Who benefits from voter turnout?

[°Leprechaun]

Do you think either party benefits from increased turnout?  

I think the Democrats do and I also think that there will be a higher turnout than usual this year. One factor is all the anger at Bush for Iraq and for ruining the economy. (not to mention the environment)

Anyway if it is true that a higher turnout helps the Democrats, all the more reason to be hopefully for the defeat of Bush.

[mossy]

Oregon has gone to mail in ballots, over the strenuous objection of the GOP.......voter turn out almost doubled, even on single measures.

I was wondering recently how the candidates will handle the primaries here--people respsond quickly when the ballots are mailed two weeks prior.

I just had a recorded message to vote yes on a measure that I'd already mailed back 10 days ago.....   campaigning here in the last two weeks is a waste of time--most everybody has voted already.

[bejkuy]

Mossy,

Where do you live?

I live in the Woodburn.

[Gustaf]

Well, you answered your own question. Of course the Democrats benefit from higher voter turnout. Whether it will occur to a great extent, I'm not sure, but it might.

[bejkuy]

This may sound like heresy, but a is a huge turnout such a good thing.

I want people voting who understand the issues and make well informed decisions.

I have no problem with the ignorant dems or reps not voting.

If half of the county doesn't care enough to vote, than it's probably best that they don't.

[Gustaf]

This may sound like heresy, but a is a huge turnout such a good thing.

I want people voting who understand the issues and make well informed decisions.

I have no problem with the ignorant dems or reps not voting.

If half of the county doesn't care enough to vote, than it's probably best that they don't.

Well, it's a point, the problem is how exactly do you decide who's reasons are wrong? YOU might think them wrong, but then again a lot of Dems robably think that you have no idea what you're doing, politically, and vice versa.

[Michael Z]

This may sound like heresy, but a is a huge turnout such a good thing.

I want people voting who understand the issues and make well informed decisions.

I have no problem with the ignorant dems or reps not voting.

If half of the county doesn't care enough to vote, than it's probably best that they don't.

You have a point there. For example, is it such a coincidence that in Australia, where voting is compulsory, the racist One Nation Party happens to be the second-biggest political party? (Or third-biggest, I can't quite remember... point is, they're doing shockingly well.)

I wouldn't say this as a token rule, but extremist parties tend to do better when the turnout is excessively high.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One Nation was very big in Queensland for a while.
Until Hanson got convicted for Fraud...
The ALP and the Liberals (conservatives) have been the biggest since the '40's, while the NPA have been third since the '20's.

Complusory voting has stopped Vlaams Blok from being the biggest party in Flanders, while in France the lower the turnout the better FN does. And vice versa.

[mossy]

This may sound like heresy, but a is a huge turnout such a good thing.

I want people voting who understand the issues and make well informed decisions.

I have no problem with the ignorant dems or reps not voting.

If half of the county doesn't care enough to vote, than it's probably best that they don't.

That's how it used to be only, white literate male land owners were allowed to vote.    

[Platypus]

One Nation is a tiny party in Australia, except in the state of Queensland, which is like the Australian version of Alabama, from what I understand.

I think compulsory voting is a great idea. If you have to vote, then you are going to take some time to know what you are meant to do, and who is available to vote for.

Also, it is the only way that majority opinion can truly be represented. Add alternate voting, like they have in Ausralia, and it means that (at least in theory) you need 51% of all eligible voters to win-a true majority.

It might be expensive, but how can we call ourselves a democracy when a candidate wins an election with only 25% of eligible voters?

[mossy]

This may sound like heresy, but a is a huge turnout such a good thing.

I want people voting who understand the issues and make well informed decisions.

I have no problem with the ignorant dems or reps not voting.

If half of the county doesn't care enough to vote, than it's probably best that they don't.

I jumped in too quick on this-----I was reading somewhere that democracy is virtually impossible to succeed in countries with high illiteracy rates......that it could easily take several generations from an illiterate society, to one developed enough to handle democracy, without being swallowed up.....

[Gustaf]

Oregon has gone to mail in ballots, over the strenuous objection of the GOP.......voter turn out almost doubled, even on single measures.

