IMO voting is not only a right , but a responsibility.

I wonder what changes would be made by politicians if they knew that EVERYONE eligible would be voting.

Explain, please.

*

They'd be promising free drugs and alcohol to the people that are now too drunk or stoned to go vote.

The only day of the year when "we the people" have real power in our hands and it's not even an official holiday. This is purposeful and we're too dumb to recognize it or change it. Good ol' Tuesday Tradition for white rich male land owners.

They'd be promising free drugs and alcohol to the people that are now too drunk or stoned to go vote.

That is a shocking statement. Where is your proof?

100%

people died for your right to vote.
now , the gopers are trying to steal that right... and some people seem not to care!

it's wrong!

Complacency, disillusionment, ignorance and many other reasons figure in... the fact that the original idea of voting for real, actual representation is no longer what people get when they vote... that might have a little something to do with low voter turnout... though, there are often things that make it more difficult for people to exercise their right to vote, as we continue to read the news regarding voter suppression, added hoops to jump through for many that have been voting for decades now, etc.

Maine, Washington and Oregon were 1-2-3, each with more than 56 percent of citizens 18 and older voting.

At the other end were Utah, Tennessee and Texas, all 36 percent or less. Texas was lowest at 31.4 percent.

Within Oregon, those who identified as white non-Hispanic were the most likely to vote, coming in at 58.2 percent. That group drove the state's high turnout as it was 85 percent of the population.

Oregon was split 51/49 female/male, with both voting at around 56 percent.

One possibly distressing point was the turnout for Hispanic voters, which was the lowest of any demographic group in the state at 32.9 percent.

Of course the sample was so small the margin of error was 20.2, which means the true rate could be anywhere from 12 to 53 percent, so take what you will from that.

Nationally Hispanics were a key demographic, making up 7 percent of the electorate, the "highest percentage for a non-presidential election since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting this information in 1974."

Other quick hits from the Census Bureau press release:

The most common reason people did not vote was they were too busy (27 percent). Another 16 percent felt that their vote would not make a difference.

Homeowners were more likely to register and vote than renters; 74 percent of homeowners were registered to vote and 68 percent actually voted; 61 percent of renters were registered and 52 percent voted.

People with at least some college education made up 68 percent of voters. Individuals without a high school diploma comprised 6 percent of voters.

Veterans were more likely to vote (57 percent) than nonveterans (44 percent).

People living in families who earned $100,000 or more were more than twice as likely to vote as those who lived with families earning less than $20,000 (61 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."

From my own admittedly small sample size, the college age voters don't vote because they don't see any relevance to their current lives, however that perked up considerably when the discussion turned to student loans and Pell grants and the different positions of the Candidates.

For other voters, its 'too busy', as many of the folks around here have to commute long hours eg leaving at 5 am returning at 8 am, and don't ever get around to requesting a mail-in ballot.

Neither is a valid excuse.

Simply put, many do not believe that elections are effective, or that the candidates have the ability to change existing conditions.

Demi actually said:

They'd be promising free drugs and alcohol to the people that are now too drunk or stoned to go vote.

That is a shocking statement. Where is your proof?

*

The proof is you don't have a sense of humor.

Obviously, until everyone DOES vote, we won't know for sure and therefore will not have proof until then--try deductive reasoning to answer your own question.

Hopefully the new ID requirment law will help keep the voting legal this time around although I know it won't stop the fraud completely.

