The Florida primary turnout was 33.8%

[MonkeyFunk]

The fourth highest of all the contests so far, behind New Hampshire, California and Massachusetts.
It was more than double the highest caucus state.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Pathetic isn't it? In Europe turnout for voting is HUGE! nt

[snappyturtle]

8. Yes...it is pathetic. I lived in MN in 2004 and the turnout was over

70%...highest in the nation, I do believe. Voting was taken very seriously. It was great!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. I think whereever there's a low turnout, it's because there's great poverty and low education.....

.... and right wingers making it impossible for the poor to vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. for the primary?

[snappyturtle]

30. No...and I get your point....but it was spectacular even for a GE. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Yes, that is good

Unfortunately, they had 7.2% turnout for their caucus this year.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

58. In europe people are fined for not voting

[robbedvoter]

2. Hillary got one and a half the votes Kerry had in 2004 primary - caimpaignless

and all. Looking in my journal for the entry on the actual numbers, i found the following thread I started on DU that has been removed - I have to wonder why?

Democracy Now:Hillary beat Giuliani by 600,000 votes, without even showing up"
Posted by robbedvoter in General Discussion: Primaries
Wed Jan 30th 2008, 11:37 AM
Amy Goodman has Wayne Barret from Village Voice to comment of Florida.(he wrote a book on Rudy). he said the header words in the context: "We were always wondering about a contest between Hillary and Rudy"
he also said that Florida is important - because of the number of voters
On Rudy:
- wasn't true he only campaigned in Florida - he did his best in Iowa and NH
- he lost a newspaper endorsement with one answer to : "what would you do about Al Queda? "I'd take out the nations/states that help them"

[tyne]

7. Imagine

how many votes Obama could have received if people knew that it wasn't fake....that it was going to count.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Imagine how many more Clinton would've got

there's no evidence that Obama supporters stayed home in greater numbers than the supporters of other candidates.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. But there is evidence that Democrats stayed home

Dem turnout is lower than GOP turnout, a result we saw in no other swing state and not even in some other Red States. Conclusion: The Florida vote is not representative of the will of the people of Florida. It is tainted in its essence, and that's why it doesn't count toward the delegate count. Now, if the people of Florida want to organize a re-vote, that's fine with me. I'm thinking late June.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. And voters stay home in greater numbers

in most other states, for a variety of reasons.

Just because the turnout wasn't the highest POSSIBLE doesn't mean it's not legitimate. Florida did much better than most other states. One million more democrats voted this year than in 2004.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. It's not that it wasn't the highest possible

It's that it is a complete aberration from the other SIMILAR states with respect to Dem v. GOP turnout, which logically means that the ruling affected turnout significantly (depressed Democratic turnout), and that means that the results are more an effect of the ruling than they are a representation of the popular will. The turnout shows just how illegitimate the vote was. BUT FOR the ruling, turnout would have been significantly higher, and the results could therefore have been significantly different.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. But there's no evidence

that any particular candidate was more adversely affected than the others. Clinton might've won an even bigger victory.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. It doesn't matter

The vote in its entirety is tainted. We literally don't know what would have happened if not for the ruling. It's a completely illegitimate result FOR THAT REASON.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. And we don't know

what would've happened if the weather was better in Maryland.

Or what would've happened if it were a little warmer in Minnesota.

It's hard to say the vote is completely illegitimate when it's greater than twice that of 2004.

Further, you haven't given any reason to believe that the percentages would have been appreciably different. I think 1.7 million is a fair enough sample size.

[mohc]

52. Basically what I said on the other thread about this.

I believe a significant number of Democrats did not show up for the primary, but Clinton supporters would be no less likely to show up than Obama supporters. We focus so much on polls with samples that rarely top 1000, I fully accept that 1.7 million Florida Democrats probably are pretty representative (MoE would be around ±0.074%). The real impact on Florida was the lack of the campaign, which attitudes for the most part the same as they were before the primary season started.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. As I said downthread, weather is an intrinsic factor in election; the ruling is extraordinary

You can't compare them. The ruling was a non-intrinsic factor that significantly effected the resaults of the race. To compare it to weather is absurd on its face.

