Pathetic voter turnout speaks volumes

There are some 439 elected officials in Erie County. And they seemed to account for half the voters who bothered turning out to the polls Tuesday.

Turnout was a rock bottom 24 percent in Erie County, and even worse just north In Niagara County, where an estimated 18 to 20 percent of voters cast ballots.

Odd-numbered years are considered "off years," when neither federal offices, starting with the president, nor state, including the governor, are up for election. Turnout is historically lower, but this year it's in the basement.

Consider these trends:

In Erie County, some 141,000 voters went to the polls Tuesday, judging by the votes cast in the high-profile races, including county sheriff. That number is likely to climb to 150,000 or so by the time a few unreported election districts and absentee ballots are counted. By contrast, nearly 450,000 voters cast ballots last year. OK, that was a presidential year, when the vote is high, but consider the last off-year, 2007, when some 250,000 voters went to the polls.

It was even worse this year in Niagara County, where about 23,000 voters cast ballots, compared to 50,273 in the 2007 off year and some 96,000 last year, when Barack Obama and the old guy who ran with Sarah Palin squared off.

Here's a quick chart with the details.

And here's Bob McCarthy's story with more details, including:

The last time countywide races for sheriff and comptroller headed the ballot was in 2005, and turnout was 46 percent. The same lineup in 2001 produced a 30 percent turnout, which then was considered ultralow.

There's lots of nuances that come into play that help explain the variation in vote totals over the years. In 2007, for example, the races for mayor in Niagara Falls and Lockport pushed up the count in Niagara County. But there was a big issue on this year's ballot -- a proposal to downsize the County Legislature.

There were plenty of contested races in Erie County this year -- although I've got to note that candidates seeking 66 of 155 seats were unopposed -- and it didn't move a whole lot of folks off their couches.

In Amherst, turnout was 30 percent. Hamburg, 25 percent. Orchard Park, 24 percent. I could find a turnout of better than 50 percent in only one town or village in Erie County

The numbers were lame for county legislative races, ranging from 19 to 29 percent where there were contests.

Yeah, the absence of an election for mayor -- Byron Brown ran unopposed after winning the Democratic primary in September -- gave a lot of city voters license to stay home. But you'd think that an electoral push by Chris Collins, with his anti-urban agenda and the state of the county holding center, would have been enough to get more city folks to the polls to vote for sheriff and comptroller. 

All this gives lie to the argument that voters are in love with the notion that the smaller the government, the better, that the government closest to the people is better, etc.

Nope, when it comes to town supervisors, clerks, highway supervisors, tax assessors, council members -- to say nothing of school board members -- two out of three voters just don't give a hoot.

The ones who care include the pols themselves, who view government as a jobs program -- for them, their relatives and cronies.

Coupled with the success Kevin Gaughan is having with getting voters to downsize their town councils, I'd say Tuesday's dismal turnout underscores that voters believe they're paying for more government than they want.

Perhaps it's time they put down the bag of potato chips, shut off the TV and do something about it. 'Cause the politicians sure aren't.

(As for analysis of Tuesday's results, the Buffalo Pundit is worth a read. And don't forget to follow this blog and my reporting on Facebook and Twitter.)

Comments

[Buffalo Libertarian]

For many people, voting is a waste of time because no matter who they vote for nothing ever really changes here in Western New York.

Also, why should we vote when most of these so-called "minor parties" just endorse the Democrat or the Republican anyway? Why should we vote when you media idiots only report on the Democrats and the Republicans, insisting that there are no other political parties (not that they could even get on the ballot, thanks to efforts by the Democrats and Republicans to keep them off)?

That whole thing with Messiah Obama last year was a flash in the pan and nothing more. Where were all those blacks and hispanics and young people this year?

You wrote: "The ones who care are those who view government as a jobs program."

I disagree. Not all of us who voted view the government as a jobs program.

I did go and vote yesterday, even if only to vote for whoever was not a Democrat or a Republican and to vote against the two constitutional amendments as a protest.

[d]

It should be a law that if you want to have a party you HAVE TO HAVE YOUR OWN CANDIDATE!!!!

Why bother voting when you only have one choice on most of the lines anyways?

