Yeah, but we'd have Billy the Bully on our payroll twisting the arms of all the other countries and getting us free quarters for ice cream.

Pocket Ninja: Yeah, but we'd have Billy the Bully on our payroll twisting the arms of all the other countries and getting us free quarters for ice cream.

And we'd be driving souped up black 1969 Camaros.

Is this the type of democracy we're spreading in Iraq?

Even Bulgaria and Romania boast higher turnout rates than the U.S. at 80% and 81% respectively which either speaks volumes about the poor quality of entertainment in Eastern Europe or is a sad commentary on the general state of affairs in U.S. politics.

Or it's a comment on how spending 30 years living under the boot of a savage like Ceausescu does tend to focus people on their civic rights - once they have some, anyway.

But it's not. And many of us do not care what the citizens of Seville or Bern think of us.

We vote with our big american guns, senor.

i think only the most intelligent third of our population should be allowed to vote and that it should be mandatory.

Why do people complain about voter turnout? I'd rather have people who are too dumb to vote intelligently stay home on election day.

Our low vote turnout couldn't have anything to do with the douchebags that run for office, could it? I give you Obama v McCain, Bush V Kerry, Bush v Gore, etc. etc....

FTFA: Now I'm not saying that that I want to elect someone to office who was found banging dead hookers or eating babies, I'm just saying that it might not be the worst thing for our country if a good portion of our elected officials had a bit more in common with the rest of us.

I've been saying this for years. But you should have at least finished High School to be voter eligible.

dj_bigbird: Our low vote turnout couldn't have anything to do with the douchebags that run for office, could it? I give you Obama v McCain, Bush V Kerry, Bush v Gore, etc. etc....

obvious troll is obvious

Duh, the mentally retarded are easy to manipulate so they will do your bidding.

Generally speaking, the most apathetic of voters tend towards the lesser-informed. You probably don't want them voting, anyway.

Even Bulgaria and Romania boast higher turnout rates than the U.S. at 80% and 81% respectively which either speaks volumes about the poor quality of entertainment in Eastern Europe or is a sad commentary on the general state of affairs in U.S. politics.

IDEA figures tell a different story for Bulgaria and Romania.

He seems to be using election turnout for national lower house figures from Wikipedia. That's hardly representative.

it's because we're affluent. citizens of an affluent society aren't motivated to change and have other things to do and think about instead.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

senator_mendoza: i think only the most intelligent third of our population should be allowed to vote and that it should be mandatory.

How do we determine that? What jobs people hold? Standardized testing?

dj_bigbird: Our low vote turnout couldn't have anything to do with the douchebags that run for office, could it? I give you Obama v McCain, Bush V Kerry, Bush v Gore, etc. etc....

I would guess that may be partially true. People voting for who they hate least, rather than who is a good candidate.

Its also because most of those countries have laws requiring you to vote, with various civil penalties or loss of privileges if you don't. That and our politicians have sucked so much in the last few generations that many have become disillusioned with politics.

Obvious tag strangely absent.

Most people are just disappointed in our lack of choices. I think the electoral college system kind of warps our voting patterns as well.

senator_mendoza: dj_bigbird: Our low vote turnout couldn't have anything to do with the douchebags that run for office, could it? I give you Obama v McCain, Bush V Kerry, Bush v Gore, etc. etc....

obvious troll is obvious

It wasn't meant as a troll, just a statement of fact.

If my aunt had a dick and balls, she would be my uncle.

Who cares? People who care, vote. People who don't care, don't vote. All I ask is that the people who didn't vote don't biatch about their elected officials, because they had a chance to have a say in the process and they chose not to.

I'd be more comfortable with this if we weren't also the overly-developed, super-hormonal but emotionally challenged kid reading 'Guns and Ammo'.

New voting rules: high school diploma or GED. And you can't vote if your primary source of income for the last six months has been welfare or unemployment.

Of course, if you're intelligent enough to be completely disenchanted with the system, you're probably not voting either. So anyone with graduate degree or filing for over a certain level of income has to vote.

When life is tolerable you don't bother to change it...

This person is an idiot. Our reps should be as intelligent as we can get. "A person a bit brighter than your average Joe, but not too bright" is what we've got right now. People forget that our founding fathers were friggen geniuses, not uneducated yokels.

Uh, we don't have compulsory voting. I'm gonna say that's kind of a point in our favour overall, and probably increases how informed those who do vote are.

Were's this guy getting his numbers?
I found a 64% (new window) turnout in our last election, still over 60 in 2000..
There's other differences as well.. RUSSIA for example, had their presidential election on a SUNDAY...

Obviously it's sad that we don't have more turnout.
And personally.. I really do think we should either hold it on a weekend, or make election day a national holiday.

But I'm not a big fan of made up numbers & apples&oranges comparisons.

senator_mendoza: i think only the most intelligent third of our population should be allowed to vote and that it should be mandatory.

Very generous of you to volunteer to give up your vote in the hope that this will improve overall voting patterns, but I don't think it will help much.

"If the free world was a high school and voter turnout determined the pecking order, the U.S. would be sitting with the kids wearing headgear and helmets at lunch. "

Oh, so the free world is similar to the self-righteous popular assholes who wouldn't DREAM of talking to someone considered an 'outcast' by the other popular kids, for fear of being thought of as unpopular themselves?

palelizard: New voting rules: high school diploma or GED. And you can't vote if your primary source of income for the last six months has been welfare or unemployment.

I'd be interested to know how many people who fit these criteria actually do vote.

So anyone with graduate degree or filing for over a certain level of income has to vote.

Why? What does my utterly worthless MFA in Shakespearean Literature have to do with my ability to make an informed decision at the polls?

kieran57: This person is an idiot. Our reps should be as intelligent as we can get. "A person a bit brighter than your average Joe, but not too bright" is what we've got right now. People forget that our founding fathers were friggen geniuses, not uneducated yokels.

