In Oregon, the turnout is expected to be 84%
November 7, 2000 8:40 PM   Subscribe

In Oregon, the turnout is expected to be 84% because everyone in Oregon votes by mail. I bet no other state comes anywhere close to that kind of turnout. This will definitely get the attention of other states; don't be surprised if others do it in two years.
posted by Steven Den Beste (11 comments total)
 
It isn't just about turnout. It is unbelievably nice to take an evening with your ballot and your voter's pamphlet and vote at your leisure. I think it makes for a better-informed electorate.

I love this place.
posted by frykitty at 8:47 PM on November 7, 2000


Yes. My whole family (in WA) votes absentee. It's probably best not to be affected by the last-minute bs that comes out. I've been a bit bothered by the arbitrariness of this election: when it's this close, how much does it really mean when one candidate beats the other?
posted by EngineBeak at 9:10 PM on November 7, 2000


I'd like to make an apology on behalf of the state of Georgia. Except for Miller, McKinney, and Lewis, all of whom are currently winning. But a re-election for Barr??? And more votes for Buchanan than Nader (not to mention the major Bush victory)???
posted by kidsplateusa at 9:32 PM on November 7, 2000


Or, we could all follow the lead of Brown County, Wisconsin, and hold a naming rights referendum for the local football stadium during every election. They're projecting an 80% voter turnout.
posted by dandot at 10:04 PM on November 7, 2000


EngineBeak, it means the electorate isn't sure what they want and they'd like four years of a random candidate in order to help them make up their minds next time around.
posted by daveadams at 10:06 PM on November 7, 2000


Voting by mail would have been a blessing in California -- with the obscene number of referenda on the ballot, it's honestly quite difficult to keep them all straight. (The obfuscatory language used on the last two insurance initiatives didn't help -- it was impossible to figure out what they meant by just the language on the ballot.) Sitting down and looking some things up online while filling out a ballot would have been a huge plus.
posted by snarkout at 6:43 AM on November 8, 2000


snarkout: if you can't figure out what it means, vote "no". At least things won't get any worse. :-)

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:16 AM on November 8, 2000


Sitting down and looking some things up online while filling out a ballot would have been a huge plus.
California does provide a really good and comprehensive guide to what's on the ballot. It arrives by mail in plenty of time for you to do your research. Then, of course, you mark it up and take it into the voting booth with you. Of course, that doesn't do anything to help people who are away from their assigned polling place all day, but that's a separate issue.
posted by redfoxtail at 11:37 AM on November 8, 2000


[Mars] if you can't figure out what it means, vote "no". At least things won't get any worse.

Unless, of course, it's an extension to an existing program or tax that has a built-in expiration date. :)
posted by daveadams at 12:39 PM on November 8, 2000


California does provide a really good and comprehensive guide to what's on the ballot.

Due to the non-partisan nature of the ballot guide -- which, IIRC, provides an estimate of the cost of the initiative -- they weren't able to discuss what a sham the insurance measures were; I had to pick up a copy of the SF Weekly. Still not as easy as being able to do it in the comfort of my home with additional time to look things up.
posted by snarkout at 1:58 PM on November 8, 2000


What, a week and a half before the election wasn't enough additional time for you?
posted by redfoxtail at 2:06 PM on November 9, 2000


« Older   |   The Onion, as usual. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments