Posted on 10/01/2006 10:25:40 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
CALIFORNIA VOTERS go to the polls on Nov. 7 to elect a governor, U.S. senator, 100 state legislators and 53 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. While they are there, voters will decide the fate of 13 state propositions including billions of dollars in bonds for transportation, schools, water and housing and tax increases on oil companies and cigarette smokers. The outcome of this election could shape the policy environment for decades to come, but most Californians will be bystanders rather than participants in the process. Instead, a small group of state residents will be making critical decisions about the state's future.
--snip--
At the same time, growing numbers of registered voters are choosing not to show up at the polls, and records for low voter participation are being shattered left and right.
In the November 2002 governor's election, 7.7 million ballots were cast -- a 50.5 percent turnout. The June 2006 primary attracted only 5.3 million voters for a 33.6 percent turnout. ...
--snip--
Most Californians will simply tune out as this political drama unfolds. That's unfortunate, because their lack of participation has profound consequences. There is a world of difference between those who vote and those who don't vote. Our analysis of thousands of interviews from the PPIC Statewide Surveys shows that likely voters in California are disproportionately white (72 percent), U.S. born (88 percent), homeowners (77 percent), age 45 and older (62 percent) and college graduates (53 percent) with incomes of $60,000 or more (56 percent). By comparison, nonvoters are more likely to be young, renters, Latinos, immigrants and have less money and education.
The reality is that an "exclusive" electorate has taken root in California, a state where no racial or ethnic group constitutes a majority of the overall population. ...
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
W.A.S.S.
It was a helluva ride while it lasted.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
In the midst of all this, some say we must move to the center, become more inclusive or we will be left out of the process and lose any say in the state's and nation's direction and future.
I fear we have already passed that point a few years ago, all we're watching now are the last gasps of a once great Republic. The sad part, it's mostly self-inflicted internal wounds that will likely be the ultimate undoing of the grand experiment that has benefitted so many to this point.
Once it is gone, it likely will not be able to be restored in any of our lifetimes. So to those who have embraced the center in a move to grow the Ca GOP and GOP in general, I say , Thanks,, for nothing.
The ones who give a damn are . . . homeowners (aka property taxpayers) and make in excess of $60,000 per year (aka income taxpayers). It seems that the more taxes you pay the more incentive you have to vote. And homeowners and wage earners definitely do not want more taxes, unlike the liberal base, who pay little in taxes now.
The doctrine of "One Man One Vote" renders each individual citizens vote meaningless. The doctrine also nullified the geographical principle which provided some check on urban excess. The doctrine of "Tolerance" has placed the outcasts of our former society in positions of authority. Then one wonders why people are not interested!
You would be surprised how many homeowners with large incomes are liberals. More proof that they are insane, as they are voting against their own interests.
I don't get it - the voter participation numbers cited here are in line with national averages. So does the complaint just boil down to "white people vote more than Hispanics"? Boo hoo, stupid liberal.
Those facts have saved us from the lib-Dem takeover since 2000. They will do so again in 2006. And once again, the lib-Dems and their supporters in the media will go berserk in the 48 hours after the election, trying to find some reason why they failed, once again.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "This Town Ain't Big Enough...."
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
It's because Diebold is run by Republicans. Don't you know anything?????!!!!!
FRankly, in some states, voting is a futile exercise,, when referendums are used to enact sensible policy, they get tossed out by courts.
The blurring and blending of party agendas by some fence-crossing office holders makes it even more difficult to determine what one can expect from elected officials.
dang, man, you are depressing me.
lalalalalalalalalala
So, where's the problem?
Two things this article does NOT say is that those who are more likely to vote are also -- based on these demographics -- more likely to be CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN. People who are more motivated, more educated, and more successful are MORE likely to vote.
---
This may be true more so in a national level type election, here in California, the 2 party system is broken, certainly neither party represents the people's best interests, only special interest groups, illegals and big donors seem to the significant beneficiaries of late, imo.
