Comments on: Poli-Tea raises the important question of low voter turnout and third parties

By: Dave Schwab

Dave Schwab — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:24:31 +0000

In Russia in the early 1990s, there was an option to cast your vote “against all”. They got rid of it, apparently because it was more popular than they expected.

On a related note, Ralph Nader has been a vocal proponent of a binding none-of-the-above option on ballots.

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:46:06 +0000

@19: Susan,

I guess we have differing opinions on what “none of the above” means. You seem to think it means “noone” and I think it means “someone other than those listed above.” The truth of the matter is that we’re both wrong, but combining our views would cover all the bases. I wouldn’t mind seeing both NOONE and NOTA on every ballot:

Choose one:
A
B
Leave office unfilled
None of the above

By: Ross Levin

Ross Levin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:21:14 +0000

Brandon, I completely disagree. A lot of people don’t even know that these elections happen – just telling everyone in a community about the election is often enough to change the outcome.

By: Brandon Trent

Brandon Trent — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:59:16 +0000

VA turnout is exceptionally low in local races or when there is election of only the House and the Senate. Alot of people I talked to about the Governors race said they just dont vote. When asked why the response was “Its not really all that important” Its a sad thing….but the reality is you cant force people to vote one way or the other. We have to target those who do vote in order to make an impact and thats where the third parties have failed.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:41:05 +0000

Susan, what is your opinion on the PLAS EXperiment in MA & CA in January. Not that I care or anything.

By: Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:39:51 +0000

“Also when it appeared likely Daggett might swing the election to Corzine”

That’s sort of like saying “when it appeared that yellow was the same color as burnt umber.”

The polls I saw said that a majority of voters polling for Daggett had Corzine as their second choice. Thus, anything that hurt Daggett helped Corzine, not Christie.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:34:53 +0000

Ross Levin @20, right. When activists go around MA & CA knocking on doors explaining the PLAS, voter registration can be one of the items discussed. Whether it is too late for that particular election or not.

By: robert capozzi

robert capozzi — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:18:48 +0000

sh, my inner anarchist one ups you: all offices should require a super-majority of all registered voters or remain unfilled. Those who ARE elected can be thrown in jail, as being elected is evidence of criminal intent

By: d.eris

d.eris — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:15:50 +0000

Solomon @18: in the “analysis” I did intentionally leave out mention of Daggett’s showing in the race. But that was the point, sort of. As you say, “he received little more than 5% which less than Christie’s margin of victory.” On the other hand, the 55% or so of registered voters who did not bother to vote represent more than twice the margin between Daggett and Christie. If Daggett had been able to convince 1 out of 2 non-voters to vote for him, he would have won.

By: Ross Levin

Ross Levin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:08:26 +0000

I thought the NOTA part of this blog post was less important than the idea of using voter registration and voter turnout to boost third party votes, especially in special elections and odd year elections.

By: Susan Hogarth

Susan Hogarth — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:32:18 +0000

Nate @14, if the voters choose “NOTA”, why start looking for other candidates? Why not let the office go unfilled?

By: Solomon Drek

Solomon Drek — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:01:54 +0000

I don’t know if this “analysis” intentionally ignored Chris Daggett’s nonimpact on the NJ governor’s race or not. Daggett received public financing, appeared in debates with Christie and Corzine, received the endorsement of the largest newspaper in the state, and was polling as high as 20% two weeks before the election. Yet he received little more than 5% which less than Christie’s margin of victory.

BTW I was one of the few voters who said they would vote for Daggett and did. Evidently many more Daggett supporters got “wasted vote syndrome” and voted for Christie instead. Hence his rather substantial margin of victory.

I also said I would write-in Bob Milnes for Governor and “Uncle Floyd” Vivino for Lieutenant-Governor but I changed my mind when it appeared Daggett might have a significant impact on the race.

I think Daggett’s real problem was money. With no ideological base of supporters he could not raise money from out-of-state and while voters might say they want alternatives they’re obviously not willing to put any money where their sentiment is. Also when it appeared likely Daggett might swing the election to Corzine the Republican Governor’s Association poured almost a million dollars into a negative ad campaign against Daggett only days before the election. Daggett had neither the time or the money to respond to those attacks and subsequently dropped in the polls.

By: Richard Winger

Richard Winger — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:57 +0000

Political scientists, and the Census Bureau, have compiled voter turnout statistics all the way back to 1824. The highest voter turnout in U.S. history was in the 1870’s and 1880’s (of course, this takes into consideration which voters were permitted to vote). There were no ballot access laws back in the 1870’s and 1880’s. The real reason turnout was so high back then was that, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the sectional divisions in the nation were still intense. Presidential elections were excruciatingly close in the 1870’s and 1880’s, and everyone perceived that it made a huge difference which major party won. White southeners passionately wanted the Democratic Party to win, both for president, and for control of the U.S. House, which see-sawed back and forth almost every two years.

By: Melty

Melty — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:34:09 +0000

I could see letting the fifty percentile line be of no more significance than any other percentile.

How about if nota wins, just prop up a blank cardboard cutout in office behind the desk and leave it until the next election cycle?

By: Aroundtheblockafewtimes

Aroundtheblockafewtimes — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:14:27 +0000

Has anyone compiled a graph showing voter turnout over, say the last century? One theory is that voting used to be less anonymous – your union bosses knew if you voted, your employer knew, your trade association knew, your neighbors knew. As automobiles became popular, and television and other distractions that lessened “community involvement,” it became far easier and more acceptable to be estranged from prying eyes who knew if one voted or not. Today, when you may not know the name of your neighbor three doors down and your party’s committeeman (if you even belong to a party) never stops by with a turkey or other perk for supporting his party, it is very easy to escape any social shunning because you failed to vote.