Who would be for a reinstatement of ostracism?

[watcher1]

A shockingly low percentage of eligible voters actually vote (50% is considered a very high turnout), and among those who do vote, I'd suspect a fairly low number make informed choices for each race.

[/b]

And I am taking a guess that many who don't vote are in your age category or younger.  Maybe they will flock to the polls in 2016 if a charismatic candidate appears.

[MissBarbara]

A shockingly low percentage of eligible voters actually vote (50% is considered a very high turnout), and among those who do vote, I'd suspect a fairly low number make informed choices for each race.

[/b]

And I am taking a guess that many who don't vote are in your age category or younger.  Maybe they will flock to the polls in 2016 if a charismatic candidate appears.

Yes, but younger. Your demographic has the highest voter turnout, while the one below mine has the lowest voter turnout.

Which is somewhat ironic, since the 18-28 set talks about, posts about, blogs about, and tweets about politics more than all the other demographics combined.

[Katiebee]

It's a vote for "None of the Above."

[MissBarbara]

I couldn't agree more, and about both ignorance and apathy.

[Yes, I'm aware you're going to cite that and say "I get that a lot..."]

Second only to out-of-control campaign funding, voter apathy is the other major reason why the political system in the U.S. is failing its citizens.

A shockingly low percentage of eligible voters actually vote (50% is considered a very high turnout), and among those who do vote, I'd suspect a fairly low number make informed choices for each race.

A lot of people like to whine about things, and make bold posts (or reblogs) on Facebook or Twitter, but the shockingly low number of citizens who are actively involved and making informed choices dims any hope of effective change going forward.

P.S. Getting back on topic, in the U.S. we already have ways to ostracize ineffective politicians. They're called "elections."

The 'apathy' card can not be drawn in my country due to mandatory voting. Elections are not the same as the ostracism process in my opinion. Even if people don't vote for a politician he can still get some type of job in the government in my country. Ostracism would make sure he didn't get a government job for the next 10 years and would be completely excluded.

Voting for Chuck Norris is not an example of voter apathy?

It's a perfect example of voter apathy. As the fact that this voter took a picture of his or her ballot clearly demonstrates.

[Bexy]

I couldn't agree more, and about both ignorance and apathy.

[Yes, I'm aware you're going to cite that and say "I get that a lot..."]

Second only to out-of-control campaign funding, voter apathy is the other major reason why the political system in the U.S. is failing its citizens.

A shockingly low percentage of eligible voters actually vote (50% is considered a very high turnout), and among those who do vote, I'd suspect a fairly low number make informed choices for each race.

A lot of people like to whine about things, and make bold posts (or reblogs) on Facebook or Twitter, but the shockingly low number of citizens who are actively involved and making informed choices dims any hope of effective change going forward.

P.S. Getting back on topic, in the U.S. we already have ways to ostracize ineffective politicians. They're called "elections."

The 'apathy' card can not be drawn in my country due to mandatory voting. Elections are not the same as the ostracism process in my opinion. Even if people don't vote for a politician he can still get some type of job in the government in my country. Ostracism would make sure he didn't get a government job for the next 10 years and would be completely excluded.

Voting for Chuck Norris is not an example of voter apathy?

It's a perfect example of voter apathy. As the fact that this voter took a picture of his or her ballot clearly demonstrates.

Only a small minority of the population does this, around 3%. So no, I don't feel the voter apathy card can be drawn in my country, do you?

[MissBarbara]

I couldn't agree more, and about both ignorance and apathy.

[Yes, I'm aware you're going to cite that and say "I get that a lot..."]

Second only to out-of-control campaign funding, voter apathy is the other major reason why the political system in the U.S. is failing its citizens.

A shockingly low percentage of eligible voters actually vote (50% is considered a very high turnout), and among those who do vote, I'd suspect a fairly low number make informed choices for each race.

A lot of people like to whine about things, and make bold posts (or reblogs) on Facebook or Twitter, but the shockingly low number of citizens who are actively involved and making informed choices dims any hope of effective change going forward.

P.S. Getting back on topic, in the U.S. we already have ways to ostracize ineffective politicians. They're called "elections."

The 'apathy' card can not be drawn in my country due to mandatory voting. Elections are not the same as the ostracism process in my opinion. Even if people don't vote for a politician he can still get some type of job in the government in my country. Ostracism would make sure he didn't get a government job for the next 10 years and would be completely excluded.

Voting for Chuck Norris is not an example of voter apathy?

It's a perfect example of voter apathy. As the fact that this voter took a picture of his or her ballot clearly demonstrates.

Only a small minority of the population does this, around 3%. So no, I don't feel the voter apathy card can be drawn in my country, do you?

If by "does this," you mean voting for, as someone called it above, "none of the above," then I'd suspect the number of people who do this here is the same as in Belgium.

