Perspective: There's a reason voters don't give a damn

If the Internet were around in 1787, do you believe the Founding Fathers would have designed the voting system just a tad differently?

Bet on it, pal.

In computer terms, we've been stuck with an egregiously user-unfriendly legacy system for quite some time. Unfortunately, while Alexander Hamilton lived in the 18th century, Tim Berners-Lee only arrived on the scene a couple of centuries later. So it goes. In the meantime, what was state of the art when the Constitutional Convention finished its work in Philadelphia 220 years ago has turned creaky with age.

With each national election, there's more proof of a glitch in the system. In the latest U.S. presidential race, only 56.7 percent of eligible voters bothered to go to the polls. It wasn't an anomaly--1968 was the last year when the U.S. registered a turnout better than 60 percent. You can blame the pathetic numbers on any calculus of cultural, historical or sociological factors. But too many people simply believe the system's not responsive--or even worse, rigged.

Despite the periodic slams it receives from the general media, the Facebook-MySpace-Twitter generation is no less interested in the future.

Still, even with the drop-off, voter registration rates are climbing. What's more, a recent CBS-New York Times-MTV poll finds that one-third of Americans aged 17 to 29 have visited a presidential candidate's Web site and that 15 percent say they've been to a candidate's MySpace or Facebook profile.

That's not the same as pulling the lever on election day, but it's a promising harbinger. Of course, I can already hear the skeptics asking what the big deal is. Are you supposed to get a medal for visiting a politico's personal Web page nowadays? Well, times have changed. The one election I missed was 1984. Laid up in bed with pneumonia, I could barely crawl across the room on my own strength, let alone make it to a voting booth. (To this day, I think it was my fault Fritz Mondale failed to beat Ronald Reagan.)

Despite the periodic slams it receives from the general media, the Facebook-MySpace-Twitter generation is no less interested in the future. In fact, with another national election just over the horizon, nearly three-fourths of 17- to 29-year-olds say they're registered to vote. So if there's any chance this cohort might now shake off its stupor, then carpe diem.

What it will take is more creativity on the part of the powers that be--a depressing notion considering the appalling track record compiled by the government bureaucracy on a range of technology issues ranging from e-voting to cybersecurity. (We're light-years behind Estonia, which earlier this year became the first country to let voters cast their ballots over the Internet in a national parliamentary election.) But there are scattered signs that a thaw is in the works.

Exhibit A: Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, who recently rolled out plans for what his staff describes as a "distributed, virtual town hall." When I tried logging on this week, the site was down. But when it's up and running, Miller intends to solicit input on the Iraq war via video, blogs, e-mail or any other medium. His staff will gather the questions, and Miller will respond on a weekly episode of "Miller TV," which will also be available as a Facebook application. Pretty cool idea. He's flipping around the old formula to engage in a real conversation with constituents.

Miller was also the first Congressman to hold a chat on Linden Labs' Second Life. (Rep. Jack Kingston, a Republican from Georgia, is doing something similar, soliciting questions via YouTube.)

Why has it taken so long for Congress to get involved with social networking and video-sharing sites?

In part, chalk it up to institutional inertia and ignorance about the nexus of "tubes" that is the Internet. But there's a bigger problem in the form of rules, last modified in 1996, which were originally designed to govern the use of mass mailings sent to congressional districts at taxpayer expense. Nowadays, the so-called Franking Rules prevent members from using non-congressionally provided services on their Web sites. That goes a long way toward explaining why so many Congressional Web sites are so lame.

Pull that stopper out and maybe--just maybe--the creative juices would again start to flow. And then there'd be a real reason for a lot more people to give a damn.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[Patrick80639]

Yawn...

This article is almost as boring as voting.

[nicmart]

Not bloody likely

America now consists of citizens who have never read their
constitution, the worst public schools in the developed world,
and political parties which have rigged the system to extinguish
competition.

We have no shortage of technology, and the more we have the
worse our politics becomes. What we need is competitive
education and a citizenry with homes full of books, not access to
inspirational web sites. What good will come from people voting
who don't know that there is a Ninth Amendment?

