"Andrew MacPherson" <> wrote:
> (David J. Littleboy) wrote:
>
>> Turnout was over 40%
>
> That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
> (by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
> don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
> significantly higher.
But that's only true of the House. For statewide and national races (and
referenda), you still have to vote.
> There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
> are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
> be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
> they represent.
Massachusetts was interesting in that one candidate used her personal wealth
and the other capped contributions at US$500, so neither had interest group
problems.
David J. Littleboy
Not completely jaded, yet, in
Tokyo, Japan