Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
The 2004 election was something of an anamoly (presumably because of the perceived closeness and the extraordinary efforts of various groups to try and get people out to vote even if they disliked both parties (e.g. Punkvoter.com)). Even then, your 60.7% is a little high I think. The Federal Election Commission puts it at 56.7% of the voter age population ( http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/tables.xls). I've seen the 60% figure previously, but I think that's of eligible voters, not of voter aged adults.
Well, it doesn't "suggest" that, it demonstrates they are able to vote for them. But does that mean anything? |
I took the 60.7% from a Washington Post article on the subject, which upon further analysis was indeed of eligible voters. I'll accept your 56.7% figure, which is of course still a majority.
The increased efforts to promote voter turnout are a symbol of the increased partianship and the desperation of each party to
stop the other party from getting into office. I doubt that this is going to end any time soon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
If offered a choice on whether I would like my hand or my foot cut off, I would probably offer an opinion, but I think it's wrong to assume that I'm necessarily satisfied with the range of choices on offer. Yes, people could set up alternate parties (and many do) but there are enormous barriers to entry and it's not clear whether those who dissatisfied with the Democrats/Republicans have any faith in the system generally anyway.
|
That's why I didn't say that the system is satisfactory - the number of spoiled ballot papers is almost evidence enough. It's impossible to provide possible political representiation for the entire electorate when there are only two main parties. However, I'm not sure how much this affects which party each state leans towards, which is (I think) the topic of discussion.