High turnout election in Lucas County? Really?
First the reports of the long lines that did not exist in many polling locations, then the continued statements of this being a “high turnout election” as recently as today with the number of registered voters and votes known, Tom Troy writes, Elections officials blamed the crush of some 50,000 paper ballots that were used during the high-turnout election Tuesday.
Let’s look -
This election there were 317036 registered voters and 210601 votes for President which equals 66.4%
In 2004 there were 300137 registered voters and 221980 votes for President which equaled 74.0%
In 2000 there were 302136 registered voters and 188419 votes for President which equaled 62.4%
In 1996 there were 275474 registered voters and 183211 votes for President which equaled 66.5%
In 1992 there were 261474 registered voters and 204182 votes for President which equaled 78%
In 1988 there were 257556 registered voters and 186903 votes for President which equaled 72%
It’s probably true that the use of the paper ballots in the manner in which they were used as opposed to when Lucas County used paper ballots with optical scanners at the polling locations slowed down the voting count. Yet it is impossible to ignore the fact that in 2004 more people voted in Lucas County even with more people being registered to vote this time than in any of the past presidential elections that the Lucas County BOE has online records for.
In 2004 39.54% of the vote went to Bush – 60.21% went to Kerry. In 2008 33.6% of the votes went to McCain and 63.9% went to Obama. This is the highest percentage of Democratic votes for the above listed elections, the previous record was held by Kerry/Edwards, it is not the lowest percentage of Republicans votes, in 1992 Bush/Quayle received 31.1% of the votes, Clinton//Gore got 49.2% and Perot/Stockdale received 18.7% of the votes. It is the third lowest percentage of Republican votes in Lucas County since Dole/Kemp ran in 1996 and received 32% of the votes.
History is great, but when we talk about “high election turnout” or a huge change in the voting patterns of Lucas County residents, when you actually compare previous elections, this was not the highest percentage of voter turnout nor was it the largest number of voters. It is also noteworthy that despite the declining population numbers in Lucas County more people are registered to vote, that said it is clear that a larger percentage of those registered did not vote with the except of one other election, 1996. It’s also interesting that there more registered voters in 2000 than in 2004, probably in part to the purging of the voter rolls since some of the current 317036 that are registered to vote here, are also registered to vote in another state and voted there.
Keep in mind, this count does not yet include absentee and early ballots, so we have no idea the actual count (I have heard upwords of 33% were absentee, but atleast 10% are supposted to be)
November 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pmSupposedly that does include all of the votes but provisional ballots from the way it’s been reported…
November 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pmyou might want to fix this line: In 2004 39.54% of the vote when to Bush – 60.21% went to Kerry
That said, what source said this counted for the absentee (as far as I know, most of those are not currently counted or tallied)
November 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pmThe Blade…the article linked…
November 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pmpaper ballots are not the same as absentee
November 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pmPlus, i would recomend waiting until the official counts to make a contention about this rate
From the Blade article
“The board’s process was to first scan in the day’s absentee voter ballots, upload the memory cards from the machines in the 495 precincts, and finally count the votes from the paper ballots.”
November 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pmBarga, considering the media is pointing out it was “high” I’m responding to what has been reported and providing what the historical numbers are as they currently stand.
Thanks Joel, it does indeed say that and the television media reporting stated more than once that absentee ballots were being counted…
November 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pmhmm, good point
November 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pmthat said, i expect ohio’s turnout to be high
Barga that could be true, I was only focusing on Lucas County.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pmActually, absentee and early-voting paper ballots began to be scanned and counted 10 days before election day – I received emails and phone calls from people involved as the BoE was looking for workers to begin the scanning. I think the unofficial totals include everything except for provisional ballots (and possibly overseas ballots – don’t they have a few days post-election to arrive and be counted?)
