Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from exister Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:37 (Agree/Disagree?) To me the most interesting voting related story of our adult lives is the fact that Jeb Bush purged thousands of names from the list of eligible voters in FL in the months leading up to the 2000 presidential elections. Many of these people had not legally lost their voting rights and were therefore purged illegaly. Furthermore the majority of them were Hispanics and African Americans, and it is fair to say that most would have voted for Gore. No one has disputed the veracity of these facts. The reason no one is raising a stink about it is because White America is terrified by the idea that the future of our nation could have been determined by a few hundred non-white voters. So this issue is largely ignored, and those like me who bring it up are largely dismissed as malcontents who won't forget the past. I myself am outraged that our democratic process was hijacked by a Bush good ol' boy in order to squeeze his brother into the presidency! More outrageous still is the fact that the government's remedy for punch card ballots consists of software systems designed by a company that will not allow government officials to test the accuracy of the system or to review its source code. I am not exaggerating, look it up. This means the outcome of our democratic process can be controlled by a handful of software engineers hiding behind a copyright license. But hey, proprietary software is another rant for another time... (reply to this comment)

from Albatross Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, I've always thought that voting gives one a free pass to gripe for the next four years without having to admit to not actually having done anything personally to affect the outcome. Of course, if everyone who did not vote in Florida last election would have voted, it's possible we would still have had the same impasse. I'm sure that liberals and democrats are not the only ones not voting for their man. Of course if Ralph Nader had not run...........well, that's a different story. November 2004 is going to be fun! (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, January 23, 2004, 10:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Check out this site for a study on voter demographics. It has been shown in other studies as well that the people who don't vote are in the lower economic brackets as well as those belonging to minority ethnic groups. It's a sad fact that often the people with the most to lose by not voting are often the people who don't vote. And you're right, this Nov is goona be very entertaining! http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, January 23, 2004, 12:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Um, do they really have the "most" to lose? My county is trying to pass a law to take 5% of my income. It's all graduated so the lower classes only pay 1-2%, etc, depending on income. So in this case, we middle-upper clasess have the most to lose! I'm hoping you're right and the stupid plebians will be too busy praying or breeding to vote for this idiotic measure. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, January 23, 2004, 14:16 (Agree/Disagree?) There are other things to lose besides a certain percentage of one's income, Joe! Many of the issues that affect minorities and the lower and middle class are not the same as those of the wealthy! For example, health care, education, the environment, fair wages, civil rights, etc. The list goes on and on. It's not surprising your taxes are being raised with the budget cuts happening all over the country now! Maybe if the many tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest of the wealthy under the current admistration were rolled back, states and local governments wouldn't have to raise taxes on the middle class. It's happening here in Ky too! The Universty of Louisville is facing 100 mill in budget cuts which is putting my graduate research grant in jeopardy. In the meantime taxes for the wealthy few are lower than they've been in the last 40 yrs or so.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, January 23, 2004, 15:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, the welfare state is over. I have seen the future of this country and it is Mexico! There will be a few rich and a whole bunch of poor, so join the elite while you can people, 'cause the middle class is going bye bye!(reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 10:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I am inclined to disagree with your assertion that non-voters are equally distributed between liberals and conservatives. In my opinion those inclined not to vote are also more likely to be somewhat nonconformist and hence liberal. I would further venture to say that if we had 100% voter participation in all elections in our land there would not be a major national office held by a conservative. It is indeed sad that so many have allowed themselves to be effectively disenfranchised by their own non-participation. For those of you who think that your vote does not count I would challenge you to give me numerical and statistical evidence that this is the case. If you cannot produce said evidence then you have no excuse for shirking your civic duty to vote. The fact is no one can produce this evidence because no one can predict the exact numbers of an upcoming election. The swing voters are always shifting and like Holon said you never know when your vote might be the one that makes a difference. BTW, I am not a liberal or a conservative, I am a RADICAL!(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, January 26, 2004, 09:03 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all if you are living in the states right now you need to take a closer look of how our voting system really works. Just because you stand in a little booth and vote does not for one minute mean your vote actually does anything. In order for the system to work it has to be overhauled. Why would I want to waste my time in a booth when in the end they can override my vote anyway? How did Bush get elected? By big daddy pulling the right strings. WAr Boom Bust in this case really worked. I vote to rework the system so when I do vote my vote really counts and does not go to some guy who chooses to ignore my vote or not. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, January 26, 2004, 09:03 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all if you are living in the states right now you need to take a closer look of how our voting system really works. Just because you stand in a little booth and vote does not for one minute mean your vote actually does anything. In order for the system to work it has to be overhauled. Why would I want to waste my time in a booth when in the end they can override my vote anyway? How did Bush get elected? By big daddy pulling the right strings. WAr Boom Bust in this case really worked. I vote to rework the system so when I do vote my vote really counts and does not go to some guy who chooses to ignore my vote or not. (reply to this comment)

