Tonight, on the Newshour, they did a piece on Unity08, who are trying to tap into the great unwashed middle. The “purple”, you could say. Most of whom don’t vote. Good!
Anyway, I’ve been hearing much bemoaning over the political polarization in this country. I wonder, now, if that’s really a bad thing. Do partison politics pull issues away from or toward the true middle? Do we really want more agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats?
I’m really naive politically, but I see great value in having real debate between the parties. And between The Senate and Congress. And the Administration. All this lovey-dovey makes me nervous. And, in person, I’m a quite lovey-dovey person.
Peace,
mangeorge
The Senate is PART of Congress.
And to everyone who says we need to go after these people who don’t vote or pay attention to what’s going on: do we really want uninformed, disinterested people casting votes at random? If they can’t be bothered to take even a minor interest in the workings of their government, why should we beg and plead for them to participate in the process?
in the uk, england i suppose i should say, all the parties are trying desperately to be in the middle, appealing to the most voters. when i moved to ireland i found it quite refreshing to have parties that disagree so much, on such big issues.
Here’s a thread in Great Debates on the topic.
In my opinion, the difference between the two powerful parties is so narrow that the ideal of them meeting each other half way is terrifying. The focus should be on healthy discourse, not simple agreement. Oh yeah, and instant runoff voting-- that would be nice too.
Yeah, the Senate and them other guys. Told ya I was naive.
I kinda agree with the rest of your post, as long as no barrier is put between anybody and their right to vote.
If they do indeed cast votes at random, then that’s the price we must pay for our freedoms.
In which case it would be positively idiotic to encourage them to vote, because in fact it would be reducing our freedoms. But I think most non-voters aren’t abstaining because they’re uninformed or disinterested. I think many just don’t consider voting a high enough priority to justify the time it requires them to take off from work. A lot of us ignore that issue.
Wouldn’t that pretty much be disinterested? They’re not interested enough to make the time to do it (and employers are required to give employees leave to vote.)
If they’re not interested in doing their duty as citizens of a democracy, we shouldn’t try to cater to them out of some misguided sense of inclusion.
Just a wild guess, but considering most polls show that traditionally, the eligible non-voters generally tend to lean towards the Democrats and would have voted for them, I doubt seriously that any Republican is in a hurry to start working on “get out the vote” strategies.
So of course there will be the chorus of “good thing the idiots DON’T vote”…that’s how Dubya got elected the last two times by the skin of his teeth - that, and a few pockets of fraud.
This idea that the “purple” folks simply don’t have enough brains to cast their votes in the correct manner is pure elitism, snobbery, ivory tower superiority, or call it whatever you want. Democracy is the system where leaders are chosen by a vote of the people. Nothing in the definition demands that those people use a particular method to choose their candidate. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution demands that the people use appropriate logic to make their choices.
Let’s face it. When voter turnouts are routinely under fifty percent, it’s a sign that our system of government isn’t healthy. When politicians see that a certain class of people aren’t showing up at the polls, it’s taken as a green light to screw those people over. The more voters, the merrier.
Well, I’m not a Republican, but I would imagine that in Republican-leaning areas many of the non-voters would vote Republican, so it would make sense to try to get them out to vote.
I think part of the reason for low turnout in national elections is the outdated system. Early results reporting and the electoral college being prime suspects. But the idea of direct popular vote seems to scare the hell out of the smaller states. And voters on the west coast have a pretty good idea of the winner before they even get to the polls. Of course, we can still vote on the other stuff. 
Peace,
mangeorge (who has voted every election since 1968)
I haven’t heard that one for a while.
That other thread is close, but 180 out 
. I’m asking whether the two major parties are at odds as much as the Unity08 people (and a lot of others) claim.
I think not, and ask if it’s a good thing that they’re so close in their politics.
Again, I think not. I yearn for more diversity in political philosophy. Exactly the opposite, I guess, of what Unity08 seems to espouse.