The fantasy of "universal turnout" and the disaster this is to a well-functioning governance via democratic representation.

<<< If you do not know why you are voting,  stay at home.  A low information voter is an enemy to a free and viable Republic.  Just stay the hell at home   . . .  we got this.  (note: this is my advice to the Right as well as the Left).  

From the NY Times,  we have this whiny compliant:   

Low voter turnout is a bad thing. Let’s get that out of the way immediately.

The midterm elections take place on Tuesday, but it’s highly likely that relatively few Americans will actually go to the polls. In 2010, in the last midterm election, only 37 percent of the voting-age population voted.

What’s more, voter turnout isn’t evenly dispersed: Hispanics and lower-income people are less likely to vote, for example, a disturbing sign of disenfranchisement. And even if low turnout were uniformly spread among economic and racial groups, it would still be disheartening. It runs counter to our fundamental democratic ideal of universal governance by an active electorate. As a matter of principle, we would want everyone to vote, and to do so in an informed and reasoned way  . . . .  read the entire text of this predictable,  Utopian fantasy,  here.  

Editor's notes:  Low voter turnout does not result in a populace ruled by fiat or evil "other party" rule.  In fact,  it means just the opposite, at least,  in our country.  In a low voter turnout election,  you have the most informed of the electorate,  voting the candidates,  back into or out of office.  Those who vote in such an election,  are more likely to understand the meaning of the particular election and its import to their ideology.  That is point number one. 

Point two,  while the Times is whining about "low voter turnout,"  let's not forget that 40% of the people do not vote in any election.  They tend to be the youth,  and the "takers."  

Point three:  while it is fashionable to attack the "ideologue,"  we tend to overlook that fact that it is the ideologue who best understand his/her position and party belief systems.  The fact that the Utopian mindset is not as popular as the more conservative mindset,  is not the result of a poorly devised democracy.  Rather,  it is an expression,  a confirmation,  of an effectively represented democracy.  

Gallup has run numbers on voting demographics when the voter votes his tendencies,  not his party affiliation.  Every year,  for the past 30 or 40 years,  the tendency to be conservative over and against a liberal mindset,  has scored a 40/20 divide.  That is the non-affiliated mindset of this nation, apart from party identification.    

This explains the election year strategy of Liberals.  They always run "to the middle" for the sake of winning the election.  This is why Obama touted an appreciation for Reagan, in 2008,  when,  in fact, his policies have nothing to do with the Reagan politic or economy.  It was a lie,  as was 90% of his campaign promises,  but it allowed admirers of Reagan to vote for this political impostor.       

Having been an observer for more than 50 years,  it is my thinking that this particular [Gallup] stat does not come into play until or unless the ruling party loses it's way as regards the fundamentals of a healthy economic circumstance or a losing effort as to the waging of war.

In 2006,  the electorate,  including past supporters of Bush,  voted against the "ruling party,"  and gave congress back to the Democrats.  Keep in mind,  this was a midterm,  "low turnout" election,  and the Libs were the victors,  that year. You heard no complaints about turnout in 2006.  There were no Times' articles bemoaning the lack of voter representation.  

In 2010,  another "low turnout" midterm election,  the electorate expressed its anger at being lied to and ignored,  and we all know the result of that election  . . . . . .  something the Dems spent the next 4 years pretending did not happen.  

And this week,  we are at the door of another,  low turnout,  midterm, and, even more people (Left and Right) are upset with the level of incompetence that has ruled the day,  for the last two years.  The country is in a mess,  and those voting,  know this.  

Charges of "racism,"  "inequality," "the war on women,"  a difficult war effort when the war is actually needed and "righteous,"    and a biased press that reports its own "surveys" in an effort to influence the election,  do not work as well in the midterms as in the larger presidential election.  

Understand that when you promise to pick up a voter,  and help her fill out her ballot,  you are dealing with a low information voter, a "taker,"    a political dufus who has no idea of what he or she is voting for,  or the shameful fact of being used for the sake of winning the election,  and then,  promptly forgotten until the next election.  Understand the promise of "comprehensive immigration legislation before the end of my first year" was a vote getting polemic.  Obama was given a Congress that could not stop any comprehensive immigration bill during the first two years of his presidency,  and, yet,  there was no effort made to keep this promise.  Why?  Well,  if the Dems had kept their promise,  they would have no strategy to get out the Hispanic vote in this week's election.  Ditto the Black vote.  Liberal promise after promise,  for 50 years,  and the Black constituency remains the most unemployed,  under educated,  of the several Democrat alliances.  

Understand that I am an Independent,  very disappointed in the Hard Right and the Establishment GOP.  But I was a Democrat until Reagan come onto the scene.  In fact,  I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Jimmy Carter's first run for the presidency.  I truly believed in the man.  

At any rate,  think about the point of this post,  that "low turnout" is a good thing because we have an election cycle that is based more on information than fluff and free phones.