Low Voter Turn Out?

betsyrussellEvery once in awhile the team at Chuckle Berries put on our bio-hazard suits and trudge through the putrid swamp known as Huckleberries Online. Guarded by a grumpy old troll that goes by the moniker D.F.O… that’s Dumb Freaking Oaf to you pilgrim…or DooFo as we like to call it.  Along the way we chat with fellow conservatives that monitor the swamp’s decay rate, and check to make sure their suits are up to par (Shoshone, Summer, Jennifer, Right Girl, stay strong).

In our last trip into the swamp we noticed the lost souls held under DooFo’s spell chanting the mantra, “Low Voter Turn Out. Low Voter Turn Out.” By DooFo’s side was his comrade Bet-Spray Russell, with her sharp Lillith like tongue leading their legion of radical oppressors into a frothing fury, loud enough to be heard across the state.

Well folks, it’s time to simmer down for a moment and analyze what this mysterious message might mean. Absolutely nothing. While DooFo and Bet-Spray keep screaming the same foul thing, they don’t know what it means. They think low voter turn out is responsible for their good ole boy forces of Sauron taking a big hit in Kootenai County. Let’s take a looksy.

On May 20, 2014 the voter turn out for Kootenai County was 21.72% of registered voters for a grand total of 14,962 casting a vote. In the 2012 Primary a total of 14,811 people cast a vote, for a total of 21.22% of registered voters.

Nice try DooFo, low voter turn out wasn’t the key. A half percent more voters turned out at the polls this time. And still the Shire was saved from your dark forces.

That’s not enough you say? You’d like to have had Kootenai County match the 25% turn out seen in all of Idaho? Okie-dokie, lets look at that. Let’s pretend voter turn out was 3.28% higher what would that mean? To make it slanted to DooFo’s side, let’s further pretend the entire new 3.28% voted for his favored candidates.  Well the truth be told, it wouldn’t have changed a thing. The closest race his side lost was for County Treasurer by a margin of 4.44%. Even if 10% more voters turned out and voted for their candidates , most of the good guys would have still won.

Nice try DooFo and Bet-Spray. Now let’s dive into the ancient scrolls of Huckleberry Swamp.  First we had to distract Doo-ane, and look for the old rotten stump guarded by Thom George to see if they shed any more light on the subject.

The day after the 2012 Primary DooFo felt like a king. He spent the next week gloating how reasonably minded people voted our good friend Phil Hart out, and defeated John Green, Don Gary, Marc Eberlein, and Larry Spencer. In fact he had this to say for his hump-day wildcard on May 16, 2012:  “Can’t stop smiling today. Kootenai County & North Idaho haven’t consumed the Kool-aid that would veer this great region into political chaos. In fact, there are signs all around that local Republicans are turning away from Far Right excess…” DooFo May 16, 2012 Link.

Y’see, the problem isn’t low voter turn out. When his side wins, it’s because the voters were well informed. Well DooFo, the voters in Kootenai County have grown tired of your good ole boy network and bull-butter. An increased voter turn out overwhelmingly voted to rid the land of the ghouls he calls friends.

Before signing off look over this post he made May 18, 2012 when he pontificated that the Tea Party was over in Kootenai County. LINK

 

Chester the very happy Jester

2014 Primary Results

2012 Primary Results

2010 Primary Results

 

 

4 Responses to Low Voter Turn Out?

  1. summer says:

    I need to take a break from that place.
    Do you guys know who the Joker is?

    [Note from Chester: We think we do and are trying to confirm…stay tuned!]

  2. my handle says:

    Yeah, I am taking a break also. It is like coming out of a smoking bar, it takes some time to get the smell off.

    I liked the excuse that they were bone-tired from fending off the recall and purging the school board. Like most voters even take notice of the internet rantings of a few fools.

  3. Chester says:

    Good words. The legion of mouth-breathers at Huckleberry Swamp are heros in their own mind. We’d not be surprised if DooFo has a picture of himself on a t-shirt, just so he can feel important.

  4. kmorris says:

    Chester … I appreciate the analysis of higher turnout scenarios. This is my take on the election results. Whether conservative or liberal; republican or democrat … I have never understood blaming an election result on “low voter turnout.” Voter turnout is part of the electioneering process. Let me give you an example. Supposing it were determined that lower turnout would likely benefit Idaho tea party Republicans in 2014. The Conservatives would likely run their campaigns on that basis. They would locate only VERY likely voters as low turnout was anticipated. Meanwhile, in “camp liberal” … Morse & Co. would likely be doing the same. The point is that during an election, both sides encounter the same forces at work. Anticipated low voter turnout typically results in more negative campaigning as the intent of “going negative” is to suppress voter turnout. But this isn’t some shocking concept. It’s also something more often used by democrats as low voter turnout typically benefits liberals more than it does conservatives. (Think Dist. 271 school board election). But regardless of the methods employed, both sides encounter the same forces at work. And they run their campaigns as such. Let me give an example. In 2000, the Algore campaign complained endlessly that “Algore won the popular vote.” This was true. But guess what “Soreloserman” (an old play on words for Gore/Lieberman) — NEITHER CAMPAIGN was run on the basis of a popular vote. If it had been, then both George W. Bush and Algore would have spent all of their time in LA, NY, Chicago, and Houston. As this country fortunately has not and will not abandon the Electoral College (thank goodness), the fact that the losing side explained their loss by citing “popular vote” made literally no sense as neither election was run with the anticipation that somehow the popular vote meant anything more than a simple curiosity.

    Bottom line: Campaigns exist in a climate … in a vacuum, so to speak. Blaming the result on the voters (either having a higher turnout or a low turnout) is really nothing more than making an excuse for running a poor campaign that failed to anticipate the the climate under which ALL campaigns exist during any given election year.

    Jeremy Morris

    [Note from Chester: Thanks for your perspective Jeremy…NIPAC got Butch Sapped into oblivion…what else can they do but fabricate a reason for their loss. Hopefully they understand by now…money can’t buy you love…or elections!]

Leave a Reply