Do you think modern political races generate the same level of interest as they did back then? What could be done to involve more citizens in the process today?

The authors state, "In the nineteen century, countywide and statewide political races are huge affairs, generating enormous local interest, turning out big crowds, and dominating newspaper coverage." Do you think modern political races generate the same level of interest as they did back then? Why or why not? What could be done to involve more citizens in the process?

I don't think the problem today is not enough interest in political races. I think the problem is "interest" without evidence and education. I fear we no longer have an informed electorate, a necessary component for a democracy.

This book reminded me of the modern political scene in many ways. Parties and people reacted to events without thinking through consequences and without having all the facts.

Interest in the political scene is demonstrated in different ways--through what is followed on television, or through online channels. There are always some who want/need to see a candidate in person.

Sometimes -- it depends on the policies at issue in a particular election and/or race, and the willingness of the populace to explore and react to those issues.

There is immense interest in political races today. The biggest challenge is sifting through the false statements, learning how to decipher if social media is accurate or not, fact-checking, discovering and exposing the fallacies. You watch an event like Jan 6th; you see first hand the disruption and violence. Later you hear congress members saying things like, "It was an ordinary tourist day". If one then believes the congress person, then you know there's a problem.

Our political scene moves so quickly in the 21st century and often we don't have and take the time to evaluate what we are hearing or seeing. The general population doesn't read newspapers as much as in the past to glean details. We tend to rely on short snippets on tv or Twitter (oops, now X) that don't provide depth and both sides to an issue.

I don't think the political scene is followed as much today. There are many who feel that if they don't think a candidate is perfect, they will choose not to vote and won't delve into all of the views that a candidate has. There is a lot of apathy around politics today and people won't discuss it due to ruffling feathers.

I'd love to know what percentage of eligible voters participated in the 1850s & 1860s. I think something like just 60% vote in presidential election years, but I suspect it's much lower in "off" years. My gut feeling is that there was more participation in the 19th century than now, but I don't really know.

[Edit: Just Googled it. 81.2% of eligible voters participated in the 1860 election]

I agree there's a lot of apathy around politics these days, and I don't think it's anything new. It seems to me that it's been on a slow decline over the past 50 or so years. And I wonder if it's because people have lost faith in their leaders.

I agree with ShirleyL’s comment: “I fear we no longer have an informed electorate, a necessary component for a democracy.” People complain and oppose so much based on other people’s opinions. There is so much misinformation, playing on people’s emotions rather than the facts. People sometimes choose to throw up their hands and not vote or vote without educating themselves. We must all do our own diligent research and take part in the election process. If “the people” want to be heard, we must participate in the voting process.

"Shirley" is exactly right. We no longer have an informed electorate because very few individuals research the different platforms and individual candidates' points of view in a fair minded way. Instead they respond emotionally to candidates' rhetoric and only read, listen to, and watch radical media that reinforces their views. Rather than educate themselves with facts they buy into farfetched conspiracy theories, hate, and bombast that embraces making mainstream media out to be evil. On top of that are those citizens who are apathetic and either believe that their vote means nothing. Sadly, under the present electoral college system, if a voter lives in a state with a majority of voters being the opposite party, his/her vote for president actually does mean nothing.

I couldn’t help but wonder whether huge crowds turned out during political races because that was the best way to gather information about the candidates first hand without the slant from local newspapers. As several comments already noted, people are not informed and tend to find the sound bites and candidates that align with their beliefs. Unfortunately, many of the sound bites are just just phrases with no substance and/or description of how the candidate plans to roll out their platform.
To involve more citizens, I think candidates need to listen more than they talk. I live in a more rural county. Most of the district candidates make an appearance only once every two years and only want to hear from the citizens who align with their platform. My representative to Congress sends out surveys 2-3 times a month which is great. However he routinely fails to frame his questions in an unbiased way. For example, he will ask a yes or no question like “Do you think I should continue focus on gun control that supports the second amendment right to bear arms?” That question allows no response for addressing gun control to prevent violence. Biased questions do not promote discussion or lead to thoughtful reflection or political engagement.

I would think that local politics would be far more interesting than national politics to the people of Lincoln’s time. After all the communications covering the nation were not good and people worked hard physical labor. I would think the average person had little time for national politics.
Today we have good communications and comparatively speaking much more leisure time.I believe Americans are much more interested and active in national politics.

I believe the interest has been relatively the same throughout the years. The shock affect is what bring citizens to the voting booth i.e. the the 2020 Presidential contest.

In my lifetime, 80 years, I've seen an ebb and flow in interest in political events. Certainly, people were vocal and active in the days of the VietNam War and people went mad to see John F Kennedy when he was running for President. After those times, interest seemed to lag quite a bit--perhaps the contest with Hilary involved got some people's interest reinvigorated--women excited just at the mere thought of a WOMAN president and others just as determined that she, who seemed less than an honest politician, might succeed. It was amazing that Obama's candidacy did not create more vigor.
This coming election seems to be of interest--primarily because of the debacle of the Capital riot when Trump did nothing to stop it or stand against it. The country is now divided almost as strongly as it was in 1860---not only because people don't want Trump elected again but also because people aren't crazy about the alternative. Unfortunately, the egos of these two men prevents a discussion of the problems that exist in our Country and ways to address them. Instead, two old men, who should step aside for younger people without baggage to attempt to work on these things, continue to trade insults and boast and brag about their " accomplishments". I think it says much for the hopes of most of us for a bridge of cooperation that there was not an insurrection as happened when the Southern States decided to secede and go their own way.