Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Voter Turnout Low Last November

There are 25 days and 21 hours until the Iowa Caucus and it would seem with a contested election, there should be a huge turnout across the country by Super-Duper Tuesday when California, New York and quite a few states vote in a de facto national primary.

Locally, the raw votes cast in the last election was the least amount of voters in 13 years. Turnout was 37.1% is the lowest turnout rate since 2001. It would be hard to believe that Santa Barbara will see these kind of numbers for Republicans and Democrats in February. Yet again, proof that even-year elections make sense for Santa Barbara City Council elections in turns of an inclusive and democratic process.

This and more is discussed on the most recent Off-Leash Public Affairs on community television.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anti politics until 11/08 said...

I hope this blog is not intended to start an all out war with name calling and side-taking again.

Measure A mentioned in Off-Leash link is enough to get it started.

Low voter turn-out last month? Ever think how disgusted many people are with the system here in CA with districting, gerrymandering, etc?

If I see Lois Capps on the street, I swear to keep her tied to my leash until she tells me one good thing she has done for us since she replaced her deceased husband.

It's Christmas. Can we have some peace and quiet? (Guess I did not help that, did I? See what I mean?)

12/09/2007 12:54 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

I'm committed to that too although it looks like it is housing v. renting that is bringing the passion these days.

12/09/2007 5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't vote last month and I can't see my life being any different if I had.

12/09/2007 6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should know this, but what is an "uncontested election?"

12/09/2007 11:55 AM  
Anonymous anti-politics 11/08 #2 said...

Sara: If only WE could be the politicians. We would be so brilliant with a plan to resolve both owning and renting in one giant project in, of course, a nice location.

A "TRUMP TOWERS" designed aesthetically for our area where there is SPACE, not downtown like NYC boxes. Investors and Developers cooperating so all get a piece of the pie. No politics.

Rent or own with good terms helped by nice cooperative lenders. This is the short of it. As the old MLK saying went, "I Have a Dream." Not for myself, but for all who wish to stay here. The hate and envy must stop.

12/09/2007 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is it about the democratic process you don't seem to get? The people who wanted to vote voted. They voted the way they wanted to vote, and they did not support your precious Measure A for any one or more of a dozen valid reasons to oppose it. Yes, it's a sorry state of affairs, but it's the way it is, and no amount of haranguing the population will change it. And there's no logical reason to believe that if the turnout had been greater the results would have been different. You might be better served if you thought more about what the voters were actually saying by resoundingly defeating even-year elections. Like, maybe City Council was perceived to have a serious case of hubris that led to the defeat of the measure as well as an incumbent--and a less than impressive re-election of the other two. Happy holidays.

12/09/2007 4:12 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Good catch 11:55 AM -- should have seen that myself. Damn -- if only I had an editor :) Will fix.

12/09/2007 9:58 PM  
Anonymous city watcher said...

4:12: seems to me that what the voters, the majority who voted NO on Measure A, were saying was that they wanted to pay more money, twice as much money, just to have Santa Barbara be different, at least in date of local elections. In the age of sameness we said no, think different.

That, in addition, two incumbents won and a third, Barnwell, came in 4th (after running an amazingly poor campaign) said two things, both reinforcing status quo contentment. 1. Not only did a majority not vote at all to change, but a majority of voters kept most of the present council members. 2. The majority of those who did vote chose to spend several hundred thousand dollars more per election to keep things as they are.

Clearly despite all the haranguing against the present council, a majority of registered voters in SB are content with the way things are.

That gives all the more credit to political newcomer Dale Francisco's election efforts: he clearly campaigned well and, importantly, something Barnwell did not do, he did not take our votes for granted but asked for the support. That someone who has served on no city commissions or committees and has never run before speaks very well for how he ran his campaign. It would be interesting to hear how he campaigned.

It will be very interesting to see, however, if anything comes of the change that he was urging since so clearly most voters or those capable of voting do not want change and 6 or the 7 council members are embedded status quo.

12/10/2007 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Mr. Spock said...