[ghostofitpast]

Revolting technology

Bravo! I am a firm believer of the strategy that the first question you ask in a time of crisis is "How do we get into this mess?" I believe that at least part (not necessarily all) of the answer is that we are now a culture that believes that any problem can be solved by technology. We can no longer see the human factor in our lives in any depth greater than that of the user interface, as was perfectly demonstrated by the opening of Cooper's article. I agree that our impoverished educational system has a lot to do with the mess we are in; but techno-centrism that goes back before the computer to Taylor's "scientific management" has a lot to do with the sorry state of educational institutions. Technology has played a major role in the rise of our society; it may now play an equally important role in its fall.

[CyberSmythe]

On-line voting?

Estonia may have on-line voting, but I seriously doubt they do it anything like correctly. You see, voting is very technically hard because there are at least three mutually-conflicting requirements: Each eligible voter must be able to vote at most once in each race they're eligible to vote for. All voters must be able to verify that their vote was counted toward the candidate they chose. No person must be able to determine who any other voter voted for.

It's easy to satisfy two of those requirements, but all three together is tough, especially if you don't trust those in power to count the votes correctly. All of the on-line voting systems I've seen give up one of those characteristics, most often the third one.

There are protocols that meet all three requirements, but they are difficult to implement.

[shoffmueller]

Voters do give a damn

The title of your piece should probably read, why non-voters dont
give a damn

[nicmart]

Which is worse?

It's hard to say which group does more damage: the ignorant non-
voters or the ignorant voters.

[hotjerky]

If I were elected...voting on weekends

I understand that some countries allow for voting on weekends or even have a national holiday for voting day. That seems so logical to me, but instead, the US holds elections in the middle of the week. That seems so easy to fix, too.

[nicmart]

Catering to the lazy

I'm sure the answer to uninformed, unmotivated voting is weekend
elections. If that doesn't work we can send someone to each home
to find out what the numbskull electorate wants. After that we can
give each person who votes an iPhone for having done so. After
that we can take the corpse of the dead constitution to the
cemetery.

[stringboy]

The why

Very simply the real problem with voting turnout is the dwindling number of people who feel connected to their government. The reason is local. You are now one in 750,000 to your house representative. Do you think your vote means more than your grandparents? It doesn't.

[weegg]

Its rigged

2 party controlled system is the problem.
Solutions:
1) Allow voters the choice of "None of the above". If none of the
above wins, all candidates are flushed and new elections are
held with a new set people. That way people have another choice
other than picking the lesser of 2 evils. If no candidate is picked
then the person holding the office stays in until an election does
make the choice.
2) Parties should not be allowed to raise money for their
candidates (thereby no need for the party). All elections are
supported by a series of free public debates on tv and web. That
way we eliminate the "richest" candidates from getting elected
soley because of their deep pockets. You wonder why congress
is mostly a bunch of millionaires?
3) Eliminate all commercials raised by various groups for or
againest people running for office or voter driven initiatives.
Again, that should be debated and information provided free on
tv and web.
4) Hold elected officials accountable. If they do not run gov't
efficiently (e.g. unbalanced budget but allow for emergency
conditions with strict guidelines), they are the first to feel the
effect by not getting paid till they perform.

[nhidealist]

Hmm...

I agree with NOTA (and also strict term limits for ALL offices) but I disagree with your restrictions on free speech.

If I want to pay for an ad saying I disagree with candidate xyz, that's free speech: you have no right to stop me from doing that, and the Supreme Court just this week made that point in a (relatively narrow, but significant) ruling.

Further, our system has become more corrupt with more restrictions: I would instead suggest candidates are free to use whatever money they want, individuals could donate however/whenever/as much as they want - but full and immediate disclosure of all donations is mandatory so voters can see who is getting money from where, and falsifying this info would be a strongly punished felony. Let us - not bureaucrats in charge of taxpayer-funded TV stations - decide. If I see that candidate xyz accepted a donation from the united repulsive activity group, that's worth much more to me (I can decide against candidate xyz then) than relying on wooly-headed, lifetime-tenure bureaucrats at a TV station for deciding whether to mention that.

[abbottpark]

I AGREE

What we have is the longest running monopoly in the history of the US with the Democrats and Republicans.

[nhidealist]

One suggestion

As has been said so often elsewhere: make election day the day after tax day. There's a reason the two days are currently as far apart as possible!

(Better yet: tabula rasa, with our 67,000+ page federal tax code and so much else. Hah - not bloody likely - too many hogs at the trough.)

