Primary Voter Turnout Stays Low, but More So for Democrats (first time since the 1930s)

[onehandle]

Source: New York Times/Nate Silver

For the first time since the 1930s, participation in Republican primaries exceeds participation in Democratic primaries, according to a report by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University.

The study, which looked at elections held through Sept. 1 of this year, found that more than four million more voters cast ballots in Republican primaries than in Democratic primaries. While it is unclear whether higher levels of Republican primary participation spell doom for the Democrats in November, a closer look at the data shows reasons for leaders of both parties to be concerned — the number of nonvoters continues to outpace voters. In a primary season where the narrative tends to be about partisanship and anger, the statistics through the end of the summer suggest that voter participation remained relatively consistent with the last couple off-year election cycles.

According to the study, voter turnout rebounded slightly from the 2006 primary season (which, with slightly less than 17 percent of the voting age population voting, holds the record for the lowest turnout for a midterm election on record). It is consistent with turnout from the 1998 and 2002 primaries, in which slightly less than 19 percent of the population voted. Compared to 1994, participation in the 2010 primary runs about two percentage points lower.

Since 1966, when more than 20 percent of the voting-age population voted in Democratic primaries, participation among Democratic primary voters has steadily declined. With the exception of a slight upward blip in 2002 (only one-third of a percentage point), a smaller and smaller percentage of the voting age population has voted in a Democratic primary each year. On the Republican side, the trend appears to be substantially flatter, especially across the last three decades. Still, participation in Republican primaries is down by one-third between 1966 and 2006 (and down by one-sixth between 1966 and 2010).

Read more: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/primary-voter-turnout-stays-low-but-more-so-for-democrats/?hp

[elocs]

1. Where I live my senator (Feingold) and rep (Kind) are running unopposed in the primary.

As a Democrat, how would I be motivated to get out and vote in this primary? On the other hand, on the Republican side there is much more action.

[onehandle]

2. There is more 'action' on the Republican side from coast to coast. nt

[elocs]

5. If there were a Progressive movement within the Democratic Party

to match the tea bagger movement within the Republican party there might be plenty of action.

And if there were a Democratic Progressive movement to get more of those candidates into the general election you might be seeing Republicans celebrating the win of a Progressive, Liberal Democrat tonight with the sure belief they would lose in the general. As well they might, but things have to start somewhere and I wouldn't laugh too much at the tea baggers now or to take them lightly.

[truedelphi]

6. How do we do it, would be my response. Given all the obstacles the

DLC puts in your way.

Let's say you are a progressive person living in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.

First of all, no one can run inside that geographic area with out the specific approval of Di Feinstein.

And here's a challenge for you: name one, if you can, single progressive person she has approved of.

I know of this first hand. I ran for City Council in Sausalito, and I had to do so as a green, as Party Approval was not forthcoming (City Council is an office for which I truly believe that party affiliation is not relevant. But that is another story altogether.)

S o running as a Green, I was completely flummoxed when Annette Rose, A Marin County Democrat and County Supervisor showed up at a campaign party I threw myself. Annette castigated me for running, as I have not asked for her approval (Translation: I needed to ask her so she could ask her mentor Di Fi.)

She apparently didn't realize I was independent of the party at that point.

The same thing happened to Cindy Sheehan. She wasn't given Di Fi approval and she had to run without the party approval.

You also might look into the pathetic and shabby history of Progressives all over the nation who had Rahm Emanuel stomp on their campaigns in the local primaries, such that the local more conservative Democrats won. In other words, when the Party withholds its monies, you usually cannot win if a significant amount of Party money goes to the other person.

Sestak did manage to be a progressive and to win despite all this, but he is the exception to the rule.

[JI7]

3. i don't think Most Dems care who wins in the Primary while the Republicans are having

inner party issues with the teabaggers vs anyone who is left palin.

[Egnever]

4. More propaganda meant to depress democrats

There are more uncontested seats for dems than republicans thats what happens when you have the majority.... Sometimes I wonder how these guys get jobs as reporters... do they have to work in advertising first?

[seattleblue]

7. You didn't read the article did you?

This is since the 1930s. Democrats have held the majority for decades in that time period. What is your explanation for those years?

[Alcibiades]

8. This spells DOOM for Republicans

Their primary winners will be facing Democratic incumbents who have not been bloodied, and have a full war chest. Moreover, some of the Republican primary winners are not mainstream candidates, which hardly will be an advantage. Historically, a battle within a party has always hurt it in the contest with the other party.

But I'd hardly expect the Times to point that out. They are ready to do for the 2010 elections what they did for the Iraq War.