Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

In the 1800's, from 1828 to 1896, voter turnout averaged 73.75%. Of course, it was only about 50 years after the revolutionary war (at the early end) and no doubt people were still feeling fairly patriotic or even politically engaged. In the 1900's (1900 - 1996) average turnout was 57.88%. That's almost half the voters tuning out. In 1996, voter turnout actually dipped below 50% for the first time, that was the second Clinton election. In the last 4 elections (not including 2016), average turnout was 55.25%. If the decline continues in its current gradient, by the year 2100, just 3% of voters will be interested enough to vote, which raises the question:

What if they held an election and only 3% of voters showed up?

Would it still be considered a valid election? Would the government formed after such an election even be legitimate? Essentially, 97% of the voting population said "none of the above" by not even showing up to vote. What if there was a space on the ballot to select 'none of the above' and 97% made that selection? It would effectively be the same thing, would it not?

Shame I won't be around to see it. That's going to be very entertaining.

moldyoldy

Only a small percentage of people were allowed to vote in the old days. Wealthy white men only.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Just missed another golden opportunity to keep your mouth shut. A lie by any other name is still a lie! It must be agony walking around in your skin and mind. Life is good! Enjoy it!

moldyoldy

And the truth is still the truth.



When America was still a collection of British colonies, voting was extremely restricted. Only property-owning white men could vote, which left out women, poor white men, slaves and free blacks, Native Americans, and in some cities, Jews and even Catholics. So it boiled down to wealthy white Protestant men electing other wealthy white Protestant men to office. Even though the current Congress is the most diverse in US history, the vast majority of members are still wealthy white Protestant men. All but two of our presidents fit that bill as well, the exceptions of course being Barack Obama, who is half black, and John F. Kennedy, who was Catholic.

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/voting-history-america

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You always justify your remarks after you put forth a false flag. We're talking about America AFTER, AFTER, AFTER, AFTER, the revolutionary war. You'd go back to Plymouth Rock to prove a point. So what would you have us do for your screwed up notion of "fairness" - elect representatives based on a pre-selected quota of race, religion and financial status?

moldyoldy

Facts are still facts.

Voting rights in America in the early 1800s was a complex process because many politicians and government leaders supported slavery, limiting voting rights to those who were legally free. Women weren’t treated as equals with men, so their civil liberties, such as the right to vote, didn’t receive a fair amount of attention. Socioeconomics and land ownership were also big factors in determining who could vote, so the poor working class didn’t have many political freedoms either. Voting privileges were primarily granted to wealthy, white men.
Sponsored link

http://classroom.synonym.com/people-gained-right-vote-early-1800s-16200.html

bahmer

Hey Moldy did you even read this statement at all?

In the 1800's, from 1828 to 1896, voter turnout averaged 73.75%. Of course, it was only about 50 years after the revolutionary war (at the early end) and no doubt people were still feeling fairly patriotic or even politically engaged. In the 1900's (1900 - 1996) average turnout was 57.88%. That's almost half the voters tuning out. In 1996, voter turnout actually dipped below 50% for the first time, that was the second Clinton election. In the last 4 elections (not including 2016), average turnout was 55.25%. If the decline continues in its current gradient, by the year 2100, just 3% of voters will be interested enough to vote, which raises the question:

They were talking about voter turnout in case you missed it. If you are illegal to vote then you are not listed as a voter got it. So women and non property owners and slaves etc. were not voters and so were not part of the voters because they couldn't vote and so your statement is of no effect.

moldyoldy

Yes, a few landowners were the only voters, so the percentage was great. When more people are allowed to vote, then the percentage of non voters goes up too.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Answer my question about voting fairness.

moldyoldy

Fairness would be making voter registration automatic for all eligible voters.
Making election day a holiday, or extending voting days.
Make polling places more accessible in under served areas.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

How do we verify voter validity and eligibility for all valid voters? Truth be told, we do not trust unions and democrats not to cheat. And you're really damn good at it. Really!

Who pays for a voter holiday? In this past election Democrats were ahead until workers got off work and started voting?

If voting is a right and a privilege, which it is, why do some of us who live in the country drive miles to exercise that right while those in the cities need busing, free rides, and more places to vote? And we are required to show valid voter photo ID.

moldyoldy

The GOP does everything it can to suppress the vote.
Closing polling places so people are in line for five hours.
Closing voter ID places, or moving them to out of the way locations.

By the way, you forgot to admit your folly about early US voting.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You forgot to mention the 762 more voters in Detroit than registered population. I had to wait in a line and I drove miles to my polling location. And I know better than to believe the inflammatory excessive lies the left pulls out of thin air. You lost the election because as a nation Obama failed us, Hillary was a liar and cheat, and because Trump gave Americans hope. Your Marxist progressive secular philosophy may never raise it's evil, hateful, race baiting, hedonistic, head again. You may well die out during the next four years especially as more and more of the Obama mob criminal activity is brought into the killing light of day. Beware!

moldyoldy

You are full of conspiracy tales, try verifying it other than reading right wing blogs.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/vote-audit/95358702/

A lot of problems in Detroit where the democrats own the city. All the problems kept the ballots from being part of the recount. Seems like crooked GOP politics.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

No, that is not necessarily true. Voter turnout is a percentage of those eligible to vote who then actually do vote. It has nothing to do with how many voters are eligible or what their social standing is. If you have a sum total of 2 voters, and one declines to vote, then you have a 50% voter turnout. If you have 100 million voters, and 50 million decline to vote, you still have a 50% voter turnout even though the difference in actual numbers is 49,999,999.

My muse in quoting those statistics was to wonder what would happen if the voter turnout kept declining as it has been over the last 200 years or so, taking it down to somewhere around 3%. At what point does an election become a farce? Clearly a vote from such a minority of voters could not be considered a mandate by any stretch. It's the old question, "what if they held an election and no-one showed up to vote?"