On Tony Rezko, it is a relief to know the thief was convicted. After the past near-decade of crooked dealings as bent as a 12-bob note, it should be a relief that there's one less robber with a politician's ear.

Something that worries me is that, twice in this topic already, people declared they weren't going to vote. The most fundamental means of exercising sovereignty over government, cast aside? I'd hope that as many Americans as possible vote, regardless of for whom they vote. Perhaps it is easy to get apathetic quickly when exposed to media coverage of politics on endless repeat, but that should not be a discouragement to vote. Whether it's a write-in, a vote for a major party, or a vote for a third party, it should at least be a vote that is cast. The US continues to be the international superpower, and its chief executive continues to play a very pivotal role on the international stage. Other countries naturally have a stake in the outcome of the election also; clearly, they are not entitled to vote but they certainly would had they the franchise, and if the whole world stands to be affected, is it not reasonable that as many Americans (being part of the unique set of people who enjoy the luxury of setting a large course in international politics for four consecutive years) ought to opine on the matter? Even if it's for a party that hasn't a snowball's chance in Hades, what's lost but maybe ten minutes round trip to a polling station?

In short, come November, there is no need to stall, only to make one's voice heard.

Rapidfire, asking our generation to care is like asking wolves to stop being canines.

I'd hope that as many Americans as possible vote, regardless of for whom they vote.

As many as possible? Would that include more of those who aren't as informed about the issues? I think reasons people would have for not voting would tend to also be reasons the ballot might be better off without their vote anyway; for example, if someone's too lazy to get out and vote, wouldn't they be too lazy to look up candidate positions before voting if they were persuaded to vote? If they're not making a good choice by not voting, what would make their choice in government a good one? Granted, I don't know much about the specific reasons, but the general idea is that I think it'd be better to have the "voter population" made of people who are more inclined to vote without needing to be actively persuaded into it anyway, since they'd probably be more "politically involved" otherwise, and as such would probably have more reason to understand and think about the issues...

That said, nice to see the "Even if it's for [those not likely to win]" part included in there though. On a couple other boards when talking about the idea of voting for candidates outside of the two main parties in the US, some say that would be "throwing your vote away" because those candidates "aren't likely to win"; well of COURSE they're not going to win if people don't vote for them. And back during the last federal election here in Canada I think I heard of a similar approach to the NDP, that they were supposedly more popular than the "popular vote" indicated but that even people who'd prefer the NDP to the other parties wanted to vote for parties "more likely to win"... the same thing that can be said about the "my vote won't make much difference among millions" mentality (if everyone thought that way, no one would vote) can be said about the "go for those more likely to win" mentality; if everyone were to simply vote for the candidate they prefer without letting how "likely they are to win" stop them, that might CHANGE how likely they are. Seeing this similarity I think that those who believe in this "don't vote for those not likely to win" mentality would just as well not be voting at all and as such I tend to think of those who try to persuade people to vote and not equally persuading voters against the "don't vote for those not likely to win" mentality as being inconsistent... but seeing the same person be against that mentality as persuading people to vote I see some consistency in.

EDIT: Fixed slightly redundant wording.

Veritably, I do mean as many as possible. I don't consider it a wholly illogical conclusion that, the more a person is involved in some kind of activity, the more likely that person will become increasingly informed on related matters to that activity. A greater involvement leads to a greater desire to be in the know, as it were; very few people actually like admitting to being ignorant on a subject, especially if their peers are all doing the same thing and are themselves knowledgeable on the subject. There is no question it would be a long transition indeed. Regardless, there is never a poor time to start being educated. A start has to be made somewhere, correct? After all, wolves will always remain canines, but humans had to put in the effort at some time to domesticate some and make them dogs.

I don't consider it a wholly illogical conclusion that, the more a person is involved in some kind of activity, the more likely that person will become increasingly informed on related matters to that activity. A greater involvement leads to a greater desire to be in the know, as it were; very few people actually like admitting to being ignorant on a subject, especially if their peers are all doing the same thing and are themselves knowledgeable on the subject.

Trouble is, if it's that they don't want to say they don't understand the subject, what's to stop them from only pretending to? I think instead of pressure to vote it'd be better to have pressure to try to understand political issues. So you're suggesting that being inclined to try to understand political issues would follow from being pressured to vote... what about if being more inclined to vote would follow from better understanding political issues? I agree, a start has to be made somewhere, but I don't think pressure on voting itself is the best place to start.