[Rhodes22-list] Political: 2/3 of Eligible Voters

[David Bradley]

Here is a link -

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15422.html

It's not the same article I had seen before but similar data.  My
point was that 1/3 (more according to these data) of those eligbile
don't vote, even in a contest like the one we just witnessed.  Seems
amazing.

This article says the percentages in 2004 and 2008 were about the
same, as the increase in number of voters was offset by a proportional
increase in the numbers of registrations.  Maybe the ACORN effect?

Dave



On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Where does that 2/3 of eligible voters/highest percentage since JFK
> calculation come from?
>
> Bill Effros
>
> David Bradley wrote:
>> Can't say I disagree with any or much of this.  Does anyone have an
>> example or idea of how to provide a support network for citizens who
>> need and deserve support while excluding those who could and should
>> support themselves?  Children, for example, I feel deserve to receive
>> decent medical care care regardless whether their parent(s) is(are)
>> able to provide for it.
>>
>> Here's a guess.  If I remember the numbers, about 2/3 of eligible
>> voters actually voted in the past election, the highest percentage
>> since JFK's election.  What are the chances that the 1/3 who didn't
>> vote are pretty much the 1/3 who live on government support?  The
>> problem of who gets to vote may be taking care of itself...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now there's a guy that very well articulates my thoughts.
>>>
>>> My personal belief is that anyone that receives over 50% of their income
>>> directly from the government should be disenfranchised. They have a
>>> conflict of interest.
>>>
>>> Robert A Heinlein proposed a similar restriction in his
>>> political/science fiction novel Starship Troopers. In his "would be"
>>> world, only those that had served in the military in one fashion or
>>> another were eligible to vote. You had to sever in SOME fashion, which
>>> was the one indicator that you were willing to sacrifice your personal
>>> needs/desires/aspirations to benefit society as a whole. Ironically, in
>>> his book, those IN the military were not eligible to vote. Only after
>>> you finished your tour(s) of duty were you enfranchised.
>>>
>>> I'm not quite that extreme, but I say if you're making your living
>>> directly from the government, you have an predisposition to expand their
>>> ability to "give", and thus have a conflict of interest.
>>>
>>> Since I've mentioned, I'll also say that Heinlein has a quote that would
>>> be VERY applicable here:
>>>
>>> =====
>>> Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
>>> fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria.
>>> The human race divides politically into those who want people to be
>>> controlled and those who have no such desire.
>>> =====
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brad,
>>>>
>>>> This guy must have been reading your posts over the years or could you
>>>> believe somebody else echos your thoughts and words?
>>>>
>>>> Attachment of November 14, 2008
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p20504188/Our%2BCulture.jpg Our+Culture.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Ed K
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Herb Parsons
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>