My Problem w/MI and FL: If I lived there, I wouldn't have voted.

[FlyingTiger]

You can call me lazy or not committed enough or whatever you want, but if I lived in a state where I was being told in no uncertain terms that my primary would not count for anything, I wouldn't have bothered to vote in it. I know, I know, hundreds of thousands did anyway. That's not my point. We have absolutely no way of judging how many people decided that they wouldn't vote because they thought it wouldn't matter.

As a college student, I have the privilege of being able to talk with people from all over the country all the time. I don't know anyone from Michigan, but I know several from Florida, a few of which are pretty into politics. Only one said she bothered to vote absentee - the rest said that it didn't matter because their state wasn't going to count for anything.

If you tell millions of people that their vote won't count, a good chunk are going to... *dramatic pause*... believe you. And not vote. So then, how can you turn around and say, "Oh, wait, actually, they DO count," and call it fair representation?

[Birthmark]

1. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence...

...that *anyone* stayed home, let alone any significant number.

In fact, the numbers indicate the exact opposite.

[FlyingTiger]

9. That's called "proving a negative."

There's a reason why you're not expected to do it in most logical arguments.

[Birthmark]

13. Great.

But if you assert that something occurred, it's up to you to prove it. You asserted it --without evidence.

The actual numbers show that the Dem participation was well more than double the 2004 participation. That figure alone makes your assertion extremely suspect.

[FlyingTiger]

18. Okay, we're gonna try this again. Proving a negative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

You can't prove a negative. I didn't provide evidence because it's impossible for evidence to exist. Even if someone went around taking a poll in FL and MI and found that 20% of likely voters claimed that they didn't vote because they thought the primaries wouldn't count, you could bet your life savings that a decent chunk of the Hillary supporters on this site would claim that they were lying, or that they wouldn't REALLY have voted anyway, or that they would have voted along the same lines, etc.

More importantly, according to most voting laws, I actually did provide evidence. I suppose you could claim that I just made them up (although that would sound eerily similar to the paragraph that I just wrote, no?), but I do, in fact, know of several Floridians who have said flat-out that they did not vote because they thought it wouldn't count. The number is ridiculously small, of course, but voting laws don't go by total number of people, they exist to ensure that voting is fair for everyone. Obviously, no such laws exist for this circumstance, so I have to provide an analogy - if I knew eight Floridians, half of them were black, and the black ones told me that they were not allowed to vote because of their skin color, that alone would be enough to go to court and call the whole election into question.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not insinuating that this is at all the same as racism or Jim Crow laws or any of that. And I'm not saying that people were completely barred from voting, as old racist practices did to minorities. I'm merely arguing with your claim that there is "no evidence." If I, as one single person giving a meager effort, can find several Floridians who did not vote because they were told that it wouldn't count, then there is, in fact, evidence.

Moreover, suggesting that there was no effect on the primaries because turnout was higher than last time is a very weak argument when turnout everywhere is much higher than last time. Using 2008 numbers, there was nothing at all unusual about the turnout in FL. In fact, judging by certain states, it was a bit low.

[Birthmark]

21. If you can't provide evidence, then you assertion is baseless.

It's as simple as that.

By contrast, I assert and can support with verifiable evidence that the 2008 Democratic Primary had a high turnout. Over twice as many votes cast as in 2004 and over three times as many as in 2000.

I can further assert and support that the ratio of Republican-Democratic voters in the Primary fell from 1.26 in 2000, to 1.11 in 2008.

I can further assert and support that the 2008 FL Democratic turnout was on par with the Democratic turnout in Texas.

Therefore, claims of people staying home in FL in 2008 are refuted. Utterly.

But I'm always willing to look at evidence.

[FlyingTiger]

27. Look, you're trying to use statistics without even the most fundamental rules of... statistics.

I understand the basic premise of what you're trying to argue here, but it's just a simple fact that you're leaving out 99% of the data in order to wave 1% around and claim that it's all that matters.

I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you about statistics when you're not applying the most basic rules. Simply put, even the most low-level statistician knows that what you're claiming flies in the face of the way anyone is "allowed" in an academic or legal sense to prove something using numbers. If you said what you just said in a courtroom or a college paper, it would be shredded to bits. It's just not applicable.