I will be glad to see this election done and gone, so contorted has been the lead-up to it and so full of intrigues on both sides of the aisle, all the while with a duplicitous media doing all it can to do its partisan reporting when it should be anything but. Talking heads benefit as much as anyone from tax cuts and reforms to many social programs so badly in need of serious reworking or outright elimination.
The sad thing is a lot of folks like socialism and communism on our shores and don't even know it or won't willingly admit, yet vote to keep it alive and kicking, even in times of war when our nation's very existence is at question.
That's because the CAGOP has blurred the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. No wonder CA voters are staying home. Who wants to choose between a socialist and a wanna-be socialist?
So, where's the problem?
--
There aren't enough of them to make much of a difference or slow the slide into socialism and the fulfillment of California being the leading Utopia for uDopeas. ;-)
you are depressing me.
--
Just stay away from high places, Please. ;-)
</sarcasm>
The fewer people who vote in the State, the more I like it. I don't want a mob of semiliterate trogs voting to raise my taxes. I would much rather see them stay home watching WWF.
You must be referring to the State of New Jersey. Joisey is filled with liberal democrats who are now fleeing the state because they can no longer afford the property taxes on their own homes. New Jersey geniuses - coming soon to a state near you . . . and voting for more taxes like they always do.
Actually, I was thinking of California. I've lived in the Bay Area, so I know of what I speak.
True - San Francisco belongs on a different planet. I never tell people that I'm from California (aka the Granola state) when I travel - instead I say that I'm from San Diego. People in the midwest and south seem to think that Californians are rich and nuts.
Quiz: Why is California the Granola state? Because it is full of fruits, flakes, and nuts!
I was happy to see that Arnold held a 50%-33% lead in the LA Times poll out today and that Tom McClintock led 42%-41% amongst CA likely voters.
California Republicans may not be the best breed, but they're a heck of a lot better than the Dems.
One last thing - if Arnold wins a landslide victory at the top of the ballot, it will help the GOP in down-ballot races, including House races.
I think we should implement the following conditions on voting:
1. You must not get more than half of your income from public assistance.
2. You must be able to speak or read English, preferably both and be a citizen.
3. You must present evidence of citizenship.
4. You must not be a felon.
5. You must not have belonged to any organization advocating the overthrow of the US.
6. You must not have allied or fought on the side of known enemies of the US.
7. You must have held a job and paid federal taxes.
I'm sure there are more qualifications that could be listed but those are the ones that matter to me. I know you would hear screams to high heaven of racism and discrimination but I believe a clear majority of Americans would support these 7 conditions. It doesn't make sense to allow people to vote who do not contribute or have not contributed to this nation or have a hatred for it.
Translation: "California is not yet a fully-fledged socialist republic. We must drag all the illiterate dropouts to the polls so it will become one, ASAP."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I think Ronald Reagan said that the worst mistake he made as President was signing the 1986 amnesty bill (aka the deathwarrant for the CA Republican Party). After that went through with millions of new tax-the-rich-gringos voters, California changed from a GOP stronghold to a socialist wonderland.
22% of California's eligible voters put Schwarzenegger in office. The other 78% got the governor they deserved.
For those partisans attempting to work the system, especially Republican partisans, I offer a reminder that plurality governments are usually detrimental to the society because they have no mandate and have little interest in representing the electorate in their district. They represent only their, minority electorate.
Creating interest in the democratic republican process should be a principal aim of organized politically parties but it isn't. Instead of educating, their fall back is typically the negative attack ad, used to highlight candidate differences , which personalizes a campaign and avoids the real issues.
Angelides compares Schwarzenegger to Bush ignoring California's financial crisis. Schwarzengger emphasizes Angelides solution to the current crisis, more taxation, while ignoring the crisis and offering no solutions to balancing the state's income against its expenses.
One of the few politicians running for state wide office, Tom McClintock, is addressing the issues, educating the electorate and offering solutions, but he is doing so without the consent or financial help of his own political party. Stump speeches like McClintock typically offers are an incentive to his audience to participate and determine their own fate.