November 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pmMilitary ballots can arrive as late as November 14th and be counted if I remember correctly and some of the provisionals are the focus of a lawsuit but you are right they aren’t counted. I don’t know how many there were for Lucas, I think the over 133,000 was state wide that would be really high for just our County, the article is not clear on that.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pmI am one of those paper-ballot people that the BOE is whining about. After waiting 45 minutes in line, I had a choice: I could get in another 20-person line for the touchscreens – adding probably 20-30 more minutes to my electoral ordeal – or I could fill out a paper ballot and be on my way.
If the BOE wants fewer paper ballots, then they need to get their s**t together and put more machines in the polling stations. Otherwise, time-crunched people like me will opt for the faster paper ballot.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pmHmmm, I see a pattern. Whenever stainbrook is involved (ie; back in the 90s and today) the republicans take a much lower percentage (low 30s) and it will probably get lower when the absentees and provisionals are counted.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pmAnd i thought he was doing such a great job “rebuilding” the party. Looks like paying the homeless in cigarettes doesn’t work as a campaign strategy.
Tom Troy writes another article today, that basically sums up what this post covered yesterday, without of course mentioning that the republican vote numbers are not out of the historical range.
Lucas County, Ohio turnout both about 67percent.
It’s stated that no one knows why the turnout was not 80% as expected, could it have been the fake hype about long lines? Doubtful, the reality is the Obama campaign spent more in Ohio than any other presidential candidate in history. He had more paid and unpaid people here than any other candidate in history here in Lucas County, the State of Ohio and realistically the nation. The 7 Day “Golden Window” did not net a huge amount of votes here, neither did the extended early voting sessions, and at the end after spending all of that money, including record advertising dollars in almost every local media source? Two thousand more voters than John Kerry received in 2004.
It could be argued that the millions and millions spent on this election was worth it, Obama did win. But this presidential campaign has never lived up to the hype that the media kept trying to make it be.
Democrats sat home on election day, as did Republicans. It’s unfortunate this election has been painted to be about race, it was said over and over again if Obama lost it would be due to racism, so I can’t help wondering, was that why more voters stayed home? Was this some strange version of the Bradley effect where rather than vote for McCain, Democrats and Republicans just stayed home? More people registered to vote in this election in Ohio than ever before, there were more options to vote than ever before, yet the turnout percentage was lower than 2004.
That would be interesting to discover as to why did so many voters, Democrat and Republican alike not vote in what was billed to be a historic election.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:38 amDoes not the Constitution state that the election shall be held on Tuesday of the first full week of November?
I think they ought to throw out all of the ballots cast in early voting except for those who can provide documentation that shows they were out of the county on election day.
I know my proposal is impractical, but I think this “early voting” crap is wrong. If you can’t take the time to come out on Tuesday, don’t come out.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:07 amBrian, I agree with you 100%!!!!!!!
November 7th, 2008 at 11:10 amI voted with a paper ballot. They should have had scanners on site for people who chose paper.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:50 amDitto Brian! Not only is this stated in the constitution but has anyone looked at the cost of having a polling location open for 35 days? Is this an expense to the taxpayers?
November 7th, 2008 at 10:55 pmСпасибо за текст! Очень понравилось
November 8th, 2008 at 5:31 amoh dear…I hope ACORN got his signature!
November 8th, 2008 at 5:47 amNowhere in the constitution does it state when election day is to be held.
The constitution says:
“The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
Today, the day of choosing the electors is set at the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and the date the Electors meet is set at the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December — in 2008, these dates are November 4 and December 15. These dates are set in the US Code, at 3 USC 7.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pmI think they are referring to the Ohio Constitution:
§ 17.01 Time for holding
Elections for state and county officers shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even numbered years; and all elections for all other elective officers shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the odd numbered years.
The term of office of all elective county, township, municipal, and school officers shall be such even number of years not exceeding four as may be prescribed by law or such even number of years as may be provided in municipal or county charters.
The term of office of all judges shall be as provided in Article IV of this constitution or, if not so provided, an even number of years not exceeding six as provided by law.
The General Assembly may extend existing terms of office as to effect the purpose of this section.
(Amended June 8, 1976, SJR No.19.)
November 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm