Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mastiff]

In Norway we have a turnout of around 70-80 % on the main election, which is of the legislative Stortinget (we have a king, so he doesn't have to run every four years...). From statistics it seems that in 2002 the US voter turnout was less than 40 %! So do you guys vote? Of course of you don't you do have the option to say "hey, I didin't vote for that clown"! 

[KingSparta]

some facts about voting

http://www.civicyouth.org/quick/youth_voting.htm

If I could vote from my computer, I would vote. In this day and age we should not need to stuff ballots in a slot in a box, and then hand count them or the chads that may have been punched or not.

[Mastiff]

Well, that seems a lot safer than using the electronic voting machines... I've been following Slashdot's hammering of them, and they don't look safe!

[JimH]

So do you guys vote?

Watch.  This could be a dramatic day.

[phalanthus]

 ? jim i hope you are right.

[AoXoMoXoA]

Those of us who care vote.

Many either do not care or think it a waste of time.

Unfortunately many who vote do not think, they are influenced by the propaganda.

Even if we do vote, can we trust the "results" from the electronic voting machines?
(Today's results may be an indicator as it appears many feel a change is needed . . . wonder where they were in 2004)



be back later, I am going to go vote! 

[KingSparta]

Vote For Pat Paulsen

[jgreen]

Good for you, Aoxo.  Like Bobby Weir said, the way to take back your government is to vote.    As it is now, most of us are sitting around waiting for mandates.  And the way to beat the machines is to request an absentee ballot.

[glynor]

I voted.

Of course, then I fed my ballot into a Diebold Accuvote optical scan machine (I'm one of the lucky ones whose precinct hasn't moved to DRE touchscreen machines yet).  This type of machine has already been proven to be vulnerable to viruses causing it to report inaccurate vote totals (there was a recent test in a mock election where one of the "voters" was able to compromise the machine and cause it to report exactly zero votes as it's final tally by infecting it with a virus that added "negative" votes to the totals).

That machine tabulates the votes on the ballots inserted (hopefully accurately) and stores them on a memory card, and then transmits that data via modem to the county seat (where I happen to live) where it is accumulated with the other precincts vote totals on a STARS database.  Now, one would assume this database is a well-locked down system that has been rigorously tested and is in a secured location.  Unfortunately, like so many other assumptions, you'd be wrong.  The database is a vanilla Microsoft Access database (which isn't even encrypted) and is typically installed on a desktop machine somewhere in the town office at the county seat or BOE.  The modem bank is also typically unsecured, and you can usually easily find the block of phone numbers by wardialing (which is often not even necessary because they have the computers hooked up to the internet since it's often a secretary's workstation computer doubling as the vote database).

The worst part of it all is, that they just don't care.  No one in power has any reason to try to fix these systems, and the "poll workers" are often senior citizens who don't understand them at all (and who have had nearly zero training), so they typically don't even know when something's wrong!

If you feel like getting depressed, here's some more info:

Ars Technica Pre-election e-voting news roundup

HBO Documentary "Hacking the Vote" on Google Video

National E-Voting: No Fix Yet by PC World (at the Verified Voting Foundation)

A Fun Picture (and Other Good Stuff) Showing How Easy It Would Be at Freedom-to-Tinker.org

[DarkPenguin]

If you vote they put you on jury duty.

[glynor]

If you vote they put you on jury duty.

Ha ha!

I'd love to have Jury Duty.  I even have one of those rare employers who actively encourages their workers to do their patriotic duty.  We get paid time off for Jury Duty, and we are free to take an hour or two to vote on election days.

Of course, they'd probably never let me stay on the Jury until the actual trial because I have some admittedly quite radical views, especially when it comes to criminal justice.   Either the prosecutor, or the defendant (depending on the case) would surely find some reason to dismiss me! 

[KingSparta]

If you vote they put you on jury duty.

I Have A Notice To Be There On The 29th Of November, At The Court House At 8:30

I Have Never Had Jury Duty Before

[KingSparta]

My Mom Thinks I Am A Hard Right Winged Rushlimbaugh Republican But I More Follow The Libertarian Way Of Thinking, Or If You Know Neal Boortz (Radio Talk Show Host In Atlanta, Ga) I Think He Is Right Most Of The Time.

Not That I think You Can Tell In A Poll "How Liberal Is JimH?", But I Think JimH Is A Bit Left Of Center, But Not As Much As My Hard Core Left Winged Liberal Mom (But I Still Love Her For All Her Faults).