Please elaborate on this claim:

"And there's no logical reason to believe that if the turnout had been greater the results would have been different."

12/10/2007 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I watched Off Leash. The point of the power couple seems to be that everyone else is wrong, misinformed and, darn it, just not smart enough. If they want to look for one of the big reasons Measure A lost, they need to look in the mirror. They turned people off with their condescending and holier than thou attitude. Now they follow it up with an extra big serving of sour grapes. The Daily Sound is wrong, the Independent is wrong, the Firefighters are wrong and all the people who bothered to vote don't really represent democracy. It's too bad that this is the real world and in the real world bubba, you lost.

12/10/2007 4:48 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Mr. Spock,

Ask Hari Seldon, he would know...

12/10/2007 5:51 PM  
Blogger johnsanroque said...

Here's my question:

Is everyone who calls himself "anonymous" stupid, or is there just one "anonymous" person who makes stupid comments all the time?

12/10/2007 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sidewalks cost money. So is that reason enough not to put them in? Look how much money one could save by not putting in sidewalks.

Sure, elections cost money. And sure, money could be saved doing them another way and letting them get lost in the general election.

But sidewalks and city elections are something the city does, no matter what they cost. And the voters agreed to keep it that way because they told the city this is one way they want their money spent.

Wjy is this so hard to accept. I strongly believe Santa Barbara has been able to keep itself somewhat unique because it has off-year elections where the only focus is on the local candidates. I don't mind paying extra for that at all.

In fact, it is not paying extra. It is the price of our local democracy.

Agree, those who vote vote. And the voters voted. What part of the democratic process do you not like? That some voters are lazy and chose not to vote?

I see no reason to make things easy just for them, if they choose to throw away this critical right to participate.

I don't want my time and effort discounted just because I do believe in the democratic process, no matter when it occurs. It offends me you believe only some times of the voting cycle should be honored, and others not.

Those who chose not to vote in fact voted that they did not care, is how I interpret their absence from the voting boothes.

They voted with their silence to let those who do cast their ballots decide for them. And we did. Done. End of discussion.

12/10/2007 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Spock said...

Perhaps my communicator has a malfunction.

I repeat:

Where is evidence of
"And there's no logical reason to believe that if the turnout had been greater the results would have been different."

Also, what specifically was the
"condescending and holier than thou attitude" of the backers of Measure A?

12/10/2007 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously, logically, greater turnout of particular voters on one side or other would have changed the election results. But if those who voted were a representative sampling of the community, the proportions would have been the same, just the numbers would have been different.

If memory serves correct, Ms. Murrillo complained bitterly immediately after the election that no one in their right minds would vote against Measure A. That's both condescending and holier than thou. And Mr. Pritchett made almost a full-time effort, or so it seemed, throughout the election berating anyone who dared speak out against Measure A--including individuals on a wide spectrum of political opinion. They were not the best representatives to bring forth this particular measure, imho.

12/10/2007 9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rant is beginning I see....

Well, to at least answer ONE question. Most people use ANONYMOUS, which Sara graciously allows, for people who cannot have their names published because of their jobs. It's my reason; or else I will use a nickname related to the subject. Asking around to readers I know, they say the same about "their jobs." So do not call any anonymous person "STUPID." Perhaps you are wrong since you could not figure this out on your own??

And finally: People will vote if they wish to vote and that is the answer to that question. More voters do not mean a different turn-out unless "the fix is in."

12/10/2007 11:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The yes on Measure A failure was probably due to the combined efforts of the Chamber and the public safety unions and their combined barrage of radio ads. Without a counter effort (and lots of money) enough people went along with the same groups that control local, state and national election results and I would say are keeping the U.S.of A from really good representation. Otherwise the Measure A results proved that most are not paying much thought beyond the ads and flyers. The "Yes" vote was actually impressive considering the lack of funds and advertising on the usual media. Perhaps OPLA was naive or overly confident to wage a huge financial campaign to counter the usual efforts.

