Election turnout

I used to be a dedicated voter who followed the major issues and made an attempt to learn about the candidates, at least those running for important, IMO, positions. My minor in college was political science, and I was passionate about politics and elections.

Fast forward about 30 years. Texas is now a solid Republican state. Please understand that the majority of Texas democrats were never liberals when compared to other states (why LBJ pushed forward with JFK's civil rights reforms is a question that is still being asked in Texas).

I now feel that my vote is wasted. It seems that any candidate with (R) by their name will get elected; of course there are exceptions. I am certainly not suggesting that every Republican candidate is unworthy of holding the office for which they're running. All political parties have good and bad candidates.

It's just frustrating to sort through the issues and candidates, only to see mostly (R) candidates get elected, and voting on issues favor a "conservative" position. Gawd forbid that we pass anything resembling a tax increase, even a small one, to help public education or anything that smells of liberalism. It's a shame that our politicians work so hard to avoid being labelled with the "L" word instead of working hard to make some actual improvements.

Not voting isn't the answer.
But voting doesn't make much, if any, difference.
Frustrating.

 

i vote, i try to keep up with the issues and where the candidates stand. with that said i live in a very very D county in georgia. this is going to sound racist and take it the way you want to but when we had the last 2 presidental elections more people turned out to vote than in history. i am a republican for the most part. so realistically my vote really dosent count. but i still vote. i feel that it is my duty as an american

 

Because he wanted to make sure people understood that you can't kill Presidents if you don't like what they are doing in order to get their way... Or he understood that it was the right thing to do.

 

That was always my understanding of LBJ and civil rights.

 

LBJ surprised the shit out of many people, esp in Texas. Maybe he was more liberal than he let on, keeping it under wraps was a wise move in Texas. While Texas was never as strongly associated with racism as the states in the deep South, we were pretty much a status quo state when it came to segregation.

 

My county used to be one of the most Republican in the state.

Fun fact: FDR was elected in four landslides, but never won here.

Now it's one of the most Democratic -- a blue county getting bluer. Mitt Romney was born nearby, but got only 31% here. Obviously, I don't mind that at all.

But consider that votes for losing candidates matter more than you might think.

Politicos always read the election returns, to understand the voters, make predictions about what would happen under different circumstances, and ultimately make decisions about potential candidates and issues. Any territory that consistently votes overwhelmingly for one party is not going to get as much attention as one with a substantial minority who vote differently.

Florida and Ohio (and issues of concern in those states) get far more attention in presidential races than New York and Texas. That's not just the Electoral College -- the same dynamic applies at all levels, to some degree.

 

My situation is pretty much the opposite.

Your comment isn't racist. Voting analysis shows that Obama definately stimulated voter turnout, and yes it had much to do with his race. Which is odd in a way since--if my understanding of Obama's family tree is accurate--he is technically half-black and half-anglo.

 

Right, but the US has never given up the "one drop of blood" rule: a person with any detectable black ancestry is classified as black.

Even if seven of your eight great-grandparents were Swedish immigrants, according to the traditional US understanding, your whiteness would be "tainted" if one happened to be African-American.

Indeed, until fairly recently, Louisiana law required that anyone with 1/32 or more of "Negro ancestry" be marked down as "colored" on their birth certificate.

In other words, all it would take would be one of your great-grandparents' grandparents.

 

On a note completely unrelated to voter turnout...

Both my parents are from Oklahoma, and I have many relatives living there. In the not-that-distant-past no "white" person would admit to having any Native American bloodline. My paternal grandmother, who died before I was born so I'm going by photos, had dark hair, strong facial features namely high cheekbones, & her skin color was explained as a tan from doing farm work. For many decades no one on my father's side of the family would discuss her heritage. A couple of her sons have a natural "olive' skin color including my father who also inherited her facial features. He was frequently mistaken as being "Indian" or Mexican (the original Mexicans are "Indians"). These days in OK many "white" people scramble to show a Native American bloodline.

It is also my understanding that many "white" Floridians whose ancestry goes back far enough are the result of a mix of Native Americans, African-Americans, & Anglo-Saxons.

 

that is the postal vote option I mentioned