Why are some people so politically dumb?

[JLRodgers]

So why are people so dumb with politics?

As I'm running for mayor, here in the last few weeks of the election people have said they have no idea what I'm running for, no idea what I plan on doing (and refuse to look into it ), they hate how things are currently going in town and for the last 4 years.... but gosh darn it, they're voting to re-elect the current mayor because no one can do a better job. They've never gone to town meetings, don't know how the guy votes, don't even know what he's wanting to do (here's a hint: it's not what the people voting for him want as he's voted for things that [I]hurt them and they complain about).... It's not even a partisan thing (we can't declare a party) -- so it's not like the republicans/democrats (don't know what he is) are voting for him because of the party. Some have said if he were to die, they'd still vote for him because he just that good, he'd kick any mayor's butt from beyond the grave -- but the town itself is just so screwed up and does all these bad things, and passes weird ordinances, and all these people appointed to things they have no business doing (but that's not the mayor's fault! [hint: that's basically his job description]).

Yeah... sorry about that little rant-like thing of what the people are doing..... but it helps describe it.

But what exactly is it that causes this screwed-up thing in people's heads? Is there some "please beat me sir, I need another" gene or chemical in the body or something?

[FitChick99]

Yeah, I totally agree that no one knows what goes on politically, and then they are allowed to vote. Drives me nuts. I think there should be a test that people have to pass in order for their votes to count. A very basic one, but still, something to show that they actually know what the candidate stands for.

I saw lots of footage and interviews about people who had no idea who the presidential running mates were in 2008, had the issues completely backwards (if they even knew them) would agree with one candidates standpoint, not realizing that it was opposite of the candidate they were voting for... :sign:

[Amira]

First of all, congratulations for having the fortitude to run for public office. I am in a non-partisan elected office also. It is not easy but it is worth it. I know just what you are talking about. Our small town is the same way. Our problem is the local coffee group. They meet everyday down at one of the restaurants (until the restaurant gets tired of them taking up room and not buying anything and raises the price of coffee). The rumors, mostly untrue, run rampant through the group until I am accosted in the post office on what I'm going to do about something. When I tell them to come to a meeting and voice their concerns, they yell at me like I just asked them to cut off their right arm! So you have the guys who gripe all the time to the gossip mill but won't get off their butts to go to a 2 hour meeting. (After sitting in the coffee shop for 5 hours a day.)

The other part of the problem is that the others (not the coffee group) are lazy. It takes work to read about the problems and a candidates solutions. It takes work to vote for "the other guy". "I'm afraid of change" so lets vote the mayor back in. In short, it takes work to THINK.

I've been wanting to do a little rant myself. Now I have to get ready to go to the fire meeting and give the budget report. :p

So you have three kinds of people. The gripers, the do-nothings and the doers. Guess which one you and I are.

[Skylark]

Tell me about it. That was one of my biggest frustrations as a reporter. Here I am doing my honest best to educate people, but I can't force anyone to read my stories or (heaven forbid) do their own research on top of the info I explained.

I know that most of the candidates and office-holders appreciated that at the very least I knew something about the issues and wanted to know more about them. I wasn't going to just throw up my hands and whine about nobody doing my job for me. If there was something I wanted to know, I found out about it.

But, too many people won't take the time to find out about something if they're not being paid to do it.

[Eleven]

... they hate how things are currently going in town and for the last 4 years.... but gosh darn it, they're voting to re-elect the current mayor because no one can do a better job. ...

Seems that Americans despise all politicians except their own. The U.S. Congress regularly re-elects 90+% of it's members despite horrid approval ratings from the public. The rate peaked in the 2000 Congressional elections when 98% of those up for re-election won their respective races.

Big pork.

Little pork.

All god's children love pork.

[dormouse]

I understand your frustration. Before every election (though I have only voted in two) I visit the websites of all the candidates (even for minor races) or check a voting guide.

[Skylark]

I understand your frustration. Before every election (though I have only voted in two) I visit the websites of all the candidates (even for minor races) or check a voting guide.