Ben Franklin said that in a democracy, people have the government they deserve. Many people don't care anymore because there's a perception that voting changes nothing anymore anyway, and government is simply too big, dumb, and bureaucratic to be fixed incrementally. A poll just came out that says that over half of U.S. voters now thinks a third-party Presidential candidate would be a good thing, which indicates (to me) that people want something, anything, to shake up a corrupt, corroded system, and that the mainstream candidates are just more of the same consultant-molded pap.

As others have said, people are also getting dumber. Ask most people what the Fourth, Tenth, or Sixteenth Amendments - arguably some of the most important ones - say, and you'll generally get blank stares. If you have kids in the family, ask them about what they learn in school about our government and history. You may be unpleasantly surprised; I have nieces and nephews whose textbooks (I checked) largely relegate Jefferson to half a page describing him as a slave-owner who, oh yeah, like, also did some Constitution stuff or whatever.

[expatincebu]

Only let corporations and the wealthy vote

They own all the politicians anyway. At least this system would
honestly upfront represent what we have now in secret.

[curmedgeon]

So what?

I could care less that the voting turnout is low. The idea that we
should maximize turnout is dumb. People who don't care enough
to vote probably don't care enough to understand the issues. I
don't want those people voting anyway. Besides that, half the
people in the country are of below-average intelligence.

[baike]

totally

I agree, we should not worry about increasing votes. We should focus on increasing INFORMED votes. Modern candidates are evasive and vague on their positions and over qualify their opinions out of fear of alienating anybody. But what they really get is disassociation from everybody. If I saw a candidate have the courage to take a a stand I agree with on an issue that's important to me, I'll vote. Otherwise don't hold your breath.

Also, a non vote can be considered a "none of the above" option. If I went to the grocer and wanted to buy an apple, but the whole bin was rotten, I'd turn around and walk out. In elections, the wisdom of that may be debatable since the choice will be made regardless, but its just human nature to pass when there doesn't seem any good options.

[ColorMeLucky]

What's your point?

I'm still waiting for your reasoning on why voters don't care because the article certainly doesn't provide one. Am I supposed to feel sorry for apathetic Americans who lament the fact they can't "pull the lever" as you put it from their home PC while in their PJ's and bunny slippers? No way. Those would be the last people I would want voting because they would vote on something as stupid as name recognition or best looking and certainly wouldn't lift a finger to find out details of any candidate's stand on substantive issues.

I'm also waiting for an Exhibit B because Exhibit A isn't compelling.

Rep Miller's staff gathers questions and comments from his web site and SELECTS the inputs Rep. Miller will respond to. How does that equate to what you call engaging "in a real conversation with constituents"?? That's merely a recipie to engage in political showboating with his supporters. His staff won't pick a question unless 1) they've prepared a thorough response for him, and 2) the answer makes him look good. If you want to participate with constituents, place him in a video chat room (with an independent moderator that removes any blatantly offensive or obscene comments/questions) and let his "constituents" come at him from both sides of the issue. That would be "real conversation".

[justinhamilton]

You're wrong and right

We know our efforts on MillerTV will succeed or fail based on the difficulty of the questions we use, and the frankness of the answers given. So we will be judged on the merits accordingly.

Also, consider the the beta. What we would like to do is incorporate a wiki and "digg style" social aggregation to let the crowd select the questions (while reserving the right to reject them to prevent what I call the "sanjaya effect".

We will also be working to do live video chats as well.

Thanks for your input.

[JB427]

Retire them all

"Why has it taken so long for Congress to get involved with social networking and video-sharing sites?" Cause there is a bunch of Old duffers in charge that are stuck in the 50's.
They should All be retired and some New fresh up to the times people should be put in.

[dayebreak]

Meanwhile...

It will be interesting to see if candidates participating in 'virtual town halls' will use the proposed legislation in S.431 to deny registered sex offenders to participate. In Missouri, <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5660000149.HTM" target="_newWindow">http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5660000149.HTM</a> makes it illegal for a registered voter who is also a registered sex offender to vote if the polling place is on school property; minors are present on the property; said voter is not the parent/custodian of a minor in that school.
This includes those convicted of <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5680000045.HTM," target="_newWindow">http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5680000045.HTM,</a> endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, which does not have to be a sexual offense.
While politicians are finding the masses on the Internet, they are also restricting those who can actively participate.