[Birthmark]

31. I know you're not going to argue.

You have nothing to argue except for vague allegations. You haven't presented a shred of evidence that anyone stayed home. You can't. The exceptional turnout, the closing of the gap between Repubs and Democrats, and the similarity of the FL turnout to TX turnout all disconfirm your assertion.

You're appeal to imaginary authority is noted, though I have to admit to laughing at it. But you go tease the data and see if you can't find something approaching a fact, okay? Thanks.

[FlyingTiger]

36. You're getting pretty prickly over there.

I've repeated over and over again that I can't present a "shred of evidence," because, again, it's literally impossible to. This impossibility comes not as a result of this specific situation, but as a result of the general scenario that you are demanding - unequivocal proof of a negative. Anyone who has taken a logic class or gone to law school should understand what I'm saying here. I can't provide you evidence for what I'm saying any more than I can provide you evidence if you demand PROOF that we are not, in fact, all plugged into the Matrix right now.

But, perhaps more importantly, you seem to be getting a bit emotional over this particular facet of the argument. You've asked me to PROVE my concern is true, I've repeatedly told you that such a task is impossible, and now you seem to be gloating about one of the most basic tenets of logic. Congratulations, I guess?

[Birthmark]

39. If it can't be supported, why assert it?

Doesn't make any sense. But aside from that, you're simply wrong. It is NOT a negative assertion. It is an assertion of an action: Staying home and not voting. There are various ways to support such a claim. Polls of voters could lend some support to the assertion, for one thing.

And aside from that negatives CAN be proven under some circumstances. I don't feel like providing the explanation in this thread, but a little research on your part will correct your misapprehension. It's popular saying and a popular belief, but it's in at least partial error.

The available evidence indicates that the assertion Florida Democrats stayed home is baseless. THAT is why you can't support it. The numbers all say that the FL Democratic turnout was consistent with other States. That alone, makes your claim suspect.

[FlyingTiger]

45. Because I think a re-vote is more fair than going with the January numbers?

Same rules, same day of the week, but this time you tell everyone beforehand, "Hey, uh, THIS one counts. Really. We promise."

That's all I want. It seems like the much better solution to me.

Negatives can be proven in specific circumstances in which there are a limited number of options for the negative to manifest itself in. As a 30-second glance at this board should tell you, such a circumstance does not exist here. And, in fact, such a circumstance may well exist with you. I've mentioned more than once the Floridians I know who specifically told me that they did not vote because they were told it wouldn't count. You've completely ignored them thus far. This seems to me to be "evidence" - shaky, of course, given the tiny number, but, as I've explained more than once, voting laws are not about the total number. But there are a plethora of ways to disregard this "evidence," because it relies on a hypothetical (they would have voted otherwise), putting me, once again, right back where I started - which, of course, is my entire point, and what I'm trying so very hard to convey to you.

By the way, are you specifically going to ignore each and every time I tell you that your numbers don't actually mean anything by the most basic laws of statistics? It's a bit hard to believe I'm having an argument with someone who is at all rational when I explain time and time again that your numbers aren't what you think they are, and your very next response is, "Ah, but the NUMBERS say that I'm right!"

[Birthmark]

52. Okay, so you assert it to support a pre-conceived...

...conclusion you've reached. The fact that there is no evidence for your conclusion, notwithstanding. Neat!

Unfortunately, ya got nothing but baseless assertions. For instance, you can't explain why FL Democratic turnout was on par with TX Democratic turnout if significant numbers of Florida Dems stayed home.

Make the claim about your statistical prowess again. It impresses me every time. lol

Of course, some real evidence would be more impressive.

[FlyingTiger]

57. Prowess? What prowess?

I'm not a teacher, professor, or scientist. This isn't "prowess." This is really fundamental stuff that I got by trudging my way through two semesters of Stats courses just last year. I'm not joking when I say that anyone who's taken a statistics class should know what I'm talking about.

I notice that you artfully dodged the question I asked about the Floridians I know who support exactly what I've said. Care to address that?

[Birthmark]

60. Well, then trudge your way through the stats I provided.

Show how they are consistent with non-trivial numbers of FL Dems sitting out the primaries; or show why they are irrelevant. Stop asserting and start working to support your position.