[jgreen]

Penguin--

I guess Tuesday is "chain-yanking day" around the jriver office?  Don't even start. 

[DarkPenguin]

Penguin--

I guess Tuesday is "chain-yanking day" around the jriver office?  Don't even start. 

My favorite jury duty was the one I was called for after foolishly voting in the 96 election.  I probably chain smoked a carton of cigs out of boredom while waiting down in the jury pool area.  Then when I was finally put on a jury they settled right away and I (and my blackend lungs) went home.

I really feel they should give the jury verdict at the metrodome.  Push the defendant out around the 50 yard line.  Imperial thumbs up or thumbs down from the foreman and, if appropriate, release the lions.  Then mead and general debauchery all around.

[glynor]

Then mead and general debauchery all around.

I'm pro mead and debauchery just on general principle.   

[modelmaker]

I have been proudly voting since my 18th b-day (I'm now 55), And I did my duty as a citizen today again.

If you don't vote, then I don't want to hear you bitching about the state of our country, you're just getting what you deserve. Our democracy is based on participation. The lack of participation since the seventies is why we have the government we have.

Jury duty is just as important to a democracy as voting. If you don't do your jury duty (I did last year) then it will be another instance of special interests taking over. We, the citizens, can be the roadblock, if we participate.

End of rant

BTW we are still using mechanical lever machines to vote.

[KingSparta]

I am Actually Looking Forward To Jury duty (In A Way) Maybe Because I've Never Done It Before (Since I Was In The Military We Are Exempt From Doing Jury Duty).

I Am Not Sure How I Would Feel About A Death Penalty Case.

No Matter Who Is Voted In Or Out It Is All The Same, Both Sides Lie, Both Sides Cheat, Both Promise And Don't Deliver.

[jkrzok]

I voted today. I have too many relatives in Eastern Europe that fought hard for something we Americans seem to take for granted here to let it slide. If I don't exercise my right to vote someone else may exercise my right to vote for me.

Is anyone else disturbed by people (Bush II, for example) called the vote a privilege? Driving is a privilege. Voting is a right. Learn the difference Mr. President.

I can say people at my polling place were terrible p.o'd. It seem our wonderful Republi-Nazi Congressman Tom Reynolds* and his allies were calling registered Democrats in this Congressional district to lie to them about where to vote. I guess any dirty trick/felony is acceptable when trying to keep power. I fear for my democracy.

I look forward to jury duty. When you think about it the right to a jury trial is more important than even the right to vote. A jury of one's peers is the last brake on a runaway government's power to extract the ultimate punishment on a person's liberty or perhaps even life.

I love my country but fear my government.


*Tom Reynolds is the Congressional Representative in my district. He was said to act like the assistant manager of a Denny's by Jon Stewart when all he did about Foley's disturbing IMs to an underage boy was pass the buck to his "boss", House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hey Tom:
Your only boss is your constituency.

A real man steps up when he hears a child may be abused. You chose not to. 'Nuff said about your character.

[KingSparta]

Voting is a right.

I think there are people who can't vote, Like some felons since they are restricted from voting, then i would think it is not a right.

when the country was born it was not a right to vote, women and blacks had no right to vote.

I am not sure people have a right to vote in the US or in some countries. Also Sometimes people in the U.S.A. Or other free Countries think that other people in other counties have rights we enjoy. it is far from the truth even if we beleave it to be so.

The Right to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution.

[glynor]

The Right to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution.

I strongly disagree.  I believe that, not only is it a right, it is a duty.  In fact, I'm in favor of making voting mandatory (or certainly at least declaring election days national holidays to afford all our citizens with the opportunity to participate).

I'm just glad tonight not to be ashamed of my country's election results.  Not to say that I think the Dems hold all the right answers (I agree with King and slipknot here probably on many, many more issues than you would guess), but I think the anti-freedom and anti-American actions of the recent group of radical leaders cannot continue to be ignored.  The utter hypocrisy of speaking about spreading liberty abroad while quashing dissent and freedoms here, cannot be let to stand.

We must have the balance of power that the framers of our system designed in order to be free and in order to be safe.  Tonight is a step in the right direction.

[glynor]

I should say as well that its 2:30am here now and I'm exhausted.  Goodnight all!

[KingSparta]

I strongly disagree.

you may disagree but it is true in a presidential race, and the supreme court has ruled on it.

States have there own Constitution And Voting laws that may make it a right to vote within your state on local state races, but that depends on the state you live in.