[Stating]

Voters Care About Specific Issues, But Are Stifled By Corrupt Pols

Activists voters -- ha, when is the last time you heard that phrase, do care about specific issues and will mobilize. Recent examples are the attempts by Manchurian Candidate politicians to ram Dubai Ports World and Amnesty for Illegals down voters throats.

Of course, we still have Manchurian Candidate pols like Diane Feinstein who think they are above the voters and strive to serve their own special interests (i.e. MilCon). She is actively working to shut down what little public discourse there is by using "cloture" and the "fairness doctrine". A knowledgeable, informed electorate in a corrupt politician's worst nightmare.

[chris_d]

A simple solution to a one problem

A simple solution to the problem of corporate control of government was suggested to me the other day: Only allow donations to parties and candidates from registered voters. If you're not a citizen, you can't vote, so you can't donate. If you're a corporation or any other organization, you can't vote, so you can't donate. I think this is a great idea and would make a big difference.

[nicmart]

Casually demolishing rights

Sure, it's a simple problem to remove the rights of Americans, such as freedom of association. Corporations are groups of people freely associating. Why should these people have no right to pool their dollars and spend them on political advocacy? I notice that you don't want to eliminate the power of the government to regulate what corporations may do. Boiled down to the essentials, then, you have a scheme to increase government power and reduce citizen power. I'm sure that will enhance the political motivation of we surfs.

[LaPajarita]

Reason voters don't vote?

A. Young people: feel unqualified to vote. All their young lives the schools have filled their innocent heads with the notion that you can't think or move until you are licensed or credentialed.

B. MSM (Not c/net): falling down on the job. The news concentrates on personalities, not policies; crimes, not budgets (although some govt budgets are in fact a crime); accidents, not unelected bureaucrats making decisions for and by the few.

C. Many voters, including the author of this article, think their most important vote is the one they cast for U.S. President. Wrong. The most important vote is for local dogcatcher, sheriff, county commissioner (judge, supervisor or other term for elected county officials) and county clerk; city council and mayor, school board, circuit court judge, etc. A democracy requires an engaged electorate -- that means voters should try to get to know, personally, their local, elected officials first, then move up the ladder to county, state and federal. All of these elected people want to hear from you personally at least out here on the West Coast. Go to their in person Town Halls. Check your local paper - you DO read your local paper, don't you? - for times and locations.

D. Cynicism: the last refuge of people too lazy to see how the system really works. It's easy to charge corruption, but what most people really mean when they say that, is that elected officials listen more to the people who talk to those officials than to the cynics. Real corruption is accepting money or favors for a vote. I believe there is far less of that than most of the cynics might think. Why? Because power is more motivating than money or favors. Not that there's not WAAAAAAYYYY too much money floating around in DC, but other motivators are at work, too - ideology, for example.

BTW - ideology is good, contrary to what some people think. You may not like their ideology, but you where they stand and how they'll vote.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

[lynxss]

Young people just need to be taught it impacts them

I dont agree with A.

As a not quite so young person anymore. I beleive young people just dont think that they make a difference. When millions vote on something does your one small voice really make a difference? Individually no but en mass yes, and they dont get that.

There is also the fact that they dont beleive these things they are voting on affect them individually so why bother. I did not vote the first term of GWB because I forgot to change my registration and it was a 300 mile drive, but when my standard of living, my purchasing power left over by taxes and such all took a hit when he took over I vowed right then I'd never miss another vote because it does affect "me" individually, and the war was just another reminder these things impact us all individually.

I am extremely grateful to have had the great teachers I had in middle and high school who really pounded home the importance of voting. Because our schools were the polling places in town we had access to the older machines that werent being used anymore. We would hold votes on everything from class president to the lunch menu just as a real poll would go. Nothing gets kids more motivated to vote than having it impact what they'll be eating next month. These are the things I wish more schools would do. When all of us graduated it actually upset the status quo on many of the local county positions by the huge lopsided younger turnout (I'm not sure thats a good thing now lol)

[Hardrada]

If the Internet were around...

... I doubt the founding fathers would have designed our political system in the same way. We have no need for a democratic republic. If every citizen has a way to vote on every issue, why not eliminate the corrupt middle men and have a true democracy? People voting on REAL issues where EVERY vote counts, not just those in "swing states" or in a particular demographic. What a concept.

[pmfjoe]

Look at the history books

The founding fathers admonished true democracy as a tyranny of the masses. The created a democratic republic for a reason.