[FlyingTiger]

63. I have to teach you statistics now?

I was required to take a full year of it for a reason - it's an enormous pain in the ass. So, I could either spend several hours of my time doing that, or know that anyone reading who HAS taken some sort of statistics class probably knows what I'm talking about. You're not accounting for all sorts of independent variables. I'm assuming, if you've even taken a completely statistic-free science class, that you know what those are. With that in mind, I bet you can at least start to patch together what I'm trying to explain to you.

Oh, and you completely failed to mention those Floridians - again. You wouldn't be doing this on purpose, would you?

[Birthmark]

66. No, you have to support your assertions.

If you can't, then you can't expect anyone rational to get worked up about your imaginary non-voters.

[FlyingTiger]

67. So, just to be clear...

My assertion is: Given that Florida and Michigan voters were told for months leading up to their respective primaries that they didn't actually count, it is inevitable that an unknown number of people who would have otherwise voted in a "normal" primary chose instead to not vote because they thought it didn't matter.

That's what I said in the OP, and what I've said in my posts in the thread. If you believe I've been saying something else, feel free to say so. Continuing...

Judging by what you've written in this thread, your counter-assertion is: No, the declarations that the primaries wouldn't count did not affect turnout whatsoever.

Is that accurate?

[Birthmark]

68. Nope.

I've stated that the fear expressed in the OP is unsupported by any evidence that that fear came to pass. I've further pointed out that all the available numbers are inconsistent with that fear. There is no data that I have yet seen that IS consistent with your assertion. It's a fine logical argument, but it's inconsistent with anything that can be demonstrated to have actually occurred.

[FlyingTiger]

69. How is that different than what I said your assertion was?

You believe that the effect did not actually happen, correct?

[Birthmark]

71. Not what I said, is it?

I said that it was a baseless assertion.

I further pointed out that the data from FL completely fails to support the assertion.

- It is a fact that the Democratic turnout in 2008 was more than double that of 2004's Primary.

- It is a fact that the ratio of Republican Primary votes dropped from 1.26 in 2004 to 1.11 in 2008.

- It is a fact that the Democratic turnout in FL was similar to TX's Democratic turnout.

None of those facts is consistent with a non-trivial number of people staying home for the FL primary.

Do you have any *facts* that are consistent with the hypothesis in the OP? Any?

[FlyingTiger]

72. Look, do you want to back up assertions or not?

We can get into the numbers in a bit. First, I'd like to nail down assertions. I've presented mine, and I still think I've got yours pretty well. But I'm happy to defer to you if I'm wrong, because you would know a lot more about your assertion than I would. Now, if your assertion is not the following:

The declarations that the FL and MI primaries would not count did not at all affect voter turnout.

...then please, explain to me what your assertion is so we can move forward. You don't have to tell me your numbers for the umpteenth time. I've seen them. I'm just wondering what your assertion is, so I can continue.

[Birthmark]

73. I said nothing about Michigan in this thread.

On other threads, I've pointed out that MI is a different matter since most of the candidates didn't appear on the ballot. So, leave MI out of this.

My assertion has been stated in exquisite detail: Assertions that people in FL stayed home in non-trivial numbers are completely without support.

Making believe that that hasn't been said is a bit silly on your part. Now, do you have a SINGLE fact that indicates people in FL stayed home. Just one. I've been waiting quite a while here.

[FlyingTiger]

75. Ah, didn't even notice MI.

Fair enough. I wasn't even trying to trap you there, I just didn't think about it.

Now, I haven't spent hours digging up specific numbers, because, again, I believe that I'll find any effort to "prove" this completely fruitless. However, in the slim hopes that this might actually prove worthwhile, a couple minutes on Google has provided me with my first lovely little nugget:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/30/florida-voters-turn-out-f_n_84004.html

"Turnout was estimated at 30 percent"

"Average voter turnout for presidential primaries in Florida has averaged 38 percent since 1972"

I'm not sure where you got your numbers from (mind sharing?), but it seems that turnout in January wasn't very high at all, especially in a year with no incumbent.