I Would however agree for the most part now days for a "normal person" like not in jail have a right to vote, but that was not always true, and may not always have a right depending on the state and race people are voting on.  This is why The Voting Rights Act was adopted initially in 1965, and then extended 3 more times after that year to allow people to have a right no matter if they can read or write.

I would think it could be possible to restrict a person if that person was mentally handicapped, bipolar etc.. they may not have a right to vote since they may not understand what they are voting for or on.

[GHammer]

Take most of the money out of it and it'll be worthwhile and fun again.
That said, I do vote, even from here.

When someone speaks of voting as a privilege, they likely mean that it's something others paid for in blood and not a birthright. I guess that's what happens when so many things are deem to be 'rights'.

[Jaguu]

One of the things that Europeans astonishes the most is that the "Number one high tech nation and so called model of democracy nation" is not capable of developing a fast, secure and modern voting system! We read here that the votes of some states are being stored on an MS Access database on a simple secretary desktop pc, where probably anybody has access to it!

On the other side, those in charge of the power may not really be interested in anything reliable!

[hit_ny]

In Norway we have a turnout of around 70-80 % on the main election, which is of the legislative Stortinget (we have a king, so he doesn't have to run every four years...). From statistics it seems that in 2002 the US voter turnout was less than 40 %! So do you guys vote? Of course of you don't you do have the option to say "hey, I didin't vote for that clown"! 

70-80% !!!!

I find that amazing if not hard to beleive, how is it so high ?

Do they withold basic amenities until you can prove you have voted

...most countries would average around 40-50%, if at all.

[JimH]

Minnesota had 77% turnout in the 2004 election.

Yesterday's election was a breath of fresh air.

I'm sorry for the people on the other side.  Maybe they will back off of their "morality" positions now -- we all need to get along.

[jgreen]

(jgreen basks in JimH's pity.  JimH is such a good, compasionate man, and his words of consolation, and his quote from the prophet/felon Rodney King, give heart to the downtrodden such as jgreen.  Yes, it is a New Day, the bad people are out and the good, good people are in, and none of the problems we had yesterday will ever be a problem again!)

[JimH]

You're welcome.

[KingSparta]

In N.C.

DURHAM, N.C. -- Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong has won his re-election bid after a highly divisive campaign thrust into the national spotlight by Nifong's handling of the Duke lacrosse rape investigation.

Actually I think He should have lost the election

I think the number of voters were up in N.C. Also.

[jgreen]

On a somewhat more genuine note, 77% turnout is truly something to be proud of.  There's your answer Mastiff--we Americans will use our vote if we're motivated.

[glynor]

you may disagree but it is true in a presidential race, and the supreme court has ruled on it.

Well, yes and no.  There have certainly been decisions on both sides of that issue, but the U.S. Constitution certainly does explicitly say that U.S. citizens are afforded the right to vote (over and over again actually)...

US Constitution: 15th Amendment:

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

US Constitution: 19th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

US Constitution: 24th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

There is also the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973-1973aa-6)

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

Now, as with anything in the US Constitution, anything that is not specified explicitly is left for interpretation by the States and Congress (in a vacuum states rights win).  Many states have explicitly denied the right to vote to certain segments of their population (felons mostly).  But because it can be denied to some people, for certain reasons, doesn't make it not a right!  We also have a "Right to Liberty" layed out in the Declaration of Independence (and under Habeas Corpus).  That doesn't mean we can't put people in jail if they are convicted of a crime!  The Supreme Court has repeatedly (even recently) recognized that we have a right to privacy, but this doesn't mean that you can't be compelled to turn over DNA samples (or that they can't search your house and read your diary) if the government has probable cause that you committed a crime (except that the PATRIOT act says they can search your house without a warrant or probable cause, so they don't really even need that)!  The Supreme Court has found that, barring a specific Amendment to the contrary, States are permitted to restrict the right to vote where not explicitly barred from doing so by the Constitution.  (BTW: I believe this decision was a good one.  The Court only interprets the Constitution, it is up to the Congress to change it if it isn't "right".)

However, just because it is so, doesn't mean it's right (or not a right).

My problem with those laws (not affording the retarded, insane, or felons the right to vote) isn't because I believe that severely retarded people (or paranoid delusional schizophrenics or whatever) are all capable of making informed choices, it is because the fringes are too blurry for that power to be afforded to the power structure.  In other words, who decides who is insane or retarded?  I've taken IQ tests myself with wildly varying results.  I, myself, was also once diagnosed bi-polar many years ago (that diagnosis was incorrect -- I was just a kid).  Should I not be allowed to vote?  Do I think it's wise to let murderers, rapists, and sexual predators to vote?  Of course not, but felons can become felons for many things.  If you provide the political machine in power with a way to disenfranchise the portion of the population that doesn't agree with them, it provides a method for them to retain power even when true "public opinion" is against them.  Don't like a segment of the population's politics?  Criminalize them!  (Drug war anyone?)