Pretty much. But the drive to lead (and ability to excel at it) doesn't always coincide with high intelligence. Anyone who wants to be in charge is probably unqualified to do it.

Some people don't vote because even though a law on a piece of paper says your employer must give you time off to vote, they don't. Another problem is some people think it is rigged as rasslin' so why bother? JWs say it is against their religion, and others are afraid that voting means jury duty. A lot who do show up are so damn stupid that they should be disqualified, like the ones who think the Electoral College is a school. http://www.uncoveror.com/electoral.htm

kieran57: People forget that our founding fathers were friggen geniuses, not uneducated yokels.

And yet.. so many were toothless with poor hygiene..

Nabb1: Generally speaking, the most apathetic of voters tend towards the lesser-informed. You probably don't want them voting, anyway.

Sadly, a number of retards I've spoken with in the past week ALL plan to vote, and they're all lower-middle-class poor-asses who couldn't explain the difference between a Senator and a Congressman (I asked) and are basing their decision on the fact that they:

A) wouldn't vote for a black buy

and/or

B) think Obama's middle name makes him Muslim

So as much as I resent the Republican Slime Machine, there's no denying that they (and Fox News) have their finger on the pulse of the ignorant white-trash voting block. President McCain is more possible than I previously believed, and if he gets here at all it'll be on the backs of slack-jacked, uninformed apes like these, voting in a race-driven popularity contest.

"... the U.S. would be sitting with the kids wearing headgear and helmets... "

Huddled masses ???

GoRedSoxGo: I'd be interested to know how many people who fit these criteria actually do vote.

I would too, actually. I've had conservatives offer the opinion the demographic is the core constituency of the Democrats, but never any real numbers.

Why? What does my utterly worthless MFA in Shakespearean Literature have to do with my ability to make an informed decision at the polls?

To be honest, it probably doesn't. It does mean, however, you were able to perform academically at a (presumably) higher standard, so you're at least in the same ballpark at the desired target. I'm not saying you're not, just going with the hypothetical.

Barricaded Gunman: bla bla bla ... So as much as I resent the Republican Slime Machine, there's no denying that they (and Fox News) have their finger on the pulse of the ignorant white-trash voting block... bla bla bla...

I can only hope your outrage extends equally into the inner-cities, etc.. where uneducated minorities who aren't even engaged enough in society to have a FRIGGIN DRIVERS LICENSE OR PHOTO ID will be stampeding to the polls in masses to vote for the 'brother'... (or any other democrat thats been on the ticket for years)

senator_mendoza: i think only the most intelligent third of our population should be allowed to vote and that it should be mandatory.

Speaking as someone who most likely would be in that top third, I have to tell you that making it compulsory would piss me off to no end, and while I might obey the law, I would probably consistently vote for the WORST candidate, instead of the one I thought was the best.

Either that, or I would just not vote and not pay any fines. How can you require a free person to vote? And if you are not free enough to decide whether you want to vote or not, what is the point in voting in the first place?

I think you will find that in general, intelligent people don't like to be told what to do.

I'm pretty sure your plan would be unconstitutional, on two points: First, denying the right to vote to citizens (the 2/3rds that don't get to vote), and violating the First Amendment rights by requiring those in the top 1/3rd to vote*.

*Voting, or the decision not to vote, is pure political speech, and pure political speech has the highest protections in the US.

GoRedSoxGo:
Why? What does my utterly worthless MFA in Shakespearean Literature have to do with my ability to make an informed decision at the polls?

Full fathom five, thy franchise lies?

/Get thee to a punnery

Get your own G'damn P&J sandwich, 'merikah!

Politicians should be elected under duress. No child should want to grow up to be a politician. The people who don't want to be politicians would do a better job then the corrupt type that chose to go into politics. Candidates should be Shanghai'd from their homes in the middle of the night and taken to Senate/Congress where they will sit until their term is up.

palelizard: I would too, actually. I've had conservatives offer the opinion the demographic is the core constituency of the Democrats, but never any real numbers.

I've seen that too. I find it kind of hilarious that there seem to be two contradicting arguments - one, that Democrats are, at their core, welfare recipients with no education and two, that they're elite snobs who don't know the plight of the average Joe.

To be honest, it probably doesn't. It does mean, however, you were able to perform academically at a (presumably) higher standard, so you're at least in the same ballpark at the desired target. I'm not saying you're not, just going with the hypothetical.

On further thought, I can see how the critical thinking honed in grad school would be useful. (And yeah, I do think I'm more politically educated than the average voter - I'm just not sure how much that has to do with my higher education.)

dittybopper: I'm pretty sure your plan would be unconstitutional, on two points: First, denying the right to vote to citizens (the 2/3rds that don't get to vote), and violating the First Amendment rights by requiring those in the top 1/3rd to vote*.

His plan would require a constitutional amendment, yes. So would pretty much any plan to fix the utter farkup that America's voting system has become.

Nabb1: Generally speaking, the most apathetic of voters tend towards the lesser-informed. You probably don't want them voting, anyway.

... and the people who are smart enough to understand the probability of their vote actually mattering for any of the offices they vote is almost nil.

Maybe more people would turn out to the polls if they didn't have to choose between a sh*t sandwich and a giant douche.

dittybopper: GoRedSoxGo:
Why? What does my utterly worthless MFA in Shakespearean Literature have to do with my ability to make an informed decision at the polls?

Full fathom five, thy franchise lies?

/Get thee to a punnery

When they will not give a doit to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see a dead Arab.

I have not problem with uninformed people not voting.

oldfarthenry: Get your own G'damn P&J sandwich, 'merikah!

can ya spot me some chips, pop, and bar?