[Birthmark]

76. Now, see? That's a fact.

However, it fails to support your assertion when it is put into context. Yes, the "average" is 38%...but that 38% is on the strength of years prior. In fact, the last time that average was attained was in 1992. So, assuming that that 30% is correct (it's not posted on the FL DOS site yet), it represents the best turnout since 1992. In the prior two primaries, the Dem turnout was 19% and 20%. 30% is a great improvement and is in no way indicative of people staying home.

But at least it was a real try. Thanks.

EDIT: Forgot the link. Sorry.
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/online/voterpercent.shtml

[FlyingTiger]

79. You do realize that I'm ignoring most of the point of my OP...

...to play your game, and defer almost entirely to your own rules, because I believe my point is so strong that I can still make it. However, I find it very hard to continue to be motivated to do this when countered by someone who not only has straight-up ignored direct questions I've asked time and time again, but is condescending in the process.

Anyway, I'd like to see where you found that data. I'll assume it's correct for now, I'd just like to see it to make sure.

Another Google search has, again, failed to provide me with a convenient site that lists all the states with their previous Democratic turnouts. However, it did give me this handy-dandy link:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008011701

Primary turnouts all over the country are setting records. Permanent records. This isn't in the small states alone - big states, bigger than Florida, are doing the same. Texas did. California did. In fact, a bit more searching makes me call into question your claim that Florida and Texas were similar. According to this:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5152

...the Democratic turnout in Texas was more than three times larger than it was in 2004. Florida's was barely twice as large, and, as you've pointed out, it was only the largest since 1992, not any sort of permanent record.

Do you agree with those points so far?

[Birthmark]

82. Good post.

Of course you are ignoring large portions of your OP. That's a GOOD thing since the OP was largely rhetorical and is unsubstantiated by the facts. Even the facts that you posted in your last post.

<i>"Anyway, I'd like to see where you found that data. I'll assume it's correct for now, I'd just like to see it to make sure."</i>

It came from the FL Department of State website. I edited my previous post to include the link.

<i>"Primary turnouts all over the country are setting records. Permanent records. This isn't in the small states alone - big states, bigger than Florida, are doing the same."</i>

And as you note, FL did indeed set an all-time record for Democratic votes in a Presidential Primary. It is hard to make that consistent with the notion of people staying home in any numbers.

<i>"According to this:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5...

...the Democratic turnout in Texas was more than three times larger than it was in 2004."

The fact is that the Democratic vote in TX in 2004 was 586,000. In 2008, that number ballooned to 1,860,000 --317% the total in 2004.

Let's look at another big state: New York. In 2004, Democratic turnout for the Primary was about 654,000. In 2008, that number was 1,497,000 --228% the 2004 turnout.

In Florida, the 2008 total was 233% of the 2004 total, higher than NY's but lower than TXs increase from 2004. It's hard to make a case that voters stayed home in any numbers from that. If one is going to claim FL's increase isn't "high enough", we are left to wonder why NY's increase is even lower?

So, the facts you report are ambiguous. Some of them could *conceivably* support your assertion, but they aren't inconsistent with my assertion, either. Especially when NY is taken into account. (Btw, I grabbed NY more or less at random. It was the first big state I thought of. I had no idea what the numbers would look like. Nervous time. lol )


Sources:
Florida results -
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=1/29/2008&DATAMODE=

Texas results -
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/index.shtml

NY results and exit poll information -
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. But participation was far less (in proportion to GOP turnout) than that of states that counted. nt

[Birthmark]

53. Which states?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. All the others that have voted so far?

Dem participation has been an average 100% higher than GOP. In FL it was only slightly higher than Repub. And there were initiatives to vote on in addition to the Pres. primary. Older people tend to vote at a higher rate for those. That helped Hillary.

[Birthmark]

59. Pick a state, any state.

I heard this about TX yesterday, did the research, and guess what? FL Democratic turnout was virtually identical with TX's Democratic turnout.

I expect that that will be the general case, with one or two exceptions.

[johnnydrama]

10. of course there is

More Republicans voted in Florida than Dems.

In almost every other state Democrats outvoted Republicans by 50-70%.

That's evidence enough that hundreds of thousands of Dems in Florida stayed home.

[Birthmark]

15. More Republicans voted in FL than Dems...

...in the 2000 Presidential Primary as well, although the gap lessened this year. That's strong evidence that more Repubs vote in Presidential Primaries than do Democrats. So, your "evidence" isn't evidence at all. Sorry.

