Most of the election results are in, and once again the "largest party" came in first. The "largest party" is the party of no-shows, the eligible voters who chose to stay away. The turn out figures are estimated to be around 60 percent. In order to come in "first", a candidate would have to have about two-thirds of the votes cast. Few, if any, have received this level of support.
Well, maybe in pockets here and there. For example, Obama may have received 75 percent of the votes in Boston, but throughout the country, he received just over half the votes.
Some claim can be made that the Hurricane Sandy lowered the vote in New York and New Jersey, but Sandy can't account for 19 percent fewer votes in Arizona and 25 percent fewer in Alaska. Voter ID laws may have had some effect, but not that big in Alaska.
What would be interesting to know is how many 2008 Obama supporters stayed away because Obama didn't do all they wanted and how many Tea Partiers stayed away because Romney wasn't "pure" enough.
At least at the top of ballot, both Romney and Obama are acting humble. Their speeches this morning were filled with gracious remarks. Let's hope that these attitudes are shown by those down the ranks.
Showing posts with label mandate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mandate. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Vote rigging - much ado about nothing?
See "How Republicans are rigging the next election", Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, published in the Star Tribune 2011-09-22.
Republicans are all aflutter about voter fraud. Democrats are all aflutter about "disenfranchising" poor and minority voters.
Republicans – your efforts will be meaningless if…
Democrats – you can make the Republican efforts meaningless by making a really serious effort to get out the vote.
Minnesota had the highest turnout in the nation in 2008 with 77 percent. Does that mean that 23 percent of the eligible voters were disenfranchised poor and minorities?
Wisconsin had 50.9 percent turnout in 2010, and the Republicans claimed a mandate as they took the governorship and control of both houses of the state legislature. Does that mean that 49.1 percent of the eligible voters were disenfranchised poor and minorities?
Come on, folks! Get real!
A too large percentage of eligible voters don't give a damn about either party. A too large percentage of "Democrats" get mad at the Democratic Party and don't show up at election time. Look what happened in New York's Ninth Congressional District. The no-shows gave the seat to the Republican candidate. Were all these no-shows disenfranchised poor and minorities?
Republicans – you're wasting time and money with your voter fraud campaign. In these "hard economic times", you're probably making local governments spend thousands of dollars for each suspected fraudulent voter. Is that efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
Democrats – you're wasting time and money fighting the wrong enemy. Your biggest enemy is voter apathy. Wouldn't a get-out-the-vote campaign be a more efficient use of party funds?
Republicans are all aflutter about voter fraud. Democrats are all aflutter about "disenfranchising" poor and minority voters.
Republicans – your efforts will be meaningless if…
Democrats – you can make the Republican efforts meaningless by making a really serious effort to get out the vote.
Minnesota had the highest turnout in the nation in 2008 with 77 percent. Does that mean that 23 percent of the eligible voters were disenfranchised poor and minorities?
Wisconsin had 50.9 percent turnout in 2010, and the Republicans claimed a mandate as they took the governorship and control of both houses of the state legislature. Does that mean that 49.1 percent of the eligible voters were disenfranchised poor and minorities?
Come on, folks! Get real!
A too large percentage of eligible voters don't give a damn about either party. A too large percentage of "Democrats" get mad at the Democratic Party and don't show up at election time. Look what happened in New York's Ninth Congressional District. The no-shows gave the seat to the Republican candidate. Were all these no-shows disenfranchised poor and minorities?
Republicans – you're wasting time and money with your voter fraud campaign. In these "hard economic times", you're probably making local governments spend thousands of dollars for each suspected fraudulent voter. Is that efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
Democrats – you're wasting time and money fighting the wrong enemy. Your biggest enemy is voter apathy. Wouldn't a get-out-the-vote campaign be a more efficient use of party funds?
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Mandate? Landslide? Let's count ALL the voters
Frank Rich used "Reagan" and "landslide" many times in his article, "Let Obama's Reagan Revolution Begin", 2011-01-09.
