Record 2.2 million ballots going to Oregon voters

Over the years, Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury has appeared at more than 100 high schools to drive home the message that young people should register and vote.

It hasn't taken much coaxing to get more young people registered for the May primary.

Around the state, elections offices this weekend are beginning to ship a record-shattering 2.2 million mail ballots to registered voters, largely the result of a history-making presidential race that has brought out tens of thousands of new, younger voters.

"This just thrills me," Bradbury said. "It's hugely satisfying to have Oregon's primary actually mean something for the first time in 40 years."

Oregon's mail-in primary is one of the last in the nation — votes are counted May 20. Most political insiders had assumed the fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama would be decided long before now.

That hasn't been the case, of course, and now Oregon finds itself at center stage. With all the interest the presidential race has generated, state elections officials last week reported that there have been 62,673 new, first-time voter registrations since Jan. 1. More than 36,000 of those are in the youngest group, ages 18-30.

Bradbury, a Democratic superdelegate who hasn't endorsed either contender, said he thinks Obama clearly is the reason so many younger people have registered for the first time.

"Barack Obama has to get the credit — he has really inspired a lot of younger voters," Bradbury said.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/elections-0/1209843548325100.xml&storylist=orlocal

This is the first time in a long while our primary will mean something. I mailed my ballot back from overseas almost two weeks ago. Obama is making a huge difference in getting people out to vote. It shouldn't surprise anyone when he wins in a couple of weeks.

I guess that's what I'll be looking forward to for a couple of years.

Here's something else I found interesting (from a bit before my Gen X time).

"...there's little doubt that the presidential sweepstakes is the top draw for Oregonians who haven't seen a truly competitive presidential primary since 1968.

In that year, Oregon was a key battleground — and a crucial run-up to the California primary — in the Democratic race between Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy.

Riding a wave of sentiment against the Vietnam War, McCarthy won Oregon's primary, marking the first time any of the Kennedy brothers had ever lost an election."

and returned it a week later. It will be exciting to see Oregon actually make a difference in this election for once.

In 2000 and 2004, Oregon was pretty close in the GE, so it very much should be considered a swing state this time around. We'll need all the help we can get to keep Oregon trending blue.

which, I figure was in response to Clinton era policies- and not a reflection of Al Gore at the time.

In 2004, Bush lost Oregon by over a 4 point spread- though it looked closer when the other parties' tallies were included.

Curiously, .5% in 2004 were write ins.

:wtf:

I sure do love this crazy state... and I miss it when I'm gone.

Given there are some pretty good pockets of Republicans in the state, it's possible for it to go red. I'm just saying don't take anything for granted.

We just got ours here in PDX a few days ago.

:toast: :hi:

:kick:

Why would they not be in Oregon?

However, I do have some other concerns with full-scale mail-in voting. I haven't done enough research to state them here, but if Oregon's result is surprising, I just might check into it more.

In MD and VA a witness has to sign the ballot.

Here is some information about absentee ballots in PA:

http://www.votespa.com/HowToVote/VotingbyAbsenteeBallot/tabid/78/language/en-US/Default.aspx

What it doesn't describe is that the voter's name is nowhere on the ballot itself. The ballot MUST be placed in a "secrecy envelope", then in the mailing envelope, or it won't be counted. At the precinct polling place, during tabulation at the end of the night, the secrecy envelopes are first removed from the mailing envelopes, and the mailing envelopes are discarded (after cross-checking against the absentee voter list and making sure none of those voters came and voted in person).

Once the mailing envelopes are discarded, the poll workers have no way of knowing which ballot belonged to who. Sure, in this primary two of my friends voted absentee, and if ALL the Dem absentees had been for Obama, or ALL the Dem absentee ballots had been for Hillary, by deduction I would know who they voted for. But that wasn't the case and is not likely to be the case. If more people voted absentee, it would be even less likely to happen.

It's not perfect but it does sound like a better system than you describe.

women on men. Even the desire to fill out the ballot privately is viewed with suspicion by spouses.

When I worked in polling we examined this pattern.

That is one of my concerns with mail in ballots. I don't think of the ballot as inherently not private; but given the reality of human factors, in many cases it's not. Ultimately that is the voter's fault - but I agree it should be considered.

"Barack Obama has to get the credit — he has really inspired a lot of younger voters," Bradbury said"

what has hillary done?

Obama - 1,232,000 (+264,000)
Clinton - 968,000

:woohoo: