News-Record.com

Water cooler conversations, cocktail conversations, Rhinotimes speculations and
accusations. You'd think that would stir peoples
minds to get out and vote.

I guess not.

I worked at Precinct 45, at UNCG-Elliott Center.
l4 hours. l5 voters. Got paid for it, though!

Was it worth it? Gee, my tax dollars at work.

Citizens claiming mistrust, corruption in our police
department, racial accusations, high taxes, and
so on, and so on. And still, hardly anyone cared,
except for 7% of the voters.

If it was a partisan, and/or bond referendums, I'm
sure they'd be out in droves. Guess what! 2008
election will bring them out.

You'd think the voters would think locally first, and
then take on the national issues. Kind of backwards isn't it?

It seems backward to me, too.

Is there something wrong with our system? What about the Wilmington method? No primary, just a regular election with runoffs if necessary for winners to meet a 50 percent threshold.

People gripe and gripe that we need a change in our city government, but they don't vote. If you don't vote, then don't complain! Yes, it takes effort to get up out of your easy chair, get in your car, travel to a polling place and choose those who would make the changes needed. Instead you just sit there and gripe. If you are unable to go to the polls because of illness or for other reasons, apply for an absentee ballot and vote that way.

You've got one more chance to exercise your American right to vote, so get out there on November 6th and VOTE. Better yet, go to early voting at one of the many places available.

Mary C. Sanders

Well said. Thanks for your comments.

I applaud the N&R's attempt to encourage more voting in the general election, but this editorial has it backwards. Greensboro does NOT deserve better than this low voter turn-out. Greensboro IS this low voter turn-out. There isn't some other entity out there called Greensboro, separate from the 93% of eligible voters who blew off the primary election. That huge chunk of the electorate is Greensboro, and consequently, Greensboro deserves precisely what it gets.

The clearest message one can draw from non-voters is that they're happy with how things are, or in any case they're indifferent among all the possible election outcomes. In economic terms, the perceived cost of going to the polling place is greater than the benefit they get from having voted.

So 93% of eligible voters in Greensboro don't care what their choices will be for the general election. And because Greensboro schedules its elections in off-off-years, the turn-out in November is unlikely to be much higher. Maybe 10%? 12%? When that happens, we'll know that 88-90% (or whatever it is) of the public don't care who represents them in city government. On one level, I'd prefer to live in a community in which people cared more about local government. On the other hand, the few of us who do vote will get more of a say, and that's a nice consolation prize.

As a candidate, I often wonder what we need to do to get people interested in voting. As a political science major, I find it hard to believe that people don't exercise their right to vote given the wars (Revolutionary War - taxation without representation) and the struggles of African Americans and women just to gain the right to vote.

I have not analyzed the data from Tuesday, but in 2005 the median age of the "A" voters in District 4 was 67 years old. There are a significant number of people that do not have computers so you must have the �go to the polls� option available, but with the age of computers upon us, I think we need to look into internet options. Statewide legislation was passed in 2005 wherein property deeds could be recorded electronically with the Register of Deeds office in each county beginning this year. If we can record instruments as important as land and property records, we should be able to vote online.

I think online voting would get more young people involved in the process.

Thanks, Andy and Janet, for comments.

Andy, you're right that a city deserves the government its people are willing to vote for, or not vote for. I guess we were referring to the general welfare under the label of "Greensboro." But there is an argument to be made that the city is better off in the hands of the few who are well enough informed to vote.

Online voting kind of scares me. Isn't there a movement away from even electronic voting machines. Some people only trust paper ballots, so I can't see them endorsing such a dramatic departure.

We could go the High Point route, which is to shift city elections to even-numbered years. Maybe you could extend council terms to four years and vote only in presidential election years. But I only see that as turning out more voters, not more voters who are informed about city issues.

Bottom line, I would paraphrase my favorite philosopher, Yogi Berra: If people don't want to vote, how are you going to stop them?

Doug, the late great Chicago columnist Mike Royko used to mock the "do-gooders" who implored people to vote. He said the ideal voter turn-out was one, i.e. one person: him.

Jannet, now all we get is taxation with representation. Just read the story on the Parton in Roanoke Rapids. If this does not make one blood boil, nothing will. Would be a good story for you Mr. Clark. Of course I will not hold my breath,this is about Richard Moore, another of the NR endorsements.