Voter turnout
Fugee-La
02-11-2004, 09:45
Yeah, sorry about starting another post on the US elections, can somebody link me to the voter turnout statistics in the U.S Presidential elections for 2000?
Our teacher seems to think it was around 75%-80% of people turned up to vote (who were of age, and citizens). Another person in the forum said 31%. I'm confused. >_<
Fugee-La
02-11-2004, 10:31
Err... bump? :confused:
I believe it was just over or under 50%.
Arcadian Mists
02-11-2004, 10:33
Yeah, sorry about starting another post on the US elections, can somebody link me to the voter turnout statistics in the U.S Presidential elections for 2000?
Our teacher seems to think it was around 75%-80% of people turned up to vote (who were of age, and citizens). Another person in the forum said 31%. I'm confused. >_<
Your teacher's freakin' insane if he/she thinks 75% of Americans vote. The national average is closer to 50%, but I don't know about the 2000 election. Voter apathy is always high in FPTP plurality systems like ours.
Great Void
02-11-2004, 10:49
Have you tried this neat trick: go to Google and type in "voter turnout in 2000 elections" and then click search?
Infoplease looks like a good site... so does fec.gov, census.gov and all the 177.000 hits really. :)
Could it be the turnout was 51.3?...seems high...
Fugee-La
02-11-2004, 11:17
Have you tried this neat trick: go to Google and type in "voter turnout in 2000 elections" and then click search?
Infoplease looks like a good site... so does fec.gov, census.gov and all the 177.000 hits really. :)
Could it be the turnout was 51.3?...seems high...
I had already done that, I wanted to see whether anybody could come up with statistics that differ from that, sorry for seeming like a lazy prick, but I am planning to argue with my teacher tomorrow, and I want to be aware of the situation completely.
Battery Charger
02-11-2004, 11:53
Unless you have a really good open-minded teacher, I'd recomend against arguing. Just find happiness in knowing that you're smarter than him/her. :p
I concur that voter turn-out in 2000 was a hair over 50%. I'd be really suprised if it was as much as 70% in any state or district.
Bitter Dregs
02-11-2004, 12:08
Have you tried this neat trick: go to Google and type in "voter turnout in 2000 elections" and then click search?
Infoplease looks like a good site... so does fec.gov, census.gov and all the 177.000 hits really. :)
Could it be the turnout was 51.3?...seems high...It was a good turnout that year (anything over 50% is), I've been voting for a couple of decades and have seen a lot of presidential elections with turnouts closer to 40%. Worst one's I've seen were local elections below 20%. Apathy runs deep in this country. This year might be a barn buster with turnout over 55%.
The Imperial Navy
02-11-2004, 12:15
Theres always a terrible voter turnout in the UK-for one reason.
The people in the UK are wise enough to see that all politicians are corrupt, useless and make empty promises. so most of us decide theres no point in voting. we'll get useless politicians anyway.
Moontian
02-11-2004, 12:28
Australia has compulsory voting, so for us it's closer to 99%. And with the preferential voting system, all winning candidates must get at least 50% of the regular vote (as in filled in properly) but it tends to become a case of 'who do I like less?' The only person who can not possibly get your vote is the guy you put last.
Cable Television
02-11-2004, 12:32
Australia has compulsory voting, so for us it's closer to 99%. And with the preferential voting system, all winning candidates must get at least 50% of the regular vote (as in filled in properly) but it tends to become a case of 'who do I like less?' The only person who can not possibly get your vote is the guy you put last.Compulsary voting with an instant run-off system, sounds pretty good in theory, how's it work in practice? And how many political parties do you have?