Low Turnout Key to Challengers’ Defeat of Incumbents
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 9 November 2010 — 4 comments below »
One thing is clear from last week’s election: a majority of residents did not vote for change at City Hall.
A majority of residents did not turnout and vote last Tuesday. In fact, a majority of registered voters did not turnout and vote. Only 37 percent of those registered actually made the effort to vote in last week’s election. (Compare that with the record-high 85 percent turnout two years ago.) Fortunately, for us, those that did turnout are the only ones that count. There is a name for these citizens, of course: the likely voters. They are the ones the City targeted in the recent push poll.
This election — and the demand for change at City Hall — was decided by 37 percent of voters in the city.1 With a larger turnout, even modestly so, the incumbents would have had a better chance to survive. Higher turnout would have meant more voters would have simply grabbed their political party’s postcard mailer of recommendations — or their union’s, or the Chamber of Commerce’s, etc. — and head out the door and blindly vote. Alas, two challengers now have the potential to shake things up.
Those that show up, decide, but it was not a majority of residents that did just that in Hercules last week. The numbers tell a different story.
So why didn’t more people vote? Who knows. Ah, the life of an unlikely voter.
During an episode of the old television show The West Wing, amidst the Jed Bartlet reelection campaign, a political operative informed the president’s deputy chief of staff, Josh Lyman, that it was “unlikely voters” that make the difference when a third party candidate gets elected, so that any polling data of “likely voters” was inherently flawed. Lyman’s response was classic:
And why is that good? Why are we eager… Why are we encouraging a group of people who are so howl-at-the-moon, lazy-ass stupid that they can’t bring themselves to raise their hands? Why is it important that they be brought into the process?
Because they care… today. Well, not last Tuesday, but maybe in two years.
- Voter turnout was 47 percent countywide and 50 percent statewide. So even comparison-wise, Hercules did not “get out the vote” despite the heated campaign coverage.↩
I do not know why using the afore mentioned reasoning, it did not carry over to election of Rick Tubbs over the liberal tax and spend democrat George Miller. Is it complacency? Is it lack of voter awairness? Or is it the arm twisting by the good old boys in high possitions in the unions. It is time for voters to stop electing people based on their party affiliation and vote for the candidate that represents the policies which are best for the community.
@ Wilbur Figueira — There are several reasons Miller won easily over Tubbs, none of which is voter turnout in Hercules.
Help me out here Wilbur. Are you the same Wil Figueira that is retired on one of those cushy firefighter retirements we keep hearing about? If not, I do apologize. Meanwhile, please detail the “policies that are best for the community”. That is a pretty broad subject. I don’t recall receiving a flier from Rick Tubbs detailing them. I might be swayed by that. Oh yea… no union boss twisted my arm and forced me to vote for anyone either. As for voting party lines, if that was true, I would have voted for Mr. Tubbs. Perhaps it’s time to change party affiliation so that your belief can come true. You label Miller as “tax and spend” as opposed to the Republican philosophy of “spend and create debt”. It is a shame that you blame the sitting president for not being able to fix the mess George Bush left us all with. And now, because the American public is so entrenched in instant gratification, they have elected Republican and Tea Party candidates that could care less whether those voters lives improve. I await your response…………..
Yes I am a retired firefighter and yes I am recieving a pention. I have contributed 10% of my gross income into the retirement system for 32 years. Aparently you are misinformed as to the pentions of public safety employees in California. Also I would like to inform you of the fact that I was also a small business owner for 35 years not trusting govornment officials with my future. During that time in business I provided 7-8 employees with a decent living wage with medical and dental insurance. I did not rely on the on as govornment run health system. I also payed into the Social Security System for the 35 years I was in business without the option of investing the 15% paid into investments of my choice. As a private businessman I paid both employers and employees contributions. Oh I might mention that since I am receiving a state pention I am only able to recieve 40% of the normal benifit for years worked and contributions made. So Mr. Anonymous that is all I have to say on the subject and don’t ever complain about the retirement firefighters recieve. Why don’ t you use your name instead of hiding behind anonymous. Confront divergent opions head on without hidining behind Anonymous and throwing stones. I would like to see how you would react if I put your ass in a burning building.