| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Voter turnout for primaries was just 15 percent |
| 2006-10-07 |
| That breaks previous record of 19 percent, study finds WASHINGTON (AP) - A record low primary turnout and voter disgust for politics could spell trouble for Republicans trying to keep control of the House and Senate. Only 15 percent of eligible voters cast primary ballots this year, breaking the 19 percent low record from the last two midterm elections, according to an American University study. But frustrations with President Bush, the Iraq war and a congressional scandal involving lurid messages could increase turnout in the November elections — and the voters most mobilized won’t be Republicans. “If the election were held tomorrow, the Republicans would be extraordinarily in trouble,” said Curtis Gans, director of American University’s Center for Study of the American Electorate. “It makes independents and Democrats much more likely to vote Democratic. It may make some Republicans sufficiently unhappy to stay home.” GOP leaders have a month to recover from recent revelations that former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., sent inappropriate and sexually explicit messages to former pages. He resigned and sparked a spate of speculation, sniping and scapegoating. “We’re talking 4 1/2 weeks before the election,” Gans said. “Whether this story will have the type of legs toward the election that will make it a major issue for Republicans is not clear.” The study, released Friday, also found record highs in Senate primaries viewed as referendums on incumbents’ support for the war in Iraq. In Connecticut, a record 12 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Anti-war candidate Ned Lamont won the party’s nomination and defeated incumbent Joe Lieberman, prompting the three-term senator to run as an independent. Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s Republican primary battle prompted 9 percent of Rhode Island residents to vote, also a state record. Chafee faced a tough challenge from conservative Stephen Laffey. National Republicans spent millions on a get-out-the-vote effort to ensure a primary win for the incumbent. Gans predicted November’s general election turnout could inch higher than 2002, when 40 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #18 Voting is inherently irrational, precisely because it invokes the power of government on the basis of pure majoritarianism or some other arbitrary standard on behalf of whoever can get the biggest herd in the voting booth. I have no inherent right to tell the government to tell YOU what to do, NoBeards, and I've never seen a good argument as to why I should. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2006-10-07 23:57 |
| #17 And Prohibition, the Drug War, legitimation of race slavery and all the other benefits of same, no doubt... The Anti-Federalists were completely right. How in the hell did you come up with that? None of what I would like to see vis-a-vis voting and proof of eligibility would result in what you suggest in you fevered ranting. |
| Posted by: NoBeards 2006-10-07 23:51 |
| #16 "I would like to see mandatory registration and voting here. And a national requirement for positive ID and proof of eligibility at the time of registration and when hitting the polls." And Prohibition, the Drug War, legitimation of race slavery and all the other benefits of same, no doubt... The Anti-Federalists were completely right. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2006-10-07 23:13 |
| #15 Thanks .com Over tme , it seems, no matter the bitching the turnout remains the same , when a president is up for election or challenge. It seems, over time, turnout is down over the period. From 60's to 50's Scary, but not anything new |
| Posted by: Dunno 2006-10-07 21:50 |
| #14 Ask and Ask.com delivers: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2004 |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-07 21:38 |
| #13 What has particpation been over time? I would like to see the graphs and charts. :) I'd like to be wrong but I am not sure participation has changed much in terms of voter turnout, I am sure there is more "outrage" but "voter turnout" not too sure I think a llittle uptick , with the internet and all...but apathy rules the day, in regard to turnout, can't blame them |
| Posted by: Dunno 2006-10-07 21:33 |
| #12 I didn't vote in my primaries because a) I was out of town and b) the outcome was absolutely not up for grabs in any way. Doesn't mean I don't intend to vote in November, tho. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-07 21:22 |
| #11 The 1932 German Parliamentary elections were referenda on Anne Frank's right to life. She lost. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2006-10-07 21:17 |
| #10 If you have not done your homework, stay home. I disagree, Hose. What's 'enough' homework? Sometimes I vote for a guy just 'cuz he a trunk. Should I skip him and just vote for senator and president? Then the guys who think Bush is controlling gas prices win, because they think they've done their homework - the same homework - again, and again, and again. No. Voting is an obligation if you are a citizen. Do as much homework as you can, but then VOTE. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-10-07 14:56 |
