Staying home is a vote, too
Published November 3, 2014
Editorial by Salisbury Post, November 3, 2014.
“In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some die-hard’s vote.”
— David Foster Wallace
Rowan County election officials predict voter turnout in this year’s elections will be in the low- to mid-40th percentile. Polls were open 10 days for early voting, and they’ll be open Tuesday, Election Day, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Between all those opportunities and absentee ballots, few people can honestly say they didn’t have time to vote.
So why don’t more people vote?
We can speculate about the reasons nonvoters might give. But the Pew Research Center went beyond what people say and instead looked at who nonvoters are — their demographics.
Novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald said the rich are different than you and me, to which Ernest Hemingway is said to have replied, “They have more money.” Pew’s findings suggest nonvoters are different, too. They have more money troubles. They’re younger, more racially diverse, less affluent and less educated. Nearly half — 45 percent — of nonvoters say they have had trouble paying bills in the past year, the Pew study found, compared with 30 percent of likely voters. “Nonvoters are also much more likely than voters to borrow money from family or friends (41 percent vs. 21 percent) and to receive a means-tested government benefit (33 percent vs. 18 percent).”
Pew found one common thread. “Voters and nonvoters are about equally likely to say government is almost always wasteful and inefficient (60 percent among voters, 54 percent among nonvoters),” a Pew report says.
Well, at least we all agree about something.
Voting is complicated stuff. Turnout is highest in presidential election years because everyone knows who the president is, and virtually everyone has an opinion about who should be president. Keeping track of county commissioners, state legislators — even who represents us in Congress — is tougher. And rare are the people outside of legal circles who keep track of all the candidates for appellate courts.
What’s important is to vote what you know, what you have convictions about. Top of mind this year are two key races: the Kay Hagen-Thom Tillis race for U.S. Senate, and the race for the county board of commissioners.
“Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote,” writer George Jean Nathan once said. When the results are tallied Tuesday night, will you be glad you cast your ballot — or wishing you had made time to vote?
November 3, 2014 at 9:58 am
Richard Bunce says:
Is that turnout in the mid 40% of registered voters or eligible voters? Often the number used is % of registered voter ignoring the sizeable number of eligible voters who do not register, often to avoid jury duty. Perhaps we should no longer use registered voter lists for building jury pools. Perhaps drivers license lists would be better.
November 3, 2014 at 11:59 am
Norm Kelly says:
I'm always glad I voted.
I'll be even happier when I know that IDs are being checked at the voting booth. Every step we can take to make sure only legal, legitimate citizens of the state are allowed to vote is a good step. Every change made by the Socialist Party of the US concerns me. Usually, the Socialists make changes to voting laws to make it EASIER for invalid votes to be cast. Kinda like when the Socialist party controlled Raleigh and made judge races non-partisan. Why did they do this, what would motivate the left to remove party affiliation from judge elections? Simple, if you just think about their goal. When leftists can't get their agenda past the voters/taxpayers, they resort to the courts. If judges are listed with a party affiliation after their name or in a specific column on the ballot, it's possible to easily decide which judges will stand with the citizens and the law and which judges will side with their allies. When you take away the R or D from beside the judge wannabe on the ballot, everyone has to do their own research to find out how that particular judge stands on specific issues. This is not just complicated but EXTREMELY time consuming. So how does one decide which judge to vote for if we can't tell they are demon party allies? Only by the endorsements received. If the N&D endorses a judge, excellent chance the judge is also a demon ally (just like the n&d)! If the teachers union endorses a judge, it's almost certain that judge is also not interested in the law but works to support their allies. If the NRA endorses a judge, there's a better than even chance the judge is interested in enforcing the law and reading the state & national Constitutions prior to making a decision. If the Right To Work organization endorses a judge, chances are good that the judge cares more about the law than about social leanings or changing attitudes among the least educated among us.
The more socialists that stay home on election day, the happier I am. When Libertarians become a viable party, I'll be even happier. And will then start voting for the Libertarian. Until Libertarians become viable, casting a vote for one of them is the SAME as voting for the Socialist candidate. In this case, it's the same as voting for K. Every vote cast for the Senate Libertarian is equal to a vote taken away from Tillis and cast FOR K. It's just possible that conservatives will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! Libertarians need to ask themselves which is better: stand on principle and vote Libertarian or do what's best for the state & nation by voting AGAINST K. Once we get rid of socialists and RINOs, THEN we can start voting for Constitutionalists & real/true conservatives. Socialists first, RINOs second, Libertarians third. Gotta be, even if you don't like it. What's better, compromise with a semi-conservative or accept the socialism of the socialist? There is no compromising with a socialist because even just a little bit more socialism is destructive. And socialists like K are willing to take little bites at a time because they know that eventually the entire elephant will be eaten! Conservatives need to learn the same attitude or defeat is certain; which is just another definition of socialism.
November 3, 2014 at 11:47 pm
Richard Bunce says:
Not really, Big Government Republicans no different than Big Government Democrats, just have different versions of Big Government, but both willing to use the coercive power of government to bend people to their expected behavior.
