Civics & Conspiracy: Can Local Efforts Influence A Nation?

Here in The States, 10 percent of registered voters are turning out for the primaries. When we get to the general election, 30 percent of voters will turn out. This means that 70 percent will stay home on election day. In my view, this means that those of us who do vote have more power than we should. It's power that I hope we use responsibly.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Some food for thought .

Well unintentionally you just made a very good case for compulsory voting. The only country I know of that has compulsory voting is Australia. Australia has legislated(SP?) good civics. The only sure way to avoid having a minority control who is elected is compulsory voting.

Now it is to make the case as to why a citizen or in some cases permanent residents to vote in democracy but is any wonder that 70% of the population doesn't vote in the US when the Electoral College can override the popular vote ?

Footnotes : when my Mum moved to Australia in the 70s she was unaware that it was illegal not to vote and she coped a fine.
Permanent residents are entitled to vote in NZ.

I don't think voting should be compulsory. It's a test of our social fiber. Low voter turnout should tell us that our society is in trouble. High voter turnout should tell us that civic virtue is alive and well. I'm sure that Don can remember the days hen voter turnout was higher.

As I write this, the North Carolina state-level Republican party is about to run an add targeting Democrats.

North Carolina Republicans have unveiled an ad labeling Barack Obama "too extreme" for the state – and hammering two Democratic gubernatorial candidates for endorsing him.

Source

Here's a case of local efforts that conflict with national-level agendas. When you get right down to it, the national GOP can't stop the local party affilates from running this ad. It really is a local matter.

It's quite possible that the national GOP chair is going to find a way to punish the specific people who were responsible for green-lighting the ad, but ask yourself this one question. If you're a state-level party person, do you want the freedom to make this kind of decision? Suppose you really do disagree with the national party agenda?

Watch this one closely, and you'll see why I say that local efforts can still make a difference.

Well I thought it was worth posting an example of how good people could influence the future of the New Zealand political system . Opposition leader John Key has promised a referendum on MMP in 2011 if elected .

Source

The referendum would ask if people are happy with MMP ?
Suffice to say I would encourage people to vote yes if the referendum takes place nor would I encourage anyone to vote for either of the two major party's if someone came to me for advice on who to vote for come election time .

In order to stay focused on the topic here is a general question for everybody .

What advice would you give to an undecided voter in your area ?

I find that by simply talking with an undecided person, they end up asking enough questions and tlaking things through...to...make up their minds. Usually takes a few hours, but you'd be surprised how many people need to talk it through with somebody before they can make up their minds.

There is an interesting thread that asks the following question .
Would a popular vote system make you vote again ?
While the Electoral College is a topic for Americans to deal with I can fully understand why some Americans wouldn't bother to vote because the way the Electoral College swings doesn't always reflect the popular vote .

Cheers xpert11.

I'd like to point out one thing about american politics. As each new election cycle passes, the various third parties gain ground. Libertarians, Greens, and others are all claiming larger percentages of the total vote. Later in this century, these third parties will come in to some degree of power, and they'll do it on their own merits.

They may not put a President in the White House any time during this century, but they will eventually have enough aggtregate power to influence who does get in to teh White House. Eventually, Republicans and Democrats will have to take them seriously.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


IMO two things need to happen before third party's gain any real representation in the US . The first is that voting ill regularity's need to be cleared up that goes without saying . The second is that some degree of electoral reform is required I know that Don has strong views on this matter . Without some degree of electoral reform the bar is just to high for third party's to gain any meaningful representation .

We have not yet seen the day when a meaningful percentage of the population is willing to vote for a third oarty. i do think that day is coming. Eventually, when enough people do vote for third parties, they will "be heard."

The MSM was incredulous when Ron Paul did so well during hte primaries with such a small budget. They laughed at him. The ridiculed him. Time and time again, we heard th talking heads say, "we can't understand...." The fact remains that they really did NOT understand.

Eventually, two things will happen. A dynamic third party candidate will come along, and voters will take a shine to them. When this happens, you will see the two major parties attack in ways that we haven't seen before. If the MSM likes the new guy/gal, they'll get teh same kind of 'shield' that keeps Barack Obama in the game.

When that happens...

At the risk of going off topic a response is warranted .

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The MSM was incredulous when Ron Paul did so well during hte primaries with such a small budget.

A lot very much depends of what gauge you use to measure Ron success . Ron is barking up up the wrong tree any third party influence is going to come from congress rather then the presidency .

Eventually, two things will happen. A dynamic third party candidate will come along, and voters will take a shine to them.

While that is not impossible full blown Libertarianism doesn't seem to appeal to the wider US population despite the US having more leanings in that direction then else where . There is no structure or plan in place that would allow a third party to sit in Congress . A third party such as the Libertarians or who ever else would sit nicely in the House of Representatives.

If the MSM likes the new guy/gal, they'll get teh same kind of 'shield' that keeps Barack Obama in the game.

The MSM wont ever give backing to candidate that opposes there corporate owners agendas.

A successful third party will have to posess a very very dense local support base. They'd need to have a lot of peole in office at the local and State levels long before they ever put up a National candidate. It's worth noting that today's third parties make a lot of projgress through the internet. Any future grass roots effort that does make a splash will make full use of the internet.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


The same more or less applies to local and state politics . Although the electoral system may be of less importance it still isnt enough just have fan boys posting on message boards . You still need a concrete foundation .

For example think of this question how many seats would a third party need to have in order to hold the balance of Power in the Alaskan(SP?) legislate(SP?) ?

Cheers xpert11.

Ten in the Houe and two in the Senate would make any U.S. third party a force to be reckoned with. They wouldn't control anything, but they'd have just enough swing votes to be a credible force. That's just my two cents.