It is of course impossible to "provide evidence" that the percentages "would have been different." There would have been campaigning, advertising, GOTV efforts, on the ground organization, everything that a real election has (and which, by the way, has largely been credited for Obama's positive results). You're asking people to provide evidence by constructing a possible world that never existed. It's a logical error. What would have happened with a massive campaign effort, advertising, on the ground organization, phone banking, get out the vote efforts, multiple tour stops and speaking events and debates that focused on Florida and canvassing, and door hanging, and door-to-door efforts, and national organization and headquarters in all big and medium cities and college tours and factory tours and all that stuff, all the stuff that comes with a REAL presidential election. That's essentially what you're asking me to provide evidence about: a world that didn't exist. There is no evidence for it, and that's the greatest evidence that the Florida vote is completely illegitimate.

All somebody need prove is that the results are not what they would have been under normal circumstances, and that the event which made the circumstances non-normal was controllable and extraordinary.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. No

you have to prove that the results, percentage wise, would be different if more people had voted.

1.7 million is a large enough statistical sample to indicate that the numbers would be the same.

[goodgd_yall]

71. That's what I've been saying

People may have stayed home, but I'm sure as many of potential Obama voters stayed home as Clinton voters. I don't see why Florida delegates should not be seated as well.

[Yossariant]

48. Highest turnout in history for the Dems.

"More than 1.7 million Democratic voters cast ballots in Tuesday's primary -- the party's biggest presidential primary turnout in history, state leaders said. The turnout topped the previous high in 1976 by 400,000 and more than doubled 2004 turnout.."

The even higher GOP turnout underscores FL's importance in the general.

[high density]

31. Umm, when the ballot says "Clinton vs. None of the Above"

Why would somebody supporting another candidate bother to go and vote? And then when the party says "the delegates from FL won't be seated at the convention," why would he or she STILL vote? I know I would have stayed home.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. The ballot didn't say that, though

every candidate was on the ballot.

But don't let facts get in the way of just making shit up.

[high density]

36. Sorry, I was thinking of Michigan NM

[MonkeyFunk]

38. You'd be wrong there, too

there were four candidates on the Michigan ballot.

[high density]

43. Obama and Edwards, the two candidates immediately behind Clinton at the time

sure as hell weren't.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. Correct

but 4 > 1, no?

They chose to remove their names. Nobody forced them off the ballot.

[mckeown1128]

54. Ok genius....

what about the fact that Hillary said "before" the contests that MI didn't count for anything. (In reference to the delegates not counting) The election is suspect because the voters were told that the election didn't count. You can't just surprise them afterwords and say "guess what...your votes were more than just symbolic." People have to know what they are voting for.

[dbackjon]

3. So no one really stayed home in protest

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. That's not quite proven by the evidence

We do know that Republican turnout beat Democratic turnout for Florida, something which didn't happen in any other swing state. So, if anything, the link actually suggests that a considerable Democratic vote stayed home. I suspect Florida would have been close to 40% turnout like California had the Democratic race been real there.

[KittyWampus]

4. imagine if Obama had actually campaigned in person there.

[jackson_dem]

16. He ran ads there unlike Hillary and Edwards

[BadgerLaw2010]

20. You mean cheated more than the ads?

[riskpeace]

60. I live in Florida

I saw three Obama ads in the few days before the primary.
I did not see any Clinton or Edwards ads.

[Levgreee]

5. More than half of that 33.8% turnout was for the Republican primary

[avrdream]

6. Impressive numbers for the U.S. so far.

Even my mates down here in Oz have commented on the turnout.

McCain is so done for.