[suyts]

A true democracy

is a majority rule form of government. Given the state of our more populus states(Cal and NY), I'd have to say no thanks. The republican form of government has shown to be the best over the course of history.

[rapier1]

Actually what you are describing

Is called mob rule. Turns out that the mob is *really* stupid. It's fickle, easily swayed by false arguments, always willing to turn on its own, and it tends to be intensely violent.

Representative government exists partly to temper the passionate excesses of the mob. Its not a perfect system by any means but its better than the alternatives we've seen so far.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Not the mechanism, so much as the options

I'm a technophile at least as much as the next person here, and would be overjoyed to see reliable, verifiable, electronic/online voting. But I don't think that will solve our problem, nor will the social networking sites, candidate websites, or online public affairs websites, among many proposed "silver bullets."

The biggest problem I see in our system is the fact that the candidate selection methods used by the two major parties (something our Founding Fathers warned us about) produce real losers who can't excite people to go to the polls except by whipping up hate and fear of "the other guy." Moreover, alternatives to the two established parties either don't exist or are generally not viewed as credible (in part, because of demeaning propaganda from partisans of the two major parties).

The result is that many people don't end up with anyone they can vote FOR, and after a while, voting AGAINST the guy you hate more becomes unappealing.

Ron Paul stirred up a fair amount of controversy in his appearances in the GOP debates. Kucinich always does the same on the Demo side. But people like these do not survive to the general elections, and their voices are drowned out all too early during the campaign season. After the many months of bland,stage-managed tweedledum-tweedledee campaigning and faux-"debates" leading up to the general election, quite a few people are numb and even contemptuous of the candidates and the overall process.

At very least, third-party and independent candidates need to be able to get into the "official" debates for various offices, especially President, to provide viewpoints that would otherwise not be expressed or explored, and to remind people that they are not restricted to voting for just the vanilla and french vanilla candidates.

[rapier1]

I agree

The problem is the people we have to vote for and the way that the two party system has been institutionalized at *every* level. I'm not advocating a parlimentary system but something to lower the barriers to entry.

[GraysonBuzz]

Frankly I don't want...

the younger age group to vote en masse. They often have done little to show me that they have enough knowledge on subjects not involving Paris Hilton or the like to be knowledgeable enough on national issues to assume the responsibility of voting. Combine this with the naivety and idealism of the young and it could just be a bonanza for the Democrats and that is not something I am crazy about!

[NoVista]

With age comes wisdom, eh?

If you're an example of mature judgment, how is it you have such a stereotyped ageist agenda?

Hmmm, maybe registering to vote ought to be preceded by a knowledgeability written test ... that could well disqualify many of the sophisticated and pragmatic in the GOP.

As for the young, I was back in my home state of Florida just before the 2000 election. So many of the 'adults' were admonishing the young people, register, vote, every vote counts. Well, we saw in FL how well that worked out.

And then those new voters had their first education in non-naive thinking on an election, when ONE vote by The Supremes decided the ~winner~

Btw, I'm 71 and would bet on most any young person over a mature elitist.

Have a nice day.

[tgonng]

Instant Runoff Voting

The best fix for our electoral system to give us better candidates and better winners is
Instant Runoff Elections.

Many people would no longer just vote for a party line and stop voting for the lesser
of 2 evils so as not to "throw your vote away" on a Third party candidate.

The basic steps are:
- Each voter ranks all the candidates in order.
- If one candidate wins a majority of first choices, then the election is over.
- Otherwise the candidate with the least number of first choices is eliminated, and
any voter who had that as their first choice now reverts to their second choice.
- Retally the ballots with this change.
- Repeat this cycle until there is a majority winner. (eliminating the least chosen candidate and recasting those ballots to their next choice)

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/faq/" target="_newWindow">http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/faq/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.instantrunoff.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.instantrunoff.com/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://deimel.org/commentary/peoples_choice_2.htm" target="_newWindow">http://deimel.org/commentary/peoples_choice_2.htm</a>

[rapier1]

While this can work

You also have problems in that a vote for president can't be counted on the national level but must, for constitutional reasons, use the state as its largest aggregate. This can produce some very odd results. Not necessarly bad ones but interesting. You'd probably see a lot more people campaigning in very low population states just so they can have a minority voice in the electoral college. What would also be interesting is that in order to have an impact you wouldn't even have to get on the ballot in the more difficult states. As long as you had some electoral votes to horse trade with then you'll end up with some significant influence - especially if the balance in the collge is close.