[BalancedGoat]

74. A faulty comparision...

... as far as I'm concerned. In 2000 we had a sitting vice president who was essentially the presumptive nominee. His only significant challenger, Bill Bradley, never gained a competetive position, consistently lagged in the polls and never managed to win a single primary. By the time Florida's primary came around Gore has an 18 state winning streak. Their votes were as meaningless then as they were this year, therefore you have no premise on which to base that comparision.

[Birthmark]

77. And Bush wasn't the presumptive nominee...

...for the Repubs by the time the FL Primary rolled around in 2000? Bush beat McCain by a very similar margin to Gore's victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaries,_2000

[BalancedGoat]

80. Didn't say he wasn't.

The Republican race may have been all but over, but the Democrats hardly had a race to begin with. I was more trying to point out the fact the every election has very different dynamics and I personally don't feel that cross-election comparisons are highly valid.

The fact of the matter is that there is no way of knowing how many people simply didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count. That fact alone is enough to invalidate the results of the elections in my mind. I would've gladly argued for seating the delegates prior to the start of the primaries. The only problem is that nobody was. The arguments started after Clinton won those states. That fact causes me to question the true motivation of the people making the arguments. It's not like the DNC just decided to drop this bomb on the states right when they voted. I remember hearing about this what feels like at least a year ago. The time between then and December '07 was the time for these arguments, not after the votes have already occurred. A re-vote is the only option that I, in good conscience, could support. I would even donate a portion of my tax return to the election should such an option become a reality.

The voters in these two states have a right to be heard, but seating the delegates as they are is not the best solution.

[Birthmark]

83. You have argued two opposite things in two posts.

Congratulations. I'll just step out and let you settle this amongst yourself. :)

[BalancedGoat]

84. How so?

My first post was an opinion that you comparison was invalid in my mind, along with part of my reasoning for that opinion. I fail to see how anything in my second post contradicts that. :shrug:

[Birthmark]

17. And another thing that indicates your theory is wrong:

In 2000, for every Democratic Primary vote cast, there was 1.26 Republican votes cast.

In 2008, that ratio shrank to 1.11 Repub for every Democratic vote cast. If Democrats stayed home in significant numbers, that ratio should have grown, no?

[FlyingTiger]

20. How does that indicate anything?

There are dozens of independent variables that you're not accounting for. The ratios in every state have changed dramatically this year as opposed to the 2000 primaries. There are lots of reasons why.

I really don't mean this to be insulting, so I hope you don't take it that way, but it sounds like you've never taken a Statistics class. If you have, then try to think back to the part about controlling for alternative variables in any sort of experiment. You can't claim numbers are significant unless you can explain everything that went into getting those numbers. Any social scientist would completely dismiss what you're trying to argue here.

[Birthmark]

25. Insult away.

The fact is, I have yet to see a single statistic that gives any indication whatsoever that anyone stayed home in FL, and certainly not in large numbers.

For instance, the Democratic turnout in FL was similar to the Texas turnout --despite TX's population advantage of five million.

And you brought up the fact that more Repubs voted in FL, not me. I merely responded. And I responded factually.

[FlyingTiger]

33. Actually, I didn't. Someone else did.

But that's beside the point, really.

Again, there's no statistic that can "prove" what effect not counting had on these primaries because it would be completely impossible to "prove" such a thing using numbers. It can't be done. You might as well stubbornly sit there and say that you won't accept any argument until I turn into Jessica Alba and give you a lap dance.

The premise here is rather simple: I believe only the most zealous candidate supporters are able to say with a straight face that they truly believe telling an enormous population of voters that their vote won't count for anything at all would not affect the outcome of that vote. If I were to present such a scenario without names (to remove any bias) to any courtroom or political science class in the country, I highly doubt that there would be so much as a peep of argument. I'm actually surprised that there's even this much resistance to it, although I really shouldn't be, given the human nature that kicks in once names ARE included and bias DOES rear its ugly head.

[Birthmark]

35. I didn't say anything about "proof."

I said people staying home was a baseless assertion. And it is. There's not a shred of evidence to indicate that that's a plausible assertion. All of the numbers with which I'm familiar spectacularly FAIL to support that assertion. Now, that does that "prove" it didn't happen? No, but it's a good indication that there's no substantive reason to believe that people stayed home in any numbers.