| #9 Problem with low turnout is that fraud is amplified. Probably in favor of the fever swamp. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-10-07 14:18 |
| #8 Opportunity is knocking loudly. I am a registered republican and I vote every election. I also volunteer to man phones or other, but I never was asked to do anything. In fact, no body ever calls me to remind me to vote or ask if I need a ride. We republicans should form an army of vote getters to call and drive people on election day. We would get out about 90 percent of our voters and win every time. It's just not done. A little here, a little there, but never a total effort. Here I sit, willing and able, but no one ever calls. How about a Rantburg voter drive ? I mean republican, conservative voters, not just registering John Doe the woodcutter who never watches the news and doesn't know there's a war in Iraq. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-07 13:21 |
| #7 15% voting says to me that 85% are pretty happy to let the 15% make the decisions. That seems about right to me. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-07 13:02 |
| #6 Morons voting randomly is a bigger problem than non-participation. True. The real problem is that only 15% are interested enough to be informed or to vote. When Ben Franklin told the lady outside of Independence Hall the Constitution was "a Republic if you can keep it," he would have been pretty pleased to learn it was going to last at least another 215+ years. At these rates of interest and participation I wonder how many we have left. |
| Posted by: just sayin 2006-10-07 12:56 |
| #5 I'd like to see two more levers added: 1 - None of the above - which would require all parties to redo the election with all new people. 2 - Abolish the office - Nuf said. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2006-10-07 12:56 |
| #4 Non-participation. I am not sure of the details, but I believe in Australia it is mandatory that you vote. At least that is what an Aussie expat was telling me. Maybe one of the contributers from the "OZ" could clarify. I would like to see mandatory registration and voting here. And a national requirement for positive ID and proof of eligibility at the time of registration and when hitting the polls. This whole country is circling the drain, I'm appalled at the decline in my lifetime. It is nothing like it was when I was a kid. Seems everything that kicked the slide off, has happened in the last 30 - 35 years. Sad. |
| Posted by: NoBeards 2006-10-07 12:49 |
| #3 They just never stop the flow of propaganda. How is it that only 15% of eligible voters casting primary ballots means that only the republicans are in trouble? This article focuses only Republican dissatisfaction and ignores the massive flight from lunatic Democratic Party. They cite the primary in Ct as if it is a representative sample of all elections in the US, but if that's the case it is the Dems who are in trouble. In CT, the Dem voters voted for Liberman because he didn't advocate the lunacy platform of the left and didn't support cutting and running. And how does this example show that the voters are on board with the Dem Party Platform? Sen. Lincoln ChafeeÂ’s Republican primary battle prompted 9 percent of Rhode Island residents to vote, also a state record. Chafee faced a tough challenge from conservative Stephen Laffey. National Republicans spent millions on a get-out-the-vote effort to ensure a primary win for the incumbent. Enough spin in this piece to make you throw up. I may be wrong, but I just don't think all of this smoke and mirrors is going to work for the Dems. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-07 12:40 |
| #2 Morons voting randomly is a bigger problem than non-participation. Some areas are toying with lottery type prizes for voters. If you have not done your homework, stay home. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-10-07 12:37 |
| #1 This is the real problem in our political system. Non-participation. I've never missed any elections since I became elgible, even if I voted thru absentee ballot. The right is too precious to ignore. That said, the downfall of the 2 party sytem is the "fix" in candidates. The primaries are where the chaff should be winnowed from the wheat. More times than not, only one candidate is presented to voters, so they stay home. I like what Liberman did, go independent. Gives voters another choice. This should happen in primaries constantly. If party bigwigs won't support a candidate, because of big donor favoritism, we need more people to go independent route. Many times, these folks would probably displace the dinosaurs, then we could have a valid choice in the general elections. Something must be done. Our electoral system is crumbling. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-10-07 12:15 |