[oxtail01]

Voter do care

Hey stupid, the voters vote, it's the eligible non-voter who don't give a damn. Why? Because most of them are like you - lazy, don't want to do any real research, and already think they have the answers.

[savagesteve13]

Give everybody that votes $2.00

Call it a reverse poll tax. That would necessitate voter ID's but hey our democracy is broken, we gotta do something.

I also would change super tuesday to "super saturday", because voting can take time, why not do it on a weekend and increase turnout?

[A E Ableson]

1984 election

Mondale- not even close - if I remember right he took only one state.

[rapier1]

And you actually don't know that reason...

Really, the last thing this country needs are geeks trying to figure out how to make the voting system 'work'. I'm sure a few of you have some polisci background. However, in general people tend to *drastically* over simplify the problems of voting, democratic action, the role of the polity, and so forth. It is *not* an easy problem. There is no *one* single solution. Technology will only be a *small* part of the answer. You can't use technology to make the public believe that the system has their interests in mind, you can't use it to make people feel that their opinion matters, you can't even use it to make people more informed if they don't want to be informed. Low voter turn out is really just a symptom of a much larger problem and trying to treat it symptomatically will, in this case, surely fail. If people believe in their government, if they feel like the government serves them, if they feel like they can trust the government then the voting turn out will increase. Unfortunately, the people that really need the civics lessons (our 'leaders') are the least likely to listen to them.

[Orion Blastar]

The real reason why people don't vote

is because there aren't any candidates that stand for the average American citizen and represent the moderates. About 60 to 70 percent of the population are moderates and most candidates are either liberal or conservative.

I happen to be a moderate.

What happens is that every election either the Democratic or Republican candidate swings enough votes their way to get elected. Liberals always vote for liberals and conservatives always vote for conservatives. Moderates have to pick the lesser of two evils, either the liberal devil or the conservative devil.

Moderates want to see a fix of social security, a reform of health care, an end to poverty and homelessness, and other things that liberals always promise to do for the past thirty years or so, but never have done anything about it after being elected to office. Truth be told the conservatives have actually been more progressive in those areas, but had their bills voted down by liberals. Moderates want to see conservatives fix these things if they want to be elected in 2008.

Usually after a liberal has been in office and messed things up a conservative gets elected next time. The same thing for when a conservative messes up, a liberal gets elected next time.

Conservatives are good for national defense, increasing stock market value, upholding traditional values, and keeping the businesses running without too many layoffs. When they promise to do those things, they deliver. Moderates care about those things too, and liberals better if they want to be elected in 2008.

Moderates elected liberals to congress because they promised to end the Iraq war. Since they haven't many moderates are upset over that. They feel that the liberals lied to them yet again and we have yet another Do-Nothing congress.

Many moderates get tired of being lied to by the liberals, or being disappointed by the conservatives, but who else is there to vote for? In the 1990's Perot got quite a few votes, more than any other independent candidate, but hardly enough to win even one state. That is the closest an independent candidate got to becoming president. There is nobody even like Perot now. Most moderates will get upset and refuse to vote because there isn't a single candidate that understands them and supports all of their issues.

[Phillep_H]

Disagree

Individual Republicans lost because the Democrats running against them promised honesty and less spending. (You would not know it with all the conflict over earmarks.) Enough Republicans lost to shift the balance. <P> If Iraq was actually as unpopular as the MSM and Democrats claim, the Republicans would have lost even more seats. I don't think Iraq was a factor, except to give people who were going to vote Democrat anyhow something to be obnoxious about. Remember, all most people know about politics is what they read in the news paper or hear on TV, and something like 90% of the reporters donate to the Democratic Party.

[Get_Bent]

Worthless candidates

If you want me to vote, give me some candidates worth voting for! Instead, we get a crop of idiots and special-interest butt-kissers.

Here's my solution for the lack of voter interest: Add an entry called "None of the above" in each category. If it gets more votes than any of the candidates, throw out those candidates and hold a new election. This will probably make it a lot more difficult to fill a position, but at least this way, everyone will get to express their true opinion of the candidates. This would be one helluva reality check to both the Democratic and Republican parties.