OPLA's surprise that the Independent's editorials are on the wrong side of issues is no surprise to me. The Independent for the most part is as ordinary Chamber driven publication much like the News Press. The Independent is selling a product and to do that you don't want to upset the status quo. Its all about selling sex, drugs and rock and roll.

12/11/2007 8:28 AM  
Anonymous eight santa barbara said...

Mr Spock,
9:41 has it right.

I'm a registered Democrat, vote liberal most of the time.

But I think Measure A is a bad idea. I think there are other things we can change to increase turnout and participation.

Every time I wrote this view on one of the blogs, I was hammered by 'Yes On Measure A' as being likely conservative, anti-democratic, in with special interests, having my own agenda, wanting to suppress turnout...

I wasn't the only one.

As I wrote after the election, next time the mouth behind 'Yes On Measure A' wants to support something, those around him/her should strap the muzzle on tight.

That's not saying anything about the person. I just think it's not the best way to go about changing folks' minds.

12/11/2007 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is voter turn-out low or is it high, considering the general interest in politics today. I would say 30% voter turn out is extremely high.

Imagine one out of three people actually still believe their voice matters, and not the public employee unions.

We haven't failed completely. Leave this alone. 30% of voters still living in Fantasy Land is remarkable.

Public employee unions have taken over the political process - they are probably the largest part of the 30% voters.

The other 70% of registered voters have been too badly battered and abused by public employee union clout to even bother voting anymore. They have watched too long and learned it doesn't matter.

The public union employees walk off with the biggest chunks of cash, and the voters end up with nothing. Why vote?

Compare the rise of public employee unions and the decline of voter participation and you will see the perfect storm.

12/11/2007 6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ever-widening divergence between registered voters and voter turn-out started in the mid 1960's and the gap grows every year. Prior to that, registered voter numbers and turnout voters were pretty much the same.

What happened in the mid-1960's and later to bring about that fundamental change?

Some possibilities:

1. Vietnam war and Pentagon Papers

2. Nixon and Watergate, and investigative journalism disclosing politico piccadillos

3. Assassinations of political leaders: Kennedy, Kennedy and King

4. Hippies, sex, drugs and rock and roll, anti-establishment furor

5. Television and politics, the "selling" of the presidency, making campaigns more expensive and more national, than local

6. Elimination of the smoke filled rooms in private for public televised nomination conventions

7. Working women; loss of precincts and block management by political parties with local volunteers

8. Medicare - large public entitlements

9. Growth of public employee unions

10. Growth of anonymous suburbs, sprawl, new communties, alienation, lonely crowds

12/11/2007 6:17 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Some answers: (to 6:17pm)

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Been a long time since we rock and rolled...but No
5. No
6. Still there, just no smoke, so uh, No
7. No
8. No and there better be something left when I'm entitled dam it...
9. Yes
10. No

My friend Occam and I have concluded that voter dienfranchisement is caused by the realization that no matter the vote outcome, the will of the people is irrelevent to power players, special interest money and lobbyist subversion. (Go ahead, demand examples, I dare ya)

The election is purely a legal formality required by the Constitution. The competition between the candidates is not one of ideology rather than which among the candidates will get to be on the recieving end of the bribes and who gets to wield the power, babies...

"So Say We All"

12/11/2007 10:43 PM  
Anonymous Observer said...

Goddammit! Again with the grammar.

The first line of this post begins, "There's 25 days..."

For a blog that purports to be peopled with journalists, pseudo-journalists, literati, and just plain bloviators, please use correct grammar. To wit: "There ARE 25 days..."

Oh, and by the way - please do not write, "I could care less" when you may rightly mean "I COULDN'T care less."

Come on, you illiterati - raise the bar!

Yours, in the true spirit of the season,


12/11/2007 10:56 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Ouch! I'm not a former journalist and you would think all could tell from mistakes like that...I could use an editor late at night when i am trying to keep this thing going...

I raise the bar every day that I can -- but some days it is tough. I live a life like you and do what I can...still, I appreciate your input and hope you will continue to help me make this blog as grammatically correct as it can as it is important to me.

12/11/2007 11:52 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Observer? You need to see my friend the "Doc" on the RE thread...Rumour is he are a specialist.