The slope is too slippery.  Why not let them have a voice?  Let's be realistic, it's not like were going to have a huge bloc of insane murderers who elect Charles Manson as the President!  We do have about 1 in 136 US residents in prison currently though.  The US incarcerates by far the largest proportion of its population of any country in history, accounting for a quarter of the world’s prisoners in its corrections system (a large percentage of which are non-violent drug offenders who are suffering from an addiction and so we put them in a drug-rich environment in prison).  We aren't really the land of the free here, we're the land of the prisoners.

The devil never comes proclaiming that he is the devil.   I don't trust the government at all to "do what's right" (not now, and certainly not 50 or 100 years from now).  We must defend ourselves against those who would remain in power at all costs. 

[glynor]

...most countries would average around 40-50%, if at all.

Not at all.  The US does, but we are quite low in the rankings of Voter turnout (though we have been doing better this decade).

To view the turnout for all countries, holding two or more elections up to 1998, click here.

http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout2.cfm

The average turnout for all parliamentary elections, out of the 1,129 looked at in this survey, in the post 1945 period was 65% (Honduras) and the median country was Japan with 69%

[Griff]

DURHAM, N.C. -- Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong has won his re-election bid after a highly divisive campaign thrust into the national spotlight by Nifong's handling of the Duke lacrosse rape investigation.

I am at a loss for words, on this one.

Like the Black Law Prof. said, " If the DA does this to the WHITE people, what do you think hes going to do to the Blacks"

[KingSparta]

but the U.S. Constitution certainly does explicitly say that U.S. citizens are afforded the right to vote (over and over again actually)...

Yes in amendments to the Constitution

That Can Be Withdrawn With A 2\3rds Vote From All The States Within The United States.

So The Amended Rights Can Be Withdrawn.

Not Likely However

[glynor]

Yes in amendments to the Constitution

Amendments are part of the Constitution.  The Right to Bear Arms and Freedom of Speech and Religion are also Amendments...  The original constitution was drafted with 10 amendments.  The founders of our country obviously understood that the original document needed to be able to change with the times.

EDIT: For Jim... IANAL.

  

[KingSparta]

I agree, it is sometimes amazing how people think about things change with time.

I think the right to bear arms will one day be taken out.

In today's world (in the US) most of the time a weapon is not needed to protect your self like they did a few hundred years ago.

[glynor]

I think the right to bear arms will one day be taken out.

In today's world (in the US) most of the time a weapon is not needed to protect your self like they did a few hundred years ago.

I hope not.  I also strongly feel that a well-regulated militia is absolutely necessary to the security of a free state.  Otherwise we are at the absolute mercy of our military and executive leaders.  What is to stop them from having a coup?

People think it can't happen here, just because it hasn't happened in a long time.  History reminds us that if you don't defend liberty, someone will take it away.

True, currently the small state militias we have wouldn't be much of a defense against the US military machine in the event of a coup.  That's not what's important.  The presence of a structure for the elements of the military that want to do the "right thing" to defect to is what is important.  If the executive or the military ever moved to take over the country and suspend our constitution, and civil war broke out, it is likely that a fair percentage of the current military makeup would move into the militia fold (bringing their tanks and guns and helicopters with them).  The protection of the right to maintain that structure, and for the citizenry to own weaponry keeps the Government honest.  Just look at Thailand for an example...

That's what the second amendment is about, and that's why it's important.  It's not really so Billy Jo-Bob can have a shotgun to defend his shack against his perceived threats (usually either black helicopters or "city thugs").  That's incidental and a necessary evil.

If people really want to reduce gun crime, why don't we regulate bullets?  We could serialize and RFID tag every bullet sold in this country (it's technically possible and wouldn't be that expensive compared to the crime).  Why don't we investigate and fight the root causes of the crime?

[jgreen]

Quoting Glynor:

"I also strongly feel that a well-regulated militia is absolutely necessary to the security of a free state."


(A brief pause while jgreen falls over backwards.)

[hit_ny]

I also strongly feel that a well-regulated militia is absolutely necessary to the security of a free state.  Otherwise we are at the absolute mercy of our military and executive leaders.  What is to stop them from having a coup?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms.

