Not sure I agree about term limits for all judges; life tenure gives judges great freedom. Where I live, judges must retire at 70; I voted against the amendment that established that, because I knew two judges over that age who were terrific. And Oliver Wendell Holmes did some of his best work over the age of 80. But it may well be that we do need term limits for the Supremes.
There are exceptions to every rule, and 70 is too early at this point, but at least moving to a Senior status at 75 or so would minimize the chances of a senile judge sitting until they could no longer do so.
“A plurality of eligible voters hasn’t come out in any election since at least the turn of the century”
A sad truth. But why is it so? Complacency? Ignorance? Fatalism? Laziness? Desire to blame others for one’s own fate? If we don’t figure it out fast, and mobilize the masses, everything our nation has achieved over the last 250 years will be for naught.
A combination of those, but the primary reason IMO is the focus of both parties on their respective "bases" has led to disinterest on the part of the middle of the distributional curve. Middle of the Road voters, all too often have had only "hold your nose" choices. Obama was unique in one way and Trump in a very different way, but they were the only exceptions.
To Jon's point, between 1) voted R, 2) voted D, and 3) did not vote, the greatest number has been 3. Fortunately, we have not deteriorated so far that a majority of eligibles has declined to vote at all in a Presidential election. That problem has, so far, been confined to off year, local, and primary elections but has led to the situation we face in many legislatures including Congress.
I don't think it is so. I think what Dave means is that "did not vote" is a larger number than the number of people who voted for any one candidate. But "did not vote" is a smaller number than those who did vote for candidates.
Yes, you're right Jon, and the numbers are all qualified one way or another. My recollection was that in 2024, there were about 93M eligible who didn't vote, but more like 31M who were registered but did not vote. The problem there is twofold: too many people are eligible but not registered, and too many who were registered didn't vote. I don't know the makeup of those numbers but it seems to me that many of them didn't try because they didn't like one or more things about either candidate. It also seems to me that Dems and Inds are more inclined to "make a statement" about a single issue than the Repugnicans, who seem united against the rest of us. Somehow, we need to awaken the sleepwalkers before it's too late.
One of the reasons people don't participate is the perception that it doesn't make much difference who they vote for because it won't have any impact on them personally. There is a small chance that the current administration may change that because of the vast amount of crap being distributed and the increased chance that something will hit home with those folks.
Thank you, Dave. These are all valid dialogue prompters. I observe that the presidential succession office holders are well under 70 and well away from an acceptable moral compass. Our challenges are deeply rooted.
Not sure I agree about term limits for all judges; life tenure gives judges great freedom. Where I live, judges must retire at 70; I voted against the amendment that established that, because I knew two judges over that age who were terrific. And Oliver Wendell Holmes did some of his best work over the age of 80. But it may well be that we do need term limits for the Supremes.
There are exceptions to every rule, and 70 is too early at this point, but at least moving to a Senior status at 75 or so would minimize the chances of a senile judge sitting until they could no longer do so.
“A plurality of eligible voters hasn’t come out in any election since at least the turn of the century”
A sad truth. But why is it so? Complacency? Ignorance? Fatalism? Laziness? Desire to blame others for one’s own fate? If we don’t figure it out fast, and mobilize the masses, everything our nation has achieved over the last 250 years will be for naught.
A combination of those, but the primary reason IMO is the focus of both parties on their respective "bases" has led to disinterest on the part of the middle of the distributional curve. Middle of the Road voters, all too often have had only "hold your nose" choices. Obama was unique in one way and Trump in a very different way, but they were the only exceptions.
To Jon's point, between 1) voted R, 2) voted D, and 3) did not vote, the greatest number has been 3. Fortunately, we have not deteriorated so far that a majority of eligibles has declined to vote at all in a Presidential election. That problem has, so far, been confined to off year, local, and primary elections but has led to the situation we face in many legislatures including Congress.
I don't think it is so. I think what Dave means is that "did not vote" is a larger number than the number of people who voted for any one candidate. But "did not vote" is a smaller number than those who did vote for candidates.
Yes, you're right Jon, and the numbers are all qualified one way or another. My recollection was that in 2024, there were about 93M eligible who didn't vote, but more like 31M who were registered but did not vote. The problem there is twofold: too many people are eligible but not registered, and too many who were registered didn't vote. I don't know the makeup of those numbers but it seems to me that many of them didn't try because they didn't like one or more things about either candidate. It also seems to me that Dems and Inds are more inclined to "make a statement" about a single issue than the Repugnicans, who seem united against the rest of us. Somehow, we need to awaken the sleepwalkers before it's too late.
One of the reasons people don't participate is the perception that it doesn't make much difference who they vote for because it won't have any impact on them personally. There is a small chance that the current administration may change that because of the vast amount of crap being distributed and the increased chance that something will hit home with those folks.
Thank you, Dave. These are all valid dialogue prompters. I observe that the presidential succession office holders are well under 70 and well away from an acceptable moral compass. Our challenges are deeply rooted.
Indeed they are Manuel, and it will be enough to keep all of us busy for whatever time we have.