Tag Archives: voter turnout

local news, political news

Trying to gin up voter turnout for May election

Back when I was working for a living as editorial page editor for two newspapers in Texas, one of my ongoing tasks was to boost voter turnout for municipal elections.

For the most part, I butted my head bloody — figuratively, of course — trying to get residents in Beaumont and then in Amarillo to get off their duffs and cast their ballots.

I no longer work for a living, but I cannot put my desire to boost voter turnout to rest. That’s what this blog is all about

Amarillo is going to the polls on May 6. The city is going to produce another new City Council majority, with three incumbents choosing not to seek new terms. One of them is the mayor, Paul Harpole; the other two are City Councilwoman Lisa Blake and Councilman Randy Burkett.

That’s three out of five seats that will welcome new occupants. Change is afoot.

How will Amarillo voters respond? Since I no longer predict anything political, I’ll refrain from doing so here. If history is any guide, we are headed for another dismal turnout in a couple of months.

Single-digit percentage turnouts have occurred frequently during the 22 years I’ve been watching municipal elections in Amarillo. Oh sure, occasionally we get a “spike” into the 20 and 30 percent range. Those events occur usually when we have much-hyped and ballyhooed ballot measures.

Do you recall the two efforts to ban smoking indoors, both of which were defeated? Or how about the 2015 multipurpose event venue vote, which approved the MPEV? In 1996, Amarillo voted in favor of a resolution to sell the publicly owned Northwest Texas Hospital to a private health-care provider.

They all produced greater-than-normal turnouts. Were they great, as in great? My recollection is that the first smoking ban vote attracted a 30-percent turnout. Thirty percent is nothing to brag about. It means that seven out of 10 registered voters sat on the sidelines. Shameful!

At the risk of repeating myself, I am going to remind readers of this blog who happen to live in Amarillo of this fundamental truth.

It is that local elections matter in a tangible way far more than votes for president or members of Congress; they matter more than votes for governor; the Legislature, though, is a different matter, as our legislators decide on bills that could have an impact on our community.

City Hall is where these issues matter. It also matters who we elect to decide them. They set our local tax rates. They decide how many cops we have patrolling our streets. They determine the level of fire protection we get. They ensure our water flows, our lights shine and garbage gets picked up.

The municipal ballot will decide who fills all five of our City Council seats. All of those positions have contested races on the ballot.

Are we going to vote? Or are we going to let our neighbors — some of whom we might detest — decide who makes these policies for us?

It’s your call. I’ll remind you later to be sure to vote.

local news, political news

Dismal voter turnout is no sign of satisfaction

I’ve written about this before, but I cannot say it enough.

Amarillo’s history of dismal voter turnouts is no endorsement of how well the city is being run. It’s more basic than that. It just pure apathy. We don’t care.

The city is tracking toward another municipal election. Filing for the five City Council seats has begun. It will end on Feb. 17. My trick knee tells me the ballot will be full, that all five council seats will have multiple candidates vying for election to the governing board that pays its occupants a whopping $10 per public meeting.

I’ve been watching Amarillo’s municipal elections for 22 years. Most of that time was spent as a working journalist, as editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News. I have lamented, scolded and cajoled Amarillo residents to turn out to vote for these races.

Most years residents have ignored my entreaties. I don’t take the rejection personally.

They’ve registered often in the mid to high single-digit percentages. When we put ballot measures up for decision from time to time, the turnout spikes dramatically. My favorite example was the 1996 vote to sell the publicly owned Northwest Texas Hospital to a private health care provider; 22 percent of voters turned out for that one and you’d have thought — listening to city officials — that they’d just discovered a cure for the common cold.

I chose at the time to look a good bit more dimly at the turnout, noting that four out of five voters stayed away from the polls.

My question always has been: Do these dismal turnouts reflect some sort of endorsement of the way City Hall is being run? I don’t believe that’s necessarily the case. I do, though, believe in the human trait to respond more vigorously to negativity than to positivity.

My initial hope for this next election is that, given what I expect to be a ballot full of candidates, the turnout far exceeds what’s become a sad norm in Amarillo. My other hope, of course, is that the election produces victories for the right candidates. I’ll have more to say later on who I think should win.

Today, though, my target is that turnout matter. Historically in this city, it stinks. I want residents to wipe away the odor by voting in large numbers.

Representative democracy works better when more people — not fewer of them — take part.

I’ve noted this, too, before: Why would anyone want to leave the choices for the people who set their property tax rates to someone else? We all have a stake in these local elections and it is incumbent on all of us  to have our voices heard.

local news, political news

Early vote record produces a mixed result

voting

Let’s crunch some numbers from the presidential election.

I want to examine briefly the record-setting early-vote totals in one Texas county — the one where I live — and try to determine if it meant a greater overall turnout.

Randall County voted 80 percent in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump. That’s the least surprising result, given the county’s strong GOP tradition. You can’t find a Democratic candidate running for anything in this county. Indeed, the loneliest job in America — next, perhaps, to the Maytag repairman — might be Randall County’s Democratic chair.

