Thursday, November 6, 2014

Small population turn-out is a factor in determining elections

The Daily Journal/Michelle Durand, 11/6/14. "County voter turnout is less than one-third:  Election night totals drop sharply from four years ago."

Not that it matters, but I'm not voting
"Less than a third of registered San Mateo County voters participated in the Nov. 4 election, according to end-of-night results, and while counting unprocessed ballots will raise the figure officials aren’t optimistic for a huge spike. ....  As of the semi-final tallies at 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, 112,592 ballots, or 31.7 percent, were cast. The votes are more than the 27.45 percent of the June primary but still short of gubernatorial elections historica lly. ....In contrast, the Nov. 2, 2010, election four years ago ended with
47.4 percent of the county’s 346,516 registered voters participating and three weeks later finalized at 65.3 percent.

And you thought this was water
....  County data also shows a continuing uptick in the number of voters opting to bypass the polls and vote by mail. Of the votes cast, 43,565 were at precincts but 68,049 were absentee. Voting center ballots accounted for 978.... The remaining absentee and provisional ballots in Tuesday’s election will be counted with updated results periodically posted until completion. The Elections Office has until Dec. 2 to count and certify the final results to the Secretary of State’s Office.  Updates results will be posted at 4:30 p.m. Nov. 7, 12, 14 and 18 at"  Read article.

Note photographs:  Man on tracks from  OZVPM  and  Perfect Marketing Equation.  Sinking ship from  Paige's Pensive Place.  Drinking something from a bottle from  Perfect Marketing Equation.
Sinking ship from  Paige's Pensive Place.

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

There, there, now. Yes, yes, it's all about voter turn-out. What happened to the 99%? Stop crying.

Captain Duh said...

Small population turn-out is a factor in determining elections.

IQ is a factor in determining intelligence.

Temperature is a factor in determining chance of snow.

These and other stories coming up on News of the Obvious at 11:00.

Anonymous said...


99% of voters agree with Fix Pacifica, as evidenced by your totally honest poster campaign.

But, owing purely to low voter turn out, you lost.

The only people who turned out don't have jobs (therefore don't have to drive through Rockaway-Vallemar to get to work). Lazy, stoned retired surfers, basically. Deserving of your ire, to the last man. Beneath contempt. It's weird that stoned surfers would actually vote, but what the hey.

Everyone else was too busy in traffic to vote. All day and all night. They truly truly so much wanted to vote, it burned them up but hey - that traffic. They were (to the last 99%) on your side.

I'd demand a re-vote, BUT THIS TIME:

-Cut out all the people who were born here.
-Take out retired folk.
-Take out anyone who's ever enjoyed walking the quarry, Mori headlands, Sweeney Ridge, hell let's just remove anyone who likes Pacifica's outdoors.
-Take out anyone who commutes south in the morning and north in the evening.
-Take out anyone who uses a bus. Or a bicycle.
-Take out with their own business in Pacifica.
-Take out anyone who works in Pacifica.
-Take out anyone who works from home.
-Take out the housewives and house husbands.
-And for God's sake drug test them!

-Now THIS is really important: Include folk from Montara/Moss Beach/Miramar - god knows they've got your back on extending the freeway. It's not in their back yard, right? They're probably NIMBIES in their own neighborhood, a bunch of losers.

I reckon if you can squeeze the voting public through that funnel you might just get a representative election, finally.

Anonymous said...

750 Duh, dear desperate Duh, Low voter turnout is significant if you can prove or even make a strong case that it's not a preview of what higher voter turnout would look like. You know, the results undermined by some late-breaking news or discovery of new information. Or, some voters held captive somewhere. You got nothing. And, Duh, that's not news. That's how you roll.


Actually -- and I'm being absolutely serious here -- the F Pacifica crowd makes the claim that there were too many good candidates. The votes were divided among these wonderful candidates in such a way as to cause the lousy candidates to win.

Done laughing yet? No? I'll wait. Now? Well, that's the Fix Pacifica Reality Distortion Field for ya -- the bad candidates won because there were too many good candidates to vote for.

This is the blog that gives and gives and gives. God bless 'em, this is the most entertaining website on the net.

Anonymous said...

You know, I think something very special is happening on here. Don't you wonder if the crackpots on here are in a larval stage on the way to being full-blown crackpots in front of council? Is that still the end stage or are we seeing the last of the breed on alternate Monday nights? Innovation may make it all obsolete and allow you to be a public crackpot without leaving your home. More or fewer crackpots? Is that better for democracy or worse?

Captain Double-Duh said...

8:30-- damn, son, this is scrub league stuff. What a yawning chasm of election ignorance you are. If you don't know that voter turnout radically alters campaign strategy (and results) or how/why, I don't know what to tell you.

Steve Sinai said...

8:53, Nobody said there were too many good candidates.

The problem was a fourth candidate who had no chance of winning ran and split the vote among the four Yessie (Yes! Yes! Yes!) candidates. That's the main reason Keener got enough votes to get onto Council.

