tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post116304102946605329..comments2024-03-06T05:30:41.694-05:00Comments on Pho's Akron Pages: Weak Turnout Numbers and Pool UpdateScott Piephohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1163168523993142332006-11-10T09:22:00.000-05:002006-11-10T09:22:00.000-05:00Pho,Judging turnout performance on percent-of-regi...Pho,<BR/><BR/>Judging turnout performance on percent-of-registered in an urban county (at least Cuyahoga)is not terribly helpful... there are still way too many nonexistent registered voters. Personally I think it's more useful to compare this year's turnout to voters who we know exist, i.e. those who actually voted in 2004. By this standard, and assuming the SOS numbers are valid (which is questionable IMHO, see why below) Cuyahoga's turnout was a lot <I>better</I> than average. The statewide ratio of 2006 votes to 2004 votes was about 73%. If Cuyahoga really turned out 562,000 voters, as the BOE and SOS charts claim, then its 2006-to-2004 ratio was more than 80%.<BR/><BR/>The problem with this is that <A HREF="http://www.callahansclevelanddiary.com/?p=103" REL="nofollow">less than 420,000 of those 562,000 Cuyahoga voters actually seem to have voted for anybody or anything</A>. If you assume, therefore, that the real Cuyahoga turnout was around 430,000 (with overseas and provisionals added in) the county's 2006-to-2004 ratio falls to 62%, which is comparable to Franklin and Hamilton... and your basic point stands.<BR/><BR/>Why were the urban turnouts so low? I worked GOTV in several West Side Cleveland precincts. Here's my conclusion: a) The coordinated campaign operation for contacting and motivating 2004-only voters, whether by canvass or phone, was just ineffectual -- too little, too late, too incoherent; and b) the failure to integrate Issue 2 in the main campaign message and <I>put it on TV</I> minimized its impact on turnout.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com