The crazy thing is that with websites and sample ballots, it could hardly get any easier to educate yourself at a cursory level about the issues/candidates.

[JLRodgers]

The crazy thing is that with websites and sample ballots, it could hardly get any easier to educate yourself at a cursory level about the issues/candidates.

The one thing that makes me somewhat happy is.... out of about 1000 pamphlet things with my website on it.... I had about 10% visit my website (about).... that's.... "promising" -- I'm just hoping that people at least read the thing... not like the one guy who threw it in the trash while intentionally averting his eyes so he wouldn't see any words on it (and I'm not joking there.... I've never wanted to smack a person so much as with that guy...)

[Skylark]

The one thing that makes me somewhat happy is.... out of about 1000 pamphlet things with my website on it.... I had about 10% visit my website (about).... that's.... "promising"

That's a pretty good return, from what I hear. It's SO tough to get people to do ANYTHING they're not already jumping up and down to do.

I dunno, is there anything from the sales or advertising industries that could help you? My boss says everyone likes to hear the word "free" over and over, but I'm not sure promising people free information if they go to your website would be effective. :lol:

[JLRodgers]

That's a pretty good return, from what I hear. It's SO tough to get people to do ANYTHING they're not already jumping up and down to do.

I dunno, is there anything from the sales or advertising industries that could help you? My boss says everyone likes to hear the word "free" over and over, but I'm not sure promising people free information if they go to your website would be effective. :lol:

The paper offered "advertising" (i.e. spend 2500+ for anyone to really see it) in the paper... but I might as well use the money for toilet paper than that (plus I'd have to file more paperwork as there's a 3k cutoff for reporting). In my town (only 6700 people) it's not worth it. We've got a radio station that's all-but-useless. The only other advertising industry... uh... is my company :lol: but there's not enough to even consider using it (plus I'm keeping my businesses out of it).

[otomik]

The crazy thing is that with websites and sample ballots, it could hardly get any easier to educate yourself at a cursory level about the issues/candidates.I disagree. So much of the information is white noise. You live in ohio. we both know that voting for particular judges on the ballot is mostly based on hearsay because they're forbidden from providing relevant information.

[Envy]

I have yet to reach the voting age. :p

[MrFalafel]

Doesn't the USA have really pathetic voter turn outs? And aren't only half of Americans actually registered to vote?

Looks like half of the USA doesn't even care about politics enough to bother to register to vote. And half of those registered don't even bother to vote.

Kind of makes a mockery of that whole 'Of the people, by the people, for the people' thing if 'the people' don't even care.

[Marie]

The one thing that makes me somewhat happy is.... out of about 1000 pamphlet things with my website on it.... I had about 10% visit my website (about).... that's.... "promising" -- I'm just hoping that people at least read the thing... not like the one guy who threw it in the trash while intentionally averting his eyes so he wouldn't see any words on it (and I'm not joking there.... I've never wanted to smack a person so much as with that guy...)

It'd be funny if the people in your town saw your attitude in this thread. They'd really want to vote for you then. :p

[Skylark]

The paper offered "advertising" (i.e. spend 2500+ for anyone to really see it) in the paper... but I might as well use the money for toilet paper than that (plus I'd have to file more paperwork as there's a 3k cutoff for reporting). In my town (only 6700 people) it's not worth it. We've got a radio station that's all-but-useless. The only other advertising industry... uh... is my company :lol: but there's not enough to even consider using it (plus I'm keeping my businesses out of it).

I wasn't talking about paying for advertising itself, I was talking about using techniques from sales and marketing to see if that can get people interested.


I disagree. So much of the information is white noise. You live in ohio. we both know that voting for particular judges on the ballot is mostly based on hearsay because they're forbidden from providing relevant information.

That's why I said "cursory." By "cursory," I was referring to the most accessible forms of information, and in our current setup, that still includes websites of candidates, campaigns, newspapers, blogs, etc. It would still be very difficult to find out information about certain judges if all we had to go on was offline forms of communication and record-keeping.


