Voter Turnout Low for Presidential Primaries

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

Voter turnout low for presidential primaries

By Erin Kelly, Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — Only 7.2% of American voters participated in the presidential primaries through March 2, according to a report released Tuesday.

Democratic turnout — at 11.4% — was the third lowest on record, although it was higher than in the past two presidential election years. Democratic primary voters were united by their intense dislike of President Bush, but seemed to see little difference in the policy positions of the competing Democrats, according to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

A Democratic National Committee spokesman said his party is encouraged by the fact that turnout increased over 2000 levels in virtually every primary state so far.

"I think that shows we are doing something right," said DNC spokesman Tony Welch. "We saw an enthusiasm for the Democratic primaries that we haven't seen in recent history."

Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record, as Bush ran essentially unopposed.

The Republican National Committee hopes to boost turnout in the general election by registering 1 million new voters this week and a total of 3 million new GOP voters by November.

..snip..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-09-voter-turnout_x.htm

Question for historians: How often does the incumbent president run essentially unopposed in its respective primary? Is this common practice by both parties over history? Does anyone have any examples of when a party primary was not won by the incumbent president, after deciding to seek re-election?

thanks.

[FloridaPat]

1. Low for primaries? How about general elections. In 2000

about half the registered voters bothered to vote. However, that was 36% of the eligible population. How pathetic is that. The US changed course because 18% of the population voted for a moron.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

2. What political climate fosters a strong primary turnout?

any ideas? Historically, when has the primary vote turnout been high? Is there any correlation to times of peace vs times of war? ..popularity of incumbent opponents? ...overall quality of primary candidate field? ..similarities of primary candidates? ..similarities of party candidates? ..major issues-related? ..country's level of bi-partisanship? ..times of newspapers versus times of television? ..failure of the party to motivate its party?

what impacts turnout the most?

thx.

[izzie]

9. I still think it is because the parties are so alike but.....

All those big wigs say I am wrong. Generally what do you hear the most when you get near to Nov? Think about that, What I hear is "they are all crooks and the same". Now that is sad.

[waldenx]

3. give the voters a reason to show up

and they will.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

4. so if turnout was low,

then, by extension, there were no reasons to vote, right? that just doesnt seem the case since 2000 election in florida, 9/11, iraq, etc. there seems to be alot of reasons to vote now.

or are you saying that at sometime during this primary season, the reason to vote disappeared, as it appeared that the winning candidate had it wrapped up? hence, saving people in secondary states (like super tuesday states), from even getting out.

or are you saying its timing, and related more to a major issue (reason) at that time, like civil rights, etc?

[patricia92243]

6. Yes! The nominee is considered already picked by super Tuesday, so I am..

surprised that as many people after that turn out as they do.

My primary is not til May 5. If I even bother to vote in the primaries, it will be in the hope of giving Dean some more delegates so he will have some clout in the Democratic party. Other than that - why bother? Kerry is alrady chosen for us.

[izzie]

11. I used to vote in primaries in NH, Was important

I am not sure the primaries are any better than the party just doing it which I thing they are almost still doing. Bush sounded like Gore in 2000 yet we on DU knew he would not run the country like tha same but people did believe him. Look at this drug bill, They are now running on they did what the Dem could not do and it is a bad bill , will not go in until after election but he now goes to the people who needed it and tells them, he as a Rep, got it in and not Dem, when it is really good for big business. That is an interesting way to run and what can the Dem do? He. Bush, ran on what the Dem have been getting into office on ,for years, and it works for him.I get sick of the whole thing up to Nov. It is so fluffy. I am really into this stuff so people who do not care, much really turn it off and say to hell with them all.

[LosinIt]

5. Maybe it's because by the time it was my turn to vote.......

I was told that the nomination was already sewn up. This primary process sucks out loud.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

7. a national primary idea has been thrown around. same day.

it would definitely take away some of the media's edge on its mind-bending abilities to persuade and lead public opinion over time during the primary season. It gives way too much time for the cheerleading pundits/polls to push the most mainstream candidates, while casting as much negative coverage, or no coverage, on the non-mainstream candidates they choose.. Their ability to maintain momentum for whomever they want must be removed.

a national primary would make it tough for the candidates to campaign though. maybe do four regional primaries in four weeks, but then you have to worry about favoring a particular candiate. i dunno, but shortening the time that the media has to manipulate the race, the better.

i especially love how the tv media makes each state a win or lose contest, instead of reporting the correct score, the running sum delegate count for each candidate, and the percentage of needed total delegates.

you would think in our score-obsessed, sport-minded america, that each candidates' current total delegate count would be plastered all over the tv. but it aint. ever.

the tv media also never shows the full primary calender of when all of the states are to cast their votes either.

so, for the entire primary season, the television has no schedule and no real score.

if the people who only watch television dont know its NOT over next week, why tell em?

keep em in the dark, aye?

rah rah rah


welcome to the digital divide.

[ima_sinnic]

8. 1 date for all the primaries would be excellent

and would squelch the media's ability to influence who the nominee is. I voted for Kucinich yesterday in Florida wanting to make the statement that not all voters are happy to fall in line with the appointed nominee.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

10. mccain's opinion on primaries

"The process is too compressed," U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona told MTV News. "It's way too compressed. Here we're going to decide by March, and the election isn't until November."

.snip.

"I don't like (the idea of a national primary day)," McCain said. "I think the people of New Hampshire (and other states early in the process) take their responsibility seriously."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1485634/20040309/index.jhtml?headlines=true

..

mccain wants to lengthen the process. the other route looks better to me. a national primary day. if your man loses on a big primary day, oh well, you want to pick the man who can win on a big day, right?

it may be that BOTH parties dont want the proportionate delegates of the other candidates from all 50 states to have an opinion at the convention, so if they can theoretically end the race BEFORE the other states can vote, by way of inactivity, the other candidates will not get the minimum 15% to get any delegates, if its supposedly "over".

But if it happened in one day, there is no over, until that night.

Both parties are nervous about maybe having to give out all the delegates in one day. They might have to listen to them, and incorporate minority candidates views into their platforms.

And if there is anything we do, rotating the beginning states so that a mini-super tuesday should at least lead off the race, and no state gets first say anymore. this is a national race.

[tobius]

12. the impression was turnout would be high

-----No matter who we nominate, bush* is in trouble. Here's proof:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=237012

------This turnout is indicative that Bush is in real trouble.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=214364

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=267589

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=237232

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=265369

[xchrom]

13. apathetic voting trends

bothers me almost like no other issue.
i just can't understand it -- there simply is nothing glamorous or sexy about showing up and doing the one thing you are supposed to do in a democracy.
and i don't think making it easier or more understandable is making it better.
and i like spreading the primaries out -- we may return to a day when a candidate wins in the northeast but does poorly in the west and that's as it should be -- the candidates should have to work really hard for the votes.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

14. interesting. i got some reading to do here.

excellent source.

The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System
(California Plan)
A 21st Century Method for Nominating Presidential Candidates
Executive Summary
Copyright © 2003 by Thomas Gangale
OPS-Alaska and San Francisco State University
Political Science 899


http://pweb.jps.net/~gangale/opsa/ps/Primary_2003_frm.htm