Complete US Voter Registration statistics, End of 2013

[BDBoop]

You should be ashamed of yourself!!!

Now, LL. You said you had something to explain to Santa? She's all ... uh ... what's that word? ... Dammit! EARS.

She's all ears.

Bbbbbbuttt.........I swear.....the ad said she was a new kind of floatation device! I got her for the kids!!!

Anybody under the age of two is going to take one look at her and think "LUNCH!"

 

[BDBoop]

Boy, did we go off-topic or what.

Shame on you two! SHAME!!

 

[BDBoop]

This one reminds me of Syrenn.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This one reminds me of Syrenn.

I need her to come over help me crunch the next batch of electoral statistics. Sometimes it is very, very HARD work.

 

[BDBoop]

This one reminds me of Syrenn.

I need her to come over help me crunch the next batch of electoral statistics. Sometimes it is very, very HARD work.

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

 

[Statistikhengst]

This one reminds me of Syrenn.

I need her to come over help me crunch the next batch of electoral statistics. Sometimes it is very, very HARD work.

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

The big kids who are math geeks, yes!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Well, this thread went totally off the rails...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, this thread went totally off the rails...

Just for a second.

Tits ok, we can talk about the OP now, [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] !!!

 

[JoeB131]

Well, this thread went totally off the rails...

Just for a second.

Tits ok, we can talk about the OP now, [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] !!!

Okay, here's the question I've got.

Why is it not standard procedure, when a death certificate is issued, that the board of elections isn't copied so they know to take that person off the voting rolls?

I think the only way that could be a problem is if you had two people with the same name in a jurisdiction.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, this thread went totally off the rails...

Just for a second.

Tits ok, we can talk about the OP now, [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] !!!

Okay, here's the question I've got.

Why is it not standard procedure, when a death certificate is issued, that the board of elections isn't copied so they know to take that person off the voting rolls?

I think the only way that could be a problem is if you had two people with the same name in a jurisdiction.

The easy and also totally honest answer: because of Federalism, each state gets to decide how to take care of this stuff. And if I recall correctly, birth, death and marriage certificates are considered part of a person's sphere of privacy and can only be passed on to a third party with consent of the person involved, and after his death, from loved ones.

But there would be no reason in the world to prohibit the state agency that writes birth certificates from sending a general notification of the deaths recorded in that month to the local, county or state BOE.

 

[BDBoop]

Well, this thread went totally off the rails...

Just for a second.

Tits ok, we can talk about the OP now, [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] !!!

/falls over laughing

//wheeze

OMG!!!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, this thread went totally off the rails...

Just for a second.

Tits ok, we can talk about the OP now, [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] !!!

Okay, here's the question I've got.

Why is it not standard procedure, when a death certificate is issued, that the board of elections isn't copied so they know to take that person off the voting rolls?

I think the only way that could be a problem is if you had two people with the same name in a jurisdiction.

That assumes that the person died within the same jurisdiction where they were registered to vote. Considering that there isn't a single repository of voters and/or death certificates the problem does need to be addressed. Perhaps a central SS Administration database could be set up where local election officials could query SSN's and it would return a simple active code for anyone who is still in their system. Not perfect but better than what there is now in my opinion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just for a second.

Tits ok, we can talk about the OP now, [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] !!!

Okay, here's the question I've got.

Why is it not standard procedure, when a death certificate is issued, that the board of elections isn't copied so they know to take that person off the voting rolls?

I think the only way that could be a problem is if you had two people with the same name in a jurisdiction.

That assumes that the person died within the same jurisdiction where they were registered to vote. Considering that there isn't a single repository of voters and/or death certificates the problem does need to be addressed. Perhaps a central SS Administration database could be set up where local election officials could query SSN's and it would return a simple active code for anyone who is still in their system. Not perfect but better than what there is now in my opinion.

Yepp.

 

[longknife]

Maybe I'm wrong but I am certain the various districts report how many registered voters from each party affiliation actually turned out to vote.

Of course who and what they voted for is secret and cannot possibly be reported.

I keep seeing reports such as - "?% of registered Democrats turned out to vote."

So, why would that information NOT be available?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Maybe I'm wrong but I am certain the various districts report how many registered voters from each party affiliation actually turned out to vote.

Of course who and what they voted for is secret and cannot possibly be reported.

I keep seeing reports such as - "?% of registered Democrats turned out to vote."

So, why would that information NOT be available?

I have never seen that before. Ever.

But if you come across a link, feel free to pass it along to me and I will gladly research it. You have possibilities in 30 states plus DC. the other 20 states do not do VR by party identification at all.