I was going to post the following as a comment, but I was too late as comments were already closed.
Please stop using the term "landslide" to describe Reagan's win of the 1984 election. Forty-three percent of the voters didn't even show up, indirectly voting for "none of the above." Ronald Reagan did receive 58.7% of the votes of those who did show up which is impressive. But if one considers the no-shows, he had the backing of only 33.5% of the people. In other words, he came in second to none of the above.
If we reported elections with all the relevant data we could either stop winners from declaring a "mandate" or get more people out to vote the next time.
See also "Voting is not a horse race" and "If you don't vote, you have only yourself to blame".
I was going to post the following as a comment, but I was too late as comments were already closed.
Please stop using the term "landslide" to describe Reagan's win of the 1984 election. Forty-three percent of the voters didn't even show up, indirectly voting for "none of the above." Ronald Reagan did receive 58.7% of the votes of those who did show up which is impressive. But if one considers the no-shows, he had the backing of only 33.5% of the people. In other words, he came in second to none of the above.
If we reported elections with all the relevant data we could either stop winners from declaring a "mandate" or get more people out to vote the next time.
See also "Voting is not a horse race" and "If you don't vote, you have only yourself to blame".
Monday, November 15, 2010
Republicans do not have "people's" support or a "mandate"
Gail Collins wrote "Believing in Barack", for the 2010-11-12 New York Times. She laments that Obama has not come through on many tasks. In it she makes the statement, "The people of America made it clear in the election that they want something done about the deficit." I sent her the following email:
Thanks for an interesting column on your ambivalence about Barack Obama. Much of what you wrote has some basis in what's happened.
However, you fell into the "media-bias" trap of over-generalization with "The people of America made it clear in the election that they want something done about the deficit."
The people of America made nothing clear. 34 million voted for Republican Senate candidates, 31 million voted for Democratic Senate candidates, and far too many stayed home. If we project an estimated turnout of 40.3% to a count of total eligible voters (165 million), we then have the Republicans coming in a distant second to "None of the above", cast de facto by 96 million eligible voters. Unfortunately, too few people actually show up to cast blank ballots, and so they are not counted.
BTW, the Republicans 34 million votes were not even a majority of the votes cast for Senate.
I do wish those who have a bigger platform than my little blog would point out more often just how many eligible voters don't show up and just how hollow claims of electoral victories are.
References:
United States Election Project, George Mason University, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
United States Senate Elections, 2010, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
End of email to Gail Collins
Thanks for an interesting column on your ambivalence about Barack Obama. Much of what you wrote has some basis in what's happened.
However, you fell into the "media-bias" trap of over-generalization with "The people of America made it clear in the election that they want something done about the deficit."
The people of America made nothing clear. 34 million voted for Republican Senate candidates, 31 million voted for Democratic Senate candidates, and far too many stayed home. If we project an estimated turnout of 40.3% to a count of total eligible voters (165 million), we then have the Republicans coming in a distant second to "None of the above", cast de facto by 96 million eligible voters. Unfortunately, too few people actually show up to cast blank ballots, and so they are not counted.
BTW, the Republicans 34 million votes were not even a majority of the votes cast for Senate.
I do wish those who have a bigger platform than my little blog would point out more often just how many eligible voters don't show up and just how hollow claims of electoral victories are.
References:
United States Election Project, George Mason University, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
United States Senate Elections, 2010, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
End of email to Gail Collins
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Whatever you think of the candidates, do not stay home on election day!
I posted the following, including the above title, on a U.S. News and World Report article republished by Yahoo!Finance, "How Republicans, Too, Can Botch the Economy", Rick Newman, 2010-10-19, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-Republicans-Too-Can-Botch-usnews-4118282348.html. I don't know if it will be published.
If you are certain of your choices on November 2, be sure to go to the polls and vote for your choices, even if your choices are down in the polls. The polls don't vote; you do. Remember the Dewey "won" in 1948 while Truman slept. The polls didn't consider that many Truman supporters didn't have telephones. What false assumptions are the polls making now?