Our problem is that people just don't get their butts into the voting booth. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head (and I'm too lazy to look them up), but the 2008 presidential election -- Obama vs. McCain -- was arguably the most pivotal presidential election in a generation. And the voter turnout was pathetic, just over 50% overall (and that's including an extremely high Black voter turnout), and around 20% for the 18-24 demographic.

[Bexy]

If by "does this," you mean voting for, as someone called it above, "none of the above," then I'd suspect the number of people who do this here is the same as in Belgium.

No, that is not at all what I meant. What I was trying to say is: Virtually the ENTIRE Belgian population votes. Meaning: there is only an extremely small percentage that doesn't vote due to sickness, or simply choose to pay the fine. Of the remainder of the population that goes to the booth, only around 3% casts an invalid ballot. So to sum it up: around 95% of the ENTIRE adult Belgian population casts a VALID vote. And that is why I dare to conclude that the voter apathy card can not be drawn in my country. I don't know if you understand now, do let me know if it's unclear.

[MissBarbara]

If by "does this," you mean voting for, as someone called it above, "none of the above," then I'd suspect the number of people who do this here is the same as in Belgium.

No, that is not at all what I meant. What I was trying to say is: Virtually the ENTIRE Belgian population votes. Meaning: there is only an extremely small percentage that doesn't vote due to sickness, or simply choose to pay the fine. Of the remainder of the population that goes to the booth, only around 3% casts an invalid ballot. So to sum it up: around 95% of the ENTIRE adult Belgian population casts a VALID vote. And that is why I dare to conclude that the voter apathy card can not be drawn in my country. I don't know if you understand now, do let me know if it's unclear.

Got it. I completely missed your point (and it wasn't lost in translation).

Do you think, in Belgium, the people vote more intelligently than we do here? The stupidity with which many Americans vote seems to mean your answer must be yes. But do people vote only because they have to by law?

A law like that would never, ever be passed over here. And for good reason. Still, the depressingly low voter turnout here means that we really don't care who represents us. Just a 10% increase in voter turnout is enough overall votes to sway a presidential election one way or another.

[Bexy]

Do you think, in Belgium, the people vote more intelligently than we do here? The stupidity with which many Americans vote seems to mean your answer must be yes. But do people vote only because they have to by law?

More intelligently? Nope. The problem we have in this 'democracy' is that our government has become way too big. Like I already tried too explain in a previous post, only 30% of the population is actually productive and they have to sustain the other 70% which is an impossible situation. 'Hard work' in the private sector will not make yu rich in my country as we pay about 60% income tax and 'a second job' is taxed twice as much. Meanwhile the civil servants appoint themselves high wages for not even half the work someone does in the private sector. And 'democracy' keeps the whole thing going, because of course these civil servants keep voting for the party that represents their parasitic interest. It's an unsustainable system. Like I said, it's like letting a bunch of toddlers vote. They don't care about 'what's good for the whole in the long run', all they care about is their instant personal gratification. And the 30% of hardworking folks can vote as much as they want, but they'll always be in the minority. So, until the system collapses, I don't see a lot of change and this thing called 'democracy' even with 95% of the people voting, sure doesn't seem to work.

[MissBarbara]

Do you think, in Belgium, the people vote more intelligently than we do here? The stupidity with which many Americans vote seems to mean your answer must be yes. But do people vote only because they have to by law?

More intelligently? Nope. The problem we have in this 'democracy' is that our government has become way too big. Like I already tried too explain in a previous post, only 30% of the population is actually productive and they have to sustain the other 70% which is an impossible situation. 'Hard work' in the private sector will not make yu rich in my country as we pay about 60% income tax and 'a second job' is taxed twice as much. Meanwhile the civil servants appoint themselves high wages for not even half the work someone does in the private sector. And 'democracy' keeps the whole thing going, because of course these civil servants keep voting for the party that represents their parasitic interest. It's an unsustainable system. Like I said, it's like letting a bunch of toddlers vote. They don't care about 'what's good for the whole in the long run', all they care about is their instant personal gratification. And the 30% of hardworking folks can vote as much as they want, but they'll always be in the minority. So, until the system collapses, I don't see a lot of change and this thing called 'democracy' even with 95% of the people voting, sure doesn't seem to work.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm almost completely ignorant of Belgian politics, and I find this fascinating.

I know that income taxes in many Western European countries are 2-3 times what ours are here. BUT, the free or low-cost benefits your governments provides are 2-3 times what ours are here. Starting with free or low-cost medical care, universities, child care, and the like.

I'm sure you can tell me horror stories about the quality of many free services, but there's a correspondence between our respective tax rates and benefits.

Besides, from what I've heard, most of Western Europe takes off the entire month of August off. That's one of the sanest things I've ever heard -- and something that would never fly over here...

[watcher1]

Besides, from what I've heard, most of Western Europe takes off the entire month of August off. That's one of the sanest things I've ever heard -- and something that would never fly over here...

Taking August off for Holiday is a throwback to when air conditioning was not readily available and since August is generally the hottest month of the year, people would head to the shores for relief.