The county registered more than 43,000 early votes prior to the Nov. 8 election. In 2012, a total of about 49,600 voters cast ballots in the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney; captured the Randall County vote by an even greater percentage than Trump did.

This year, the unofficial vote total for Randall County sits at 54,185. That’s an increase of about 5,000 votes from four years ago.

The county had about 85,000 registered voters this year, which puts the percentage turnout at about 63 percent.

To that I would say, “Not bad at all.” Of course, the number goes down when you factor in the total number of eligible voters, which includes those who aren’t registered to vote.

What does all this mean?

http://uselectionatlas.org/2016.php

I guess it means that the record number of early voters did translate into a ginned-up interest in this election — much to my own surprise. I had thought the election would produce a dismally low turnout, even in this GOP-friendly region.

Still, the percentage of turnout across the state remains far short of anything to boast about. The national turnout appears headed for a 20-year low.

I am delighted that Texas makes it so easy for residents to vote early. I remain dedicated, though, to the idea of waiting until Election Day to cast my ballot.

For those who did vote early — and to those who perhaps voted for the first time — congratulations and well done.

 

local news, national news, political news, State news

Let’s hope big early vote equals big overall vote

early-vote

Texas elections officials are beside themselves.

Early voting is setting records throughout the state, they say. In the part of the state where I live — the Panhandle — Potter County elections officials also report record turnout for the early vote.

Now, the question: Does the big early vote translate to a larger overall vote? My concern is that record-setting early vote means only that more Texans are voting early … period!

We hear similar reports around the country, where state and local elections officials are crowing about all this early-vote interest.

What in the world is driving it?

Well, I suppose it might have something to do with the news of late this past week, with FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that he might have some more information to reveal about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy. Legal experts across the spectrum do not anticipate any penalty will come Clinton’s way. The focus now appears to be on Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged dirtbag husband — Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner and his hideous sexting scandal.

Democrats want voters to cast ballots early — perhaps before they change their mind. Republicans are seizing on it, too, before more stuff comes out about their nominee, Donald J. Trump.

As for the Texas turnout, the Lone Star State generally ranks among the poorest turnout states in the country.

I thought early on that because of the two major-party candidates’ low esteem among voters that this year’s presidential election turnout might set an all-time low.

I would be delighted to be wrong about that prediction, too.

national news, political news, State news

Trump brings one positive: big voter turnouts

1407859219000-Election-3-

I am about to do something that gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I’m going to write something positive about Donald J. Trump.

The man has boosted voter turnout in these Republican Party presidential primaries. He’s boasted about it, which is no surprise.

As one who for decades as a print journalist bemoaned the lack of voter participation, I will say that the turnout we’ve seen in the GOP side of the primary battle has been inspiring.

Trump’s tapping into that voter anger has brought people to the polls, which is a good thing. Yes, it is a good thing!

None other than John Cornyn, has said so, too. The senior U.S. senator from Texas — who says he’s remaining neutral in the primary fight — has lauded the result produced by Trump’s presidential candidacy.

According to the Texas Tribune: “The Republican primary has been surprising in a lot of ways, but one of those ways is the tremendous voter turnout that we’ve seen across the country, while the turnout in the Democratic primary has been lackluster,” Cornyn said. “That’s going to be really important in November, and my view is that I will support whoever the nominee of the Republican Party is.”

Cornyn is right, as well, about the “lackluster” Democratic turnout so far. It’s worth speculating, though, that Democrats just might re-discover their turnout “luster” if Trump becomes the GOP nominee and we are going to decide between Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the fall election.

Again, if the turnout this fall sets records and many millions more Americans go to the polls than ever before, we ought to thank Donald J. Trump for that, too.

That’s it. That’s all the niceness I can spare for this guy.

 

national news, political news

Predicting the Iowa caucus result is fraught with risk

Close view of a collection of VOTE badges. 3D render with HDRI lighting and raytraced textures.

David Brooks is a brave man.

Or perhaps he’s nuts.

The New York Times columnist said two things on Friday. One is that he has been “consistently wrong” about this year’s presidential campaign. The other is that Donald J. Trump is going to “underperform” at the Iowa caucuses which occur Monday.

I choose not to go there. The campaign to this date has been fraught with peril for those of us who believed — it’s silly, I know — that Trump would have imploded long ago. He hasn’t. Trump has ridden on the backs of voters who are sick of the “status quo,” and want “change, by God.”

Trump is promising it, without a clue as to whether he — as president — even has the power to bring the kind of change he’s promising.

My favorite Trump promise so far is that when he’s president, “department store employees are going to wish customers Merry Christmas.” Yeah, go figure that one out.

Brooks also believes Sen. Bernie Sanders is going to have a “turnout problem” in Iowa, meaning that the strong young-voter support he’s getting in those crowded auditoriums won’t manifest itself in the caucus rooms. Why? Young people don’t vote with the same fervor as their elders.

How, though, in the world does one predict an outcome in either party?

I give Brooks lots of credit for sticking his neck out once again.