"you may rightly mean "I COULDN'T care less." (should I use double quotes here? I lost my style book too.)

Actually the correct vernacular of the tragically hip would be:
I could care less...NOT"

They may rightly also mean "I could care less...but I don't. I care just the right amount."

So which do we think "they" really mean?

12/12/2007 12:42 AM  
Blogger jqb said...

You might be better served if you thought more about what the voters were actually saying by resoundingly defeating even-year elections. Like, maybe City Council was perceived to have a serious case of hubris that led to the defeat of the measure as well as an incumbent--and a less than impressive re-election of the other two.

Better served if you thought more, indeed. Since many people voted against Measure A because of anti-council sentiment, perceived hubris, and ridiculous claims by people like Frank Hotchkiss that Measure A was a "Hugo Chavez measure" that would give council members indefinite terms (it's worth noting that, had Measure A passed, Dale Francisco would have had the same 5 year term as Das Williams and Helene Schneider), the outcome cannot conclusively be interpreted as opposition to even-year elections.

For a blog that purports to be peopled with journalists, pseudo-journalists, literati, and just plain bloviators

For someone complaining about grammar, you might want to learn what the word "purports" means and how to use it. And your logic is rather poor -- if this is a blog peopled by "just plain bolviators", one shouldn't expect a particularly high standard. It looks like you started with an idea (journalists should write well) and then forgot what it was mid-sentence.

12/12/2007 10:47 AM  
Blogger jqb said...

The ever-widening divergence between registered voters and voter turn-out started in the mid 1960's and the gap grows every year. Prior to that, registered voter numbers and turnout voters were pretty much the same.

Utter nonsense. First, the ratio of voters to registered voters is a lousy measure of disaffectation, so you're shooting yourself in the foot by using that measure. Second, the actual ratios of voters to registered voters in national elections are, according to the U.S. Census Bureau ( and

1968: 91.2%
1972: 87.1%
1976: 88.7%
1980: 88.6%
1984: 87.7%
1988: 86.2%
1992: 90.0%
1996: 82.3%
2000: 85.5%
2004: 88.5%

That's not an " ever-widening divergence"; your claim is something that you just made up in your own head, rather than a report of the facts. I daresay that it is that sort of behavior that is the greatest threat to democracy. These days, we have access to a vast wealth of information on the internet that can be used to counter misinformation and inform the populace, if only people wanted to be informed rather than cling to their preconceptions.

12/12/2007 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SDLG - you are still Numero Uno (Una?).

THank you again for all the work you put into this blog. All we do is write a few posts from time to time. You have to wade through all of them, keep us civil, on track so screw the spelling, the grammar, and the typos when we get all of the above from you ....for free.

This remains the most interesting local blog out there. I want you cloned so the magic continues forever.

Whatever and whomever you are.... there is a very large degree of detached professionalism in how you handle this unweildy forum. You get an A+ in my book. Now go ahead and blush, and make sure you post this so the good karma can spread.

12/12/2007 5:25 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Thanks 5:25 pm -- I do the best I can and still strive to do better. Thanks for the kind words.

12/12/2007 6:11 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...


What is the ratio of eligible voters to registered voters? Maybe there's something to be gleened from that. (I'd look for myself but being a rich homeowner, I'd much rather you do it for me)

And don't think I didn't notice your correct term of "disaffection" and my blov of "disenfranchise"

I'll try to bloviate better in the future.

12/12/2007 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

County website shows ever-widening divergence between registration and voter turnout since 1965. And we are talking about local elections here. Relevant. What caused the change?

12/12/2007 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Holland - SB County Elections Clerk

2004: 270,000 residents
80% are registered voters

Turnout 2007: SB city elections 30% of these approximately 80% registered voters.

This does not square with post claiming even ratio between registered voters and voter turn-out is closer to 88-90?. That appears to be a lie, behind all the bluff, blunder and insults. Do you wish to retract your claims otherwise?

12/13/2007 12:01 AM  
Anonymous David Pritchett said...

