Re: Ah Larry!

Swanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"M.W.Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> About 40% of the eligible voting population actually voted. Of this 40%,
>less
>> than half voted for George Bush. He was "elected" by less than 20% of the
>> eligible voters
>
>    Like I said "almost half the 'voting' population voted for him".
>    Not a whole lot more than votes taken for Clinton on his first term.  Of
>course there was a strong third party participant, Perot, taking votes that
>most would have gone to Bush Sr.
>    I have a friend from Australia who raised the same point as you do
>regarding overall voter turn out.  He mentioned that voting in Australia was
>mandatory.  I'm not sure if you're fined thrown in jail or what.  Maybe an
>Aussie can comment here.   Manadatory voting would be fine by me right here
>in the U.S.  Unfortunately, pressure from the left side would likely protest
>mandatory voting as somehow Unconstitutional.

First off, Perot played no role in the 92 election other than to 
entertain us with his wild stories.  He ended up stealing votes evenly
from the parties.  Bush lost on his record, and I suspect because the
country had enough with 12 straight years of one party.  This same 
sentiment I think hurt Gore.

And far more importantly, if people don't want to vote, why the hell do
we want to force them to?  I prefer non voters to disinterested ignorant
voters.  You have a right to vote in a democracy.  Part of that right
includes not voting - and not complaining about the result.  (Better
would be to vote a null ballot if you want to protest the identical 
offerings from the two parties)

-- 
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com