By FITSNEWS || We wrote a story earlier today explaining why voter participation during the 2014 midterm elections hit a 72-year-low.
Our conclusion? People don’t like their choices … and don’t have time to mess with the lesser of two evils.
Anyway, how did South Carolina stack up compared to the national average? Like most things, not well. According to data from the United States Election Project (USEP) – only 35.9 percent of South Carolina’s eligible voting age population cast ballots in this election. That ranks the Palmetto State No. 35 out of fifty states.
Wait … hold up: According to SCVotes.org – the official website of the S.C. Election Commission – turnout in South Carolina was 43.8 percent.
Well, SCVotes.org is using the percentage of registered voters. The USEP is measuring the percentage of citizens who are eligible to vote (whether they’re registered or not).
Either way you slice it, though, it’s a terrible number … one we suspect would see significant improvement if voters had a real choice.
With a quality slate of candidates like T-Rav, French, Ervin, Kocher, Bossi, Geddings, Umbaugh, Culler et al. it’s hard to believe that people didn’t go to the polls in droves.
Hell, Morgan Reeves by himself should have had 85-90% of the electorate showing up just to support his suits …
Notice you didn’t put any of the winners/establishment candidates in your list.
Blame the guys that don’t get routinely get even 5% of the vote for low turnout eh?
If you read the numbers in most of the reporting, partisans show up to vote for their candidates. Yes, I blame the weak candidates we put out for the low turn out. Wanna increase participation, find some better candidates who can rally folks (the people, not Will) to their banner.
Think about this – Strom Thurmond won a Senatorial Election as a write in candidate against a well known incumbent and a second write in candidate by a 2:1 margin. He accomplished that task in less than two months. Like his politics or not, he was a candidate that excited the electorate.
True – but it also helps to have an agitated electorate. Fat, dumb and happy don’t vote. I don’t mean that in a bad way. If you’re not pissed off about something – you’re not that motivated.
“…Fat, dumb and happy don’t vote…”
They did for Reagan. 52% the first time 53% the next (you can make the case that many were voting against Reagan but you’d be wrong – he carried 44 states the first time and 49 the second)
But we’re talking about mid-terms. Bill Clinton did well his second time around, and Barry had over 300 electoral votes both times.
“Yes, I blame the weak candidates we put out for the low turn out.”
Yea, but my whole point is you didn’t mention any of the establishment characters. If we are to take your point then you should include them on your list, especially in light of the fact they garner most of the support/voters.
How do you find a way to blame the winner?!? His/Her guys showed up.
“How do you find a way to blame the winner?!? ”
Because, Haley’s 700k is still lower than last go round, and that goes for Gilligan too.
But 43% is about normal.
USEP’s Dr. Michael MacDonald says that “early voting” may actually work against higher voter turnout. Only partisans vote in early voting and the rest of us procrastinate. It’s only the undecided and low information voters who show up at the last minute.
Oh, Dr. MacDonald leans more than a little left and he blew the call on the elections saying it would come down to the wire and indicating Crist would win in his native Florida…
Don’t Republicans love low turnout? Maybe if they keep going, people will just give up on democracy.
Eh, our representative democracy sucks…it’s time to try something else.
Conservatives vote because they believe it to be a civic duty and their ‘faith’ dictates their politics.
Democrats/liberals will only turn out if there is something in it for them-FREE health insurance(LOL), extended unemployment benefits, expanded food stamps, easier access to drugs, phones, booze, cigs etc…oops..and skin color or gender
Because they don’t have a love of country and believe that America is evil it becomes a ‘chore’ to vote and why the expansion of early voting (absentee and mail-in) and an unwillingness to show identification.
Like in 2006? Cons didn’t turn out very high and the GOP lost both the Senate and the House in one election. Bam!
The turnout was even lower in ’06, 36%
And that, is how Nikki and the GOP won the mid-terms – and in SC. Elections are math. So if you take SC, assume 1.5 million voters, 35% independents, 35% GOP, 30% Dems, and you have 23% turnout Dems and Independents, and 53% GOP – no one will ever beat the GOP. They’d win with 46% of the vote. So it’s not just turnout was low. It was turnout amoung who. And turnout was low because the economy is improving, and when the economy is improving, no one feels a need to vote. There’s nothing pissing off voters. Only the GOP was pissed off.
Blacks have only themselves to blame. Anyone who does not vote has only himself to blame.
Well we could have had better choices at the Nov election but the nominating process seems to be broken. When the national committee supports one candidate over the others during the primary then we end up with the same kinds of candidates being elected. So outside interests end up forcing us to vote for their particular candidates.
So SC lags behind on voter turnout just as we do on everything else except STDs and domestic violence? Another great day in SC!
According to your source USEP it is 34.9% not 35.9% (typo maybe) but even at that the National is 36.4%. The District of Columbia is 30.3% and New York at 28.8% that in itself should tell you it isn’t just South Carolina that’s apathetic.
The fat, jellyass hambones of Sakerlina didn’t roll over to the voting both? Shocking.