Anonymous said...

Of course the main reason Keener got enough votes to be on the Council could not possibly be because he ran on a platform of opposition to the Caltrans highway widening plan. No, that can't be the reason. It must be because he ... uh ... it must be because ... uh ... because the other candidates split the vote. Yeah, that's it.

Kathy Meeh said...

Steve 956, its not the first time there have been 4 or 5 candidates running for city council on the progress side, and NIMBIES always do a better job of counting candidates, plus unfortunately they are motivated to vote.

Based upon total votes of 18,395 voter turn-out would have been in the mid 6,000's only, (assuming 2 rather than 3 votes from some individuals). I think the progress candidates were all good candidates, and none of them would have been dissuaded from running for city council.

The candidate you cite as having no chance to win was upfront, correct and unwavering on the main issues which confront this city. And that's why some of us voted for Therese.

Beyond too many progress candidates, what are the reasons for mainstreet voter complacency? Are people paying attention, or are they just following a friendly association with the candidate (never mind the issues). Does the city have any role in educating, and encouraging voter turnout for elections? And how is it the County Democrats listed Sue Digre as the only Pacifica candidate they endorsed (and why did that endorsement occur prior to the candidate forum)? Whatever it is, the city council majority vote is still 3-2 if the majority does not cave to NIMBY pressure.

Kathy Meeh said...

1055, Keener ran on the spin machine of anti-highway 1 widening. You NIMBIES do a really good job of scaring the public from needed city progress. Anti-highway today; anti-development tomorrow; Anti-golf course a few years ago.

NIMBIES who have commented above have no city solutions, no mediation or reconciliations to offer; and, the anonymous retorts are all about hate. Let the public, including city leaders, see what you have posted, and draw their own conclusions. Again, the city must move forward without you.

Anonymous said...

Meeh, you're a hoot. You think the SMC Dems care about some jackass Pacifica forum. Digre's a good democrat and now a four term councilperson and they've been endorsing her for years.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't hold my breath, Kathy, for politicians to ignore election results and bulldoze forward. Goes against their natural instinct for self-preservation. However you, and perhaps even they spin it, they heard the message loud and clear.

Kathy Meeh said...

1232 the "loud and clear message" was there were 1,100+ more votes for progress candidates than for NIMBIES. You won 2 of 3 seats on city council. Your political strategy was effective, but your tactics were reprehensible.

And regarding your 1226 comment, yes I think the County Democrat's candidate recommendation for Pacifica city council (and the timing of the forum) were important to those would look to the slate to vote for Democrats. In the past, Sue Digre was endorsed along with other Democrats; the difference is this year there was only her, and her election numbers were very high. See Shape the future, racetracker, page 4.

Anonymous said...

I love Monday morning quarterbacks who can't even throw a football.

In a town of nothing we sure do have a lot of local experts running around.

A sign painter, a tree trimmer, yosemite sam(casitas) webster dictionary over on riptide, loeb the mooch, nancy hall the musician, rasputin underhill, carl doesn't know what day it is may, and a bunch of bored lonely old men.

Anonymous said...

Pacifica is a snake pit.

Btw has litigation started on Ian Butler for slander and defamation of character?

Anonymous said...

I'v already heard from one council person who didn't think this was any kind of mandate against widening or anything. They pointed out pro candidates got more votes. Now they just have to listen to 2 people ramble on about sea level rise and no growth. But it doesn't change anything.

Anonymous said...

Lathy Meeh sez: "NIMBIES who have commented above have no city solutions, no mediation or reconciliations to offer; and, the anonymous retorts are all about hate. Let the public, including city leaders, see what you have posted, and draw their own conclusions. Again, the city must move forward without you."

This may be a classic example of psychological projection!

Kathy Meeh said...

815 no, we offer solutions, our interest is in long awaited city progress, we try to keep our commentary accurate. You offer no realistic city economy solutions; you reject and obstruct city progress, and development is part of that.

You, Anonymous, can't even state my first name accurately, and your "psychological projection" reference is wikipedia? I don't mean to be critical about such limitations from you, but you've got to try harder. Tossing out the word projection is just another deflection. We're talking about the city, namely the future of this city. The city has a structural economic problem which has existed for decades. This needs to get fixed. That's the focus of what we hope to talk about on Fix Pacifica blog. What economic development will you support?

Anonymous said...

"personal attacks ... will be removed."

and the hate speech continues

Anonymous said...

If there really is "one council person who didn't think this was any kind of mandate against widening or anything," that council person is soon going to have a rude awakening.

Anonymous said...

Steve, why are you censoring posts by IP address?

Steve Sinai said...

There are three IP addresses that I blocked years ago to keep one particular whack-job from posting. I'd forgotten about them and would be amazed if they're still working.

Otherwise, we don't pay attention to IP addresses. Are you getting an error message about IP addresses when you try to post something?

Anonymous said...

Can you see this post Steve?

Steve Sinai said...

Yep, I can see it.