reader suggestions/ Voter apathy

What the fuck man. I'm really drunk, so I can't think of anything to write about. What do I do? I turn to my readers for answers. Well ain't that cute. BUT IT'S WRONG!!!!! Seriously, y'all, this may be reminiscent of 8th grade, but goddamn are you motherfucker stupid and uncreative. So much so that I value my homework over your paltry suggestions. So here goes: Voter apathy:

Vote or… don’t
America is a nation of choice. The concept is almost inescapable, from the new flavor of your favorite chips to the color of your cellphone to who will stay on your favorite T.V. show; the American way seems to be “you choose!” It is strange, therefore, that over half of the United State’s population (50.7% in the 2000 election) should choose to ignore the opportunity to make the most important choice they can: voting in government elections.
There are a number of reasons, or more appropriately, rationalizations, that half a nation of idle people don’t do right by their country and vote. Many people are under the impression that their votes aren’t going to affect the course of the election and so it would be a waste of energy to go out and vote. Others have lost faith in the election process and even its integrity and declined to vote for that reason. Yet another is the physical work needed to vote; not only is there a very bureaucratic registration process to endure, but often times many miles will lie between a person’s home and nearest voting facility. For some, the misguided notion that they oughtn’t let their ignorance of the issues and candidates’ stances on those issues affect the election. The biggest factor in voter apathy, however, is the idea that the country (or in the face of globalization and looming world-wide environmental catastrophe, the world) is going to hell in a hand basket anyway, so voting serves no purpose. This current election is a fantastic illustration of that phenomenon, as the United States’ political machine has somehow managed to spit out a slew of candidates more irrational and incompetent than the much-reviled George W. Bush.
The effects of voter apathy are far-reaching. The main and most devastating of these is that the people in this country to whom voting is most important are radicals. At this point in history, the two opposing radical sects that vote the most and therefore have the most clout are fanatic moralist Christians on the Right and fanatic moralist humanists on the Left. Globally, those that would be self-determining are faced with an ironic and somewhat stupefying choice: Use it or lose it. If it isn’t in the name of Jesus or saving people from themselves and each other, almost every single presidential hopeful running in the 2008 election is standing on a platform of control and moral legislation. It cannot be stressed enough that anyone who cares about democracy, liberty, and the power of the United States constitution is bound by duty to vote in every election, and more than that, vote with their actions.
As much as I’d like to, I cannot place all of the blame on the voters. I stated before that a leading reason for voter apathy was that many voters have lost faith in the election process. Unfortunately, the election process is a ridiculously inefficient and discouraging one. In days of old, members of the Electoral College would act as campaigners, going from door to door explaining the stance of their candidate and taking votes, and voting themselves in reflection of the votes they collected. It was decided that the point at which their vote collection would transform into a direct electoral vote was at the state level. In these times of mass media and instantaneous information access, the logistics of campaigning no longer require such a staff, and if the electoral college was replaced with a direct democracy, people living in states that lean predominantly towards one political party or another would have their votes count towards their supported candidate instead of lost in a state-wide landslide. Another solution to the voting problem that would most likely furnish decent candidates would be to do away with the primary voting system. Especially in the upcoming elections, where a rational voter may agree with points on both sides of the party line, voters are limited to registering and voting for those in their official party, limiting their ability to choose the candidate that’s really right for them. Ron Paul, running in the Republican Party, is the perfect example of this aspect. He is a champion of issues that both republicans and democrats agree with, but because he is limited to votes from his party, democrats who are trying to implement damage control to assure that fascists like Hillary Clinton don’t win the Democratic primaries can’t also assure that Ron Paul will win against fascists like Rudy Giuliani. It’s all very complicated, but I guarantee that eliminating the primaries would allow people to let their voice be heard, giving salience to their votes and consequently voting incentive.
Historically, the most effective tactic to battling voter apathy is legally requiring citizens to vote. In countries like Australia where voting is compulsory, voter turnout runs at about 90%. It may seem a bit hypocritical to instate a law to protect choice, but as the old saying goes: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”