Are there people that encourage apathy in specific demographics of our population to manipulate the vote?

Answer 1

Yes.

I distinctly remember an uproar during the 2000 elections, where the Florida recount was finished/called off before votes in predominantly black areas were fully considered. In my opinion, not only was this a physical manipulation of the voting process, (if indeed it did happen) but the publicizing of the issue (whether the voting manipulation occurred or not) encourages people in those areas to think that their votes don't count, and thus to not vote in the future.

Answer 2

The right to vote for pre-owned candidates encourages apathy. It is childish, similar to letting Mommy and Daddy make all your decisions for you. Freedom only comes through non-political group action, particularly economic action like Martin Luther King's bus boycott, which was not a direct attempt to change the law--that never works--but a way that forced the City of Montgomery to change the law or lose too much money. If you want to hear a similar right-wing political action, the Ku Klux Klan got rid of the takeover of its land without first getting sympathetic politicians elected.

Answer 3

Yes, the press does a lot of the manipulation including misquoting candidates. You have to read in between the lines.

Answer 4

Absolutely. Most of the Democrats do. They play as if they are the Saviors of the lower-class of society, when in reality they are keeping the lower class in their back pockets. Have you ever noticed that Ted Kennedy declared a "War on Poverty" almost 40 years ago. And notice that Poverty is still here. The Dems have no intention of helping the poverty stricken, they only want their votes!! Wake Up People!!

Answer 5

You cant encourage apathy.

You might not go out of your way to deal with it

Answer 6

I doubt that the Supreme Court Justices are intentionally trying to cause apathy, but in my case those people sure have discouraged me from voting. In the words of Judge Learned Hand, in his famous book, "The Bill of Rights," ...

"Each one of us must in the end choose for himself how far he would like to leave our collective fate to the wayward vagaries of popular assemblies. No one can fail to recognize the perils to which the last forty years have exposed such governments. ... For myself, it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of Platonic Guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which I assuredly do not. If they were in charge, I should miss the stimulus of living in a society where I have, at least theoretically, some part in the direction of public affairs. Of course I know how illusory would be the belief that my vote determined anything; but nevertheless when I go to the polls I have a satisfaction in the sense that we are all engaged in a common venture."

The U.S. Supreme Court is behaving like a bevy of Platonic Guardians. They steal elections and flush the people's moral values down the toilet. They have robbed from me the reason for voting -- that "satisafaction ... that we are all engaged in a common venture."

And stealing election 2000 sure was very, very manipulative. Alan Dershowitz reported (in "Supreme Injustice," published 2001):

I have been told by a source close to the Court that Anthony Kennedy has a quiet but determined ambition that could be satisfied only if Bush became president: He wants to become the next chief justice of the United States when William Rehnquist steps down. ...

Kennedy realizes that because of his own background in Republican politics ... he would stand little chance of being promoted to chief justice by a Democratic president. He has confided his ambition to trusted friends and former law clerks, who have shared this information with my source. One former clerk has pointed out that in recent years, as the prospect of a vacancy has drawn closer, Kennedy has changed his vote in several cases to enhance his standing as a strong candidate to fill that vacancy.

This speculation has also been reported by Robert Novak, who has excellent sources within the conservative movement: "Kennedy's recent swing to the right led court-watchers to conclude that he was readying himself for a chief justice vacancy in a Republican administration." Novak had previously pin-pointed one decision by Kennedy that "raised suspicions in legal circles that he is launching a campaign to be the next chief justice if a Republican is elected president."

It has now been reliably reported -- and I have been able to confirm independently -- that Justice Kennedy was the primary author of the Court's final per curiam opinion. I have also been told that Justice Kennedy wishes to have his authorship known to the Bush administration. In his campaign for the chief justiceship, he has emphasized that because of his generally moderate views, he is the only inside candidate who is confirmable by the Senate, but -- as evidenced by his vote in Bush v. Gore -- he is also a moderate who can be counted on when push comes to shove.

We can't know for certain whether my source is correct about Kennedy's ambition and, if so, whether it played any role in his vote in the Florida recount case. What we do know is that his vote and the arguments he presented in the opinion to support it were inconsistent with his previously expressed substantive views on equal protection, with his long-held attitudes toward the force of precedent, with his previous votes on stay applications, and with his frequently stated position on the limited role of courts in cases involving large issues of politics and policy. So at the very least, there is evidence of a motive other than the desire to follow his previous decisions and rule fairly.

There is no public information that would have justified Kennedy's recusal in this case, but if he in fact chose personal ambition or party loyalty over principle, then he has, in my view, morally disqualified himself from becoming chief justice or earning a place of honor in the history of the Supreme Court. A justice who once bends the rules to favor a particular litigant can never again be trusted not to break them if the stakes are sufficiently high. A justice who allows himself to become blinded by personal ambition should not be rewarded by having his ambition satisfied.

Answer 7

that's a dirty politics. THE SCALE OF JUSTICE IS ALWAYS MANIPULATED BY POWER & MONEY HUNGRY UNETHICAL POLITICIANS.

Answer 8

There are so many examples I cannot even think of one......

I'll come back and edit this response and give you an excellent example.

Answer 9

like yes in like Kentucky they Like do