The link to Santa Barbara City voting data for the past 13 years is here, including actual votes, registered voters, turnout, etc. City turnout is way higher during Presidential elections.

As usual, my anonymous critics are always... something.

12/13/2007 8:44 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noreiga said...

I'll try to get my meaning and spelling all in order to make things easier for Sara.

Let me begin by thanking my niece for her excellent display of civic duty she has undertaken with the creation of this blog.

Now about voting. You don't suppose there might be a general decline in this notion of "civic duty" do you?

The egotistical, me first, NIMBY, element just keeps growing and growing. Where's mine baby?

Why do I always think about Rome when I rant like this?

SA1. I like your blogging a lot. Your the best cynic here! Change your pseudo to Diogenes!

12/13/2007 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Turnout is not the only important aspect about voting. One of the issues the proponents of Measure A failed to address was that studies conclude that incumbents gain an advantage in a consolidated election. The study I read said it was four percent. A four percent advantage may not seem like a lot, but it's unfair to challengers. I always wondered if the proponents would have been quite so excited about promoting Measure A if the incumbents had all been right wing Republicans.

12/13/2007 9:33 AM  
Anonymous I read the full report, not just the factoid I liked said...

Yes, the Measure A web site cited an academic study about voter turnout in municipal elections, and that study concluded that even-year municipal elections were best for encouraging voter participation.

The survey from throughout California showed that incumbents slightly are more likely re-elected when voter turnout is higher during even-year elections.

So what is unfair about that?
The forces against Measure A had zero sympathy or caring for supporting a voting system that would nearly double voter participation. One could argue that keeping the odd-year election cycle was far more unfair to everyone.

The people who like the low voter turnout during odd-year city elections somehow think that keeping a system with half the number of voter turnout is somehow less fair?

Again, the point is not whom one likes on the city council whether right wing Republicans or lefty Greenies, but rather to encourage the highest voter participation regardless of political persuasion.

That basic goal of democracy was the point, not to support some candidates more than others, incumbents or not.

12/14/2007 12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Elections that require poll taxes or discriminatory identification are not fair. There is nothing unfair about off year elections.

There are no barriers, artificial or otherwise to vote in off year elections. There is nothing unfair, discriminatory or unconstitutional about off-year elections.

The lazy may not vote in off year elections. That is the only impact and that is an impact of choice, and nothing else. There is no reason to reward that laziness.

That is what I find so scary about changing things. Make voting work for those who care about it. But don't just hand it to a bunch of people who don't even bother to show up and exercise their rights.

You pro-A people need to come up with better arguments that fairness or costs, because there is nothing wrong with the way they are conducted on both counts.

There is some other agenda behind your passion to change things. Your arguments are sounding like a very false note and that is why they are not going anywhere. What is your real motivation ....besides not clogging up mail boxes. That was one of the worst justifications for your agenda.

Come clean, because something smells really bad about your case and you cannot accept the very good reasons not to change. Something is just not on the table here. Fess up.

12/14/2007 8:27 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Once again I've come to a stunning conclusion:

Most non voters are really voters who are saying:

"I feel strongly both ways so I'm happy with any outcome. I trust government beaurocrats and Pols to do the right thing because they love me and want the best for me."


"Doesn't mean squat what I vote for cuz the Pols are going to do whatever their breadbutterers tell them to. Besides they never invite me to the Montecito parties so screw them and the elephant or donkey they rode in on."

Now if I could just figure out which are the off year elections...

12/14/2007 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Fessing Up said...

You caught us, Old Anonymous.

The supporters of Measure A really are the junk mail printers who make money by so many separate annual elections.

The real agenda is that they really wanted the city to spend money needlessly and we also want as few as people possible voting to decide what happens for the all the people in the city. After all, the government never has done anything to make voting more convenient, has it ever?

The city also just has so much money and does not know how to spend it, so just might as well spend it on election consultants from other counties.

You figured it out. You win. You are so much smarter. You really know that regular folks like the junk mail that comes with elections. Junk mail is just so popular and the claim it was not was all a ruse.

