you call it, I'm voting my conscience .. the capitulators to evil can do whatever they want with their votes.

I intend no offense brother.

BAC, I intend no offense either and I am sorry that you seem to think that I have or am telling you how to vote. That is not the case at all but I do know a lot about your particular brand of political independence and I do always disagree totally with it. Of what use is it? Protest votes? Conscience votes? It is certainly a worthless vote from every viewpoint I can imagine. And you are correct about "utopia". I don't think I've ever seen you actually use that word but your political inclinations, statements and projections certainly lead one to believe you are in search of at least a political utopia. Both of us know full well that ain't likely to happen.

I could argue/debate/discuss with you for days, months or even years concerning American war policy and I'll guarantee you that at the end of it all neither of us will have changed the other a single iota. The American prison/industrial complex? My good brother, you and I are singing from the same sheets, even doing a bit of call and recall. In fact, you and I see identically on a great number of issues. I hope you understand and appreciate that.

Peace, my Brother.