I vote, and I think it's important. I also respect the right of those who choose not to.

But your point of "And those parties, once again, received a clear mandate, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, from those "voters" who simply failed to show up and participate in the current electoral system."

They choose not to acknowledge it. "Landslide!" "Rejection of Obama!" "Republican Wave!" are just window dressing at the funeral of the American republic. Obama had a window of opportunity to change the narrative and he missed it.

Are there any Henry Wallace democrats left out there? Does anyone even know who that was?

Ugh.

So NOT VOTING is "a vote... either in favor of the way things are going, or against a two party system that has failed."

Put another way, in many cases "not voting" means something to the person boycotting it, but the "message" conveyed covers the entire spectrum. Kind of like mailing a blank piece of paper.

The effect is very real, however. Every election our opportunity to effectively participate in our country diminishes. This will, of course, only feed the dynamic of nonparticipation.

Just how the traditional lame excuse for not voting becomes a justification in anyone's mind borders on insanity. Non voters who believe they are sending a message are immature at best, and poorly informed cynics at worst--who are the reason for everything they dislike about politics.

As for the bulk of non voters, they are simply too ignorant to engage in reasoned judgment. After all, half the population is below average intelligence.

Speaking of Henry Wallace here is one quote that seems applicable and explains the "victory" that the conservatives have earned by selling the narrative that votes don't matter and getting the majority of Americans to opt/tune out.

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power.
They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation” VP Henry Wallace.

Brad I get your point that the D's have not "earned" the attention/support of the working man/woman but please tell me how that is possible when the Plutocracy has firm control of the Media?

I personally know older people who were life long D's and liberals who have been brain washed by fox News. So please tell me how short of a massive door to door education campaign can the D's earn anything when the message on the other side is so loud and persistent?

One thing is clear. Those who choose "not" to vote accomplish the very thing that the ALEC/GOP has sought by suppressing the votes of those who would otherwise like to vote.

StumptownHero @ 4:

Of course, I concur with the excellent quote from Wallace (we ran same back in 2010) and your points about Fox and the RW echo chamber etc..

That said, I received literally hundreds of emails this season from the DCCC. Every single one shamelessly begged for money. Not one that I noticed actually told me what Democrats planned to do if they were elected to a House or Senate majority with that money. They told me that "Boehner was going to win!!!" if I didn't fork over money (I didn't), but that was about it.

Aside from rare exceptions like Elizabeth Warren who would go on TV and say something like "elect us and we will end the obscene profits the U.S. makes from loan-sharking money to students to go to college," I have no idea what the Democrats were promising to do if they were elected to power. Do you? I know what they were against, and I vaguely know what sort of things they care about and were not able to carry out up to now, but they failed to offer a compelling reason for voters to vote FOR them. And I pay attention to this stuff.

When the Rs took over the House in 1994 they presented a "Contract With America". It made 10 (fairly despicable, but that's a different issue) promises, telling the electorate exactly what they promised to do once in power. It gave the electorate something to vote FOR. Americans --- and this was prior to the ridiculous gerrymandering of 2010 --- voted for them in droves. In 2006, Democrats promised to get us out of Iraq and hold Dubya accountable (never mind if they did, that's what they offered to the electorate as a reason to vote FOR them.) In 2008, Barack Obama promised to get out of Iraq, institute economic reforms amidst global disaster and assure health care coverage to millions of Americans. Granted, a ham sandwich could have defeated almost any Republican Presidential candidate in 2008, but Americans were given something (and someone) to vote FOR --- and they did.

I hear your message in regard the difficulty of getting the message out to the electorate on an uneven, bastardized playing field. But there has to be a message first, in order to get it out, no matter the playing field.

If you can tell me what the Democrats had promised to do for the American people had they been granted majorities to govern in both chambers this year, I'd love to hear it. So, it seems, would the bulk of the American electorate. Oh, and it also would have helped if they'd worked harder to actually do many of those things they previously had promised the American people, like holding Dubya and friends accountable, etc.

