Greg Mankiw has some thoughts. I don't believe that high voter turnout is an intrinsically desirable goal, which is why I'm opposed to "motor voter" and other means designed to increase participation. If people aren't willing to do a little work for their franchise, they don't deserve it, as far as I'm concerned. The goal should be informed votes, with quality, not quantity. Of course, that wouldn't work out well for the Dems.

Greg might have some thoughts, but unfortunately, we can't read them, because the text isn't a link on IE. It's just yellow text, like the "Posted by Rand" part of the posts.

I didn't vote nationaly, only localy, in 2004, and I won't vote today.

In 2005, I got into a political discussion with a co-worker, who was just filled with bile and hate, and I said something along the lines of "if thats how you feel, then don't vote, if you did vote on hatred, then you are a hypocrite"

My boss having heard me say that said "if you don't vote, then you don't really deserve a voice."

My response was "if I don't vote, then I have a voice in opposition to both."

I believe that voting isn't a requisite act of democracy, I think it is a DUTY. Sometimes the greatest duty delivered to democracy is protesting, not by casting a false vote for nader, but reather, not casting a vote at all.

So in other words the voter turnout of approx. 40% has probably gravitated naturally to that number of self assured competent voters.

I would suggest that everyone goes out and votes at least once in their lifetime. If anything to serve as a learning experience and also as a way that the public at large can serve as a watch dog of the election process. Otherwise, extremely low voter turnouts can foster a situation similar to what happened here in my town for a local election. A ballot box that was obviously tampered with, votes were changed, and a judge had to throw out the election and set a new date. Then, a vote was held by the council on whether to fire the person responsible. They decided it wasn't bad enough for them to lose their job over. Low voter turnout out led to no accountability and apathy towards the outcome which thereby fosters an environment of corruption.

I didn't vote, because there were only two candidates I would vote for. I might have voted in the governor's race if I could have voted "no" on Chris Bell, because I didn't care if Kinky, Perry, or "One Tough Grandma" won. In Texas, the governor isn't all that powerful, so it's not a big deal.

I certainly wouldn't vote for either choice for Senator. For my House seat, I would have voted for Ted Poe, but their wasn't much doubt he would win. I also would have voted for a republican state representative, because the incumbent democrat did not do anything (besides hang out in a hotel in Oklahoma).

I am glad to see Santorum and Chafee out, yet I hope the Republicans maintain control of the Senate. I do support the coming gridlock, and I rather it remain in Congress in an effort to convince more people to dump incumbents. You may think I still woudl have voted for my incumbent, Ted Poe, but it was just his second term. And I didn't support my incumbent Senator (nor would have give a vote to a less deserving Democrat simply because she was an alternative choice on the ballot).

"The goal should be informed votes, with quality, not quantity. Of course, that wouldn't work out well for the Dems." -Rand

Hell Rand, maybe we should just repeal everyone's right to vote except yours since you appear to be the only one with a valid opinion when it comes to politics. You act as though if someone disagrees with you they must automatically be idiots. Sheesh.