How can a militia be well-regulated ?

If the constitution is as well setup how is it possible at all for the executive to seize power totally.

The only way is if the people vote for it..right ?

And if the majority did do that, what's a militia to do in this case. Oh they would be called terrorists, but if such an event did take place hypthetically,  it seems a resistance movement is going to happen anyway regardless of whether its in the constitution or not. Going by curent & past resistance movements worldwide whenever a minority segment was unhappy with the status quo.

..so still wondering about that bearing of arms bit

PS. thx for setting me straight on voter turnouts in various countries, i'm seeing the figures..but still can't believe that many ppl actually turned out to vote, not saying its faulty or rigged..just amazed.

[KingSparta]

can't believe that many ppl actually turned out to vote, not saying its faulty or rigged..just amazed.

I believe they want to take power away from the republicans due to the war.

I think Bush W. is prob the worst republican president since Richard M. Nixon Or would that be Ford who also got caught up in a war however that time engaged by the democrats (VietNam), and then cought up in there own mess (watergate).

Spending Is way Out Of Hand, and that is one of the things republicans campain on.

[glynor]

Quoting Glynor:

"I also strongly feel that a well-regulated militia is absolutely necessary to the security of a free state."


(A brief pause while jgreen falls over backwards.)

Haha!   

I keep telling you that I'm not so easily pegged as a lilly-livered liberal.  While I'm very liberal on many so-called "social" issues, I'm essentially libertarian on most others (and almost all of my reasons are liberty, equality, or fairness based).  I'm strongly pro-defense, anti-gun control, and extremely fiscally conservative.  In fact, for those things, I'd be a much bigger fan of the Republican party if they actually practiced what they preached!  They don't though (at all), so...

For one example, I don't think marriage should be defined by law at all (either between a man and a woman or between a man and a man or between a woman and her shoes).  Relationships are personal and the government should just leave it's darn hands off of them.  Also, I don't think we should be in the business of encouraging procreation.  The world has more than enough people right now thank you very much.  Besides, if marriage is such a great institution then why do so many of them end in divorce, lawsuits, and dirty custody battles?

Also, like I said, I'm pretty strongly pro-defense.  This means DEFENSE, not offense or imperialism.  While we should never in a million years have gone there to begin with, since we are there now, I think we should send many more troops to Iraq, not pull them out.  It might be too late now, but we messed it up, and we need to try to fix it.  We also need to work with the Syrians and the Iranians on getting their help in the region.  They don't want Iraq to implode anymore than we do.  Despite the regimes being reprehensible there, you can't always choose who you have to work with in the world.  I don't like all my co-workers, or their ideas or politics, but I have to work with them.

But then, I'm extremely pro-environmental protection, militantly so -- I feel global climate change the single biggest threat to our national security and economic interests that we face right now.  Its utterly absurd how short sighted both parties (and most governments around the world) have been on this issue.  Short sighted and criminal.

Statistically... It's not a dirty bomb that's going to kill you.  It's the cancer you're going to get from the chemicals in the food, water, ground, and the air.  It's the partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and high-fructose corn syrup giving you type-2 diabetes and heart disease.  It's the two Big Macs you ate this week, and the french fries dripping with saturated fats.  It's global warming, and the hurricanes, tornadoes, and famines that are coming in our (and certainly our children's) lifetimes.

[glynor]

If the constitution is as well setup how is it legally possible at all for the executive to seize power totally.

T, FTFY.

I'm not afraid of them seizing power legally, within the bounds of the Constitution.  It's when they decide to ignore the Constitution that I get afraid.  People don't think it's possible that they'll wake up one day to CNN being off-the-air and government-run TV showing tanks surrounding the capitol on every channel.

I'm not saying it's likely.  It's not.  It's quite remote actually, but over time power corrupts, and unchecked power corrupts ultimately.  I'm worried about the system 25, 75, or 150 years from now if we continue down this path.

[KingSparta]

and the french fries dripping with saturated fats.

I think Trans Fat's have been in the news again, I think It Was KFC With Higher Trans Fat's That Originally Labeled Even after they said they changed.

The KFC Mashed Potatoes Alone Should Defend Against An Invading Army Never Mind The Fallout From Them.

Glynor I have many of the same believes As You

Pro-defense, The Government should stay out of our bedrooms Including The recent marriage laws, religion and abortion Issues the republicans campaigned on (Some Won Some Lost).

Sometimes I think we go too far, and as far as I know no one voted on the USA as being the World Police.

