Many people with liberal inclinations chose not to vote.

Why?

Nihilism, cynicism, disenfranchisement, laziness.

This is how, over and over, a conservative/corporatist minority manages outpower the progressives in government.

Our system is soft. We actually do live in a democracy. If only people voted… And, no, 60% is not acceptable.

Now, who does "voluntary" voting truly serve? Voting is a right AND an obligation. Mandatory voting may be worth a try.

——————————————————–

Mandatory voting seems a little harsh. But they should definitely try to make it easier and more convenient for people to vote.

Anyway, these figures sure are disappointing. If the majority of people in the most liberal and gay-friendly state aren't too happy with gay marriage, what kind of a battle are marriage activists facing in conservative states?

Harsh?

What's "harsh" about mandatory voting?

Should be duty, but in our sacrifice-less empire all we have to do is shop.

I'll tell you what's harsh. Harsh is having a citizenry that for one reason or another (see above) does not vote and IS NOT REPRESENTED.

Here's a list of countries with "harsh" mandatory voting:

Austria
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Fiji
France (senate only)
Gabon
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Italy
Liechtenstein

Luxembourg
Mexico
Nauru
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Singapore
Switzerland (Schaffhausen)
Thailand
Turkey
Uruguay

BTW, my whole premise is that it is the liberals that most often do not show up to vote. In my life, and in the many different places I've lived, it is never the rich nor the conservatives that -find reasons- not to vote. It is usually the young, the apathetic, and the lazy, and yikes, these groups trend more liberal…
—————————————————

I tend to agree with An Other Greek (although pointing to such bastions of democracy as Turkey, Thailand, and Egypt may be a bit of a credibility-stretch).

We see the problem here: "Oh, politician X of Y party disagrees with me on some minutiae of queer policy, therefore I shall not vote for X, or for X's party." We shoot ourselves in the foot every time. And being "too busy" to spend the 45 minutes it might take to vote is just laughable.

As a new resident of California, I'm dismayed to see that we may be on the verge of an irreversible setback. If we'd all just exert as much energy on informed voting as we do on reading and posting on blogs all the livelong day, we'd be in MUCH better shape!

EMB, I think mandatory voting is not a bad idea, either; however, I think you are a little offbase about those who read and blog. I would be willing to bet those who do read and blog about issues are more likely to vote than those who don't even bother to think about it.

I have little patience with people who tell me, "I don't vote because _________". The real reasons are far less noble. These people often don't think about anything beyond the next five minutes to 24 hours although or they are so ignorant it hurts to think of anything that isn't related to food, sex, shopping, or how they look. Amongst the ignorant and weak-minded, preachers and mullahs find their prey.

Maybe we need to get a initiative on the November Ballot that institutes a tax benefit of 10% for citizens who vote in every election.

If the amendment passes, does anyone know how long before CA can put out an initiative to reverse the ban?

Rob– I didn't say readers/bloggers don't vote; just that the energy expenditure on blogging and political action (talking to politicians and decision-makers, communicating with nonbloggers, etc) is, in my opinion, not balanced. All those bright, articulate folks should find additional forums. That's all.