Piggybacking on the Henry Wallace thought thread -

Americans are progressives and they don't even know it. How many states said "YES" to minimum wage increases while also enthroning GOP senators?

Gay marriage - GOP on the wrong side of history and public opinion

Drug War - GOP on the wrong side of history and public opinion

Economics/Taxes/Inequality - GOP *MASSIVELY* on the wrong side of history and public opinion. Is 35 years of the catastrophe of Reaganomics enough? Can we make a verdict on its abject failure?

Or are American plebs too stupid/lazy/propagandized/sated by the cheap bread and endless circuses our patricians serve up?

Thank you Brad for this forum. If only even 10% of people gave as much a damn as you do.

-Angry Progressive without a party or candidate for '16 #NotReadyForHillaryTheHawk

Thanks for this, Brad.-

I'm the first person to say that I think people should vote, if only because when they don't, that's one less vote that bad guys need to steal.

Now at least I have a rationale TO vote. Next problem--is there going to be someone to vote FOR in 2016(should the planet still be here)? Cuz please, don't nobody expect me to vote for Hillary, she's a nightmare, even if it would be fun to see a woman elected Pres.

My argument for not voting(if one happens to not want to) still goes something like this--the current system is so very much rigged for ever-continuing dysfunction and malfeasance by the oligarchy/plutocracy.

We're on the clock as far as needing to get anywhere near real on climate change and other related socio-economic issues.

Since--1.there is so little hope that appropriate, timely change will come from the top down. And since--2. it seems that our best shot(as long as it appears to be)for appropriate and timely change will probably come from an engaged populace finally becoming energized in a big and continuous way. And since--3. the Republicans may be more efficient at getting us energized cuz their shit has NOT EVEN THE PRETENSE of appearing sane or helpful in any way(other than in their continuing duplicity filled, disinformation campaigns). --Maybe--4. the most effective way to bring about the hail mary change we so desperately need--an enraged/engaged populace that won't let up-- on so many fronts is to let the Repubs win.

This strategy has the added benefits of--1. not having to submit/compromise your sacred right to vote to the lesser of two evils choice, which sucks so bad and is all too often the only choice. And 2. satisfies some childish sense of vindictiveness towards all those people who refuse yesterday, today, and every day to listen to our very real and sensible urgency about the need to change our voting system to a transparent, trustworthy one.

There's no way, short of prescience, to suss this idea out, but what we been doin' don't seem to be working all that well.

I'm not saying I'm not gonna vote. I'm saying it's tempting for the reasons sited.

To not vote is to vote Republican. Remember the Weyrich dictum: the fewer people who vote, the better it is for them.

Although I understand your point, Brad, I disagree. A vote is a vote and not voting is not a vote. Does not voting send a message yes, and you are right on that point. An example, even if you disagree with the Democrats, but hate the Republicans even more, you should vote for the Democratic candidate. Why? Because if everyone did this, and looking at demographics of the actual population of the United States, we would end up with about 30% voting for Republicans, maybe 40% and either 70% or 60% voting for the Democrats. This would create a sea change in our politics and would likely drive the Republicans down to 25% or 30% in the next election as it would become clear that Democrats are willing to govern and Republicans just know how to lower taxes and get rid of government.

At the level of 25 or 30% for the Republican Party, a 3rd party candidate becomes viable. Such as a Green party candidate, a Socialist or even a Libertarian. Then they voters would have an even better choice then. But the non-voters are not willing to even see this and so are causing our country to go down the tubes even quicker.

Jim at #3 said, "Just how the traditional lame excuse for not voting becomes a justification in anyone's mind borders on insanity."

So, if I can look at the political scene and see on one hand center-right authoritarian murderers and war criminals who tout their failures as though they were successes, and on the other hand center-right authoritarian murderers and war criminals who run from their successes as though they were failures, I'm insane not to vote for one or the other?