If you are uncertain of your choices on November 2, be sure to go to the polls and turn in a vote.
Here are some guidelines for the uncertain.
What kind of message are the candidates giving? If they are more negative about their opponents than positive about themselves, vote for the opponent.
Who is financing the candidates? If large sums are coming from out-of-state to candidates, vote for the candidates who are getting the least from out-of-state. I wish I could say that a few candidates refuse to accept contributions from those who have no right to vote for them, but I haven't heard of any.
If a candidate is putting large amounts of his or her own money in the campaign, consider voting for the opponent. Do you want the best candidates money can buy or the best candidates?
If some mysterious organization is putting out ads criticizing a candidate, consider voting for the opponent. Where is the money for the ads coming from? Do those who provide that money have any right to vote in that election? Again, do we want the best candidates money can buy or do we want the best candidates?
If none of these suggestions provide any satisfaction and if you don't really care for any of the candidates, you still have two choices. You can write somebody in, but that makes a lot of work for the election judges. You can always leave any or all of the choices on the ballot blank.
People do this all the time. How many people cast ballots for each judge position or for the commissioner of whatsit? What's wrong with leaving a blank ballot for governor, representative, senator, or even President?
If you don't show, your choice is NOT counted. If you show and leave a blank ballot your choice is OFFICIALLY counted.
If those of you who don't like any of the choices on the ballot cast blank ballots, consider that a candidate coming in second to "none of the above" will not have a "mandate". That candidate might more carefully consider how he or she governs.
Just think, "Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1984 but he won with a low turnout. In fact, only 27% of the eligible voters cast their votes for Reagan. What if the 47% who didn't vote had showed up and cast blank ballots, would there have been a Reagan Revolution?" - "Voting is not a horse race", http://www.cpinternet.com/~mdmagree.voting_2000-10-26.htm.
If you are certain of your choices on November 2, be sure to go to the polls and vote for your choices, even if your choices are down in the polls. The polls don't vote; you do. Remember the Dewey "won" in 1948 while Truman slept. The polls didn't consider that many Truman supporters didn't have telephones. What false assumptions are the polls making now?
If you are uncertain of your choices on November 2, be sure to go to the polls and turn in a vote.
Here are some guidelines for the uncertain.
What kind of message are the candidates giving? If they are more negative about their opponents than positive about themselves, vote for the opponent.
Who is financing the candidates? If large sums are coming from out-of-state to candidates, vote for the candidates who are getting the least from out-of-state. I wish I could say that a few candidates refuse to accept contributions from those who have no right to vote for them, but I haven't heard of any.
If a candidate is putting large amounts of his or her own money in the campaign, consider voting for the opponent. Do you want the best candidates money can buy or the best candidates?
If some mysterious organization is putting out ads criticizing a candidate, consider voting for the opponent. Where is the money for the ads coming from? Do those who provide that money have any right to vote in that election? Again, do we want the best candidates money can buy or do we want the best candidates?
If none of these suggestions provide any satisfaction and if you don't really care for any of the candidates, you still have two choices. You can write somebody in, but that makes a lot of work for the election judges. You can always leave any or all of the choices on the ballot blank.
People do this all the time. How many people cast ballots for each judge position or for the commissioner of whatsit? What's wrong with leaving a blank ballot for governor, representative, senator, or even President?
If you don't show, your choice is NOT counted. If you show and leave a blank ballot your choice is OFFICIALLY counted.
If those of you who don't like any of the choices on the ballot cast blank ballots, consider that a candidate coming in second to "none of the above" will not have a "mandate". That candidate might more carefully consider how he or she governs.
Just think, "Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1984 but he won with a low turnout. In fact, only 27% of the eligible voters cast their votes for Reagan. What if the 47% who didn't vote had showed up and cast blank ballots, would there have been a Reagan Revolution?" - "Voting is not a horse race", http://www.cpinternet.com/~mdmagree.voting_2000-10-26.htm.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
How to get serious about "throwing the bums out"?
