Although California still has many uncounted ballots, it appears likely that only 8,000,000 persons voted in the November 4, 2014 election. If so, that would mean only 44.9% of the registered voters participated. California has never before had a gubernatorial general election with fewer than 50% of the registered voters voting.
Although it is true turnout was down in the November 2014 election in most states, California’s turnout appears to be the 12th worst of the 50 states. See this November 7 chart prepared by Political Science Professor Michael P. McDonald, giving his estimate of the number of voters in each state, divided by the number of persons who could have voted if they had registered or were registered.
As of November 8, fewer than 6,000,000 votes have been counted for California Governor, according to the Secretary of State’s web page.
Just exactly what advocates and defenders of Top Two want. They only want the party base to come out to vote, who will blindly vote for those candidates who, for obvious reasons, made it to the Top Two, and whom the Top Two Establishment are content in winning – whether both candidates are of the same Establishment party or one from each of the Establishment parties.
Folks, the days of genuine competitive politics of different viewpoints are over. The Establishment has already decided what is best for the unwashed masses, and they are determined that we will accept what they say is best for us.
I trust those most of you who read this are like me – 70 years of age or older – and will not be around to have to endure the totalitarian dictates of the Establishment.
But I do pity for those – such as my grandchildren – who most likely will be around 50 years from now and will have to live as the Establishment dictates, or else its off to a Re-education Camp so that you will better understand why your thoughts and opinions are flawed, but those of the Establishment are refined and perfect for those of inferior intelligence.
The Beginning of the End has started.
Unfortunately, I’m only in my 20’s, and will have to worry about that increasingly likely outcome. Most in my generation don’t even realize the trap they’re in, and blindly vote (if they do) Democrat for the most part. If it does indeed go full blown totalitarian, my best bet, and that of the few who are awake, is to try to get out before it’s too late. Maybe I’d go to Iceland, that country’s shown quite a penchant for resistance to corrupt authoritarians and corporatists in recent years.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
—-
Too many young folks on drugs, watching videos, tweeting , etc. in midterm elections ???
“I trust those most of you who read this are like me – 70 years of age or older – and will not be around to have to endure the totalitarian dictates of the Establishment.”
Nope, 27-year old millennial here. I’m far more optimistic than you.
LOL, really you assume most people here are over 70? Why would you think that, or did I misunderstand you? I’m 42, and a lot of people here are younger.
I must have misunderstood you because that would be an extremely bizarre assumption and I’m sure no one could have seriously made an assumption like that.
Louisiana had a record turnout for a midterm senatorial election.
Turnout in Washington in 2010 (when they had a senatorial race) was the highest since the 1970s.
California’s registration rolls may be bloated. In 2008, 1/4 of registered voters did not vote. In 2012, this was 28%. Butte County has 33,000 inactive voters; compared to 117,503 active. But voters who did not vote in 2012 are considered “active”. What is the probability that someone who did not vote in 2012 will not vote in 2014? Made up number: 95%.
The inactive to active ration is particularly high among minor party and NPP registrants. People who are quite unlikely to vote get caught up in registration drives. They don’t check a party box, or pick one at random.
In Butte County, the return rate for mail ballots was 59.3%. The voting rate among other registrants appears to be 22.3%.
Your point about Louisiana underscores the fact that when voters have many choices, they do turn out. This year Louisiana had nine candidates for U.S. Senate on the November ballot, more than any other state except Tennessee for U.S. Senate.
As to the California voter registration records, Dr. Michael McDonald’s comparison of turnout in each state is not affected by that, because he measures number of people who cast a vote divided by the number of people eligible to register and vote.
Joshua H:
Iceland would be nice (and I understand it’s mis-named – should have been named Greenland, and Greenland called Iceland), but until we are driven from North America, I’ve advocated for Alaska as the last frontier of refuge for freedom.
Alaska is large enough geographically speaking (and cold enough) to discourage the mobs. Alaska also has a political party (the Alaskan Independence Party) which believes the people of this state should be allowed to become an independent republic if the people so vote.
With a potential of 5,000,000 citizens residing in Alaska, with most of them advocating for independence, I think it would be awhile before the Establishment would send in the Marines to put down insurrection.
Alaska, as I understand, has enough oil reserves, it could exchange for needed commodities to care for its population for at least 100 years.
But more realistically, hopefully your generation will see what the Establishment is doing, and will rebel before the Establishment get a strong foothold.
The elections of 2014 may be a little ray of sunlight in this direction.
Jed Ziggler:
Admire your optimistism. And hope for sake of my teenage grandchildren, your are correct.
Paulie:
You need to speak regularly with folks 70 years of age and older who still have their faculties, and you will find most will agree with me.
