Re: New meaning to being "Observers" to an election...Is this what is in store for Colorado?

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ralph, I think this is a good approach.  I'll have to think about the
percentages, or look for some data, when I have more time.

For now I'll just note that there is a pretty big group missing:

 Rolling eyes/disgust.  There are problems with elections, but they
 are being blown out-of-proportion by the loudest voices.  There are
 some good, rational voices I'd like to hear on the subject, but there
 are too many partially-informed people with a partisan agenda and/or
 poor communication skills, so the signal-to-noise level is too low for
 me to want to get involved.

-Neal

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:01:46AM -0700, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
> Let me give a try at this.
> 
> Both the Libertarian and Green parties have noticed - as you have noticed -
> that people simply are not willing to participate in politics.
> 
> The cause of this is varied.  I'll catalog my unscientific observations.
> 
> 
> (1) 65%: Clueless.  They are uninterested in politics and couldn't care less
> if the country was run by George Bush or Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
> 
> (2) 15%.  The free rider problem:  "I'll let someone else take care of
> this."
> 
> (2) 10%.  Despair. Nothing I could possibly do will help.
> 
> (3) 5%. I think elections are honest.  What are you talking about?
> 
> (4) 4%. Between the kids, working two jobs, and sleep, I wish I could help.
> 
> (5) 0.5%: I'm involved politically but I can't devote any time to this.
> 
> (6) 0.4%: I'm involved politically and I think that being able to rig the
> voting system is a very good thing. It means that my side has a chance of
> winning.
> 
> (7) 0.1%: I'll support this movement with my time and effort.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do we change things?  It's hard to do it without getting people riled
> up.
> 
> Most of you already know my position on getting people riled up.
> 
> Ralph Shnelvar