A Jerry Cornfield column in today's Everett Herald contains an interesting little nugget:
Snohomish County Auditor Carolyn Diepenbrock is predicting 400,000 people will be registered to vote by then and 90 percent of them will turn out [in next November's election].
In contrast, turnout in Snohomish County in 2004 was 84%. One of the reasons the Governor's race was as close as it was, even as Christine Gregoire underperformed the rest of the Democratic ticket, was that turnout in King County was exceptionally high for an urban county: almost 83%.
Obviously, Dino Rossi has to run an excellent campaign to have a chance to win in a Democratic state. But if turnout is even higher in the Puget Sound area in 2008 than 2004 then the WSRP should be spending ample time thinking about how it can boost turnout in Republican strongholds, as well as among Republican voters in general.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 30, 2007 06:09 PM | Email ThisAll of the state (I believe) had polls in 2004, so the turnout jump should be statewide. Certainly, King County going to all vote-by-mail will increase turnout, and that will probably help the Democrats. But since Pierce is the only county not to make the transition, the net gain for the Democrats will even out statewide.
That's not to say that there aren't more of these "only vote if it's really convenient" voters in some counties than others, but that's really hard to quantify...
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 30, 2007 06:58 PMAs for your other point that other parts of the state need to even out an increase in turnout in puget sound, you're correct. Particularly the 4th and 5th Congressional districts. If they turn out at just the same rate as King, Dino could have a great day.
Posted by: IMFletch on December 30, 2007 07:43 PMPersonally, I think the turnout will be lower than in 2004. All Vote By Mail relies on the lazy to take to the time vote, get everything in to two envelopes and handle some basic clerical tasks that they probably will just skip, thereby invalidating their ballots. The Dem fraud effort will most likely be centered around provisionals. How can you have a homeless person vote by mail?
They just blew the 1.6 Billion dollar Surplus and it is now a 200 million defecit.
They handle OUR money like drunkin sailors handle a bottle of Rum.
Posted by: GS on December 30, 2007 09:17 PMIt is votes counted over registered voters...so, it would include all votes counted over all voters listed as registered on election day (which would include all fatal pend voters, I think but not unregistered voters counted as voters). And obviously that's all going to have a relatively small effect on final turnout numbers...
All Vote By Mail relies on the lazy to take to the time vote, get everything in to two envelopes and handle some basic clerical tasks that they probably will just skip, thereby invalidating their ballots.
I disagree. All mail voters will be used to having been mail voters by now. I doubt many poll voters who are now voting on mail will be too lazy to vote by mail if they had the initiative to go to the polls. And there will always be a few "I'd vote if I didn't have to go to the polls" voters picked up, I think. But I agree that 90% is probably generous.
The Dem fraud effort will most likely be centered around provisionals.
That's going to be hard, since no polling places means no reason to issue a provisional ballot.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 30, 2007 09:46 PMOh, and to further answer your question, the ACORN voters reduced King County turnout in the 2006 General (since they were registered October 9th, 2006, and canceled after the general). That difference was actually mildly significant to turnout numbers, much more than any 2004 fraud that has been uncovered.
But that's moot, since the ACORN incident was in 2006, and will have no effect on 2008. (Are those idiots in jail yet?)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 30, 2007 09:53 PMI disagree on the voter turnout, and I'll tell you why I use the term "lazy." Democrats have made their whole party of late on reactionary constituencies. Anyone who's willing to view themselves as a victim, is welcomed with open arms. And the Dem operatives and candidates take it a step further by actively visiting Dem strongholds such as union facilities, large union shops, minority churches, immigrant facilities, etc.
A certain percentage of those voters are simply reactionary votes. In the past many of these have been people that have been bussed to the polls on election day, with the fresh Democrat sermons of their victimhood brewing in their minds.
VBM takes all that emotion, and shifts it back to some deadline before the emotion of the day. It's hard to vote if you don't have a ballot. And if Dems thought lines were long at certain key Dem polling places in 2004, wait until they see the lines at the few designated polls that are still open for those who just didn't get around to registering for a mail ballot, etc.
