Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 6, 2004 OK, I have no idea if this is true. I don't even know if this is really verifiable. But, according to Ralph Reed (regional chairman for the Bush campaign), leading up to Super Tuesday, the turnout in Democratic primaries was the 3rd lowest since 1960. Now, this goes against the "high turnout" stories of the primaries --- so can this number be proven or disproven? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2004 It must. There has to be a record of voter turnout in primaries somewhere. I'm just too tired and/or lazy to really look for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 6, 2004 It must. There has to be a record of voter turnout in primaries somewhere. I'm just too tired and/or lazy to really look for it. Thing is, that is the kind of statistic I honestly can't imagine anybody keeping without having to go back to all of the results for every primary and doing the math. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2004 Looks true if you go by the survey; check this AP article. It's linked from a dumpy local paper, but it was the first full-text version that popped up for me. It's based around work by the Committee for the Study of American Electorate. But: The Democratic turnout for 2004 primaries through "Super Tuesday" was higher than the 9 percent for the uncontested 1996 primaries and the 10.1 percent for the virtually uncontested 2000 primaries after New Hampshire. So it's still on a rise from the last contested election, even if Gore was a virtual lock. The big numbers - 24% in 1968, for example - sstarted to slack about 30 years ago. More people voted in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire -- 23.5 percent of eligible voters -- than at any time since 1960. The previous high was 20.2 percent in 1992. The initial interest was extremely high. Why did it wane? The organization said it was not surprised that voter participation fell off after Iowa and the New Hampshire primary Jan. 27 because the campaigns, by then underfunded, moved immediately to grouped contests conducted through television ads and brief visits for free media coverage. The organization noted that the states with the highest turnout, New Hampshire with 23.5 percent and Wisconsin with 20.5 percent, were the only ones that did not share their election days with other states. That enabled candidates to focus time and money on those elections alone. So you had 9 underfunded candidates spreading themselves pretty thin across multiple states. Considering all this, I wouldn't put much stock into the news as a sign of the apocalypse/non-caring voter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2004 Low turnout in a primary season? You don't say... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted April 6, 2004 looks like the turnout was high until it was obvious that Kerry was getting the nomination... then, instead of fight against that, and vote for someone like Edwards, the average Democrat that may have been fired up when the primaries began just said "ah fuck it" and that was that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2004 9, 10.1, 24 - what precisely do those numbers express? A percentage of the total population, which increased between the dates quoted? A percentage of registered Democrats, which decreased? Either or both, appropriately adjusted? It's meaningless without context. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2004 The whole Presidential primary system is extremely flawed anyways. Granted, a national primary would be a bigger pain, and it'd sorta diminish the 'conventions' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2004 9, 10.1, 24 - what precisely do those numbers express? A percentage of the total population, which increased between the dates quoted? A percentage of registered Democrats, which decreased? Either or both, appropriately adjusted? It's meaningless without context. Pretty sure it's % of voters eligible to vote in the Democratic primaries. I'm not sure how that accounts for any open primaries where anyone registered to vote under any party can come make their choice. It'd have to be a really silly study to make it a percentage of the total registered population. Some hard numbers would be nice, too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 7, 2004 The whole Presidential primary system is extremely flawed anyways. Granted, a national primary would be a bigger pain, and it'd sorta diminish the 'conventions' Actually, I think that'd be a WORSE solution. The primaries need to get spread out again, instead of being so front-loaded. It makes a "dark horse" have no shot at winning a nomination since he will lack the funding the "favorite" has in the system. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted April 7, 2004 and there should be some distribution of delegates that would recognize the voting results. Instead of 27 for one and 2 for the other Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
