@ JackFr2 > It's not obvious to me that higher voter turnout leads to better governance.
True. Post-election governance could be poor even if 100% of eligible voters voted. And since we don’t suffer from complete groupthink (,yet), an result in such a scenario would still leave things to be desired for some voters. However, what people too often miss is that voting is a signaling mechanism. And that’s why it’s important for people to vote for any candidate who they believe best represents their interests, even if they are “fringe” candidates who are unlikely to win. Example: Ross Perot lost in his bid for the US Presidency, but politicos definitely took note of how many people voted for him and that has and still ripples through the game today.
The issue about the quality of governance (QoG) stems from what I like to call ‘outsourcing’. The general populace has outsourced the management of their affairs to people who, by nature, have their own interests; many some of which are actually competing interests. So, when they vote, pat themselves on the back, and then check out, they generally enable being provided “more of the same.” Also, low voter turnout is definitely looked upon favorably by insiders, (until it isn’t and then, only temporarily).
@ brookhaven_dude > Young people need to be targeted because old people are already turning out in droves, and driving policy that favors them.
Thanks for saying this. I’ve been downv-oted in the past for saying as much, but it’s the simple truth. There’s a clip of a WH Press Briefing — all kids— in which Obama gets asked about voter cynicism and such. He starts talking #s. I forget the specifics, but IIRC, he says that the presidential-election year youth vote is ~20%. In non-PE years, it, of course, falls. If one extrapolates some guesstimates for local electoral politics, things are probably even worse. So, before we even start accounting for lobbying and economic$, the “youth vote” has pretty much relegated itself to being a bit player in the general equation. If the collective is happy w/what’s happening, then fine. But if the collective really wants to be considered and to see some changes then it needs to get in the damn game. That means regularly showing up to vote (intelligently) and having a persistent and strong pre$ence in the places where policy is made. Period. The collective also needs to take ownership of this instead of waiting around for/ whining about how someone should do the heavy-lifting and organize something for them (outsourcing). And as I’ve alluded to, money is unfortunately a necessary part of this game until the rules and/or game have been changed. So, that means that the avg. person, unfortunately, has to take an interest in and actually make(ing) sound economic decisions.
TLDR: - Vote @ the polls, on the phones, inboxes and in the legislative halls (no one on the inside of anything is taking marchers and the like seriously. they probably don't even know that exist);
- Numbers matter & low voter turnout is/can be a tool;
- Mobilize (yourselves) or be immobilized.
That doesn't seem to be the case, as best I can tell. This is site shows Presidential election years with a ~40% turnout, and mid-terms at about half that: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
Interestingly, the seasonality of the 18-29 voters is much greater than that of other age groups - half as many show up for mid-terms. Compare that to the 60+ age group, where ~70% vote on PE years and ~55-70% vote during midterms.
2) I hate you for making me have to track down and listen to the clip again.[1] (j/k)
3a) On the “Turnout Rates: Age” graph, the 18-29 demo consistently has the lowest turnout of all groups for each year measured.
3b) I count 8 cycles > 20% and 8 <= 20%. No other group is has similarly low numbers.
4) From the link you provided: "Pollsters have long noted that poll respondents overstate their voting participation."
Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding something here.
