> ...the apathy and boasting about not voting going on here is the exact reason our politicians such idiots.
Or, alternatively, that our politicians are such idiots is the exact reason that there's apathy and boasting about not voting.
> People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that's because they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met.
Close to half of the voters in 2008 and 2012 were under the age of 45. It still resulted in one of the most useless Congresses in history, a pointless budget deadlock that damaged the US credit rating, increased powers of federal surveillance, continued insane drug policy ... the only issue that might be considered a win by the liberals of that age group is health care, and that came at a very steep political price and arrived at the door step a jumbled, broken mess.
Do you really believe that if the voter turnout by those under 45 had been 10% or 20% higher that it would have had much of an impact on the political process?
> By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do.
That's not how it works. The loudest of voices do not belong to voters; they belong to blowhards career politicians and media personalities and people with enough money to buy politicians of any party.
> Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are passed by the people voted in by those that did.
Maybe not, but it removes any claim to the wishes of the majority by those that write and enforce the laws.
And by the way, except for two elections, voter turnout in the U.S. has hovered between 70% and 80% since the 60s.
Oh! I was wrong. I had gone off of a graph of voter turnout for several different countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turnout.png -- it came up while searching for demographic information on voters), but I'm colorblind, and didn't realize I was associating the wrong lines with the wrong country. Hate when that happens.
Or, alternatively, that our politicians are such idiots is the exact reason that there's apathy and boasting about not voting.
> People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that's because they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met.
Close to half of the voters in 2008 and 2012 were under the age of 45. It still resulted in one of the most useless Congresses in history, a pointless budget deadlock that damaged the US credit rating, increased powers of federal surveillance, continued insane drug policy ... the only issue that might be considered a win by the liberals of that age group is health care, and that came at a very steep political price and arrived at the door step a jumbled, broken mess.
Do you really believe that if the voter turnout by those under 45 had been 10% or 20% higher that it would have had much of an impact on the political process?
> By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do.
That's not how it works. The loudest of voices do not belong to voters; they belong to blowhards career politicians and media personalities and people with enough money to buy politicians of any party.
> Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are passed by the people voted in by those that did.
Maybe not, but it removes any claim to the wishes of the majority by those that write and enforce the laws.
And by the way, except for two elections, voter turnout in the U.S. has hovered between 70% and 80% since the 60s.