[Capn Sunshine]

12. Your lips to God's ears

I think they are giving him the Bob Dole " a miracle could occur" prize

[KaryninMiami]

9. Florida also voted on an important real estate tax referendum-

which is part of why the turnout was so high (although people are realizing now that it probably will not make a difference overall). I voted- but had I known my primary vote was going to be counted, I would have voted differently and would have selected a candidate who was still running. But knowing my vote did not count towards a delegate, I voted with my heart.

[HockeyMom]

10. The Homestead Amendment

brought people out to vote for that. Probably more than the Presidential races, given the fact that it was well publicized that it wouldn't count anyway.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. And would probably have been much higher had people actually thought their votes would count.

Thousands of people didn't vote at all because they knew the primary was meaningless. Which means the results are still tainted by a) lowered turnout compared to a genuinely contested primary and b) the invalidity of the contest that was well known before it took place.

There isn't a sound argument for allowing the results from Florida as they stand. Regardless of the voter turnout numbers. No amount of spin is going to change that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Republican turnout beat Democratic turnout

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

[robbedvoter]

18. Their race actually mattered for the nomination - their party didn't diss their voters

Why this fact amuses you so much - I'll never know. Whichever candidate is nominated will need to win Florida in November.

After McBride kicked out Reno - the favorite candidate in 2003, whith some help from voting machines, Floridians stayed home election Day, and let Jebbie get re-elected.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. What amuses me is that the information doesn't prove the suggestion

Clearly, turnout was depressed by the race not being "live," wouldn't you agree? The fact that there was 33% turnout doesn't mean that the turnout was unaffected by the disqualification of delegates, yes? It's clear that turnout WAS affected, so counting that race would not exactly be counting "the will of the people," since the election doesn't reflect that.

[islandmkl]

19. has that happened in other primaries? i'm going with your facts on this...if they are correct..

how do you explain the level of Democratic participation compared to the repubs in every other primary so far?

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. It happened only in heavily red states, and not even in all red states

Dem turnout beat GOP turnout in Georgia, for example.

Florida, as a swing state, should have seen turnout similar to other swing states: heavy democratic turnout swamping the turnout for the Republican races. It did not see anything of the kind. It saw LOWER Democratic turnout than Republican turnout, which strongly suggests that the Democratic race was affected by the disqualification, and that we can't, for that reason, see the Democratic results as anything but the tainted results of a tainted process.

Revote? Yeah, maybe.
Counting as is? No way. The link shows you that.

[BootinUp]

23. We don't care what they think, lol. nt

[HockeyMom]

25. My experience voting in Florida

on those touch screen machines. After they took my information, they shouted LOUDLY to one of the poll workers, "She is a Democrat. Take her to the machines on the other side." I was the only one, among dozens voting when I did, who was sent to the other side of the room. On my way out, I looked back and did not see one other person voting on the Dem machines.

Take about a very lonely feeling, not to mention, was my vote even tabulated? Who knows with those machines. Maybe I should have asked for a receipt.

[bigtree]

28. And folks here claiming that some weren't focused on winning there

and need a do-over.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Explain why Dem turnout is lower than GOP turnout

It's a complete aberration of patterns in similar states. Once somebody explains that result to me in a reasonable way, I'd be willing to accept the result. But there is no reasonable explanation: the vote was suppressed y the ruling.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. And yet the vote

was far higher than any other Dem primary.

You seem to want to count votes that weren't cast. There were plenty of valid, democratic votes that WERE cast - far more than the last primary.

You might as well say bad weather in Maryland requires a do-over, because turnout wasn't as high as it would've been otherwise.

The fact that Florida managed to have the fourth highest turnout of the 30-some contests run so far, and more than double their own turnout in 2004, tells me it was a legitimate reflection of the will of the people.

There's absolutely no reason to believe one candidate was more adversely affected by this than the others.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Negative

Bad weather is an inherent problem of elections. Rulings indicating that the election will have NO EFFECT on the outcome of the race are NOT. That's just a weak argument that shows how weak your argument really is.