From exister Monday, January 26, 2004, 11:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You are obviously a chronic double clicker. Do you also punch out two holes when you vote? Maybe that's why your vote gets discarded.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 17:22 (Agree/Disagree?) At least here in the UK I would say that your theory doesn't apply. Recent surveys show that the younger generation (those who have gained the right to vote during Blair's term as Prime Minister) have the most right-wing views in the country. Separate research also shows that this age-bracket has very low turn-out in elections. Based on these surveys - as well as my own observations - I would say that people are as likely (or perhaps even more so) not to vote because of complacency and thinking that their vote isn't needed, or won't make a difference, as they are to refrain from voting because of any nonconformist opinions.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, January 23, 2004, 11:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I wonder why the British youth have become more right wing in their views? Could it be that they are tired of all the crap like the lax immigration laws that allow the UK to be inundated with criminals and gangs that make it unsafe for my little brother and sister to take the tube alone. These are the same people that swarm into the UK and take advantage of the lax benefits laws and are a drain on the economy and then trash the country. Or could it be that they are tired of all this "politically correct" bullshit that is being pushed down by both the public and private sector also because some dumb ass in parliament doesn't have the guts to say enough is enough. Who cares if the dumb ass from Somalia doesn’t have the same rights to get a job as the fella that was born and raised here and who’s grandfather fought in the war? I think that it's our generation that will finally wake up and start condemning what the current administration fears to do because of social expectations. On the other side, if I did have to choose a left wing Brit prim minister, I would have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised with Blair lately.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 23, 2004, 11:34 (Agree/Disagree?) lol, another Sun reader vents his opinion, yeah, it's all the bloody immigrants fault, send em back where they belong yeah? :-/ The benefit laws should be tightened up or removed altogether, stop feeding our scum and you won't get other scum coming over for space at the bucket, but to start getting xenophobic and denying entrance to legitimate asylum seekers while funding our underclass to sit around and breed like rabbits is ridiculous. Scrap the welfare state and remove some of the beaurocracy hampering industry (some of our labour laws are just nuts) and you solve the problem, that way at least you know the only people who are gonna suffer are people you don't want in the genepool anyway, the failures, rather than someone who's running the risk of being tortured to death in his/her home country for the crime of being the wrong race/culture. The reason the youth of today are more right wing than ever is a reaction to the erosion of all sense of belonging to a country they can be proud of or a local community, which are steadily destroyed by the welfare state and a succession of poorly thought out social experiments. There is always a surge of nationalism when a country develops crippling social problems that the average joe can't understand, blame the outsider, it can't possibly be our fault. Isolationism and protectionism are not the way to go, it is the path being adopted by the US and it is something being fed by the sensationalist tabloids here as well, I for one hope that either this government or the next one seriously pulls it's collective finger out and start making some hard social choices or this trend of nationalism will only worsen. Just my opinion (reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 23, 2004, 12:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I find it curious that the UK seems to have this global martyr complex that compels it to take on the wellbeing of the opressed masses of the world. After all you are just a tiny pair of islands in the chilly North Atlantic. Maybe your colonial past has laid a centuries long guilt trip on you. (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 23, 2004, 12:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I've often thought that the whole PC thing is just a whiteboy guilt-trip, but meh, who cares, as far as the wellbeing of everyone is concerned most countries in Europe have an Asylum Seekers policy of some kind or other, America probably has one as well but it's a bit harder to get to from most of the countries with real problems. The reason ours is a problem is our lax welfare system and our crap processing methods which means that abusers get in far too easily and it's far too hard to get em out again. (reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 23, 2004, 12:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Political expediency also plays a role in the fate of asylum seekers. In the mid '90s I had the good fortune of working with the wave of Cuban refugees that were sequestered in Guantanamo (I was there when they built camp X ray, man!) Anyway, during the '80s there was also a wave of Cuban boat people. Then Governer Clinton of Arkansas decided to do the whole left wing immigrant loving thing and invited a bunch of them to settle in his home state. The joke was that many of them were felons that Castro had shipped out on inner tubes to reduce his prison population. So the crime rate went up in Little Rock and Clinton was not reelected. Fast forward to the '90s and then President Clinton wasn't about to let the same mistake cost him the '96 election. So of to the internment camps they went to live in squalor under martial law while awaiting "processing." Ah the paralyzing magic of a nicely bloated bureaucracy.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 23, 2004, 11:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Correction, just read your bio, probably not a Sun reader as you don't live here, all I'll say is don't trust your media source whatever it is. (reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 23, 2004, 11:29 (Agree/Disagree?) And the underlying currents of xenophobic rage finally come brimming to the surface. On the flipside, I'd have to agree with you that Europe is a mess. God bless the USA, and no place else! Joking here, don't get all Euro-enraged at me...(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 17:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know. It's hard to say.I'd like to see a study on it. I'm inclided to stick with historical precedent which seems to see-saw between conservative and liberal poles. I would imagine that it's the swing voters that keep us (thankfully) from falling victims for too long, to the ravages of either the far right or the far left. I don't think America is as far left as most liberals like to think it is (I recommend France for them), nor as far right as the right-wingers would hope. (for them I suggest Saudia Arabia). Here's to the moderate swing voters! May we be spared from the tyrany of the radicals. (not yours of course ex)(reply to this comment)

From Tim R Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 21:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, that's always the problem I have too. I'm a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative. (I want progress, but I want someone else to pay for it.) I'm getting sick of being stuck between the "Religious Wrong" on the one side, and guilty socialists on the other. I say it's time America got some new political parties. (reply to this comment)

From toast Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 17:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Here's voting for the swinging mods! Or the modish vote swingers!(reply to this comment)

From Alf Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 15:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Why be complicit in the charade of the 'democratic process'? APATHY NOW!(reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 16:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Remember, withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 22, 2004, 02:12 (Agree/Disagree?) meh, who cares . . .(reply to this comment)

from Bella Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 00:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you Holon! Good post! (reply to this comment)