"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Larry C" wrote in message
...
(snip)




The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they
have a good chance of being reelected because that group will go out
and vote. If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear
about would not be as defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are
required to vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote.
Voting for the sake of voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think
it tells the counters that you actually want one of the people
running for office.

Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a
majority of the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the
votes. If a majority of the registered voters don't show up, another
election is held with other candidates. Yes this will take time to
elect an official but don't we deserve someone we actually want?

But in the meanwhile we're stuck with the people we don't want. The
system
you propose would pretty much mean that an incumbent had a lifetime
appointment.


Like we have not been stuck with people we don't want already..
Because some one is not immediately elected does not mean that the person in
office gets to stay there until he is replaced. He leaves office and the
government maintains until some one is elected.