[Buffalo Libertarian]

d, I wholeheartedly agree with you; so long as those parties also get to have equal access to the ballot.

[lanres]

The ones who care are those who view government as a jobs program -- for them, their relatives and cronies.

-
BINGO!

[BobbyCat]

I didn't intend to write this until I read a few sentences of other posts.

Here is a sure-fire formula for discrediting your own blog.

1) Start your post with name-calling, insinuating that everyone is an idiot but you.

2) Call the President names. Imply that anybody (especially you) could do so much better than he, even though he faced a near-depression on his first day in office.

3) Castigate the newspaper whose space you are occupying.

4) Make you points - but of course by this time, all your credibilty is shot and the readers think YOU are the angry idiot.

[BobbyCat]

Some open secrets about local elections.

There's not a lot of differences between the parties and people seem to know it.

The main party in Erie County is not the Democratic Party, it's the "Do Not Rock the Boat Until I Retire" Party.

The minor party is not the GOP, it's the "Let's Get In On This Gravey Train" party.

As has been said before, the other little parties are lap dogs of the bigger guys.

Regular people know that the fix is in, especially in school elections. They know that teacher and administrators and all their relatives show up en masse to vote and they are very strong. They are joined by the town/village municipal people and their families to form a near-invunerable voting bloc coalition. You can call this the "Status Quo" party. Furthermore, most regular voters have figured out by this time, that even if a school budget is voted down, the contingency budget contains all the goodies that the school wanted anyways, so what is the point in voting?

The "We Don't Like Democracy" party is a combination of the Dem and GOP. They decide that its better to appoint their people to office rather than leave the decision to voters. Thus, 66 of the 155 seats went unopposed. That is NOT democracy. Democracy is what we fought for at Guada Canal, at the Battle of the Bulge, it's what Pat Tillman died for in Afghanistan. Democracy is the freedom to vote for the candidates of our choice. Democracy is what is being stolen from us at the County level and at the State level.

Of course people are upset, of course they want to downsize. Truth be told, they want to storm the castle with torches and pitchforks.

I can't even tell you what the townspeople want to do with their STATE reps. Here, I'll save you the trouble. They want to BLEEP their BLEEPING heads BLEEP. etc,etc. I think you got the point.

I am NOT a tea party guy paid for by Fox News. I'm an old fashioned Dem who likes free elections with different candidates with different ideas and plenty of choices.
And I'm so sick of this, I'm ready to throw a brick through the establishment's window.

[perspective]

Without knowing what percent of people make any effort to become informed about candidates and issues, who can say if 20% turnout was good or bad or "pathetic"?

If double that many people had showed up to vote but the additional voters were totally clueless and voted based only on party affiliation or which candidate names look the nicest, would it be an improvement or worsening?

[siket71]

Yes, minimal voter turnout is essentially ignorant and lazy. But did you see who was elected by the people that did vote? This County is done for. Activate brain drain... and yes i voted.

[gravedancer]

Dear BobbyCat, you're an idiot. Have a nice day...

[john]

I went into the voting booth and abstained in two of the races because there was no opposition. It's getting harder and harder to vote AGAINST someone when the one you want to vote AGAINST is the only one on the ballot. The "party of NO" has become the party of "NO candidate" here. There is a light at the end of the tunnel - sold my house and will be moving out of this "TOTALLY HOPELESS city, county AND state in16 days - not that I'm counting or anything!

[cayote]

I voted but,as always, in uncontested positions or any choices I cannot support, I write in the name of friends and neighbors or myself to bring down the statistics for the candidates who do not deserve to claim a certain percentage of the vote.
Remember, a percent of a low turn out may still seen like a high number unless one is math savvy.

[OP Mike]

In a previous post old BobbyCat referred to voters as:
"dumbed-down", "a nation of non-readers, non thinkers, illogical people who are more likely to believe urban or country mythology than science."

Now he tells us that " a sure-fire formula for discrediting your own blog... Start your post with name-calling, insinuating that everyone is an idiot but you.

If I may borrow a phrase recently coined by BobbyCat, this sounds to me like a load of "Hypocritical Dribble."

