Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Yesterday, conservative Nicholas Sarkozy won the French presidential election over the Socialist Party's Segolene Royal (who was attempting to become France's first female president). Besides the violence that erupted, what we found interesting was the fact that voter turnout was 84% in France.
Sure, France is a smaller country than the U.S. and there isn't an Electoral College equivalent, but the voter turnout for the Bush-Kerry 2004 election was 60% - and that was 6.4% higher than the 2000 election. One possible reason why French voter turnout is very high: The election was held on a Sunday.
Some people have proposed that the U.S. Election Day be moved to a weekend or be made a holiday, though some states, back in 2001, told the Commission on Election Reform that it was doubtful Americans would actually prioritize voting on a free day. People who work for public offices, as well as some schools and unions, do get the day off.
Did you know that after the very close Democratic mayoral primary in 2005, some election reformers believe that NYC should switch to instant runoff voting? (Here's more from Gotham Gazette.) The 2005 mayoral election between Bloomberg and Ferrer had a 30% turnout. At any rate, if you haven't registered to vote yet, you should. Here's information on voter registration in NYC.
Photograph of riot police with a protester at Place de Bastille in Paris by Michel Springler/AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I didn't realize France was a boro of NYC.
How relevant Gothamist!
You win the prize for posting that comment within moments of the post going up, Corey!
But I honestly thought that the voter turnout number in France was interesting, especially given how the U.S. has spent months and will spend another 18 months or so going through our own presidential election nuttiness.
what happened with Parisist?
Bill Maher put it well on Friday night, and I'm paraphrasing now... The US couldn't get 85% voter turnout in an election between tits and bigger tits, with free samples being given out.
"One possible reason why French voter turnout is very high: The election was held on a Sunday."
Um, no. The French presidential elections are always held on Sundays. The voting here was without precedent. It's the biggest turnout in 40 years. To attribute that to the day of the week is dumb.
bill maher is a retard.
oh and lol@socialists rioting cause their democratically held elections didn't go their way.
But I honestly thought that the voter turnout number in France was interesting, especially given how the U.S. has spent months and will spend another 18 months or so going through our own presidential election nuttiness.
Not only did the French have a huge voter turnout, but the campaign didn't really begin in earnest until about six months ago, a year tops. Nothing like our multi-year campaigns that end up with far lower turnout.
In Brazil you get two days to vote, and everything is closed so that you can actually go and vote. Then again voting there is mandatory punishable by law, which isn't a good thing either.
When you hold an election on a designated holiday, the voter turnout will be higher. Most people don't have to take off work or re-arrange their plans in order to vote.
In addition, the tradition of public participation in politics is much more deeply rooted in the national conscious than it is in the United States. Our "rugged individualism" and segregationist policies actively discouraged voting as a definition of democratic freedom.
In my opinion, our election days should be switched to a weekend OR election day should become a federal holiday, where everything is closed.
Why don't they just make voting mandatory like taxes?
Rather than mandating a day off, a better idea would be a 4-hour workday for everyone on election day. That way, you don't have enough time to take a day trip but you do have enough time to vote without extra burden.
You have to make the elections more exciting.
Have a lottery where you can win some exciting prize from a government agency - a seized Ferrari, Haliburton stock, I-95, a B-52 or a stack of cash.
Alternately, you can make the whole process a reality television contest that people actually care about or the canidates can duel in Weehawken.
don't you guys think the focus should be on making the elections -matter- rather than legislating a work holiday?
Instant Runoff Voting is one of the worst voting methods. Its fame is primarily a result of public misconceptions about it, perpetuated by IRV propaganda groups like FairVote.org
Consider this hypothetical election using IRV.
% of voters - their vote
26% Obama> Edwards> McCain
23% Edwards> Obama> McCain
2% Edwards> McCain> Obama
49% McCain> Edwards> Obama
In this IRV election, Edwards is eliminated first, and then McCain goes on to win. But wait! 51% of voters prefer Edwards to McCain - and 74% prefer Edwards to Obama! Yet Edwards loses? This leaves Obama fans with a tactical incentive to vote for the "most electable" liberal, Edwards, so that they don't get the greater of two evils. It also makes Obama a spoiler, since without him, Edwards would beat McCain.
So much for the myths that IRV elects majority winners and eliminates spoilers and vote splitting.
Electoral reform advocates (especially third parties!) should be demanding Range Voting - score all the candidates and elect the one with the highest average. It is completely spoiler free, simpler to use and implement, and produces a greater voter satisfaction index than other alternative voting methods.
Get the facts at RangeVoting.org/IRV.html
% of voters - their order of preference
33% Giuliani > Gore > Dean > Nader
29% Gore > Giuliani > Dean > Nader
24% Dean > Gore > Giuliani > Nader
14% Nader > Dean > Gore > Giuliani
Giuliani wins. But if the Nader voters had instead dishonestly voted
Giuliani > Nader > Dean > Gore
then Gore would have won (which they'd prefer to the old winner Giuliani) despite the fact this just raised their opinion of Giuliani from last to first place.
1. Statistically, in countries where citizens have the day off to vote, voter turnout is actually lower. People take a holiday. This is a proven fact.
2. The eternal American presidential election turnout hand-wringing always ignores one crucial difference, although its motivations always come from the right place. Americans may have low presidential turnout rates, but we are asked to vote more frequently and for more things (judges, board of education, stadiums, and lots of other things) than any other country on earth.
3. Do you really want people voting because they think they'll get a Ferrari or win a lottery? Sure, people will vote, but only for the person that promises the easiest answers. This is possibly the worst idea ever. Lindsay Lohan would win the election hands down.
4. Likewise, the second worse idea is making voting mandatory. Do you really want people voting who aren't motivated enough to vote in the first place? Do you want to make it easier for Fox news to brainwash people? How much money are we going to waste enforcing this law?
5. The multi-year campagins are the real problem, because they require all the money.
6. Look, obviously you all care enough to make a post to this site. Take it to the next level and read the Federalist papers, why don't you.
What to me is more interesting about the French elections is their ban on television ads in the last few weeks of the campaign. It's supposed to give voters time to think in peace, but also think of some of the money it takes out of the process.
The election day 4 hour work day is possibly a really brilliant idea!
That anti-instant runoff post is off target. Everything this person says applies to the French presidential runoff as well. 85% turnout says something positive about what a majority system that allows real choice in the first round while guaranteeing a majority winner. See www.instantrunoff.com
Of course that rule isn't enough to lead to turnout, as it can vary. But it makes it more likely to have elections that matter to people, with full choice and debate -- something we miss here with rules like plurality voting (for most elections) and the Electoral College (which make New York and most states relevant.