Question on voter turnout re: California

[CoolerKing]

I kept hearing about how this special election was having "record" number of voters turnout, but in this morning's LA Times, the #'s they had didn't look so special, so I decided to do some research. I'm sorry if this has already been discussed but I haven't seen anything yet.

Oh, and I call bullshit on "record" turnout.

It took me five minutes to get this info from the California secretary of state's website (any search engine will bring you to it). What bullshit. (these #'s are approximate...I tallied the total numbers for the top vote getters which represented over 99% of the vote...and I rounded %'s to the nearest whole #)

2003 Special Election (with 99% reporting)
Total # votes for recall question: 7,748,578
Total # Eligible voters: 21,833,141 (!!)
Total # Registered voters: 15,380,536

%Eligible who voted: 35%
%Registered who voted: 50%

2002 Governor's Race (with supposedly record low turnout, according to press reports at the time)
Total # votes for governor: 7,326,133
Total # Eligible voters: 21,466,272
Total # Registered voters: 15,303,469

%Eligible who voted: 34%
%Registered who voted: 48%


What the fuck? How is 2003 a "record" turnout and 2002 a "record low" turnout? To be fair, I'm only going off of press accounts BEFORE this election, but I have yet to see any follow up as to how this election is so different from 2002. Maybe the press will revise it's claims.

Interestingly enough, 3,500,039 voted against the recall (for Davis). He had 3,469,025 votes in 2002, so he actually INCREASED his vote totals. Peter Camejo, the Green candidate, received 208,624 votes for governor in the special election, significantly LOWER than the 381,700 he got in 2002.

To put things in perspective, let's look at how California voters kicked total George Bush butt in 2000 (these #'s always make me smile, despite everything)

Total # votes for President: 10,965,822
Total # Eligible voters: 21,580,069
Total # Registered voters: 15,577,686

%Eligible who voted: 51%
%Registered who voted: 70% (!!!holy shit!!!)

(and in this election, Al Gore got over a million more votes than Shrub. hahaha.)

So 2003's Special Election wasn't so extraordinary, unless the media will spin it as "record numbers for a SPECIAL election" which is BS.

So, in the end, Arnold beat Davis about 100 thousand votes...to put things into perspective. So that's your "mandate."

F'ing whores.

[Noordam]

1. IMHO that is why Davis should have dropped out early

He was not liked and between the Dems that voted for Arnold or the Dems that did not vote, we lost. We lost because we did not have a strong leader on the ballot.

[fromthehip]

2. Not quite.

Arnold did not beat Davis by 100,000 votes. Davis was not his competition, Bustamante was. Here's the thing, there were two issues on the ballot.

1. Should Gray Davis continue to be the govn'r?

2. Who should be the new governor if Gray Davis gets kicked out?

Davis lost the first question by about 10%...a decisive loss.

Arnold won the second question by nearly 1.2 million votes, a decisive win.

Personally, I think Arnold is a RINO...Republican In Name Only, perhaps he even chose the Republican Party to make it easier for him to win...a party of convenience. Only time will tell.

[CoolerKing]

4. if that helps you sleep at night...

but the fact remains:

3.5 million people voted to keep Davis
3.6 million people voted Arnold for Governor.

why split hairs? I know "technically" that the ballot wasn't set up like this, but in the end, that's what it came down to: Davis vs. Arnold, both in the media and with voters.

[republicansareevil]

8. That hurts your point, not helps it.

By separating the recall vote from the candidate vote, Davis had to go up against the other 135 candidates combined. That was wrong from the beginning. As of right now, Davis has 45% of the reported vote compared to 55% for all other candidates combined (as indicated by their vote of "yes" on the recall, indicating Davis is not their first choice. When you look at the vote where Arnold had the "decisive" victory, you have to remember that of the people voting on that part of the ballot, 45% are voting for their second choice candidate (Davis being their first choice as indicated by their "no" vote on the recall). Bustamante was not the Democratic candidate. The real Dem candidate, Davis, was unfairly eliminated in the first round. Everyone else got a "bye".

