Voting rates have varied over the years, though were generally higher in the 19th century than today. In the latter half of the century, turnout close to 90% was not uncommon. Voting might not have been compulsory by law, but it was compulsory by cultural norm.

One major difference between the Gilded Age and the present is that during the Gilded Age, there were political forces such as Tammany Hall that specifically appealed to the urban underclass. In addition to a political message, Tammany Hall and other political factions provided jobs and a wide range of services, as well as fellowship, entertainment, and a social outlet. One of the unintended consequences of the advent of civil service reform, the welfare state, and the mass media is that political parties have lost many of their traditional functions, thereby greatly limiting their ability to mobilize voters.

Even in the era of high turnout, there was at least as much "red-meat rhetoric on hot-button issues" as today. Hostility to immigration was a potent force during the Gilded Age--see e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Act--as was negrophobia in the Solid South, opposition to Mormonism, and other prejudices.

It would be neither possible nor desirable to recreate Tammany Hall, which has since become a byword for corruption. But I have wondered what the parties can do to revitalize their role in the community. The Democratic LD parties in Seattle have had some innovations, such as the 46th District's annual event whereby they invite a wide range of community organizations for tabling.

I can only speak for myself, but by the time my ballot arrives, I am just so sick of hearing all the blather from candidates and ballot-measure proponents by the time the ballot arrives that immediately mark it and make a trip to the county collection site, just so I don't have to deal with it anymore.

In Canada, election campaigns last six weeks. In the U.S., the campaign for the White House begins the day after the inauguration, and the democracy theater really kicks into high gear more than two years before the election. As I say, I am just so sick of the campaign, it makes me glad I can't afford cable TV! And to tell you the truth, I think that's exactly what the Republicans want.

But then, I'm not at all bothered by low voter turnout. The liquor initiative is a wonderful example of people not understanding the consequences and implications of what they'r'e voting for... they just want to buy booze at 4:00 am. Those undecideds in the 2008 presidential election who said they needed "more information" right up to the last minute were much too stupid to be voting in the first place. Americans mostly care more about who's winning "Dancing with the Stars" that who's running for mayor or city council. Let them get the government they deserve. I just hope I can find a way out of the U.S. before things really get ugly...

I've known both Matthews and Galston for many years and know that both revere politics and take it seriously.

Matthews worked for Jimmy Carter, an unpleasant loner, before he worked for congenial Tip O'Neill. He is quite right that JFK related to "pals" and that those around him were lively and irreverent. LBJ, who succeeded him, was not a hail fellow but took great care to build relationships with key congressional and private-sector leaders he knew to be important to his program's success. Yes, those who work closely with Obama report that he, too, is a loner and does not enjoy the political process or relating to
congressional leaders of his own party. They seldom see or hear from him unless he wants something from them. Abraham Lincoln definitely was a loner but also was a great president. Nixon was a loner who was a bad president. Open, congenial leaders always are more enjoyable to work with and for but more standoffish types also can be successful, if they have intelligence, skill, and the right values.

I'm a bit skeptical about forcing people to vote. Voting and political involvement usually pick up when a war, depression, or social upheaval bring people into the process. The Tea Party and Occupy movements may signal a period of greater involvement ahead. The next few years are going to be financially and economically challenging for the country and many things could go wrong offshore. Not a time for apathy.

I agree with Matthews, by the way, that only Romney and Huntsman, among the GOP presidential aspirants, are up to the job they seek. But both parties' nominating processes, especially when they do not control the White House, usually include several marginal types.

There is a growing realization that elected officials have been subordinated by corporate and special interests in setting political agendas and determining legislative outcomes. This contributes to voter apathy. Recent court rulings like Citizens United also add to this here in a country where corporations are people and money is free speech.

Primary qualification for TeaPublican support = advertising ignorance. If anyone points out the ignorance and error of the TeaPublican statement, its taken as evidence of the elite/scientific/socialist etc. conspiracy. These people really do invent their own facts.

If you want people to vote, bring back election day. How many of the now-required absentee ballots (by the way, the most fraud-prone method of voting there is) get lost under stacks of junk mail as the deadline comes and goes? I almost lost mine. Hard to misplace a polling place on the kitchen table.

Voting by mail is a bad idea. It turns elections into Voting Seasons. One benefit of the traditional Election Day is the progressive education of the electorate. Information is accumulated until the last minute, when each voter has as much information as he or she can get before marking the ballot. Now the ballot sits at home for a month, gets misplaced, or becomes just one more irritating item in a long check-off list. And what if new information becomes available after a ballot is mailed in prematurely? Say Joe Paterno was running for governor of Pennsylvania. How many votes might he have gotten three weeks ago? How many today?

The fact that John Kennedy was likable, good looking and well spoken did not make him a particularly good president (incidentally, I don't think Churchill wrote any "complete account of WW I"... you must mean WW II). To people like Mathews Kennedy has become the image of a good president without actually being one. The Bay of Pigs was a disaster, the "missile gap" never existed and his justice department was vindictive. He needlessly increased our commitment in VietNam; I'm hard pressed to think of any positive accomplishments of the Kennedy Administration, yet Mathews seems to regard him as a model President (closely followed, I suppose by Barrack Obama). Mr. Obama, whose qualifications do not seem impressive compared to the current Republican candidates, certainly has skills but, like Kennedy, his accomplishments disappoint. Mathews is a partisan commentator and, compared to some others on the left, not a very good one.

I agree with commenters above that voting by mail is a step backward; the physical act of going to the polling station, occasionally seeing neighbors, identifying yourself and taking part in a ritual of citizenship has been lost.

I don't quite agree with Orino's voting strategy (though I understand it), but the other points are exactly right--procedural democracy (more voters) isn't the same as substantive democracy (understanding the issues and participating in debating, even formulating them, then deciding). More dumb voters will not improve outcomes.

The voting-by-mail issue is a red herring--if citizens are engaged they will participate in any way offered, convenient or otherwise. The opportunities for engagement are endless prior to voting day.

My worry is that the citizen--a member of a political community--is being replaced by the consumer--a member of an economic community of one--me. The questions that now dominate political discussion are something like the following: Is it interesting and exciting, that is, dramatic and entertaining? Will I get my money's worth? Is it convenient? Will it make my life easier? Will it make me happier? I would suggest that these are not the questions of a citizen but a consumer.

400,000 voters voted against SJR 8205 an unenforceable, antiquated part of the constitution. Perhaps if everyone was forced to vote more educated voters would vote. It's just stunning that over a quarter of actual voters are willfully ignorant on the issues and candidates they are voting on.

I'd be fascinated to know how coercing people who don't gave a damn into voting (if it were constitutional to do so) would lead to a more enlightened electorate .

Perhaps an "entity" like dbreneman should bother reading the article instead of just the comments, as that was sort of the point of the article.

I don't know if entities vote, but as for people they should give a damn about issues and elected officials that affect them. This nonexistent right not to vote is insulting.