But already, I see a problem with that: unless every district in a state does this, the statistic still doesn't help anyone.

where are you seeing those reports?

 

[WelfareQueen]

I know we talked about this yesterday, but the key variable for many elections (particularly Presidential) seems to be voter turnout. All the controversy about polling data in the last election cycle was really centered around the degree of bias each polling entity put into their data. To be fair, most got it right.

Stat, your data is interesting, but it really doesn't address the key motivational factor. Which bloc of voters is the most motivated to turn out? I am not sure how polling agencies determine this variable. I would be interested to know. Maybe they go off of voter registration data?


When roughly only 50%-60% of the electorate votes in most elections, the variable of turnout really does become critical.

So assume Democrat leaning voters are 46% of a States electorate, but their turnout is 60%, while Republican leaning voters are 54% of the electorate but turnout at only 50%. Guess what? The Democrat candidate wins. That is how important turnout becomes.


I would love to now how voters will turn out in 2014 and 2016. Will Obama's minority voting bloc continue to turn out in record numbers? In 2008 it was massive. It 2012 it was still very strong but fell off a bit. Will it continue to fall off in the next two election cycles, or will it remain strong? Personally, I have no clue. If anyone can speak to this issue I would be interested.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I know we talked about this yesterday, but the key variable for many elections (particularly Presidential) seems to be voter turnout. All the controversy about polling data in the last election cycle was really centered around the degree of bias each polling entity put into their data. To be fair, most got it right.

Stat, your data is interesting, but it really doesn't address the key motivational factor. Which bloc of voters is the most motivated to turn out? I am not sure how polling agencies determine this variable. I would be interested to know. Maybe they go off of voter registration data?


When roughly only 50%-60% of the electorate votes in most elections, the variable of turnout really does become critical.

So assume Democrat leaning voters are 46% of a States electorate, but their turnout is 60%, while Republican leaning voters are 54% of the electorate but turnout at only 50%. Guess what? The Democrat candidate wins. That is how important turnout becomes.


I would love to now how voters will turn out in 2014 and 2016. Will Obama's minority voting bloc continue to turn out in record numbers? In 2008 it was massive. It 2012 it was still very strong but fell off a bit. Will it continue to fall off in the next two election cycles, or will it remain strong? Personally, I have no clue. If anyone can speak to this issue I would be interested.

What a classy post! You have introduced an interesting aspect to he discussion. And, right there in the middle if it, you vomit up a phrase like "Obamas's minority voting block". Outstanding.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I know we talked about this yesterday, but the key variable for many elections (particularly Presidential) seems to be voter turnout. All the controversy about polling data in the last election cycle was really centered around the degree of bias each polling entity put into their data. To be fair, most got it right.

Stat, your data is interesting, but it really doesn't address the key motivational factor. Which bloc of voters is the most motivated to turn out? I am not sure how polling agencies determine this variable. I would be interested to know. Maybe they go off of voter registration data?


When roughly only 50%-60% of the electorate votes in most elections, the variable of turnout really does become critical.

So assume Democrat leaning voters are 46% of a States electorate, but their turnout is 60%, while Republican leaning voters are 54% of the electorate but turnout at only 50%. Guess what? The Democrat candidate wins. That is how important turnout becomes.


I would love to now how voters will turn out in 2014 and 2016. Will Obama's minority voting bloc continue to turn out in record numbers? In 2008 it was massive. It 2012 it was still very strong but fell off a bit. Will it continue to fall off in the next two election cycles, or will it remain strong? Personally, I have no clue. If anyone can speak to this issue I would be interested.

The bolded: absolutely impossible to gauge, for one simple reason. Not enough pollsters poll intensity and then do a breakdown by partisan breakdown. Plus, the last minute undecideds, which can be up to 8% of the electorate, but are usually more like 3%, never give data on that.

The second bolded: also correct, which is why GOTV is all the more important. And also why VR stat changes can tell us a lot. The GOP has made a lot of noise about Pennsylvania. In 2004, Bush visited the state almost 60 times, and as a sitting incumbent in a time of war, he was unable to flip this state. John McCain made a SERIOUS play for Pennsylvania (which I called a "Hail Mary" back then and got flamed, but we now know that even McCain himself called Pennsylvania exactly this) and lost by 10.31%. Romney made an even more serious play for PA, seeing very clearly that he was never ahead in Ohio, not even once, and still lost PA by 5.37%. As Jon King indicated on CNN, the political "DNA" of Pennsylvania simply runs very deep blue. And the VR stats still show a healthy double digit D edge in the state, just like before the 2012 election. Which means that PA is likely to be just as "battlegroundy" as ever in 2014, but the advantage is clearly D.


