Comments on: Politics and the numbers http://www.bryansuddith.com/2010/07/14/politics-and-the-numbers/ The e-home for Bryan Suddith Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:37:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: David Esratihttp://www.bryansuddith.com/2010/07/14/politics-and-the-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-1542 David Esrati Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:16:14 +0000 http://www.bryansuddith.com/?p=879#comment-1542 Bryan- your analysis on real percentage is good. However, at the polls- I did run into a lot of frustrated voters. From how far they had to drive, to where they were assigned, to the confusion about where the ARC was. Signs on assigned polling places is valid- directing to vote centers. Also- I'm waiting on numbers of rejected ballot requests for errors in filling out the form. Some have said the Roberts name is golden- and there is ballot fatigue- and continued abuse at the hands of the DDN. But- thanks for the analysis- and btw- you should link to the post: http://esrati.com/centralized-defranchisement/5341/ not my site. Glad you consider me a friend.<em>ed note: the post will be changed. </em> Bryan- your analysis on real percentage is good.
However, at the polls- I did run into a lot of frustrated voters. From how far they had to drive, to where they were assigned, to the confusion about where the ARC was.
Signs on assigned polling places is valid- directing to vote centers.
Also- I’m waiting on numbers of rejected ballot requests for errors in filling out the form.
Some have said the Roberts name is golden-
and there is ballot fatigue- and continued abuse at the hands of the DDN.
But- thanks for the analysis- and btw- you should link to the post: http://esrati.com/centralized-defranchisement/5341/
not my site.
Glad you consider me a friend.

ed note: the post will be changed.

]]> By: Mike Bockhttp://www.bryansuddith.com/2010/07/14/politics-and-the-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-1541 Mike Bock Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:11:48 +0000 http://www.bryansuddith.com/?p=879#comment-1541 Bryan, in my post on DaytonOS, that you refer to, I make a comparison between the voting rate in Montgomery County in the Special Democratic Primary Election in September 2006 and the Special Democratic Primary Election held just yesterday, July 13 and report that the voting rate in Montgomery County in 2010 was 30% smaller than in 2006. I blame that reduction on just one factor -- the fact that the county in 2010 dramatically slashed the number of polling places from 156 to just 4.You make a good point that there could be a lot of other factors that caused this 30% reduction and your post has caused me to look a little deeper.You point out that Warren County did not reduce its number of polling places and yet it had a small turn-out. After reading your post, I checked the turnout for 2006, thinking that the turnouts in 2006 and 2010 in Warren County would be about the same. I'm shocked to learn that Warren County had a huge drop-off in participation from 2006 to 2010 -- much larger proportionally than the drop-off in Montgomery County. In 2006 in Warren County there were 516 votes cast for the 3rd District Primary contest, but in 2010, there were only 191 votes cast -- a whopping 63% decrease, compared to Montgomery County's 30% decrease.I disagreed that drastically reducing the number of polling places was a good idea. But, it's hard to argue with the Warren County evidence. I'm now thinking that the low turnout in Montgomery County, overall, mostly must have been caused by other factors other than the change in polling locations.<em>ed note: Mike, I am glad I brought something to the discussion. </em> Bryan, in my post on DaytonOS, that you refer to, I make a comparison between the voting rate in Montgomery County in the Special Democratic Primary Election in September 2006 and the Special Democratic Primary Election held just yesterday, July 13 and report that the voting rate in Montgomery County in 2010 was 30% smaller than in 2006. I blame that reduction on just one factor — the fact that the county in 2010 dramatically slashed the number of polling places from 156 to just 4.

You make a good point that there could be a lot of other factors that caused this 30% reduction and your post has caused me to look a little deeper.

You point out that Warren County did not reduce its number of polling places and yet it had a small turn-out. After reading your post, I checked the turnout for 2006, thinking that the turnouts in 2006 and 2010 in Warren County would be about the same. I’m shocked to learn that Warren County had a huge drop-off in participation from 2006 to 2010 — much larger proportionally than the drop-off in Montgomery County. In 2006 in Warren County there were 516 votes cast for the 3rd District Primary contest, but in 2010, there were only 191 votes cast — a whopping 63% decrease, compared to Montgomery County’s 30% decrease.

I disagreed that drastically reducing the number of polling places was a good idea. But, it’s hard to argue with the Warren County evidence. I’m now thinking that the low turnout in Montgomery County, overall, mostly must have been caused by other factors other than the change in polling locations.

ed note: Mike, I am glad I brought something to the discussion.

]]> By: Zachttp://www.bryansuddith.com/2010/07/14/politics-and-the-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-1540 Zac Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:04:56 +0000 http://www.bryansuddith.com/?p=879#comment-1540 You are right about candidates not inspiring voters to turn out. Say what you will about Obama, but he got folks to show up at the polls. That's why I suspect the Republicans will put up a candidate with as much charisma as the president had in his run. Candidates have to give voters a reason to vote.Of course, low voter turnout is a bigger problem than access. I blame the education system and the partisan press (mostly cable news, i.e. Fox, MSNBC, CNN). We don't teach kids to think anymore in schools, just pass the test. The cable news networks have dumbed down the political process to popularity polls and partisan politics.I read this post ready to argue (even though I know next to nothing of Dayton's political scene), but I find myself agreeing with you.<em>ed note: Thanks Zac. I appreciate the comment and nod.</em> You are right about candidates not inspiring voters to turn out. Say what you will about Obama, but he got folks to show up at the polls. That’s why I suspect the Republicans will put up a candidate with as much charisma as the president had in his run. Candidates have to give voters a reason to vote.

Of course, low voter turnout is a bigger problem than access. I blame the education system and the partisan press (mostly cable news, i.e. Fox, MSNBC, CNN). We don’t teach kids to think anymore in schools, just pass the test. The cable news networks have dumbed down the political process to popularity polls and partisan politics.

I read this post ready to argue (even though I know next to nothing of Dayton’s political scene), but I find myself agreeing with you.

ed note: Thanks Zac. I appreciate the comment and nod.

]]>