Why isn't the media covering the LOW voter turnout story ?

This is a 61% turnout so 39% decided to sit this one out ? And this is a "record turnout"

In New Hampshire "850,836 total registered voters -- 26% Democratic, 30% Republican, 44% Independent"

http://political.shoutingmat.ch/comments/2059829.html

517,226 was the total vote cast with 99% of precincts reporting. So 333,610 Granite staters either couldn't or wouldn't go to the polls.

This is the real story. Our so-called Democracy is being destroyed by couch-potatoes. Either that or Edwards is busting his ass off for people who can't make it to the polls to vote for him. Why bother ? The corporate candidates are sewing up the vote right now anyway, eh ?

Plus I'm told that only around 300,00 of Iowa's potential 2 million voters actually caucused !

and don't buy the act?

500,000 or so New Hampshire citizens sat on their fat asses and didn't show up for their country. This isn't Democracy on 'autopilot', or is it ?

in NH. In Iowa out of 2 million registered voters a mere 300,000 determined the caucuses results. This isn't a democracy.

The AP is reporting that a record 526,571 ballots were cast in the two New Hampshire primaries, smashing - and then some - the previous record of 396,285. This is good not just for the party, but for the country: yaaaaay democracy!

http://www.mydd.com/bb#6269

IMHO...when 40% of the population DOESN'T show up at the polls, and in Iowa it was worst than that since only about 300,000 from a voter pool of 2 million, determine the results. This isn't a democratic process anymore.

The 'will of the people' is to sit home and watch tv and let the country run on autopilot.

It's a record HIGH for the state, no matter how much of a travesty you think it is that so many stay home.

The fact is that a higher percentage showed up than before. That's a positive thing.

Like in Australia where you have 100% voter turnout (or you get fined).

With caging as the GOP practices it they target ethnic groups, like blacks in OH and FL for example. With an entire country they've economically caged us all by making it so incovenient to vote. Or by having such corporate domination of the media and the process that potential voters just say 'to hell with it' and stay home.

These "records" of 60% turnout are a disgrace and nothing to crow about.

before we invaded.

to spin their way out of their flop. Poor Chris Matthews
just keeps digging himself into more meltdown. He needs
to see the Dr. and get some rest.

It's a primary. Some people don't like any of the candidates enough to deal with the process.

But when the election comes around in November, and we only see 50-55% of the populace vote, that is another story. That's a major problem.

...a distant third place showing? How quickly Iowa is forgotten. However I don't think Obama's victory speech in Iowa will soon be forgotten.

That's HUGE. Is this your first election?

and has been for many years. The lack of participation.

OK, sure.

A 10% drop for the Republicans, though. When you consider there are more Republicans ...

Especially for Iowa, where caucusing requires basically an entire evening, not just stopping by the polling place on the way home from work.

Of course we'd like to see 100% participation -- but the story here is that participation is rising this year (which is typically a good thing for Democrats).

Most were probably working their collective butts off and could care less who gets elected. Besides...

Beyond NH: Campaign Promises Are Empty Until the War Ends:
The war is so costly, no president will be able to tackle key domestic issues like health care until we exit Iraq
by Bill Boyarsky, Truthdig. Posted January 9, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/election08/73158/

and only Edwards is taking on ...

The Corporation
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

Obama wants to give corporations a 'seat at the table'. He's naive and they'll eat him alive.

The comparison is to past primaries, which shows the increase. Comparing it to the total amount of voters is just dumb and meaningless.

Great quote from The Waco Kid (Blazing Saddles):
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. They're people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know - morons."

So you trash the people who stay home, then you turn around and TRASH the voters, too?

I'm really tempted to say fuck you right now.

Get back on your meds. Voters ? That wassn't an election in Iowa it was a caucus. These primaries are supposed to be where ALL the voters get to vote.

Fuck you, you say ? "I know where it goes, and why" (George Caldwell, Silver Streak-1976, Gene Wilder's character). You, my dear, don't have a clue.

And the shitty comments too.

Coming from you, I'll take those as compliments.

EVDebs (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-10-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Re Iowa and NH primary voters
Great quote from The Waco Kid (Blazing Saddles):
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. They're people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know - morons."


:hi:

Here's another movie quote for you:

Hobson: Normally, someone would have to go to a bowling alley to meet someone of your stature. (Arthur-1981)

that you were actually insulting voters?

And that you insulted ME for calling them voters, when I was actually only using your wording?


re: your latest dose of ugliness: "Hobson: Normally, someone would have to go to a bowling alley to meet someone of your stature. (Arthur-1981)"

:rofl:

Yeah, I'll take ALL the insults you can dish out.

The Blazing Saddles quote was intended for those folks. Get back on you meds.

"Get back on you meds."

Time to give up now.

in all circumstances. If 60% of New York and California voters show up in the primaries I will shit my pants.

:shrug:

When is this mythical time where Americans voted in high turnout percentages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

If the poor don't show up and the wealthy do, who's views get legislated ? And if corporations want you to vote for either of only two candidates, they'll feature those two as the 'horserace'.

I think there are reforms that can should be made to make voting easier without demanding people participate in politics when by their rights that decision should be theirs and theirs alone. The government should neither force nor restrict one's ability to vote.

Some suggestions are things like the Oregon model, holding voting on Sat to make it more accessible to the working class or even having multiple days of voting.

Extrapolating from your quote "The government should neither force nor restrict one's ability to vote". The GOP has successfully restrained voting, by caging and with such dire economic conditions that make voting, someone's CIVIC DUTY, a chore...something to get out of, say, like jury duty.

This is shameful and we all know it. An informed and active voting country is what we need and require. Right now the GOP is hearing a case in the SCOTUS that would further restrict voting by requiring voter ID of some kind. I'll bet that'll make the next Karl Rove's caging work a bit easier next time.

low. Don't confuse this with a general election.

because neither is happening.

The turnouts in both Iowa and NH were both above expectations, and earlier races.

Dont you have to compare it to other years to conclude if the turnout is high or low???

2008:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH

2004:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/NH/

2000:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm#NH

You are so wrong its pathetic.

Here in Ohio, 25-30% turnout is considered high-average in a primary. Sometimes less than 20% is seen. NH had a very high turnout by national standards.

I believe Australia has a "negative cost incentive" to encourage voting. IIRC, it is AU$10 or so. If one doesn't vote, you're penalized; either collected by billing or added to a tax bill. Could work here.

They usually don't have a lot of participation to begin with.