Traditionally, at the presidential level and also at the Gubernatorial, the candidate gets between 85-90% of his party's vote and the two from the two major parties tend to offset each other. It is only in incredibly lopsided years like Nixon 1972, Reagan 1984 that this pattern does not hold. which is why the I's generally decide elections in our Union.

So, the statistic that you think would be helpful doesn't really exist.

Honestly, what I am putting out there is the best that is available right now and that is simply Voter Registration stats from the 50 states +DC, where available. That, VT and the actual results are the only rubriks where we can attain complete data. What other people are looking for is either so incomplete that it would be terribly skewed, or it doesn't exist at all.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I know we talked about this yesterday, but the key variable for many elections (particularly Presidential) seems to be voter turnout. All the controversy about polling data in the last election cycle was really centered around the degree of bias each polling entity put into their data. To be fair, most got it right.

Stat, your data is interesting, but it really doesn't address the key motivational factor. Which bloc of voters is the most motivated to turn out? I am not sure how polling agencies determine this variable. I would be interested to know. Maybe they go off of voter registration data?


When roughly only 50%-60% of the electorate votes in most elections, the variable of turnout really does become critical.

So assume Democrat leaning voters are 46% of a States electorate, but their turnout is 60%, while Republican leaning voters are 54% of the electorate but turnout at only 50%. Guess what? The Democrat candidate wins. That is how important turnout becomes.


I would love to now how voters will turn out in 2014 and 2016. Will Obama's minority voting bloc continue to turn out in record numbers? In 2008 it was massive. It 2012 it was still very strong but fell off a bit. Will it continue to fall off in the next two election cycles, or will it remain strong? Personally, I have no clue. If anyone can speak to this issue I would be interested.

The bolded: absolutely impossible to gauge, for one simple reason. Not enough pollsters poll intensity and then do a breakdown by partisan breakdown. Plus, the last minute undecideds, which can be up to 8% of the electorate, but are usually more like 3%, never give data on that.

The second bolded: also correct, which is why GOTV is all the more important. And also why VR stat changes can tell us a lot. The GOP has made a lot of noise about Pennsylvania. In 2004, Bush visited the state almost 60 times, and as a sitting incumbent in a time of war, he was unable to flip this state. John McCain made a SERIOUS play for Pennsylvania (which I called a "Hail Mary" back then and got flamed, but we now know that even McCain himself called Pennsylvania exactly this) and lost by 10.31%. Romney made an even more serious play for PA, seeing very clearly that he was never ahead in Ohio, not even once, and still lost PA by 5.37%. As Jon King indicated on CNN, the political "DNA" of Pennsylvania simply runs very deep blue. And the VR stats still show a healthy double digit D edge in the state, just like before the 2012 election. Which means that PA is likely to be just as "battlegroundy" as ever in 2014, but the advantage is clearly D.


Traditionally, at the presidential level and also at the Gubernatorial, the candidate gets between 85-90% of his party's vote and the two from the two major parties tend to offset each other. It is only in incredibly lopsided years like Nixon 1972, Reagan 1984 that this pattern does not hold. which is why the I's generally decide elections in our Union.

So, the statistic that you think would be helpful doesn't really exist.

Honestly, what I am putting out there is the best that is available right now and that is simply Voter Registration stats from the 50 states +DC, where available. That, VT and the actual results are the only rubriks where we can attain complete data. What other people are looking for is either so incomplete that it would be terribly skewed, or it doesn't exist at all.

The extreme right has been claiming that conservatives have not been turning out in the last 2 presidential elections. The 85-90% figure indicates that the conservatives are the ones most motivated to vote and any drop off would have occurred on the moderate side of the GOP as being less enthralled with the ticket so therefore less motivated to vote. That is confirmed by the Dems gaining the majority of the Independent vote on both occasions.

 

[longknife]

Maybe I'm wrong but I am certain the various districts report how many registered voters from each party affiliation actually turned out to vote.

Of course who and what they voted for is secret and cannot possibly be reported.

I keep seeing reports such as - "?% of registered Democrats turned out to vote."

So, why would that information NOT be available?

I have never seen that before. Ever.

But if you come across a link, feel free to pass it along to me and I will gladly research it. You have possibilities in 30 states plus DC. the other 20 states do not do VR by party identification at all.

But already, I see a problem with that: unless every district in a state does this, the statistic still doesn't help anyone.

where are you seeing those reports?

Go to United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and way down at the bottom is a graphic that shows how many votes the candidates received by political party. Shouldn't that be available for other races?