We have no way of knowing what could have happened, but we do know that the ruling had a significant effect because the Dem turnout pattern relative to the Republican turnout is extremely low for states like Florida.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Maybe

but then I can argue that since the turnout was well more than double that of 2004, it didn't have a big impact.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Nonsense

The entire reason for moving up the primary was because the nomination was already decided by the time Florida voted. Comparing the turnout in a competitive race - even where the vote is perceived as largely symbolic - to the turnout in a completed race is apples and oranges.

This is very simple. In order to believe in the legitimacy of the results, we'd have to believe

1) That campaigning in the state has no effect on results
2) That advertising has no effect on results
3) That the general belief that the results will be counted and official has no effect on results.

It's ridiculous.

[cd3dem]

29. according to Obama, they should pay to redo a caucus, and have 6% show up

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=21782

[MonkeyFunk]

35. I say let 'em have a caucus

and if they can get >34% turnout, use the caucus results.

[cd3dem]

51. are you going to pay for it? I do not think so.... besides... Obama was the only one running ads...

[Occam Bandage]

63. The DNC volunteered to pay for caucusing. The FL Dem party refused.

[goldcanyonaz]

34. Interesting, and Hillary won all 4 of those contests.

[cooolandrew]

40. It was still just a straw poll as it was labelled illegal it needs a 1st official run.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Illegal?

No, I don't think anybody believed they were breaking the law by voting.

[George_Bonanza]

57. Monkeyfunk's commitment to democracy comes with an asterisk

And that asterisk reads that fundamental democratic tenets can be subverted if their desecration can work in his favor.

[MonkeyFunk]

59. Why do you think

counting votes is undemocratic?

[Occam Bandage]

62. Bait-and-switch rulebreaking is antidemocratic. Changing the rules halfway through an election

for benefit of your campaign is antidemocratic.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. She's asking that the credentials committee seat the delegates

perfectly within the rules.

The only people who broke the rules regarding this are Obama, for running ads in Florida, and Kucinich, for campaigning in Michigan.

[Occam Bandage]

61. Wow. Imagine what the turnout would have been if it had been a real primary.

[MonkeyFunk]

66. Yeah, it could've been bigger!

But as it was already record-breaking, it was certainly a large enough sample to accurately determine the will of Florida voters.

[Occam Bandage]

67. Yep, the will of Florida voters pre-campaigning. And as this election has demonstrated,

things change in a hurry when people get a close look at Barack Hussein Obama.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. Often

but Clinton was always leading strongly in Florida, and she had no advantage there that the others didn't have.

The primary vote there is about as fair as we're going to get at this point. Florida voters weren't ignorant of who Obama or Edwards were - they DO have televisions, and most every campaign ad gets run on the cable networks for "discussion". They saw the ads, they saw the candidates.

I've never said seating them is the perfect solution. I've said it's the best solution among the remaining options.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. If 40% Of That Turnout Was A Big Enough Population Sample For People To Be Satisfied With In 2004,

then they'd be completely retarded to try and claim that this record breaking number all of a sudden doesn't show the TRUE voice of the voters, because so many stayed home blah blah blah. Over a million more stayed home in 2004, yet I didn't hear these parrots squawking their crap then.

Let's face facts: 99% here opposing the seating of those delegates do so for disgracefully selfish reasons, because they'd rather disenfranchise 1.7 million voters then have something not go the way of their candidate. Shameful.

[Levgreee]

69. I would be for them redoing those primaries, or having changed their minds and went back to Feb. 5th

but as it is they broke the rules and those primaries were somewhat illegitimate, since people knew they didn't count for delegates. It would not be proper to now use those illegitimate primaries.

[nonconformist]

70. And yet people are advocating that they, along with nearly 1.5 million MI voters, be disenfranchised

Unreal.