[hit_ny]

For one example, I don't think marriage should be defined by law at all (either between a man and a woman or between a man and a man or between a woman and her shoes).  Relationships are personal and the government should just leave it's darn hands off of them.  Also, I don't think we should be in the business of encouraging procreation. 

Its the products of that relationship that the state is looking after.. the children. Not that its unknown not to have kids in a marriage, but they take up the biggest section of the pie. I'm not clear on the exact specfics..but under the impression that the kids are somehow safer (if only financially) if its recognised by the state. It's legally binding.

Also, like I said, I'm pretty strongly pro-defense.  This means DEFENSE, not offense or imperialism. 

To the point where the miltary budget exceeds that of many countries combined. In some ways i think this is momentum carried over form the cold war. In those days defense was an issue, putting up a powerful front to the spread of communism.  THat went away..major cutbacks in the late 90s in response.

What is the major military threat facing the US today ?

So now we have to invent reasons to go to war, to justify the spending.

I can't beleive if more was allocated to the people than to the military that things would get worse.

While we should never in a million years have gone there to begin with, since we are there now, I think we should send many more troops to Iraq, not pull them out.  It might be too late now, but we messed it up, and we need to try to fix it.  We also need to work with the Syrians and the Iranians on getting their help in the region.  They don't want Iraq to implode anymore than we do. 

I've wondered long and hard as to the why ? ..best i can come out is some one got freaked out over peak oil, that oil production would peak soon and get even more expensive in the future. So best way is to secure what remains NOW.

I really wish it could have gone better, the neo-con idea of spreading democracy in that region was enticing, despite the utter lies it was founded on. Now the only winner is Iran, funnily enough all actions to thwart them ended up making them stronger. I bet along with Syria, they will be very willing to "help" stack the cards up in their favour.

If things are to be better then it looks like they are going to setup yet another strong man, and let the future presidents worry about dealing with that one.

[Mastiff]

70-80% !!!!

I find that amazing if not hard to beleive, how is it so high ?

Do they withold basic amenities until you can prove you have voted

...most countries would average around 40-50%, if at all.

No, it's just considered a duty. Actually if you removed everybody under 25 years old from the statistics I would guess that the number could get closer to 90 %. Remember that we were occupied from 1939 to 1945. That's something many Norwegians seems hell bent on never forgetting. Me? I just hope that my vote would be the one that gets a party in power that won't increase my taxes too much! 45 % income tax is enough, I think...

[GHammer]

Me? I just hope that my vote would be the one that gets a party in power that won't increase my taxes too much! 45 % income tax is enough, I think...

Ah, the sprit that elected GWB & Company in the US.
Careful what you wish for...

[BartMan01]

One of the reasons for low voter turnout in many cases is the way the districts are drawn.  Most are so heavily weighted towards R or D that the other side has no chance winning unless the entire other side stays home.  You will typically only see high turnout in close races or when a hot local topic is on the ballot.

When it comes to the Presidential election, you can't really point to the total votes on either side, since the same thing applies.  If a solidly D state wins with only 100 people in the entire state showing up, the full electoral count goes to the D.  Its all about the electoral college numbers, not the actual turnout numbers.  It would be interesting to see what the actual turnout would look like if it was about the actual vote count.

A real man steps up when he hears a child may be abused. You chose not to. 'Nuff said about your character.

What bothers me about that whole deal was that the evidence was a couple of years old.  You can't tell me that someone didn't dig that up a while back and sat on it (allowing the behavior to continue) until it suited their purposes to release it.

[Mastiff]

Ah, the sprit that elected GWB & Company in the US.
Careful what you wish for...

Don't worry. The party in Norway that's furthest to the right, Fremskrittspartiet (the progress party) would still be considered to the left of the Republicans! Actually the norwegian social democratic labour party would probably be considered commies in the US...

[hit_ny]

I hope not.  I also strongly feel that a well-regulated militia is absolutely necessary to the security of a free state.  Otherwise we are at the absolute mercy of our military and executive leaders.  What is to stop them from having a coup?

Just look at Thailand for an example...

Military leader or Executive leader ?

When there's a coup isn't it usually the military taking over. In places where this happens, the miltary is *actually* the stronger of the two (i think). If the elected leader is perceived not to behave, the military knows it can always intervene. Instead of the miltary taking orders from the executive, behind the scenes, it's the other way around.

In Thailand the miltary supports the king. Thailand has had 17 coups since its independence. Impression i got from the people there is they are not too worried about this present one.

In most western countries, the executive is the stronger of the two, making the chances of a coup remote.