It'd be funny if the people in your town saw your attitude in this thread. They'd really want to vote for you then. :p

I would, but then, I agree with him. :p

[rainforests1]

I remember in college I got the World War's mixed up and my roommate was not happy about that. There are some things that other people would consider common sense, but if it's not an issue that I care about, I don't read about it. I can understand why a person would need to pass a test in order to vote. I wouldn't have a problem with that if it became a rule.

[rainforests1]

Doesn't the USA have really pathetic voter turn outs? And aren't only half of Americans actually registered to vote?

Looks like half of the USA doesn't even care about politics enough to bother to register to vote. And half of those registered don't even bother to vote.

Kind of makes a mockery of that whole 'Of the people, by the people, for the people' thing if 'the people' don't even care.
So that would mean around 25% of the US population votes? I thought it was higher than that.

[MrFalafel]

So that would mean around 25% of the US population votes? I thought it was higher than that.

Yeah looks like it:

169 million registered voters

The 2008 Presidential election is considered a 'high voter turnout' election and Obama won by getting 69 million votes. 69 million out of a population of 305 million...

[Digger]

The 2008 Presidential election is considered a 'high voter turnout' election and Obama won by getting 69 million votes. 69 million out of a population of 305 million...
Interesting juggling of numbers there Falafel.

How many 5 year-olds vote?

The actual voter turnout for the 2008 presidential election was over 131 million out of approx. 210 million eligible voters, which puts the turnout at around 62%.

[MrFalafel]

Interesting juggling of numbers there Falafel.

How many 5 year-olds vote?

The actual voter turnout for the 2008 presidential election was over 131 million out of approx. 210 million eligible voters, which puts the turnout at around 62%.

I'm not seeing that 62%. The attached link breaks it down by eligible voters and total votes by year.

2008 was 56.8%
2008 was 37.1%

And that cycle continues with 50s/30s for the last few elections.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

So, yeah, Obama won by gaining a little over 25% of the eligible votes.

[rainforests1]

Those numbers would make sense. If 25% voted for Obama, then that means right around 50% voted. That makes sense. I thought the voter turnout was much greater than previous elections, but it doesn't look like there was that big of a difference.

[Digger]

Your numbers are still incorrect, but at least we're making progress. The table MrFalafel linked to includes everyone of voting age, including illegal aliens and convicted felons who are ineligible to vote. Estimates of eligible voters range from 208 to 212 million. I split it down the middle to be fair and quoted 210 million, which gives a voter turnout of 62%. Please see a more accurate accounting here (http://elections.gmu.edu/preliminary_vote_2008.html). Whatever the precise numbers, it is a far cry from saying that only 25% of Americans vote.

[MrFalafel]

Your numbers are still incorrect, but at least we're making progress. The table MrFalafel linked to includes everyone of voting age, including illegal aliens and convicted felons who are ineligible to vote. Estimates of eligible voters range from 208 to 212 million. I split it down the middle to be fair and quoted 210 million, which gives a voter turnout of 62%. Please see a more accurate accounting here (http://elections.gmu.edu/preliminary_vote_2008.html). Whatever the precise numbers, it is a far cry from saying that only 25% of Americans vote.


Illegal aliens and felons? :lol:

Your link is just a guy picking up random info from AP and making assumptions.

But you are right, depending on if its a presidential election or not, only just over half of americans vote falling to 1/3 of americans vote in elections. Presidents are elected by getting roughly 1/4 of eligible voters to vote for them. Wow! Some democracy :lol:

[Digger]

I would certainly like to see more than 62% of eligible voters in the U.S. turnout for an election. No doubt about that. But since you seem so intent on running down the U.S. by whatever means you can, perhaps you would be good enough to post the U.K. voter turnout for your last election (2005 I believe). Just for comparison.

[Red]

I can understand why a person would need to pass a test in order to vote. I wouldn't have a problem with that if it became a rule.

Almost two centuries of struggle to get a voting rights act, and in one generation people are ready to throw it away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_act

http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm