If Bernie Sanders looked like Mitt Romney and had the voice of Fred Thompson he'd have been elected president *already*.

Same goes for Ron and/or Rand Paul (though I'd shudder at the thought of either of them being president).

This country is so ready for an insurgent candidate to blow up one of the 2 main parties and run an off-script campaign. It almost doesn't matter what they espouse as long as it's some version of "These people are screwing you, all your representatives are in their pocket, and I can't be bought. Down with the empire, the drug war, and the plutocracy. Up with working people."

Until we get a non-establishment-approved candidate, 64% not showing up will be the norm.

-KD in CA #NotReadyForHillaryTheHawk

One side not looked at is... If we make election day a holiday, which would be a Tuesday... how many would take Monday off and go out of town and not vote. Yes, they could vote absentee, but couldn't they already do that?

@ William Waser:

Voting should be conducted in a 36 hour window beginning 12 noon on Friday and ending at midnight on a Saturday.

The Friday should be a National Holiday, and employers of 24/7 businesses should be forced to allow each employee either Friday or Saturday off.

This absurd need to "call" the election with 10% of precincts reporting and "scoop" the other networks is hurtful to elections.

Also, a $25 tax credit should be given to anyone who votes. Think of it as the inverse of a penalty for not voting, which would inhibit liberty of those who absolutely do not want to.

-KD in CA

Sanders has a vested interest in talking his little theory up here. So what?
As for BradBlog, this is all just rationalizing and excuse-making. If Democrats had maintained control of the Senate and flipped or even just reduced the Republican majority in the House with the same 36% or even a smaller voter turnout, we'd be reading nary a word about voter dissatisfaction with the two major parties and the system as a whole. On the contrary, we'd be reading about why the results were a vote against Republican 'intransigence', how "Democrats won their 'mandate' the old-fashioned way - by EARNING it" and similar clap-trap...

William Wiser said @ 2:

One side not looked at is... If we make election day a holiday, which would be a Tuesday... how many would take Monday off and go out of town and not vote.

Have been trying to point that out for years. My solution: Move Election Day to Wednesday and make it a holiday. Much more difficult to leave town for a long weekend in that case. (I also suggest we talk with vets also, about turning Veterans Day into the Election Day holiday. It'd be a great tribute to them, frankly, and would undercut the jackasses complaining that another federal holiday would cost too much.)

Yes, they could vote absentee, but couldn't they already do that?

Some can, some can't. Depends on where you live and whether they have "No excuse absentee voting". Also, absentee ballots are more likely to not be counted or to be manipulated, so it's better to vote ON Election Day. Thus, encouraging people to stay and vote (and hand-count the ballots afterwards, everywhere!) would be preferable.

Lennie Pike said @ 4:

Except I've been talking about the majority of the electorate not voting, recognizing the right for people to NOT vote as a vote (if an ill-considered one) against the system, and how the political parties need to give voters something to vote FOR, rather than the nonsense they do now. And I've been doing it for years.

But whatevs...

I think that the 64% of voters who did not turn out to vote in this election might be somewhat misleading since quite a number of them may have wanted to vote but were not able to do so because of the concerted efforts of voter suppression being practiced on a significant scale in an effective manner.

Steve B @ 7 said:

I think that the 64% of voters who did not turn out to vote in this election might be somewhat misleading since quite a number of them may have wanted to vote but were not able to do so because of the concerted efforts of voter suppression

To be fair (to me) I did reference that point in my original article.

Still, even factoring in worst-case scenario numbers of suppressed voters, I don't think it'd make much of a dent in the overall turnout percentage by more than a few points. So I think the main point still stands.

Bernie has had my vote for, oh, a dozen or so years now... except I am in WA not VT.

Anybody read "The Speech" - it was just as good reading as hearing...

Sanders/Warren 2016. That'd blow Hillary out of the water and YES the 64% non vote was a vote AGAINST entrenched bullshit that both parties are swimming in.

Or Warren/Sanders. I don't give a fuck at this point. Just somebody with a sack and who gives a shit about America. No, not 'Murica. AMERICA.

Yeah, it was a vote, to not vote, a lazy-ass vote that will ensure much more of more of the same than voting would have done. As Sanders said so many times, before the election, we have to get organized and keep at it.

George Govus said @ 10:

Yeah, it was a vote, to not vote, a lazy-ass vote that will ensure much more of more of the same than voting would have done.

The counter-argument, of course, is that "much more of much more of the same" would occur no matter whether they voted or not. I don't agree with that, but that's "their" argument for not voting as well.

What I continue to recommend, as I noted in my original piece on this, is that blaming those who don't vote (those "lazy-ass vote[rs]" as you describe them) is almost as dumb as not voting. I'd suggest giving those voters an actual reason to vote for something instead.

Or, you and politicians and pundits can just keep calling them lazy and stupid and so forth. Up to you. It's working out great so far though.