And leave Jessica Alba out of this. She is one of my weak points.

[FlyingTiger]

38. What exactly is "evidence"?

I generally regard that as synonymous with "proof."

Again, the numbers with which you're familiar mean virtually nothing for reasons that I've outlined time and time again, and, rather predictably, you've ignored time and time again. I really don't want have to go dig up my old Statistics book and type out a chapter verbatim. It seems a bit tedious. It's much more easy to, for the fifth or sixth time, point out that the numbers you seem to believe are "evidence" or "proof" are not, in fact, either. But, I'm gonna guess that you'll respond with something to the effect of "But my numbers say you're wrong!" and we'll continue to go around in this circle.

[Birthmark]

43. Proof is an absolute.

It is most at home in philosophy and mathematics.

Evidence is a fact that supports an assertion. It isn't absolute. We can draw the wrong inferences from a fact. Proof is used frequently in the vernacular to mean the same thing as "overwhelming evidence", but they are fundamentally different. Proof allows no room for error and is incontrovertible is. Evidence is consistent with, or indicative of a conclusion. However, that conclusion can still be wrong.

You keep asserting that I'm wrong, but never quite get around to explaining why. That is indicative that you know you are wrong...but it's not "proof." :)

If you can't argue the numbers, though, then you are merely stating your belief. You are entitled to your belief. However, you are not entitled to assert that belief as fact without providing substantive supporting evidence. I've produced numbers. You've produced rhetoric.

[FlyingTiger]

46. You really need me to explain why your numbers aren't actually evidence of anything?

Just to be clear. I'm getting close to the tenth time that I've stated that the argument that you're making with these numbers doesn't fit the most basic laws of statistics. You seem to be asking now for me to explain this in more detail, presumably because you are, in fact, unaware of the fundamentals of statistical methods?

[Birthmark]

50. Look,

the assertion is that FL voters stayed home. Where is the evidence for that?

The "gosh, you don't know statistics bit" is looking a bit silly at this point. Doubly so, since you've given no evidence that YOU know anything about statistics. lol

[FlyingTiger]

55. If anyone else at all wants to carry on Birthmark's argument with me...

...I'm cool with that, and I'll be happy to do so. As is hopefully obvious for most reading this circular exercise, I've gotten to the point at which I have no desire whatsoever to have a statistical argument with someone who doesn't know the rules of statistics, ASKS for those rules, then laughs and claims that I must be the one who doesn't understand them. Not exactly my cup of tea.

If anyone more knowledgeable thinks Birthmark may have a point about something and would like to go on, however, I'm game.

(I'm sure BM will, within a few minutes, make some sort of gloating post about how this is clear proof that he/she must undoubtedly be right. I'm bristling with anticipation.)

[Birthmark]

61. The only thing circular here is your logic.

You can't provide *any* evidence to assert your position, or any evidence to explain away the numbers. I can't really be blamed for that. :)

[FlyingTiger]

65. Here's some basic info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_variable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence

[carpetbagger]

78. Hello? It's me, "anyone".

I moved at the end of December, so I didn't register until I got to my permanent address, after the cutoff for voting in the faux-primary. Had the vote actually mattered, I would have registered at the temporary apartment address and voted at that precinct the next month.

[Lucinda]

85. 1.6 million Dems voted in Florida.. More than voters in a few small states combined.

The fact that people want to blow that off is amazing.

[LulaMay]

2. That's easy to say. There were other issues on their ballot, and they feel disenfranchised.

it was the wrong state not to work this out with.

Of all states to say you won't count the votes.

[Birthmark]

19. Not only were there other issues, but...

...some of us are avid voters. I have voted in every Federal and State election (and most local elections) since 1976. I vote when the voting booth is open. Skipping a vote just hasn't been in my nature.

My wife is the same way, though, she didn't start voting until a few years after me. :)

[LulaMay]

24. Yes, it would be very hard not to vote when you know what a hard won right it is.

[LulaMay]

28. PS- My husband was a registered Republican when I married him! he didn't talk like one though...

and I said 'you're not conservative! Why are you registered a Republican, or think that's what you are?'

