[reeftool]

Obviously if you look at the electoral map you can see that the difference in the last presidential election was much more than 2%. Romney can spout off about "gifts" to Mexican and Black Americans all he wants, but it doesn't address the issue that, by and large, the most populated counties voted Democrat. I honestly don't think that the results would have been much different if voter turn-out was higher. So rather than saying that only 31% of eligible voters determined the election, one might say that people in densely and diversely populated areas determined the election results. Nothing really new, but something that Republicans are struggling with more so than Democrats. Why is that?

While the electoral map shows a bigger percentage for Obama, he won many states by only around 1%. The popular vote was very close. When 40% of eligible voters don't bother to vote, I take that as more people than those who voted for either candidate just don't care.

[lammie200]

While the electoral map shows a bigger percentage for Obama, he won many states by only around 1%. The popular vote was very close. When 40% of eligible voters don't bother to vote, I take that as more people than those who voted for either candidate just don't care.

I see your points. However, I could be wrong, but I think that the only states that Obama won by less than about 2% were FL and OH. The only state were Romney won by about 2% was NC. Jumbled math but if Obama lost FL and OH he would have lost 29 electoral votes for FL and 18 for OH. He still would have had enough to win the election.

I also think that more than 40% of eligible voters usually don't vote.

Close races




States/districts where the margin of victory was under 5% (75 electoral votes):

1. Florida, 0.88%
2. Ohio, 1.92%
3. North Carolina, 2.04%
4. Virginia, 3.87%

Edit: IMHO, I don't think that apathy is the deciding factor in voter turnout. I think that it is more a factor of people losing hope that their lives will get better. Maybe a fine point, but just my 2 cents.

[les3547]

I also think that more than 40% of eligible voters usually don't vote.

Correct, though the 57% turnout for the 2012 election was the highest since 1968, and a bit above average for voter turnout since the turn of the 19th century when it began to significantly drop for some reason. Presidential election stats.

[jeffkrol]

Correct, though the 57% turnout for the 2012 election was the highest since 1968, and a bit above average for voter turnout since the turn of the 19th century when it began to significantly drop for some reason. Presidential election stats.

for fun..




I think it was the idustrial revolution.. who had time to vote w/ those 7 day work weeks...

Then again..........

While final exact figures for 2012 are yet to be calculated, the Bipartisan Research Center has stated that turnout for 2012 was 57.5 percent of the eligible voters, which they claim was a decline from 2008.

[fisheye freak]

Ineptocracy. The bigger the government , the more incompetent they get. There are calls for One World Government. Massive inept bureaucracy. Do you really trust some bozo on the other side of the world who has no idea of local conditions and sensitivities to tell you what to do in every aspect of your life? Their only "qualification" is that THEY think they know what is best for YOU.You think the western world's big governments are inept, a world government will be exponentially more inept. Bureaucrats are the ones who should be culled.

[jeffkrol]

Ineptocracy. The bigger the government , the more incompetent they get. There are calls for One World Government. Massive inept bureaucracy.

Funny, hasn't stopped global conglomerates from doing just that.......though they may not be "as inept" (matter of opinion though) they certainly "dictate and control"....
Just look to the "banks"........
In economics it is the "dis-economy of scale"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale

Second, much of the rationale for mergers and acquisitions seems to be
weak, at best. Proponents of mergers typically argue that the resulting
larger entity after a merger will realise economies of scale, benefiting
customers and shareholders; in addition, they claim that growth will be
accelerated through the introduction of new products and services that
were previously too expensive to develop. But the analysis here shows
that although some economies of scale may be realised, they are likely to
be offset by diseconomies of scale. Furthermore, there is no evidence that
larger, merged entities innovate more and grow faster. Instead, the
opposite appears to be true: innovation and growth declines, on average.
This is particularly true in knowledge-intensive industries like
pharmaceuticals. To be sure, mergers and acquisitions often do make
sense. But executives need to think through how to minimise
diseconomies of scale, as well as to maximise moderating influences, when
post-merger integration is carried out.

http://canback.com/archive/thesis.pdf

[fisheye freak]

Big business also gets itself bureaucratic- left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. The difference is that if they get too sloppy, some start up rival may put them out of business or force them to get their act together in response to competition. Government bureaucrats are NOT subject to such competition, so have no incentive to make any effort. Diligent workers among bureaucrats are sometimes ostracised because it makes the rest look bad. I for one resent my tax dollars being wasted on such no-hopers who write stupid legislation that makes life more difficult without any improvements in "standards." Ironicly, we would all be better if we just paid these people and told them to go home and play cards.Glorified dole bludgers. Just remember, fellow Pentaxians, the money spent on inept bureaucrats comes out of YOUR pocket. YOU have a lower standard of living so these useless(and worse) folk can lord it over us. *&^$%^ that !

[wpvv]

Countries where little tax is collected are not the most successful ones. A lot of high tax countries are very successful.

[seacapt]

I think we are locked in a battle over whether we should be inclusive, bring everyone along together, and make sure a good portion of wealth is reinvested back into society-strengthening measures, or if we should be exclusive and have it be every man for himself. I know the fight looks ugly, but at the moment, the former option seems to have prevailed.

As I mentioned above, I believe things are going to get environmentally intense over the next couple of decades . . . people who are organized for working together are the ones who have the best chance of survival. So it isn't just partisan bickering, a lot more is at stake than most people realize.

I'd suggest you read William Johnstones "Ashes" series.

[les3547]

I'd suggest you read William Johnstones "Ashes" series.

Since I've not read it, perhaps you could explain the point you'd like me to take from his series.

[GeneV]

Correct, though the 57% turnout for the 2012 election was the highest since 1968, and a bit above average for voter turnout since the turn of the 19th century when it began to significantly drop for some reason. Presidential election stats.

Voter turnout has been on the rise since the early '90s. Democrats have gotten more votes in 5 of the 6 elections since then.

I wonder how the national patterns would change for voter turnout if there were no electoral college.

[Nesster]

Tax cuts to the wealthy - ultra low rates, historically speaking - plus corporate give aways and boondoggles have had the perverse effect of reducing competition. That is, a lazier, dumber person can make a fortune with the aid of the government. Therefore the result has been an increase in lazy, dumb people running things and thinking themselves worth ever more millions in compensation.

Whereas, with reasonable tax rates and few if any give-aways, only the best managers will succeed wildly, and the duffers will assume the historical duffer position in the food chain. This will result once more in more efficient and better run corporations, more equitable sharing of economic growth, and simply, our wealthy class will start to get smarter, more industrious and innovative.

[jeffkrol]

Voter turnout has been on the rise since the early '90s. Democrats have gotten more votes in 5 of the 6 elections since then.

I wonder how the national patterns would change for voter turnout if there were no electoral college.

for fun:
Exit polls 2012: How the vote has shifted - The Washington Post

and:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/where-obama-and-romney-beat-their-polls/



never ending statistics........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/national-breakdown/