The point is, that vote by mails blunts the edge of emotion that the Dems rely on for votes. Often votes at the last minute as they canvassed in front of Seattle government buildings in 2004.
There's going to be a lot of the typical Dem GOTV types that wake up on Wednesday and think, "oops, I forgot to vote like my union boss told me."
Where before there was the communal energy of the polls, and the opportunity for procrastination, now there is only the personal determination of those who really want to vote. And that favors conservatives.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 30, 2007 10:42 PMI can only really respond to one part of that objectively. Only those who registered 15-30 days before the election could vote in person at polling places, and now can vote at the county elections office.
Beyond that, your argument is based on the assumption that Democratic voters only vote when there is one-day excitement to. This may be axiomatic to you, but I know of no statistical evidence to support this. King County's turnout among VBM voters and poll voters was higher than the statewide totals in 2004. I can't determine how many of those were bused in en masse by the Democratic Party, though. But, unless "machine voters" have specifically been registered as poll voters, then the numbers don't show that hypothesis as holding water. I don't have the Seattle-specific numbers either, but I once saw a poll vs. VBM breakdown of Seattle, and it wasn't remarkable.
Of course, we'll see in 2008. You have your chips where you have your chips, and I have my chips where I have mine. :)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 30, 2007 11:43 PMGo to the Redmond post office to register- you will NOT find any forms available in English. Plenty of spanish and other languages though.
This was tested twice in a 3 week period around this fall's election.
Posted by: Andy on December 31, 2007 08:28 AMNot even the Republican Secretary Of State.
The crooks will win again.
Because both parties are crooked.
Posted by: Independent Voter on December 31, 2007 08:37 AM655,000 (total population) -189,000 (those under 18) is 466,000 (potential voters).
Seems there is room for 400,000 voters.
What's the percentage of registered voters to the 18 and over population in Snohomish County?
Why dip into the graves so quickly?
Posted by: BA on December 31, 2007 12:11 PMSnohomish County had active 333,618 voters as of the 2007 General. The 2006 estimation for Snohomish County population 18 or over was about 501,745.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 31, 2007 12:32 PMThis ENHANCES our right to vote, by making sure people are less able to vote illegally, because every illegal vote takes away a legal vote.
Nice try though.
Posted by: pudge on December 31, 2007 12:58 PMWho is charged with this crime?
Posted by: BA on December 31, 2007 01:51 PMIllegal = Contrary to the law
Registrations while dead are "contrary to the law," which states that registrations should be canceled upon death.
He said "illegal," not "criminal."
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 31, 2007 02:14 PMYou said:
"Pudge, is is possible to commit an "ILLEGAL" act relative to voting by dying?"
By dying no. But if someone else votes as that dead voter, using their name, that person has committed a crime. When a person dies, a death certificate is recorded. It is not rocket science to cross that list with the voting rolls.
"Who is charged with this crime?"
The Democrat that used the dead person's name to vote.
Really, something can be illegal, but no one is responsible nor is there a penalty?
I'm still thinking that being a registered voter and dying isn't illegal - removing dead voters may well be, which means who's responsible and what's the penalty if it isn't done?
Has any truly dead voter really voted?
Posted by: BA on December 31, 2007 02:39 PM"Has any truly dead voter really voted?"
Seattle P-I: 8 Dead People Voted In Governor Election
Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2007 03:03 PMWere they back because they found out that they really couldn't take it with them?
Posted by: BA on December 31, 2007 03:08 PMI know you realize that you haven't any evidence to support your point so you are being facetious.
What does breathing and eating have to do with voting? Were they invited to the Goldstein victory party for snacks afterwards?
OK, sorry to interrupt. I'm not trying to blog-jack this thread or anything - just thought y'all would like to know.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on January 1, 2008 09:29 AMIt's not an illegal act by the voter. But the registration existing is contrary to the law, or "illegal." This isn't a semantic fight you're going to win. ITK was correct.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on January 1, 2008 11:33 AMI say this with regret, as a former Republican who finally decided the party had gone too far.
Posted by: Waldo on January 1, 2008 06:41 PM