Two Part Question...

[Cypress]

1) Would you like to see voter turnout in elections in the United States reach 80 or 90% participation (as seen in other major western Democracies)?*

* A simple question. An affirmative or negative repsonse is all I'm looking for. I'm not particularly interested in statements or explanations about how a lot of americans are too dumb to vote. I think americans, on balance, are as smart as Australians, Swedes, or Danes.


2) What would the net effect be on our national policies be, if we routinely had 80% voter turnouts? More conservative, more progressive, or about the same?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) yes

2) more moderate policies, less tolerance for extreme righties or lefties.

 

[Cancel7]

1) Would you like to see voter turnout in elections in the United States reach 80 or 90% participation (as seen in other major western Democracies)?*

* A simple question. An affirmative or negative repsonse is all I'm looking for. I'm not particularly interested in statements or explanations about how a lot of americans are too dumb to vote. I think americans, on balance, are as smart as Australians, Swedes, or Danes.


2) What would the net effect be on our national policies be, if we routinely had 80% voter turnouts? More conservative, more progressive, or about the same?

1) Yes
2) Much more progressive.

 

[Damocles]

1) Yes.
2) Much more Independant. Most americans aren't as partisan, it is what puts them off the elections to begin with. They keep falling for the "throw your vote away" crap.

 

[Cypress]

1) yes

2) more moderate policies, less tolerance for extreme righties or lefties.

Agree on number one.

I agree there would be less influence of rightys. I'm not sure the extreme left is very influential at a national level now.

I would say that our nation our government would cater more to the public interest, and less to speicial interests, if they were more afraid of the voters. And 80% voter turnouts would make politicians sit up and take note.

If that's what you mean by "moderate", I agree.

 

[Fear&Loathing]

I am of the opinion that the politicians of both parties try to dissuade citizens from voting. That's why there's the mud slinging, the avoidance of issues. If more people voted these freaks would never make it to the stage.

 

[uscitizen]

1) yes
2) much more socialistic..unfortunately. More of the poor do not currently vote.

 

[blackascoal]

The problem with America is Americans.

 

[Litmus]

The problem with America is Americans.

hey. that's what globalists think too. That's why they keep importing mexicans and anyone else they can find to dilute the traditional freedom oriented culture of the united states. Other people always prove to be a pesky obstacle to elitist totalitarians.

 

[uscitizen]

The problem with America is Americans.

The problem with the earth is humans.

 

[Litmus]

Hey Kids! Nihilism isn't cool. It's an intellectual copout. It's not a real point of view. It's just the continual act of negation. It's basically a meme that was introduced in our culture to induce it to die from lack of trying. All the white guilt, all the western guilt, all the christian guilt, the moral relativism, the brainlessness of it all is quite destructive.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

1) Yes
2) Much more progressive.

Generally, I agree. I don't know about that "much" qualifier, but the evidence tends to support this position. Historically -- including recent history -- low turnout is good for conservatives whilst high turnout is good for liberals and progressives.

 

[Beefy]

1) Would you like to see voter turnout in elections in the United States reach 80 or 90% participation (as seen in other major western Democracies)?*

* A simple question. An affirmative or negative repsonse is all I'm looking for. I'm not particularly interested in statements or explanations about how a lot of americans are too dumb to vote. I think americans, on balance, are as smart as Australians, Swedes, or Danes.


2) What would the net effect be on our national policies be, if we routinely had 80% voter turnouts? More conservative, more progressive, or about the same?

1.) That would be fantastic.

2.) More libertarian, more legalized gambling and pot, free vicodin for everyone, and less taxation.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Hey Kids! Nihilism isn't cool. It's an intellectual copout. It's not a real point of view. It's just the continual act of negation. It's basically a meme that was introduced in our culture to induce it to die from lack of trying. All the white guilt, all the western guilt, all the christian guilt, the moral relativism, the brainlessness of it all is quite destructive.

Once again, you prove that you haven't even a clue what "nihilism" really means.

Stop embarrassing yourself, sell the computer and go back to class, kid.

 

[blackascoal]

hey. that's what globalists think too. That's why they keep importing mexicans and anyone else they can find to dilute the traditional freedom oriented culture of the united states. Other people always prove to be a pesky obstacle to elitist totalitarians.

The "traditional freedom oriented culture" .. you mean the one that committed genocide on the native people .. or the one that enslaved and oppressed black people for more than 350 years .. or the one that relagated women to second-class citizens .. or the one that overthrows democratically elected governments and installs brutal dictators with brutal secret police forces .. or the one that invades small nations at will .. Is that the freedom oriented culture you're talking about?

Question is .. what did mexicans have to do with any of that?

The "freedom" oriented people did that.

