meritocrat

Some of the most common reasons for voter apathy is that 'nothing ever changes', or 'politicians are all the same' and 'politics doesn't affect me'.

Regarding the latter statement, is that wholly logical? The actions of government would really affect everybody in a society in some regard.

Cap'n Jack

There isn't a huge difference between the parties these days, which seems to put people off.

Kinross

After the 2000 election I vowed never to vote for a Republican or Democrat again until there is no longer a two party system were the two parties are exactly the same.

Jat

Maybe you should move to Canada. We have 5 VERY different parties. Gee, not only do we respect our people's liberties more than you Americans, but we also have more real choice during election time.

Gurdur

LOL, a thread here I finally get to agree fully with meritocrat.

Amen-Moses

I really would like to discuss voter apathy ... but I just can't be arsed.

Amen-Moses

matthias j.

Five? That's nothing. A coallition in Belgium needs at least four parties and there are 11 serious parties to chose from.

Another thing to prevent situations like the vote in the UK yesterday is that you have to show up at the voting boot the day of the election. I personally think it's good thing (you don't have to vote, so there's no violation of your freedom to vote) but there are some downsides to it. Extremist parties tend to get more protestvotes, which is a shame. But saying you should prevent such votes by changing the system isn't very democratic imho.That sounds like "stupid people shouldn't vote but drink beer and watch football instead while we decide what's good for them" to me.

theyeti

America's two party system won't change until we cange our winner-take-all electoral system. The only way any party can win anything is to try to form a coaltion that overlaps more than 50% of the electorate (or a plurality if the majority is split). Otherwise they get nothing. The opposition has no choice but to do the same. So given the nature of the system, you're always going to end up with two parties who try to represent the middle but also cater to one extreme. If we want to change this and get a parlimentary system that awards power according to the percentage of the vote recieved, and not just to whomever can muster a plurality, then we'll need a Constitutional ammendment. Given that that's not likely to happen any time soon, about the best one can do is try to move politics in general in a given direction.

theyeti

copernicus

Most of the answers to this question tend to be the same--that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. In reality, there is quite a big difference, as the last few years of the Bush administration have demonstrated. The US economy has dropped like a stone, hundreds of thousands have been thrown out of work, the religious right has become far more influential in government, we have invaded and occupied two countries (not all of which can be blamed on 9/11), environmental policy is in the toilet, and the court system is getting a radical makeover. Yet we still get the facile excuse that there is no real "choice". At the same time that the country has experienced a virtual right-wing coup.

The two-party system does not ultimately work all that differently from the multi-party parliamenatarian systems in other democracies. Whoever wins tends to govern somewhere around the middle, and basic governmental policies change gradually. That is by design. The fact is that the majority of voters prefer slow, stable change, not global disruptions in their lives. Unless there is some major crisis, such as the Great Depression, most people want to live their lives in peace. When an incompetent radical like Bush gets into power, things can get very messy. The biggest fault with our system is not that it presents us with little choice in the voting booth, but that it fails to convince the voters that they have a choice or educate them in what that choice is.

Personally, I have no gripe with the two-party system, which brings us some stability. I have lots of gripes about how embarrassingly skewed and disfunctional the election machinery has become. Political debate has been reduced to sound bites in an advertising campaign. Publicly-acknowledged bribery (in the form of campaign contributions) is now widely accepted as lawful and legitimate. The fault is not in our politicians, but in a public that refuses to demand better at the voting booth. We usually get what we vote for (except in the last presidential election, of course. )

peacenik

Voter apathy is largely as bad as it is because many people realize that the process is hopelessly corrupt and have rationally chosen to spend their time on things that are more amenable to change. Until we create an election process that (1) doesn't lock out third parties and (2) makes the current practice of corporate interests bribing our politicians illegal, we will see no real change in the current state of affairs in which the producers of labors are mere pawns of those who hold the capital. We need public financing of campaigns now!!

I have proposed such a system in another recent thread that contains specifics about how such a plan could work, and it would only cost each American citizen $3 bucks a year. That's right, for $3 bucks a year we can take back our electoral systems from the corporate special interests that have wrestled power away from us.

See: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=52439

What do you think about this plan?