Saving the city general fund so much money and increasing voter participation are really just a Communist Plot, because why would anyone want to save money or engage more people in their city government by encouraging them to vote by making it more convenient?

Why would anyone want that?
The agenda is now truly exposed.

12/14/2007 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

San Francisco has an off-year election. So does Vallejo. So does Ventura--and several other California cities, big and small. There's no big issue in any of those places about consolidating elections to increase voter turnout. You can't make people vote if they just aren't motivated to vote. And the Measure A promoters also fail to discuss the phenomenon of how voters don't always get to the bottom of the ballot to vote on local elections, especially when they're overloaded with confusing propositions, etc. Oh, and while we're citing costs, what about the City's decision to invest in the cost of printing the entire voter handbook in both English and Spanish for distribution to every single the registered voters, (Thus requiring twice the amount of paper and printing costs) instead of just printing an appropriate number of requested handbooks translated into Spanish--I have heard something around 500 were requested this election. Coould have saved a bundle there. When you apply a bit of thought to all this, there is something that doesn't add up. But those Measure A folks just get so emotional about the many ways voters disagreed with their idea. This is what democracy looks like. The people didn't want what you were selling or the way you were selling it.

12/14/2007 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please show me the survey done proving beyond a shadow of doubt more Santa Barbara voters would vote for city elections on general election years and their sworn statements they are refusing to vote, just because city elections are held on off year elections.

Thank you. I seemed to have missed this if you already did one.

12/15/2007 12:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good comment 2:41pm about getting all emotional and abusive when someone does not win in a democracy. RE: Measure A folks who lost who will not let this go and keep assuming voters were ignornant for not passing it.

Plenty of us have been having to stuff an awful lot down these past Bush years and the atrocities he is committing in our names.

Yet, grudgingly (or is it lazily?) I stuff it all down with the understanding this is a democracy, and I was out-voted.

But I have hated deeply every second of the Bush administrations. I stand proud being in the very small minority that did not even support him immediately after 911. He never rose to the dignity of this office, selected by democratic/representative process.

12/15/2007 7:53 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Mom. Can I have a cookie?
Mom, can I please have a cookie?
Mom, can I pretty please have a cookie?

Dad, can I have a cookie?
Go ask your mother...

Mom? Dad said I can have a cookie.
Ok, but just one, you'll spoil your dinner...

Mom, can I have another cookie?

12/15/2007 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Chamber and Unions won because said...

Sorry but the Measure A folks are correct in that for a democracy to thrive much more need to participate. The end results is that not enough are participating and hence democracy is failing.....that is why we have an idioto in the White House.

The Anti Measure A had a movement.... airing their position on the usual airwaves (radio, TV, mailings. Had the Pro Measure A gone through all the usual fundraising and matched the Chamber of Commerce and the Public Safety unions radio advertisements I would bet that Measure A would have succeeded.

Also, those that are participating blatantly stated that "those who care, vote." What snobbery!

12/15/2007 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Fessing Up said...

I am now SO BUSTED!

You all discovered the little secret that the whole point of shifting elections to the even years was to print more ballots in Spanish at taxpayer expense.

The state law that requires bilingual ballots was just a hoax, and the basic costs also were false that printing really was the expensive cost and postage was not.

You solved the conspiracy!
It is all about making English the Official Language and banning flag burning just for good measure!

12/15/2007 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is "snobbish" about saying, those who vote, vote. What is snobbish about saying voters in a democratic election chose to keep city elections off-year.

C'mon, the ballot arguments and the ballot wording all favored passage of Measure A. You just did not get enough of your lazy voters out to pass it. Strategic error on you part not putting this measure on a general election ballot.

It was pretty overwhelming against Measure A. I don't think you was robbed. You lost. Fair and square those "snobbish voters" who cared to vote.

What else don't you like about democracy?

12/15/2007 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

okay...those who don't care vote.

Or... those who care don't vote.

Neither one of those options make any sense at all. Not snobbish, just logical.

12/15/2007 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Distant voices chattering said...