The 53 members of the U.S. House of Representatives they mention are just the members in California's 53 districts.
I got the impression that the author was wanting more liberal, non citizen's types to get out there and vote! Why should they, the liberals are in control here in California, and they get exactly what they want for the most part.
Thanks for that post, lots to mull over and digest, for sure. ;-)
Yes in most states it is illegal but many "minority" groups and the ACLU have been pushing to get that changed.
Besides, if you look at statistics, the majority of California's voters are either middle to upper class white people and legalized Asian immigrants and their children.
It wasn't so much an influx of "new voters" that changed Cali from a swing state to a solid Dem state, but instead an OUTFLOW of Republicans to Colorado, Arizona, etc.
He works for the San Fransicko Gate newspaper - California's answer to Pravda. He hasn't gotten what he wants yet - Proposition 13 must go to achieve the Socialist Worker's Paradise that he craves.
Liberal mindset: Illegal aliens of California Unite! Tax the evil conservatives out of their homes in California by voting to get rid of Proposition 13! Comrades Fidel Castro and Ted Kennedy will salute you!
Yes, you are right. Fleeing middle-class Republican voters did leave the state - because their neighborhoods were turning into barrios and the public schools into gangbanger heaven. Los Angeles and Southgate come to mind. Where is Burbank Karl? He has posted several remarks about his neighborhood turning into Tijuana.
"Elite group of citizens" = voters.
Meanwhile, non-voters don't get their way. How unfair!!!
The PPIC numbers are interesting, though hardly surprising. But for anybody to whine about the unfairness of it all is just absurd.
I hear ya.. unlike some countries , there are no armed gunmen at the entrances to the polling places, or pre-filled out ballots handed out as you enter..
A felony does not disqualify anybody from voting under the U.S. Constitution.
That determination is made state-by-state, by statute or state constitution. Some do, some don't.
I don't want everyone to vote. Remember, in America, the people have a right not to vote if they don't want to. By not voting, they are voting. They are saying that they may believe some thing or other, but that they prefer to let others decide what will be law and what won't.
The article points out that voters are predominantly white and rich, and yet they vote against themselves out of guilt, I guess, at having it too good. They are like the old protestants and Catholics who believe(d) that earthly life is supposed to be suffering and misery, and that enduring all the suffering and misery makes one worthy of eternal life in Paradise. It would be nice if they would be happy that they are happy, and vote so that others can be happy too.
The new tobacco tax initiative here in California expects to raise the tax on each cigarette by something like 10 to 12 cents, and so will raise billions of dollars for the state. The people that will vote in favor of this tax are non-smokers, white and rich, and they think smoking is bad for you, so I expect the bill to pass. Look for truckloads of cigarettes to come in from other states to meet the needs of people who smoke to be able to smoke without going broke 5 days after the welfare check comes in.
I'm voting against the tobacco tax, because it will create a whole new class of criminals, even though I don't smoke and don't like smoking. However, to raise money to run the government by taxing smokers, who are generally poor, uneducated and non-voters doesn't seem fair to me.
Yeah, the next thing you know they will vote to pick the pockets of the producers.
The chickens may be coming home to roost. My wife and I know a "liberal" couple who I am sure have supported about every loony liberal cause that ever was.
In the last couple of years, they have suffered some setbacks. Apparent employment security turned out to be just that and not real. Health coverage evaporated. Relocation plans turned out to be exceedingly more expensive than they thought. Now they see the value of their existing home, which they are pretty much committed to giving up, dropping.
Lately, my wife reports comments from the woman to the extent that they are beginning to sense that they have, in fact, been rather hypocritical about matters in the past. Now that they are struggling, they come to realize that NONE of the various safety nets they supported over the years are going to improve their lot at all. Further, I think they can see that there is considerable risk that things are going to get much worse before they could get better.
They can't help but wonder whether all those taxes they supported and paid wouldn't have benefited them more if they had just put them in the bank. They thought they could afford to tax themselves and everybody else with little real concern for the future. They are probably going to be very disappointed.
You forgot single women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.