98% Of Voters Don't Support Virginia Nominee
R. Creigh Deeds, a Virginia state senator, won the Democratic primary election for governor yesterday, defeating his two opponents with relative ease. Deeds received about 160,000 votes out of 320,000 cast, just under 50%. State election officials had projected a 5% turnout, but the final number was a bit higher: about 6.5% of all eligible voters. (In Virginia, Republicans could vote in the Democratic primary, as the Republican nomination was not contested.) So in state with about 7.8 million residents, a group of less than 2% chose one of the two men who will become governor come January 2010. This is what government-paid school teachers refer to as the "consent of the governed."
It would be an interesting experiment if news outlets reported election results in these terms. The Washington Post and other Virginia-area papers touted Deeds' "blowout" victory, but if the headline read, "98% of voters declined to support Democratic nominee,"* then few would deem that a blowout or landslide. Then again, mainstream news outlets generally aren't in the business of making the state -- and its electoral ceremonies -- look foolish.
*Actually, re-examining the election results, Deeds received votes from 3.1% of the total number of Virginia registered voters. So a more accurate headline would read, "96.9% of Voters Don't Support Virginia Nominee."
Comments (18)
Enjoy Every Sandwich
You know how they would spin that..."voter apathy", etc. Of course it never occurs to them to wonder why we're apathetic.
Published: June 10, 2009 12:23 PM
Larry N. Martin
What? This isn't democracy at work? ;-)
Published: June 10, 2009 1:03 PM
Dave
But what's the alternative? I'm sure elections were held in convenient, handicap accessible locations. I'm sure the polls were open before and after most business hours. (For example, I worked 9 hours yesterday but my voting station stayed open for 12 hours). If you happened to be out of town, I'm sure the towns made it incredibly easy to cast an absentee ballot.
Should the government mandate voting? Should the government spend millions or billions to enable on-line voting? Should they spend millions on advertising and media coverage to "get out the vote"? Of course not.
If anyone wanted to vote, they voted.
Published: June 10, 2009 1:40 PM
Ansury
There is no alternative to a system that everyone has given up on because they know it's broken. I don't think calling it apathy is a spin at all, the spin comes in when they try to explain why there's apathy in the first place.
Published: June 10, 2009 2:48 PM
Ansury
There is no alternative to a system that everyone has given up on because they know it's broken. I don't think calling it apathy is a spin at all, the spin comes in when they try to explain why there's apathy in the first place.
Published: June 10, 2009 2:51 PM
jgranhill
If we go by the numbers given, then 320,000 is suppose to be 6.5% of the eligible voters. That means the total number of eligible voters was around 5 million. So all in all, Deeds won 3.25% of the potential eligible voters, a whole 1.25% more than what Olivia suggests.
I know, it makes the whole situation so much better. :)
Published: June 10, 2009 3:12 PM
Mark
How much different was there between Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum, and Tweedle Dummer? Did it matter if anybody showed up? Why didn't they just roll dice?
Published: June 10, 2009 3:14 PM
Dick Fox
I would rather have 160,000 with knowledge of the candidate choose the candidate than 5 million choosing at random.
Published: June 10, 2009 3:16 PM
Joshua Park
I'm with Dick Fox on this, but the media outlets shouldn't tout these elections as "the will of the people". They should say "Very few people informed themselves this election" or "very few cared enough to vote". Real journalists would get out there and investigate just why people didn't vote, let alone vote for Deeds.
Published: June 10, 2009 4:07 PM
Esther Vilar
Those that can't be bothered to vote are victims of what exactly?
Published: June 10, 2009 7:54 PM
Darryl W. Perry
Why are taxpayer funds being used for ANY political party - which is a PRIVATE entity - to choose their candidates?
Published: June 10, 2009 8:13 PM
Thinker
Part of the problem is that the most of 160,000 probably were not well-informed, but voted simply on the basis of party affiliation. This is not to say that the informed people stayed home because most people, whether they vote or not, do not take the time and effort to inform themselves.
Of course the media will harp on "voter apathy", but who wouldn't be apathetic about government if (a) they didn't know much about it or (b) they don't like it. And there is, after all, little point in going to the polls just to write Mickey Mouse on a ballot unless A LOT of other people are doing it with you in protest.
Published: June 10, 2009 8:13 PM
I Hate Psychiatrists
"You know how they would spin that..."voter apathy", etc. Of course it never occurs to them to wonder why we're apathetic."
It looks like a psychiatric diagnosis and a psychiatric approach.
Voter Apathy Disorder triggered by a chemical imbalance etc. bla bla bla.
Of course the voter is mentally ill so we will not wonder why he is apathetic, nor ask the voter why.
The voter is mentally defunct, so we will just vote a compulsory law forcing votes.
Published: June 11, 2009 7:14 AM
I Hate Psychiatrists
"You know how they would spin that..."voter apathy", etc. Of course it never occurs to them to wonder why we're apathetic."
It looks like a psychiatric diagnosis and a psychiatric approach.
Voter Apathy Disorder triggered by a chemical imbalance etc. bla bla bla.
Of course the voter is mentally ill so we will not wonder why he is apathetic, nor ask the voter why.
The voter is mentally defunct, so we will just vote a compulsory law forcing votes.
Published: June 11, 2009 7:15 AM
I Hate Psychiatrists
Esther Vilar ,
"Those that can't be bothered to vote are victims of what exactly?"
Given that those effectively voted NONE OF THE ABOVE, they are victim of usurpation of power by the powers that be.
They are victim of being taxed and involuntarily controlled and ruled.
Published: June 11, 2009 7:16 AM
I Hate Psychiatrists
Dick Fox ,
"I would rather have 160,000 with knowledge of the candidate choose the candidate than 5 million choosing at random."
I beg to differ, if 5 Million people voted at random, then there would be equal chances for the libertarian party to progress in the political sphere and at least we would get free market capitalism 1/3 of the time as opposed to 0/3 of the time, which is infinitely better than now.
Randomness would pick better politicians than the current socialist, statist, keynesian mindset in which the people are stuck.
Published: June 11, 2009 7:25 AM
Michael A. Clem
Who says it's voter apathy? Maybe it's voter disgust, knowing how little your vote will change things, especially when ballot access restrictions limit competition at the ballot box. The large number of people who don't vote are sending a message, but the politicians and the political pundits are deaf, or choose to ignore this message.
Published: June 11, 2009 8:12 AM
KP
It is the primary!, we are one of the only industrialized countries to not have an election on a weekend or make it a national holiday, why else do you think people did not vote.
Please take every state primaries, and see possible voter turnout for them; it will be the same 90-95% "voters don't support Virginia nominee". It is not because people are against the candidate its people do not vote in primaries, people are busy with work, lives and plan do not care. Another terrible article SM.
Published: June 11, 2009 1:07 PM