Of course, I have to admit that most of us 70 years of age and older believe the Holy Scriptures and the Prophecies it makes. (And this is not to be taken as an insult to those who do not believe the Scriptures – regardless of their age.) But those of us who do believe in the Prophecies of the Scriptures have discovered there are no contradictions to be found and proven to be wrong. Also, every prophecy to date in the context of its timeframe has been fulfilled.
I’ll stick with my side of this debate, and if I am wrong, what have I got to lose?
Richard:
While Louisiana’s “Jungle Primary” (as it is sometimes called), is similar to Top Two, but for some reason in Louisiana it does not come across as such. I noticed at looking at the unofficial returns for U.S. Senator, while there was only one 3rd party candidate on the ballot for U.S. Senator (Libertarian), the Libertarian candidate actually received more votes than did 4 other losing Democratic candidates.
So, do you suggest had there been no required “Runoff” and the General Election in December carried only the names of Democrat, Mary L. Landrieu, Republican Bill Cassidy, and Libertarian Brannon Lee McMorris, that the Libertarian nominee would have received more votes than the some 14,000 he received in the Open Primary?
Don’t you have to agree that a better known and better financed Libertarian candidate might have had him/her placing in at least the number 2 spot in the Primary Election?
I’ve always said that name recognition and money are the two stumbling blocks for 3rd party and Independent candidates – whether its a regular primary process or the Top Two system which determines the winners.
Remember, I’m still opposed to Top Two because it will work to the destruction of 3rd parties and Independent candidates. But, again, I think we have to admit that name recognition and money are vital to victory in any election.
Where am I wrong?
The Louisiana system drastically improved after 1997, when the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal law (in effect since 1872) means that Louisiana could not go on holding its congressional elections in September, with a runoff in November if no one got 50%. Foster v Love. So Louisiana abolished its primary and just has an election in November, in which everyone runs. Ever since 1997, it is not good practice to refer to Louisiana congressional elections as a “jungle primary.” Louisiana doesn’t have primaries. That name “jungle primary” was coined in 1975, when Louisiana started using that system. It is obsolete for Louisiana and should be retired.
No, I don’t agree that a better financed Libertarian candidate for US Senate in Louisiana would have placed first or second. There have been 50 minor party candidates who have run for federal or state office in Louisiana since that system started in 1975, and none of them ever placed first or second if there were at least two major party members running. The number of people who are loyal to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party comprises a substantial majority of the voters of Louisiana and every other state. Voters typically won’t even pay attention to independent or minor party candidates until after the primary is over.
Richard:
“Voters typically won’t even pay attention to independent or minor party candidates until after the primary is over.”
The above comment confuses me, but it is not relevant to my reply.
Ross Rerot spent, as I understand, some $60 million (the Dems & Reps spent much more), mostly of his own money in 1992. This won him almost 20 million votes or almost 20% of the vote.
If he had spend at least $100 million, listened to advisors Hamilton Jordan and Ed Rollins, gotten a better VP running mate, and not gotten out of the race, then returned, losing credibility, don’t you think his chances of winning would have increased at least 4 fold?
I know we will never know about Perot. But money and organization is what it takes for any candidate – 3rd party or major party – to win.
We’ve witnessed other 3rd party or Independent candidates win where the Democratic and/or Republican party registrations were overwhelming, but they won despite such.
I still say its all about money and organization – and of course the candidate who doesn’t come across like he or she is an idiot! Then, no amount of money will win it for him or her.
To put it in local jargon, It’s about the “moola” and getting folks to the polls!
Not sure what that has to do with whether I read your prior comment correctly or not, or indeed with anything. Did you mean to say that you think most people reading these comments are over 70 or not?
BTW, I know plenty of people who are over 70. And incidentally, many of them do not share your religion.
The second highest turnout was for the 1986 election when the Open Primary was held in October.
The turnout in the first Open Primary after Foster v Love (November 1998) was the 2nd lowest ever for a mid-term election. I don’t see how you can say that it was drastically improved by forcing voters to vote on a Tuesday.
That 1872 law can be changed.
BTW, I am sure that you noted that an incumbent congressman was defeated this year in Louisiana; that a Libertarian candidate for Congress received 27% of the vote; and the godfather of the Open Primary qualified for the runoff in another district.
Paulie:
No, I did not mean to imply, if it came out that way, that most readers of B.A.N. or over 70. I would assume the age spread includes all ages.
And do not doubt there are plenty of people over 70 who do not share my Faith. Such is their right and their problem. In this country – at least for the time being – we still have the right to believe or not believe. And BTW, Faith is not a religion – it is Faith!
Jim Riley:
I thought Edwin Edwards was the godfather of Louisiana’s Open Primary?
At any rate, wasn’t their Open Primary created because under the old system, Republicans (who might not even have had to undergo a Primary) were getting too many votes for comfort in the General Election, and the Open Primary was adapted to make them compete in a Primary where they would easily be knocked out of the running?
I think it worked for the first couple of election cycles, but since then has been dominated by the GOP.