Time for change

[buckman]

VOTE THEM OUT. Change is good, remember. Vote out all incumbents next time. Both sides. Then they will get it. And if they don't, who cares they are gone.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

VOTE THEM OUT. Change is good, remember. Vote out all incumbents next time. Both sides. Then they will get it. And if they don't, who cares they are gone.

Significantly easier said than done. On a national level, I didn't vote for a single incumbent - on the state level, 1.

The principle issue is the two-party system, and merely one or two hot-button issues that people base who they vote for on.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Significantly easier said than done.

The principle issue is the two-party system, and merely one or two hot-button issues that people base who they vote for on.

Problem is the average American is uninformed, and dosen't have time to really pay attention to everything going on. Too busy trying to survive.

Politicians drive home on the hot button issues because they know and depend on most only reading a headline or two, and the short memories of most.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Problem is the average American is uninformed, and dosen't have time to really pay attention to everything going on. Too busy trying to survive.

Politicians drive home on the hot button issues because they know and depend on most only reading a headline or two, and the short memories of most.

Not being informed is not an excuse. If you are uninformed, then you shouldn't vote - period. The last thing we want are people voting that can't put aside enough time to evaluate the positions of each candidate, their stance on certain policies and form an educated opinion. Everything needed to be educated on an election can be read within an hour or two per week of the campaign. All the other crap is just there so a bunch of fisherman can post on a forum about how they didn't like a candidates haircut that day.

I refuse to believe that the average American does not have 2 hours per week to evaluate the candidates that lead this country. And if they can't, then the responsible thing for them to do is not show up at the polls.

After the Presidential Election, there was an interesting exit poll that I read about. These people went to various polls and asked some of the usually questions -who'd you vote for, what's your party, etc - but they also asked questions like:
"Who was the opponent of the candidate you voted for?"
"What is the name of the Vice President you voted for?"
and many other questions like that.

Can you believe that up to 5-10% of people who entered the polls could not answer the above questions and questions similar? Not to mention this was an extremely small scale, regional exit poll. I wonder what the numbers would look like nation-wide.

Now, take into consideration the winning margin of both Bush's victories and Obama's victory - all 3 of which had popular vote differences <10%.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Not being informed is not an excuse. If you are uninformed, then you shouldn't vote - period. The last thing we want are people voting that can't put aside enough time to evaluate the positions of each candidate, their stance on certain policies and form an educated opinion. Everything needed to be educated on an election can be read within an hour or two per week of the campaign. All the other crap is just there so a bunch of fisherman can post on a forum about how they didn't like a candidates haircut that day.

I refuse to believe that the average American does not have 2 hours per week to evaluate the candidates that lead this country. And if they can't, then the responsible thing for them to do is not show up at the polls.

After the Presidential Election, there was an interesting exit poll that I read about. These people went to various polls and asked some of the usually questions -who'd you vote for, what's your party, etc - but they also asked questions like:
"Who was the opponent of the candidate you voted for?"
"What is the name of the Vice President you voted for?"
and many other questions like that.

Can you believe that up to 5-10% of people who entered the polls could not answer the above questions and questions similar? Not to mention this was an extremely small scale, regional exit poll. I wonder what the numbers would look like nation-wide.

Now, take into consideration the winning margin of both Bush's victories and Obama's victory - all 3 of which had popular vote differences <10%.

All good points. I agree as good citizens people should spend a few hours a week reading, attending town council meetings and writing or calling their represetatives.

However the reality is, from what i have seen, with two people working in a family to make ends meet, picking up and driving kids to day care, school, etc., maintaining a house and trying to find time for family and all it entails, uses up most of their time.

I agree uneducated voters should do the responsible thing and not vote. The reality here though is, as long as there are "hand out programs " and politicians knowing they will draw votes by pushing them, and people think they will get something for nothing, they will vote for whoever will give them the most.

Politicians know human nature and play it like a violin.

[ecduzitgood]

I would love to see some sort of screening process to eliminate the unimformed but so far this is still a free country. I still would like to eliminate party affiliation, that might help weed out the uninformed. I also feel people would judge the politicians by what they do and actually make somewhat of a difference when elections come around again. This would also cancel out any games that are played with reguards to districts.