The "freedom" oriented culture types turn like to re-write history to support the fairy-tale of being freedom oriented. Take the Alamo for instance. Mexicans had no problem with Americans living in their territory of what is now Texas .. but the "freedom" orienters insisted on bring along their slaves, who had no such freedom. Mexico didn't allow slavery and refused to allow Americans to hold slaves in their territory. Americans and their bankers felt is was their god-given right to enslave their property so they decided to fight and take the Mexican land. Toss in some heroic characters like Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie and a dose of white supremacy and you've got yourself one dang good ol' fairy-tale where you can blame the mexicans for inhibiting freedom.

Mexicans coming to America diluting "freedom" .. that's a joke.

 

[Litmus]

The "traditional freedom oriented culture" .. you mean the one that committed genocide on the native people .. or the one that enslaved and oppressed black people for more than 350 years .. or the one that relagated women to second-class citizens .. or the one that overthrows democratically elected governments and installs brutal dictators with brutal secret police forces .. or the one that invades small nations at will .. Is that the freedom oriented culture you're talking about?

Question is .. what did mexicans have to do with any of that?

The "freedom" oriented people did that.

The "freedom" oriented culture types turn like to re-write history to support the fairy-tale of being freedom oriented. Take the Alamo for instance. Mexicans had no problem with Americans living in their territory of what is now Texas .. but the "freedom" orienters insisted on bring along their slaves, who had no such freedom. Mexico didn't allow slavery and refused to allow Americans to hold slaves in their territory. Americans and their bankers felt is was their god-given right to enslave their property so they decided to fight and take the Mexican land. Toss in some heroic characters like Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie and a dose of white supremacy and you've got yourself one dang good ol' fairy-tale where you can blame the mexicans for inhibiting freedom.

Mexicans coming to America diluting "freedom" .. that's a joke.

Traditional american society has at least espoused freedom for the "mainstream". THough there has been racism. All people have warred at the margins. Indians killed indians. Mayans butchered themselves.....

The point is americans have always recognized the inherent dangers of state authorized monopolies of any kind.

Totalitarians seek to import a more desperate population that will focus on short term material gains instead of the maintenance of freedoms, which is an abstract battle at the front. They want people happier with less, because that's what they want to give.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1) Would you like to see voter turnout in elections in the United States reach 80 or 90% participation (as seen in other major western Democracies)?*

* A simple question. An affirmative or negative repsonse is all I'm looking for. I'm not particularly interested in statements or explanations about how a lot of americans are too dumb to vote. I think americans, on balance, are as smart as Australians, Swedes, or Danes.


2) What would the net effect be on our national policies be, if we routinely had 80% voter turnouts? More conservative, more progressive, or about the same?

1. Don't really care. The only nations with high turnout are those with proportional representation, especially with an individualized form of it like STV. I've never seen a nation that uses single member districts that has turnout above 60%. I don't see voter turnout going above 60% in America, no matter what. It never has before.

2. I don't think it'd change anything. Maybe it would push things a bit more populist and authoritarian, since usually it's the populists who don't vote. You probably wouldn't notice much of a change, though.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Generally, I agree. I don't know about that "much" qualifier, but the evidence tends to support this position. Historically -- including recent history -- low turnout is good for conservatives whilst high turnout is good for liberals and progressives.

Not really...

High turnout is usually accomplished by having a really charismatic, emotionally driven leader. Voters don't usually like politicians who don't emote over the place. Hitler, for instance, inspired really high turnout, but he wasn't "liberal" at all. That's why I always take such charsimatic leaders with a grain of salt.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The "traditional freedom oriented culture" .. you mean the one that committed genocide on the native people .. or the one that enslaved and oppressed black people for more than 350 years .. or the one that relagated women to second-class citizens .. or the one that overthrows democratically elected governments and installs brutal dictators with brutal secret police forces .. or the one that invades small nations at will .. Is that the freedom oriented culture you're talking about?

Question is .. what did mexicans have to do with any of that?

The "freedom" oriented people did that.

The "freedom" oriented culture types turn like to re-write history to support the fairy-tale of being freedom oriented. Take the Alamo for instance. Mexicans had no problem with Americans living in their territory of what is now Texas .. but the "freedom" orienters insisted on bring along their slaves, who had no such freedom. Mexico didn't allow slavery and refused to allow Americans to hold slaves in their territory. Americans and their bankers felt is was their god-given right to enslave their property so they decided to fight and take the Mexican land. Toss in some heroic characters like Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie and a dose of white supremacy and you've got yourself one dang good ol' fairy-tale where you can blame the mexicans for inhibiting freedom.

Mexicans coming to America diluting "freedom" .. that's a joke.

America and other nations have at times been unfree and free... I wouldn't dilute all of it with a single paragraph like that.

 

[Annie]

That war had a lot more to do with the 'settlers' speaking English and being Protestants than slavery. That's just revisionist.