[fromthehip]

10. That isn't the case in my eyes.

The case is that California decided that Davis had to go. If Arnold hadn't entered the race, I think that Davis still would have been kicked out, and it would have been a toss-up between Bustamante and McClintock. That's just the way I see it. We got our asses kicked, it is time to start working for the next election.

[republicansareevil]

11. Then why was he re-elected in the first place?

The way the recall was set up is inherently unfair. Davis won the real election last year and that was after already having a term in office. Republicans didn't like the result so they initiated this sham. Think about it this way. Say you have a race where candidate A gets 45% of the vote, candidate B gets 40% of the vote, and other candidates combined get 15% of the vote. You could hold a recall election that very same day and ask should candidate A be recalled and 55% of the voters (the ones who didn't vote for "A") would say yes. So the recall election the way California has it, clearly does not reflect the true will of the voters. Instead of asking who is the best candidate for the job, it essentially asks whether Davis is the best candidate for the job. Then, after eliminating him, it asks who is the best candidate of the ones remaining? Can't you understand why that is inherently unfair?

[haymaker]

12. Speak for yourself.

I cannot believe I have to keep saying this.

[fizzana]

3. Those numbers might not include absentee ballots.

Not sure how to check though.

[CoolerKing]

5. they do include absentee ballots...

From the website:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/


Important Information About Absentee Ballots:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every absentee ballot cast by an eligible voter is counted and is included in the final, certified election results issued by their county elections official. All absentee ballots must be received by the elections official by the time the polls close (8:00 p.m.) on Election Day. Voted absentee ballots received by the elections official prior to Election Day are verified for correct voter signature and information and are then held for counting on Election Night. These results are announced on Election Night along with ballots cast at the precincts. Voted absentee ballots that are received in the mail on Election Day as well as voted absentee ballots that are returned to any polling place on Election Day, as is permitted under California law, cannot be counted until the signature of the voter and other information is verified to ensure the voter is eligible to cast a ballot. Election officials have 28 days after Election Day to complete the "canvass" or reconciliation of the vote, including checking and processing these absentee ballots, and report their results to the Secretary of State to be certified.

Simply put, California elections officials count all legally cast absentee ballots!

[spooky3]

6. I had wondered exactly the same thing (on another thread)

and had tried to check the .gov site but it was overloaded at the time, not surprisingly. Thanks for posting these numbers.

I wonder if a lot of people wanted to vote but found it too difficult with the long lines and the unfamiliar voting places and gave up. In any case, there is a big disconnect between the spin the media have given the election ("record turnout", i.e., so therefore Cal. has now gone Repug (not!)), versus the reality.

[David__77]

7. The deal is...

The turnout will "go up" a bit, because some absentees are still being counted. They know how many they have though, and still, turnout is up from about 50% last year to probably less than 60% this year.

You're right--the turnout is unimpressive considering the massive hoopla. Unfortunately, the turnout we will see was way too low in progressive areas and very high in the bastions of the right. This does not indicate a long-term political shift. Also, 55-45 is a loss, but not a horrible one considering the Davis has personal favorability ratings of maybe 20%, and I suspect some of them were pretty mixed as well. I'm proud of the campaign for all it's missteps.

We're not going back to the right-wingers. Schwarzenegger campaigned as a centrist, and we will do our best to hold him to that.

[fromthehip]

9. If you go Dems v. Repubs...

It gets ugly. Out of legitimate candidates, there were two Repubs and one Dem. As of 1PM California time, the Repubs were up on the Dem by about 2.25 Million votes. Let's not try to put a good face on it. We got our asses kicked. The people have spoken, our party needs to respond. It seems that the people of California want w change, so our party needs to change in California. How to go about that, I don't know, but it is quite apparent to me.

[haymaker]

13. Again, speak for yourself.

Geez, it's obvious.

[fromthehip]

14. Do you think...

Isn't it obvious that I do speak for myself? I'm not claiming to speak for anybody else, am I? Get a grip, and stop being so damn repetitive.

[arcane1]

15. sigh...

we kicked ass less than a year ago when Davis was RE-elected

[fromthehip]

16. Yes, we did.

So what changed? Why were we thrown out?