Why People Stay Home On Election Day....
A Month Away, Some Voters Can't Decide The Wall Street Journal By EASHA ANAND and BRAD HAYNES OCTOBER 6, 2008 Pete Tiffany voted for George W. Bush in 2004 on the basis of an online quiz, which asked him 12 questions about his views on issues such as abortion, free trade and gay marriage, and told him which candidate was closest to his views.The 44-year-old construction worker in the battleground state of Virginia said he isn't sure how he will vote this year. "I want to say I'll vote on the economy, which Democrats are better on, but I'm not sure if the economy is all that bad," he said recently. Mr. Tiffany is one of the select pool of voters who will have an important voice in this election -- those who say a month before Election Day that they are undecided between John McCain and Barack Obama, or may reluctantly lean toward one, but not firmly. Mr. Tiffany was one of 9% of the 1,085 voters who participated in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll between Sept. 19 and Sept. 22 saying they were undecided or were only leaning toward one candidate. The Journal followed up in recent days with two dozen voters who said they hadn't "definitely" made up their minds, asking why they were unsure and what might make them reach a firm conclusion. Many are like Mr. Tiffany: Voters who chose Mr. Bush in 2000 and 2004 but are unhappy with the way things turned out. They worry about their pensions and don't trust another Republican to handle the economic crisis.At the same time, these voters -- many of whom don't consider themselves "political" -- don't feel like they have the information they need, particularly about the Democratic nominee. They have seen emails about Sen. Obama's upbringing, religion and associates that concern them. William Kilpatrick, a 65-year-old corrections officer from Pennsylvania, said he is leaning "a hair towards McCain." He said he has worried about the economy since his pension "took a hosing" with the bankruptcy filing of Bethlehem Steel, but he still has concerns about Sen. Obama's background."What changed me was finding out about Obama going to the same church all those years when the preacher was a hatemonger," Mr. Kilpatrick said. "Why didn't he just go to a different church?" FULL WSJ ARTICLE

No point in voting. Theyre all the same. Its all a scam by the rich so we dont roll in and chop off their heads.

It's the lesser of two evils once again.

No seriously, theres is no point in voting. Its a scam. We live in Dictatorships. The vote is there to keep the population in line, it allows you to think youre free when in fact youre not. How many people are running for President in the US election? You'd think it was just two wouldnt you. Whoever has the money, has the power. Regardless of what you vote.

Of course, this is true. Wasn't it W S Churchill who said words to the effect that Parliamentary Democracy is pretty dire, but the alternatives are all far worse. But I don't think that is true anymore. We could have Direct Democracy as an alternative, similar to the Athenians' methods, but using modern technology. But then we have to remember that the Athenians never did give the vote to hoi polloi and manual workers (slaves!). "One person one vote" in a direct democracy would inevitably mean "the government of the fitted by the unfitted". At least Parliamentary Democracy ensures that the ruling classes continue to rule. :wink:

I think direct democracy - internet referenda on major bills - would be a good thing .... but only if the suffrage were restricted in some way, or else weighted to ensure the fit were not governed by tghe unfit. A suggestion: everyone gets one vote, but a voter could have up to five votes awarded on various criteria. One for eight GCSE, One for three A-levels. One for a degree. One for a post-graduate qualification. And perhaps one for being in full-time employment. (That would make sure I got all five! :wink: )