I’m keeping my powder dry until after the last caucus polling station reports in.

 

 

local news, political news

Turnout good for Amarillo … but it’s still poor

Close view of a collection of VOTE badges. 3D render with HDRI lighting and raytraced textures.

Forgive the wet blanket I’m about to toss over some of the celebrations around Amarillo.

I cannot let this go.

The citywide referendum Tuesday that resulted in voters’ approval of a multipurpose event venue/ballpark was a positive step for the city. I’ve heard some mild crowing, though, from those who are extolling the turnout.

And what was it?

It was about 23 percent. Twenty-three percent of the registered voters in Amarillo — that’s 22,444 of them — cast ballots on an election that led local newscasts for weeks. Print media covered it like a blanket. Advocates for and against the MPEV were seen and heard all over town.

They placed ads calling on people to vote. They urged it in public forums and discussions televised on public TV.

And with all the fire  and brimstone, hell and damnation, fury and ferocity — on both sides of the debate — four out of every five registered voters in Amarillo, Texas, stayed home. They didn’t vote.

Here’s something else to chew on. More than 13,000 residents voted early. That means about 9,000 of them voted on Election Day. I take little comfort in realizing that the Election Day turnout was so dismal.

Hey, it’s even worse when you consider that if you count the number of people who are eligible to vote, but who haven’t even bothered to register, the number plummets even farther.

Do not misunderstand this, though. I am glad the turnout was far greater than it usually is on these municipal matters. The regular City Council elections routinely produce single- or low double-digit turnouts. So, compared to what is customary, a 23 percent turnout does look good.

It’s all relative.

Friends and neighbors, we can do a lot better than that.

 

 

local news

Looks like a dismal turnout is on tap

If the utter silence at the place where I vote is any indication, it looks as though the turnout for today’s municipal runoff election is going to be a yawner.

I just cast my vote. It was 9:05 a.m. The polls opened at 7 at Arden Road Baptist Church.

My vote was the 20th cast. Twenty votes in 2 hours and 5 minutes of voting!

The runoff is for Place 4 on the Amarillo City Council. The two candidates are Steve Rogers and Mark Nair. They finished in the top two spots in the May 9 election.

The winner will fill out the five-member City Council.

Hey, it’s a big deal, man.

Whoever joins the council will be one of three new members. Voters have shaken things up a bit at City Hall, defeating two incumbents. The third new guy will replace an incumbent, Ron Boyd, who didn’t seek election to the seat to which he was appointed.

The day is still young as I write this brief blog. Maybe it’ll turn around once everyone wakes up, shakes the cob webs out, gulps down a cup or two of coffee.

Believe me: It takes all of about 2 minutes to vote.

That’s it.

How about voting today?

local news

Once more, with emphasis: Get out … and vote!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jJQeEQH6pc

I’ve displayed this video already on this blog.

I want to show it once more as Amarillo and the rest of Texas vote today for local officeholders.

My friend Chris Hays, the general manager of Panhandle PBS, makes a passionate case for why it’s important to vote in these elections.

The short answer? The local offices have more direct impact on our daily lives than the offices at the state or national levels.

And yet … voter turnout for these City Hall, school board and college offices tend to attract dismal turnouts.

The Amarillo City Council election might pull greater than average numbers when all the ballots are counted this evening. City officials will boast about attracting, oh, maybe 20 percent of those who are eligible to vote.

Big bleeping deal!

This is one final plea for those who haven’t yet voted to get out and do so.

It is far better for everyone if you make these critical choices for yourself rather than relying on your neighbor to make them for you.

After all, your neighbor just might have a different view of how your community should work than you do.

 

national news, political news

Obama not calling for mandatory voting

2 Comments

White House press flack Josh Earnest today sought to explain that President Obama isn’t calling for a specific law to require Americans to vote.

Hey, I get what the president said. He was making some kind of suggestion that it might be a good idea. I disagree with the notion of mandatory voting, as it seems vaguely un-American to tell us we must do something.

Obama doesn’t want to mandate voting

Actually, this is a healthy discussion to have.

Two states, Oregon and Washington, allow voters to mail in their ballots. Voter turnout in those two states is far greater than it is in, oh, Texas. It’s great that voters can cast their ballots in the comfort of their living rooms.

My preference? I still like the old-fashioned way of voting. Wait until Election Day, go to the polling place and stand in line with other voters, pass the time away waiting for a voting booth to become available. I dislike early voting and I do so only when I’m going to be away on Election Day.

I am of an old-school mentality that prefers — for lack of a better term — the pageantry of voting.

Early voting hasn’t boosted turnout; it’s just allowed more people to vote early. It reduces the crush at the polling places on Election Day.

One idea worth considering is making presidential — and midterm — Election Day a national holiday. Don’t go to work or school. Don’t do anything that would divert attention from the task of voting. Perhaps have the event occur on a Saturday.

I heard the president clearly in Cleveland and understood the context of his remarks.

Voter turnout stinks. Big money is too pervasive. However, let’s not require Americans to vote.