It was because that's what his folks were, and he just wasn't very political...until he met me :) haha

Now he listens to Air America every day, took me on that cruise and went to every seminar, is the most liberal person I know.

He laughs about it now.

[Birthmark]

34. Must be a man thing.

I was once a Republican, too. I bailed in Reagan's first term...partly due to my wife, who is a life-long Democrat, partly because Reagan was an irresponsible ninny. So much so, that I voted for John Anderson in 1980. :)

[LulaMay]

37. You lucky men.....:)

We're lucky too.

[Birthmark]

44. We're luckier.

We gain more by the association than you women do...most of the time. :)

[polichick]

3. Older voters in FL went to the polls for ballot issues...

...it's no wonder my home state went for Hillary.

[LisaM]

4. Well the people I know in Michigan voted......

Even knowing it wouldn't count.

I think there were other issues on the ballot in both places. I know that there were in Florida. Didn't Florida also get something like 1.7 MILLION Democratic votes?

[FlyingTiger]

11. Oh, well, in that case...

Why bother even asking the question? I mean, hell, if people that members of this board know voted, I guess that means EVERYONE voted, right?

(Pre-response to next comeback: Yes, I know I used anectodal evidence in my original post. That was support of a positive hypothesis, however, namely that the constant reminders that MI and FL wouldn't count would probably cause a good hcunk of people to not bother voting. Trying to prove a negative hypothesis, that the exact same numbers of people who would have voted if MI and FL counted wound up voting even though they didn't count, with the same stuff is quite pointless, because you would have to interview literally every person in the state. To prove the positive hypothesis, you need only find a few people who didn't bother to vote because they were told it wouldn't count. To prove the negative, you need to ask every single member of the state.)

[LisaM]

16. Oh for God's sake.

It sounds like you just translated an instruction manual from the original Japanese.

I don't think they should count Michigan and Florida as they stand, but I think they need to figure out how to get them represented somehow. However, I never implied that everyone who could have voted went out and did. I merely said the people that I know went out and participated in the process anyway, even knowing that it might end up being a beauty contest. I live in Washington, and even though our primaries wouldn't count, and even though there was nothing else on the ballot, I still went and voted (as did, by the way, more than half a million other people, which is twice as many people who went to the caucuses).

In Florida, though, where there were other issues on the ballot (as well as every candidate) it was voter choice not to go to the polls. I mean, who would go to the polls, vote for a primary candidate only, and not vote on anything else?

[FlyingTiger]

22. If your theory were accurate, votes would be the same in off years as they are in Presidential years

Obviously, they're not. Not even close. Presidential voting draws more people than anything else by a large, large margin.

[LisaM]

29. So what? That's their problem if they choose not to be represented.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about, but everyone could have voted, some did, some didn't, and those who didn't seem, to me, to have less of an argument to be counted than those who did.

[FlyingTiger]

41. If they "choose not to be represented" because the powers that be tell them something...

...that's explicitly untrue (or, to be more accurate, COULD be explicitly untrue if Florida winds up getting seated based on the January vote), I find that more than a little bit unsettling.

I'm also surprised that you say that they have less of an argument. It's not a very complex one. If you were talking with a Floridian Obama supporter who didn't vote, and said to you in no uncertain terms that he didn't vote because "I was told our votes don't count, so I just stayed at work/with my kids/out of town/etc. instead," that's not much of an argument? Really?

[LisaM]

47. You mis-read me.

I was speaking of people who choose not to vote in non-presidential election years. I don't particularly respect people who come out of the woodwork every four years (certainly not accusing you of this) to vote, complaining in the meantime about the state of the country.

[FlyingTiger]

51. You may not respect them, but telling them they're not worthy of voting...

...is a slightly different matter. That's my problem with going with the FL and MI January results. Why not just have a re-vote? A primary instead of a caucus is fine, you can have all the same rules as the vote in January, just don't have an election that you tell everyone won't count and then turn around and claim that it actually does.

[LisaM]

54. I never said anyone wasn't worthy of voting and you know that.

You're twisting my words. Well, whatever floats your boat.

[FlyingTiger]

58. What exactly does this mean?

"those who didn't seem, to me, to have less of an argument to be counted than those who did."