If you are tired of the same old, same old with politicians, no matter what the party, you have a choice but few exercise it. Vote for none of the above, whether it's on the ballot or not.
You can do this in on of two ways. Write in a candidate of your choice or leave that particular item blank.
I remember reading that a hippo in a Brazilian zoo once got more votes than any of the candidates on the ballot. I would recommend writing in Mickey Mouse, but we should consider the vote counters. They work long hours, and they don't need to count hundreds of write-in votes.
If you leave a particular choice blank, then that will reduce the percentage of votes for all candidates. That means if enough voters leave a choice blank, the leading candidate may get less than 50% of votes. That would hardly be a mandate.
However, if you do neither of the above and stay home, the leading candidate may get 52% of the vote and claim a "mandate" from "the voters".
My wife just said that we need to get into the popular vernacular "A blank ballot is a vote for change!"
Let's make this idea viral! Pass on this entry or its link to as many friends as you think would be receptive to politics as unusual.
You can do this in on of two ways. Write in a candidate of your choice or leave that particular item blank.
I remember reading that a hippo in a Brazilian zoo once got more votes than any of the candidates on the ballot. I would recommend writing in Mickey Mouse, but we should consider the vote counters. They work long hours, and they don't need to count hundreds of write-in votes.
If you leave a particular choice blank, then that will reduce the percentage of votes for all candidates. That means if enough voters leave a choice blank, the leading candidate may get less than 50% of votes. That would hardly be a mandate.
However, if you do neither of the above and stay home, the leading candidate may get 52% of the vote and claim a "mandate" from "the voters".
My wife just said that we need to get into the popular vernacular "A blank ballot is a vote for change!"
Let's make this idea viral! Pass on this entry or its link to as many friends as you think would be receptive to politics as unusual.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Malice in Wonderland
Political discourse is often filled with exaggeration, both of the efficacy of one's own plans and of the deficiency of an opponent's plans. Too often discourse also generates into calling into question the character and purpose of one's opponents. And too often the rhetoric gets way off the mark.
I think Obama is engaging in wishful thinking that the various initiatives he proposes are going to create jobs. Far too many of the jobs that match the "skill sets" of many workers are gone, not to return anywhere in the world. Obama's opponents are engaging in wishful thinking that tax cuts will create jobs that match those "skill sets". Sorry, folks, but investment is going to the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday.
Interestingly, both "sides" claim to be in support of the people. But which people? Republican John Weaver claims that victory will be given to the Republicans "by an out-of-touch, big spending president." ("GOP is riding a tiger in Tea Party movement", Star Tribune, 2010-09-16) My question is which people is Obama out of touch with. Certainly not all the people. Almost all of the elections are a bit over one-third of the people voting for one party, a bit under one-third voting for the other party, and one-third of the people not voting at all. Results may vary by electoral district. Projecting results like these to a mandate of the "people" is living in Wonderland.
I think Obama is engaging in wishful thinking that the various initiatives he proposes are going to create jobs. Far too many of the jobs that match the "skill sets" of many workers are gone, not to return anywhere in the world. Obama's opponents are engaging in wishful thinking that tax cuts will create jobs that match those "skill sets". Sorry, folks, but investment is going to the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday.
Interestingly, both "sides" claim to be in support of the people. But which people? Republican John Weaver claims that victory will be given to the Republicans "by an out-of-touch, big spending president." ("GOP is riding a tiger in Tea Party movement", Star Tribune, 2010-09-16) My question is which people is Obama out of touch with. Certainly not all the people. Almost all of the elections are a bit over one-third of the people voting for one party, a bit under one-third voting for the other party, and one-third of the people not voting at all. Results may vary by electoral district. Projecting results like these to a mandate of the "people" is living in Wonderland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)