In part...
"Danielf Froomkin reported yesterday on The HuffingtonPost that a new study released Sunday, conducted by News21 and funded by the Carnegie and Knight Foundations went through "5,000 court documents, official reports, and media reports" involving VOTER FRAUD since 2000. Three substantive findings of the study are:
1) Any kind of election fraud is exceptionally rare. Among 600 MILLION votes cast, 2,068 cases of "election fraud" were alleged: this is a .000003 incidence of alleged election fraud.
2) Voter fraud is even rarer. Only 30.6% of the "election fraud" cases involved "voter fraud". That's 633 cases in 600,000,000. Translation: that's a .000001 incidence of all voter fraud.
3) IN-PERSON voter fraud is, according to the report, "virtually non-existent". With 600 MILLION votes cast, there were 10, yes 10, cases of alleged in-person voter fraud: this is a .000000001 incidence of alleged in-person voter fraud, the purported reason that Voter ID laws have been implemented in so many states.
(I did the long division calculations since Excel insists upon defaulting to scientific notation. Feel free to check my math.)
This evidence is the result of truly Herculean efforts by conservatives, efforts specifically undertaken at great expense to prove that voter fraud is rampant. They have proved the opposite.
The evidence shows that instead of being rampant, voter fraud is virtually non-existent."

The proof is you don't have a sense of humor.

Obviously, until everyone DOES vote, we won't know for sure and therefore will not have proof until then--try deductive reasoning to answer your own question.

Demi, you will need to explain your reasoning about not "having a sense of humor".

There is really nothing funny about your statement, and how does deductive reasoning come into understanding your statement and finding the humor in it.

JZ should.

So glad you didn't expect me to get it, looks like I'm not the only one though.

And again, there is no humor in what you said, but then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand that either.

And Molly..close to a million Pennsylvanians will be disenfranchised because of the photo voter ID passed a few months ago to ENSURE a Pa victory for Romney out of the mouth of the leader of the GOP house, Mike Turzai. Not ONE case was found and millions and millions of tax payers money is being spent enforcing it. Tomorrow the court will rule. We have the strictest law in the country from our teabagger legislators and governor.

That is sad. I vote in every election that comes my way. I'd vote in the dog-catcher election if one were to be held. People fought for my right to do so, women marched for my right to do so. I vote.

snarky today, aren't you Demi.

*

You made the most vile hateful personal speculations and accusations against me a month or so again and you have the nerve to call me snarky?

"US has the lowest voter participation rate than any
other legitimate democracy according to an NPR report."

Those photo ID laws sure worked fast~~

demi, you are always one of the most eloquently spoken persons on this forum. Some people don't like what you have to say but that's par for the course. When I saw someone called you snarky I had to laugh. You have more self restraint than anyone I know. LOL

This is a real pet peeve of mine.

"They'd be promising free drugs and alcohol to the people that are now too drunk or stoned to go vote."

Littleone, how can you miss such a sweet, delightful sense of humor? Seriously, you have to recognize that wonderful disposition. She is such a sweetheart.

Speech #2 may be on the way.

Frank, if only you got what you give.

No one cares enough to bother to give it back much.
Count me as one of those.

Demi, you are unable to give it back. You just tried. It was sad, but you did try. Thank you, however, for giving speech #4 (not worthy of response). I am happy to see that you might have a new speech that comes from the movie 2016 though.

Demi, you are unable to give it back. You just tried. It was sad, but you did try. Thank you, however, for giving speech #4 (not worthy of response). I am happy to see that you might have a new speech that comes from the movie 2016 though.

Good night Demi. Try not to become irrelevant.

Sleep tight, Frank.

Ah yes, absentee ballots:

A Republican candidate for supervisor in Pinal County, Arizona has with withdrawn following allegations that his former companion continued to cast absentee ballots five years after her death.

In a statement issued by his attorneys, John Enright said he was quitting "for several reasons, including an almost year-long battle with cancer," but did not address the voter fraud allegations, according the The Arizona Republic.

Several weeks ago, the Pinal County Recorder's Office received an anonymous letter that claimed that absentee ballots had been cast by Sheila Nassar as late as this this year, even though she had died on Feb. 3, 2007. Enright had lived with with Nassar until the time of her death.

How come that with almost every incident of voter fraud, it's Republicans committing it - especially voting while dead? And how many are there?

Needs attention, loves baiting me.

It's sad bait, Frank.

Sorry, I'm just not into you.