one in ten

Registered voters 18 - 24 that voted in this election:

1 in 10


You are the ones I never want to hear complaints from about the state of our country. Ever.


So much for all the money and TV coverage lost on trying to get you guys out to vote.

 

I should reiterate my friends - The 18-24 age bracket who didn't vote - I never want to hear from...yada yada yada....

 

Here you go bro:

18-29 (17%)

30-44 (29%)

45-59 (30%)

60 and Older (24%)


very interesting stuff - check it out:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html


***EDIT***
• Exit polls are a survey of selected voters taken soon after they leave their voting place. Pollsters use this sample information, collected from a small percentage of voters, to track and project how all voters or specific segments of the voters sided on a particular race or ballot measure

 

I heard the 1 in 10 coming in this morning on NPR (National Public Radio) - they were more focused at the time on the younger voter turnout. I've been trying to find some other numbers for you ProfChaos - that's where I got the exit polls from.

As soon as I find out more on the stats of the voters I will post - because just giving you one side of the story isn't fair.

 

when you click the link there is a breakdown per state...it gets into local voters (by county) and more exit polls.

The Electoral College comes under fire a lot - Pros:
(Taken from:http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html)

The present method serves American democracy well by fostering a two-party system and thwarting the rise of splinter parties such as those that have plagued many European democracies. The winner-take-all system means that minor parties get few electoral votes and that a president who is the choice of the nation as a whole emerges. In the present system, splinter groups could not easily throw an election into the House. Supporters feel strongly that if the electors fail to agree on a majority president, it is in keeping with the federal system that the House of Representatives, voting as states, makes the selection.

Supporters also argue that the electoral college system democratically reflects population centers by giving urban areas electoral power; that is where the most votes are. Thus together, urban states come close to marshaling the requisite number of electoral votes to elect a president.

A final argument is that for the most part, the electoral college system has worked. No election in this century has been decided in the House of Representatives. Further, the winner's margin of votes is usually enhanced in the electoral vote-a mathematical happening that can make the winner in a divisive and close election seem to have won more popular support than he actually did. This is thought to aid the healing of election scars and help the new president in governing.

 

I absolutely agree Incomp that the electoral is flawed but alas, so are other areas of our country (health care, insurance in general, court system...etc.) I by no way try to come off smarter than I am so I won't attempt it here. I googled the pros and cons of electoral college and got the pro view points from there. Playing devil to your advocate so to speak. I knew you would come back with some of your insight (which I always greatly appreciate) because for one - I have a lot of respect for you and two - you show a deep cynasism and sarcasm far beyond your years - always questioning things that truly do bother you instead of letting it fall by the wayside. That is a gift Incomp, one that I hope you continue to hone.


I still stand by that:
Considering that only three times in our history has a candidate lost the popular national vote but been elected by electoral vote, and that in both cases the popular vote was extremely close, the system has worked pretty well.
Yet, the Founding Fathers' concerns with direct popular elections have mostly vanished. The national political parties have been around for years. Travel and communications are no longer problems. We all have access to every word spoken by every candidate every day. So why do we have the electoral college?:

Majority fraud: running up the vote The direct election system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the Electoral College system. With direct elections, there would be an incentive for Nebraska to produce more Republican votes or Massachusetts more Democratic ones. Majority fraud would be hard to combat, because the majority party would also be responsible for counting the votes.The Electoral College system concedes some states to the party in power, but it eliminates any reason to run up the vote.


Minority Presidents: Under the present system, the winning candidate has to win outright at least twice; first in the party convention, then in the Electoral College. Direct election makes minority rule even more likely than the present process.

Swamped with candidatesThe winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College system discourages third party efforts. In contrast, a direct election system encourages candidates to run, simply because they can. The apparent voter choice among a huge number of candidates is a dangerous illusion. In practice, well organized minorities have a very good chance to achieve the highest or second-highest share, advancing to a run off round.

Russia illustrates what can happen in a free-for-all direct presidential system. Results from the first round of the 1996 Russian presidential election: Yeltsin, the incumbent, managed to clear the first round, even though 65% of the electorate voted against him. The perverse and paradoxical result was that Yeltsin won the election, but with a negative mandate. The voters registered a clear vote of no confidence. While it would be easy to attribute this result to Russia's lack of experience in democracy, it seems clear that the direct election process itself is to blame.


Tedious tallies The Electoral College vote tends to be less in doubt than the popular electoral vote, for two reasons:

* Only a few states will have close races, even if the national vote is close, and
* The electoral vote tends to magnify the margin of the victor.

Under a direct election system, a close election nationwide could realistically depend upon absentee ballots, or upon recounts anywhere. In a direct election, any of the 160,000 polling places in the U.S. could affect the outcome.

The last direct election proposal provided that the election results should be certified no less than thirty days after the election. Under the present system, even close elections have rarely been in doubt past the next day. The thirty-day limit was included no doubt to put a practical limit on the challenges that could be made. But it also indicates that in a close election, the outcome may be in doubt for up to a month.

Citizens left out
Under the Electoral College system, only U.S. citizens who are residents of a state may vote for presidential electors, because it is the states, not the citizens, who elect the president.Under a direct election system, how could the U.S. legitimately deny the vote to citizens who are residents of U.S. Territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?

The number of people affected is significant. Puerto Rico alone has over 3 million people.

Under a direct election system, is it defensible to deny citizens the right to vote for the president based on where they live? How could the U.S., who has been promoting democracy throughtout the world, even propose such an idea?