[voting only allows political parties to continue their power]

LOOK...the judicial elections as they are referred to, but are really rubber stamped choices picked by judicial conventions with the political parties cross endorsing the priveleged politicos and all the other parties following suit.
Why would I consider voting for any judge...whose 14 yr term offends my intelligent and sensible being. NO government term should be more than 4 yrs.
What accountability do these judges have, as the media and BUFF NEWS find it against their need to inform the public about their ethics, productivity and temperment, as well as their personal conduct in public, for a term that is amost a lifetime of their career?
The NEWS seems to demand information from BYRON BROWN per FOIL...but the NEWS also determines 'they" will hide information from the public at will or on request, while the MAYOR is vilified during a short 4 yr term.
The NEWS does conceal daily when it comes to the judiciary...who are able and many times willing to do us harm!
The Tills story of country wide prostitution, using a female defendant for sex, and harassing female employees sexually....was well known for years in the legal and law communities, and yet the court and the media who reside in the courts....never reported this conduct to the public!
This is one recent example of many other judicial members whose conduct was known but only reported when it hit the police blotter.
It is also known that this EDITOR may be taking calls to void information about this entity.

I will not enter my X on any ballot where I am unaware of any independent analysis of the candidate...as my vote will not be cast for the trash that we are thrown from our predator political parties ..."as this is it'.

[BobbyCat]

Interesting quote:
"The story of country wide prostitution, using a female defendant for sex, and harassing female employees sexually....was well known for years in the legal and law communities, and yet the court and the media who reside in the courts....never reported this conduct to the public!"

A month ago, I made a similar point in a blog entry, that the legal community and downtown insiders all know the buzz about who is who, which judge is a drunk, which judge chases the skirts, who is lazy and who is a working fool, who is fair and who is not. Voters should know these things. Sure, most of this stuff is by nature, subjective. Ok. But some is not. If some judge is drunk most nights of the week, wee should know that, somebody should speak out; If someone is a known racist, please, tell us.

I'll also posit that most judges are upright, hardworking, honest individuals.But some are not, and unless somebody speaks-out, voters can never make a rational decision.

How would we get rid of the bad apples? Does the EC Bar Association have any morality guidelines that would protect voters against a judge who crosses the lines? And do they enforce them?

shifting gears:
OPMike, There is no inconsistancy by me lamenting that many wingnuts who castigate liberals and progressives mercilessly cannot read, write or find Mexico on a map. It's not unfair to complain about the dumbing down of America which began in the LAST generation.

But It's quite another thing to personally attack anybody who disagrees with you or Beck or the other right wing crazies.

Beck and Rush are recovering alcoholics and/or drug addicts. That's not name-calling, that's a fact. You may not like it, but its factual.

Facts are fine, but sliming people is not. You know what sliming is, Mike. You are the prime example on these blogs.

Not co-incidentally it is the narcicist who does most of the name-calling and thinks that everybody is wrong but him.

I can disagree with anybody on a adult level; You cannot.

But you seek attention, especially from me, and I make a mistake by giving it to you. Get some help with you obsessions. I think the judge told you the same thing.

[OP Mike]

BobbyCat,

You often quote left-wing nut-jobs in your posts. The Guardian and a certain TV psychologist who gives remote diagnosis of people he has never met are a just two examples that come to mind.

For the record, I have never quoted Beck or Rush in any of my posts. Check your facts before you shoot from the lip.

Also, you love to ridicule people and say they cannot read or write. Get an English teacher to review some of your posts. Most of them would not pass a ninth grade English composition exam. And you would flunk the history test, too. Who in the world is the person you referred to as "Geworge E.Bush"?

[Not Bobby Cat]

To OP Mike,

What in the world does this mean: "are a just two examples that come to mind"?

Just askin'....maybe you need some tutorin'?

[OP Mike]

TO: Not Bobby Cat,

I guess this means I'll be a gettin' some spellin', typin' and proofin' tutorin' real soon.

[jd]

What I find pathetic is the author of this post referring to the last election as the old guy running against Barack Obama.
This old guy is a freaking hero and deserves some respect in my opinion Obama isn't qualified to shine Sen. John McCain's shoes.
Has this country ever had a more unqualified liar than Obama, I think not.

[beastfan]

"Has this country ever had a more unqualified liar than Obama, I think not"

We have. George W Bush.