presumedly because they are "disillusioned" - then wouldn't it benefit those people to come together and vote (as one new party) and change everything?
2006-10-31 17:17:29 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The 2004 election was a rare event, because in most elections since the last half of the last century, less than 50% of Americans go to the polls.
2006-11-01 16:35:53 · update #1
What a great idea!! I can only hope and pray someday we can do that.
2006-10-31 17:19:03 · answer #1 · answered by jerofjungle 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I disagree with the statement that "a majority of people don't vote." The majority of 18-and-over U.S. citizens did vote in 2004.
I wasn't one of them because I am indeed "disillusioned." But having a third choice isn't going to change my mind -- and there is always a third, fourth, fifth, and sometimes more than that, choice on the ballot. There is always a Libertarian Party choice on the ballot (for President and for many congressional races). There is a Green Party choice. Voters are not limited to only two parties. They demonstrate that they do primarily want those two parties.
Those of us who are disillusioned are not fretting because we need more choices.
2006-10-31 17:23:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, 55% of registered voters cast their votes in the 2004 presidential election, so by a slim number, the majority did vote.
I agree, if everybody would just shut up and vote, real change could happen.
2006-10-31 17:26:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
you're wrong.
the majority did vote in 2004.
over 55% did.
voted wrong but voted.
we have more than two parties.
we just have one too rich party who buys votes and election..
need to put an end to that..people get the impression "my vote don't count" the gonna steal-rig vote any way...
2006-10-31 18:45:52 · answer #4 · answered by cork 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a free country. No one has to vote but in the end I think they learn that they should have made the effort as the economy becomes worse and morally corrupt people are taking leadership roles. It affects every one of us.
2006-10-31 17:35:32 · answer #5 · answered by Mom_of_two 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who wants to vote for a super rich a.s.s.h.o.l.e who has so much money, he can't even begin to understand what life is like for normal people?
Every major politician now a days is a millionare. Now--if a middle class canidate were to run--I'd get off my a.s.s and vote. But then again--I'd never hear of him because he won't have the money to buy all the necessary air time on TV, etc.
2006-10-31 17:25:27 · answer #6 · answered by John F. 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Some are disillusioned, but most simply don't bother. Democracy is supposed to have more than one party. Otherwise, the nation becomes fascist (which is exactly what Republicans want)
2006-10-31 17:19:28 · answer #7 · answered by Reba K 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree. But human nature as it is, likely there would be problems we cannot imagine with that plan. People are too opinionated and hate to give in to others. The LOVE of being right keeps us from cooperation.
2006-10-31 17:40:24 · answer #8 · answered by desertflower 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it would. Unfortunately, alternative parties have had a very difficult time getting a foothold in recent history.
2006-10-31 17:25:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Have to have someone worthy of my vote first and that hasn't happened in my 38 years of voting. Although I have voted for the lesser vermin admittedly.
2006-10-31 17:24:16 · answer #10 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i've heard that theory before, and in theory, it could work. but people are just so unwilling to work together, and when they try to, everyone's so suspicious of each others motives. thats why good theories like that never pan out
2006-10-31 17:26:11 · answer #11 · answered by Katrina 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