[LisaM]

62. I'm not going to try and explain to you anymore.

You either don't, or won't, understand me. I suspect the latter.

[FlyingTiger]

64. What I believe you're saying is essentially this:

"Hey, if they chose not to vote, tough cookies."

I don't believe that to be a very fair solution because I personally would not vote in a primary that I was told would not even count, and I'd be pretty pissed if, a couple months later, I was told that primary did, in fact, count. You can say you don't respect that kind of person, and, hey, you're free to that opinion, but to say that you believe that kind of person shouldn't get a vote simply because their threshold of what's important enough to vote for is different than yours seems more than a little un-American to me.

[graywarrior]

5. I know a lot of dems who didn't vote that day...LOTS.

And for many reasons including the fact that the republicans wanted to move the date. Hell, it was all over the news that the dem votes wouldn't count. This sucks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. You're In New Hampshire

That explains the fact you are unaware of the joint public service announcements by Senator Martinez (R) and Senator Nelson (D) urging Floridians to vote and telling them their votes (will) count...

[graywarrior]

30. Nelson is a scumbag

And I am not in NH, I am in Florida.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Then You Saw The PSAs Urging All Floridians To Vote

If my vote and the vote of my ninety year old mother who I took out on what was a cold day for her to vote do not count and there is no do-over I will never give a plug nickel to the party and will sit home in November and counsel others to do the same as painful as it will be...

How dare they take away my franchise away...

[graywarrior]

40. I work with a lot of excited, first time voters who did not vote in the primaries

These are single, black mothers who are either voting for Hillary or Obama, mostly Obama. They did not get turned on to what was happening until they realized that Obama had a chance. I would hate to see them miss an opportunity to have their say.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Don't See How A Re-Do Harms Anybody

I realize it's real money but the state of Florida can afford another primary...

They can have a lottery directly allocated to it...

[FlyingTiger]

70. Actually, that's a really good idea.

I had been wondering about the money part, but a lottery works perfectly. Nicely done.

[islandmkl]

6. nice ballot in Michigan....

i voted in florida because i CAN vote...

i imagine i would be more pissed if i was in MI, what with all the "choices" on the ballot...


i know, i know, somebody could/should have spent a great deal of money and time and effort trying to organize a 'write-in' movement...

when did that ever work, exactly?

us Dems can only do it to ourselves, even this time around...

[JBoris]

7. I live in FL. I voted for a proposition only. n/t

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. Votes should count...

If I truely believe in my candidate I would vote for them regardless of what I thought thier chances of winning.

In principle I think the votes of Florida and Michigan should count for something. Its wrong to disenfranchise the people of those states. We are the party where we want all of the votes to count for something, win or lose atleast they count, and here we are saying these votes shouldnt matter.

Its pretty fucking sad what our party did in this situation, the republicans atleast gave thier voters a voice only cutting thier delegates by half, our party completely screwed our people by completely taking away thier voice.

[FlyingTiger]

12. I'm glad that you're as enthusiastic as you are, but...

...many people are not. On top of that, many people have to take significant time out of their day, perhaps even their job, to vote, and would be willing to do so if they thought it mattered, but unwilling if they're being told that it won't count anyway.

[FlyingTiger]

14. So, some of you are honestly saying that....

...if Congress for some reason authorized a "test run" of the general election in October, for the purpose of, say, making sure new voting machines work properly, and told people over and over again that the vote didn't actually count, it didn't mean anything, it wouldn't have any affect whatsoever on the country - and THEN, several weeks later, turned around and said, "You know what, come to think of it, we'll just use those votes as the actual general election, hope everyone's okay with the results," you wouldn't have a problem with that? You would consider that fair?

Please. I think I know which candidate anyone who tries to argue that this made no difference in MI and FL supports.

[ruiner4u]

23. You sir, are a great American. n/t

[FlyingTiger]

48. Sarcasm aside, why is it a character flaw if I decide...

...not to vote in a primary that I've been SPECIFICALLY TOLD won't count? That makes me less of an American?

Yikes. You have a pretty strange definition of patriotism.

[Scout]

81. Who told people not to vote? I never heard that in Michigan. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

86. Unlike you, I'll vote anytime there's an election, and nothing will keep me from the polling place.