On Nov 4, 2004, at 10:01 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Mmmmmaybe. I'm not sure how much of low turnout can be attributable to happiness as opposed to apathy or outright disenfranchisement. Wasn't it NV that had a "none of the above" box on their Prez ballot? That got 2,000+ votes, I think.
Out of _how_ many voters? 2000 votes is probably below the number of voters who put a mark in the wrong box.
About a million. Turns out the "none of these" voters were over 3500 in number:
<http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/NV/>
I really find that amusing.
I mean that of the people who didn't vote this time, I would bet a vast preponderance chose not to because they didn't like the choices and figured voting for one bad apple wasn't any different from voting for another. It probably seemed the least wasteful of time not to vote at all, and I'm not sure I'd be able to propose any really convincing arguments otherwise.
Do you have _any_ empirical evidence for this?
I don't think you have any empirical evidence to the contrary. One of the problems with people who don't vote is they're not around to take exit polls explaining why they didn't vote.
What I can say is that of the people I tried to convince to vote for *anyone at all*, the reasons I got were either "it takes too long" or "both the major candidates are losers" ... or, not infrequently, both.
No, I don't have stats to back that up. But I'd like to know why my conjecture has clearly upset you so much. Do you have your own pet theory as to why people don't vote that I've somehow threatened?
Last I checked, Gautam, not every opinion, hunch or feeling had to be supported by empirical data. In fact, TTBOMK it's only declarations that purport to be factual that need to be supported by hard evidence at all.
We have plenty of opinion polls that suggest that this is not the case. We have an historical record in which, if the economy is growing and we are not at war, turnout is low.
1914? 1944? (Asking; how was turnout then?)
Presumably people are not happy in the US when we are at war. When people are unhappy they vote.
I'm not arguing against that. I'm questioning the application of that to the 2004 vote. If so many people were unhappy, why would the majority vote to retain the status quo?
I'm just suggesting there are other factors in play than the ones you posit, and not even necessarily instead of rather than in addition to. I'd still like to know why you seem so vehemently opposed to the idea, particularly since I did not assert, in any way at all, that what I was saying was anything other than my own outlook. (This is a nice way of saying "what's up your nostril, dude?")
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