I was wondering recently how the candidates will handle the primaries here--people respsond quickly when the ballots are mailed two weeks prior.

I just had a recorded message to vote yes on a measure that I'd already mailed back 10 days ago.....   campaigning here in the last two weeks is a waste of time--most everybody has voted already.

We have that in Sweden too, but most people still vote on election day, even though the number of mail in ballots have increased steadily.

[bejkuy]

<<<That's how it used to be only, white literate male land owners were allowed to vote>>>

If the general populace is ignorant, even compulsory voting won't stop the elites from ruling.

[Michael Z]

The problem I have with compulsory voting is based on a sheer question of principle:

Surely, in a true democracy, you should also be allowed the freedom not to have an opinion? In that light, forcing everyone to vote would ultimately defeat the purpose of democracy.

By forcing everyone to have a political opinion you end up with something little better than a dictatorship.

[Gustaf]

The problem I have with compulsory voting is based on a sheer question of principle:

Surely, in a true democracy, you should also be allowed the freedom not to have an opinion? In that light, forcing everyone to vote would ultimately defeat the purpose of democracy.

By forcing everyone to have a political opinion you end up with something little better than a dictatorship.

I agree with that compeltely. It should be possible to show lack of support of the system as a whole by not participating in the eelctions.

[Platypus]

Then donkey-vote or vote for a party like the Liberal Socialist Nazi-whatever party.

If people *have* to turnup, they are more likely to take an interest. They don't have to contribute to the electoral process if they don't want to, but they have to make that choice, as if it were a choice on the ballot paper. Apathy is the anthesis to democracy, certainly not voting.

[MarkDel]

Michael Z,

Are you sure you're a Democrat...you're starting to make wayyyy too much sense to me in your posts. I agree with everything you said in this thread.

[zachman]

Increased voter turnout means, new voters. Bush hasn't motivated any non-republican new voters. Also, many of my friends here in New Hampshire have Republican parents who do not support Bush, and will vote to defeat him.

Also, rememeber the last election was a dead heat and Al Gore was the Lowest Common Denominator of a legitimate democratic nominee. Kerry will instantly earn all of Gore's voters, and the anti-Bush indepentdants/Republicans, who are a large group here in NH and elsewhere. Bush has not made real gains among new voters although the stupid approval rating polls seem to think he has (believe me he hasn't).  I could be all wrong though; since New Hampshire has no evangelical population.

Bush will try to beat Kerry on issues. Kerry will play a fighter, and win the uneducated voters who typically vote for Bush (from my observations here in NH Kerry won here  over the uneducated and maybe the elederly? My exit polling of friends, family, and parents shows that Dean Clark and Edwards split most of the support. Lieberman did well with people who vote Republican in most elections. I have still not met a single Kerry supporter here in NH).

[12th Doctor]

Increased voter turnout means, new voters. Bush hasn't motivated any non-republican new voters. Also, many of my friends here in New Hampshire have Republican parents who do not support Bush, and will vote to defeat him.

Also, rememeber the last election was a dead heat and Al Gore was the Lowest Common Denominator of a legitimate democratic nominee. Kerry will instantly earn all of Gore's voters, and the anti-Bush indepentdants/Republicans, who are a large group here in NH and elsewhere. Bush has not made real gains among new voters although the stupid approval rating polls seem to think he has (believe me he hasn't).  I could be all wrong though; since New Hampshire has no evangelical population.

Bush will try to beat Kerry on issues. Kerry will play a fighter, and win the uneducated voters who typically vote for Bush (from my observations here in NH Kerry won here  over the uneducated and maybe the elederly? My exit polling of friends, family, and parents shows that Dean Clark and Edwards split most of the support. Lieberman did well with people who vote Republican in most elections. I have still not met a single Kerry supporter here in NH).

Strange, what you are saying is not supported by the facts.  Since 9/11, the Republicans have out registered the Democrats by 4-1 margins in some of the battle ground states and the ONLY state were the Dems have equaled the Republicans in registration is New Hampshire.