There are many reason why people don't vote or vote. The idea that greater voting and voter participation is paramount in a democratic government is accurate. It seems that many perceive the direction of our local and national representational bodies of government are moving toward a plutocracy. Those that are satisfied with the 37.1% participation are assisting the movement away from a democratic government. If you are satisfied with the 37.1% voter participation then you are aiding this effort toward an oligarchy type government. Perhaps if you fall in good graces you may be allowed to participate in the oligarchy..... but only if you are distinguished by wealth, family or military powers.

12/16/2007 4:07 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Plutocracies, oligarchys, democracies...

What kind of ocracy is it when the public employees and elected officials make sure their bed is well feathered before they get around to letting the rest of us have what's left over... ?

12/16/2007 6:50 PM  
Anonymous Piano playing softly said...


Feeling left out? Join the club. Without commenting on any one gripe (public employees, elected officials, etc) your response misses the point. To answer your question what kind of "ocracy" is it?..what does it matter when people are not thoughtful, engaged and perhaps a little less introspect. By voting for what's best for "me" rather than for "everyone" then we end up a nation of self centered introspects. By not voting at all then we end up with something other than democracy. That is where we are headed with todays low voting trend and perhaps why you are getting the left overs.

12/17/2007 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sa1 - I think the public employee feather-bedding is a coup d'etat form of government. They rotted the institution of governance from the inside. And we voters slept through this and allowed this "democratic" take-over.

One more reason to not let more voters get too much power. They are too easily lead around by simplistic demogogues.

12/17/2007 6:09 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Not to put too much of a 5th grade spin on it but we do not live in a democracy.

The USofA is a republic.

We "vote" for representatives. Not laws, not budgets, not morality.

We trust, nay, demand an oath, that they will carry out their duties to serve the best interest of the majority while sustaining the rights of the minorities as the law allows.

To breach that oath is an act of Treason.

We shouldn't need initiatives, propositions and measures if the the politicians did their jobs correctly.

Maybe it takes a few public guillotinings to get them refocused.

You can start with Demo Duke Cunningham and the pack of Republican child molesters and prostitute frequenters.

I don't care what they do on their own time. While in office though...

12/17/2007 9:56 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

SA-1 -- wow, you never cease to push the envelope brother!

I guess if everyone took a name at BlogaBarbara I'd have to let a lot fewer comments go -- but perhaps that is your twisted point deep down inside? :)

Unfortunately, Dems have issues too as one our buddys (Bill Carson?) will soon point out.

Katie Couric will be asking H. Clinton tomorrow night what she thinks about extramarital affairs on the CBS Evening News after asking every candidate tonight about the last time they were PO'd.

Huckabee said he blackberry'd everyone on staff while Obama somehow got away with saying he keeps an even keel -- really? Be authentic Barack!

Bill Richardson and John Edwards seemed to tell the truth and be the most authentic. Richardson was funny with an almost inept, yet truly honest, answer. Edwards fully admitted the last time he was angry. H. Clinton tried to make it sound like it was her dog that last made her angry -- maybe she read my last post. :)

McCain gave a measured answer which was very much worth respect from a man than got an endorsement from a former Demo VP candidate today....I'd almost say WTF?...but I have some due respect for this authentic politician that may have bit too much experience for the context of this election.

SB's even year'd election push was just a microcosm of the push by SO MANY states to front load the primary process. Good reasons, and it makes sense -- but not every voter totally gets it.

12/17/2007 10:42 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Whaaaat? I said "MAYBE" It's not like I'm out back sharpening the blade (as far as you know ;-P)

Besides the Chinese do it all the time!

And God knows we loooove the Chinese. WalMart wouldn't be WalMart without them (and vice-versa).

And we loooove WalMart.

Matter of fact, I hear WalMart going to fill the the bottom floor of Paseo Chapala.

That way Pini's populace will have an upscale place to shop for ahh, pet food, on their way home down the street from their jobs upstairs....

Bingo, four threads in one post, a new record! Yippee!

(I'm a professional folks, don't try this at home...)

12/18/2007 1:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home