At his post-midterm election press conference, President Barack Obama noted that two-thirds of the electorate did not vote.
How
could it be in a democratic republic that 66 percent of the people
trusted 33 percent to stand proxy for their interest? Can we cavalierly
blame voter suppression tactics for this dissatisfaction?
The
president's astonishing statement could alleviate some Democrats of the
self-reflective pressure of addressing the reasons they loss seats in
Colorado and North Carolina, with a race in Virginia that was supposed
to be a cake walk where Democratic incumbent Mark Warner after several
days was declared the victor?
The tragic irony remains that the
two-thirds who did not vote still voted. They voted for the status quo
that has left them frustrated and beyond hope.
There are many
possibilities for two-thirds of the electorate staying at home. There
is the fact that midterm elections always produce lower turnout than
general elections.
But there are other possibilities that require further examination. Has the novelty of Barack Obama run its course?
Think
back to the exuberance in 2008. The excitement of young people getting
into the political process for the first time, the tears shed by
Americans of all races because they were seeing something they never
thought possible.
But the excitement of the campaign soon gave
way to the complexities of governing. Did they believe that working to
elect the first black man as president completed the job, or did they
naively think that once elected the president would take care of
everything else?
Read more: What Does It Say That Two-Thirds of Americans Did Not Vote in the Recent Midterm Elections? | Byron Williams
No comments:
Post a Comment