I disagree with Brad that not voting can be a vote for the status quo. Citizens who like the way things are going go out and vote for the incumbents. There is a concept in business that employees rise to the level of their incompetence. As long as they are successful at their jobs, people get promoted; once they reach a position which exceeds their skills, they no longer rise. Consequently, there is a risk of a company promoting all its most competent people only to find that no one can do his or her job. Not voting is how a citizen qua board member says, "I think our most profitable option is to continue our search."

Jim also said, "As for the bulk of non voters, they are simply too ignorant to engage in reasoned judgment." He failed to elaborate with evidence that active voters are better informed or more rational, particularly necessary given their continued tendency to vote for disingenuous (albeit successful) politicking and overwhelmingly shitty governance.

Marta Steele:

Brad sent me a signed copy of your book: Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols. It was amazing to see all that important information compiled so immaculately.

Thanks!

#6 Brad
I completely agree with you that the D's have failed to talk "to" the lower and middle classes. They have always had a hard time clearly communicating the ideas on the liberal buffet table to an electorate that is unengaged and distracted by the demands of the survival treadmill.

The R's main message of "less government" is easy to convey in all types of communications, and more important, easy to cognitively process even though it is a meaningless concept when applied to the responsibilities of GOVERNING! Add on the emotionally driven Gun Nuts and the tribalism of the Religious groups and you have a coalition that needs to hear only three simple messages from their candidates to get their full and enthusiastic support.

Since our L$M is little more than tabloid's and even on network news serious issues are simmered down to 30 seconds stories and conveyed in sound bites how can any group get the attention of the electorate?

What I am saying is that even if the D's could develop a coherent strategy I don't think the current structure of the media would permit it to be communicated especially if that narrative threaten their control of the message like campaign finance reform which would cut them off from the advertising pig trough.

Maybe after the 2022 reapportionment the D's can retake control of the US House and overturn Citizens United but until then the only answer I can see making a difference on participation rates is a massive door to door campaign to communicate a platform that talks to the "average" American. Without that Face to Face education the D's will not be able to "get' the average American's attention.

Your work on the Radio and Tee Vee helps but it is a small, but important, voice in the discussion.

StumptownHero @ 13:

I generally agree with your broad assessment, but want to respond to a point or two here...

the D's have failed to talk "to" the lower and middle classes. They have always had a hard time clearly communicating the ideas on the liberal buffet table to an electorate that is unengaged and distracted by the demands of the survival treadmill.

Yes, but they could at least try!

What I am saying is that even if the D's could develop a coherent strategy I don't think the current structure of the media would permit it to be communicated especially if that narrative threaten their control of the message like campaign finance reform which would cut them off from the advertising pig trough.

I generally agree with your point there, in that the playing field is vastly tilted against Ds, particularly on the public airwaves which are so crucial to any messaging.

On the other hand, two points: 1) The Ds have rolled over in the fight for the public airwaves for years, contending that it's the Internet that matters now, not the public airwaves. (That's why they fight for Net Neutrality and completely ignore issues like the FCC's refusal to enforce laws --- which still exist! --- meant to prevent the corporate Rightwing takeover of our publicly owned airwaves.) And 2) The Ds did communicate with me every day --- like 5 times a day! --- through their idiotic DCCC emails begging for money in the most embarrassing of ways. Not once, to my recollection, did they bother to explain why I should vote FOR them in those emails. They succeeded in receiving my attention --- and that of millions of others --- many times a day for several months before the election through those endless shameful pleas and, yet, did absolutely nothing to make their case when they had that attention.

So I agree the playing field is tilted against them. But even where it should work in their favor or where they had the opportunity to get a message across, they chose to squander the opportunity to present a message as to why anybody should vote FOR them, other than "Hey, we're not as bad as those other guys! So give us some money now or Boehner will win!"

ted rall ruminates upon this very problem

http://rall.com/comic/five-wrongs-make-a-right

Ted Rall's cartoon mentions my idea above. That's the first time I've heard it somewhere else. Kinda nice.