900,000 more people in Ohio voted in this election

[laura888]

"On Election Day, more than 5.7 million Ohioans voted, 900,000 more voters than in 2000."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64737-2004Dec14.html

This is incredible. How is it possible that these folks are mostly republican?

Can we not look at how many new people registered as democrats? When you register, do you usually give your party affiliation?

[Eric J in MN]

1. In Ohio, they put on the wall a list of voters and

check-off if they voted yet.

The only proof of id is a signature-on-fine, printed near where the person signs.

So it's possible that some Republicans looked at the list of who hadn't voted yet after 6 PM and voted in their place; voted twice.

I don't have any evidence this security flaw was exploited, beyone the incredibly high official turnout in the exurbs and secutiry being so weak.

[9119495]

2. Ohio has been pretty Republican going back a ways

I think Clinton carried it in both his elections but both '92 and '96 were very weak republican candidates. Thus, the republicans likely had a significant advantage going into the election. In many states republicans show up to the polls more reliably than registered Democrats. Not sure why.

[laura888]

5. In this election, there were not enough voting machines...

...to accomodate the masses who turned out in the cities.

Read the article.


<snip>
"In Columbus, bipartisan estimates say that 5,000 to 15,000 frustrated voters turned away without casting ballots."

"The foul-ups appeared particularly acute in Democratic-leaning districts..."

In Franklin County: "...they acknowledge having too few machines to cope with an additional 102,000 registered voters."

</snip>


So, possibly that 900,000 figure is wildly inaccurate. Perhaps it should be double that amount? We need to find out.

[9119495]

12. Right, I'm saying that the fact the state "went" republican

should not be wierd. We know there are "fishy goings-on," but we need to be wure we don't act like the state was always in the bag for Kerry.

[proudbluestater]

3. Whoa! No way Kerry lost Ohio

I've read that article three times already, somehow I missed that fact. Makes you wonder how many people are actually registered in Ohio to begin with.

Every state doesn't require that you declare a party affiliation when you register. In Michigan you only declare if you vote in the primary, for example. Don't know about Ohio's laws, but election laws in Ohio seem to be very "fluid" these days. I know in the primary they ruled you could vote provisional at any precinct, but come November Katherine decided to change the rules. Whatever works best for the regime, I always say. :eyes:

[lostnfound]

4. In Ohio, you don't declare party registration when you register.

According to SOS Blackwell's website.

[laura888]

6. still, can we at least identify a trend?

As in where these new registrants lived?

Or, better yet, can we do an investigation into each new registrant?

Say 2,000,000 new registrations? Is it possible to identify each one of these and ask them their party affiliation?

I think its worthwhile.

[proud_Kucitizen]

10. actually

we do register as a democrat or republican but can't register as an independent. We can still vote in either primary so long as we only vote in one, I think. Anyway my husband is a registered Republican and voted in the democratic primary also voted for Kerry. He actually leans more democrat but likes to have a voice in who the Repukes run.

[democracy eh]

7. Mobilized the sleeper Amish vote?

or is that in Penn?

visions of giant wagons and buggies showing up to ferry folks to the polls.

[mopinko]

8. that's one i would like to see

investigated. somehow, i just can't believe that these people broke out of their bubble that they live in for *. somebody should check out what happened with these folks.

[JI7]

9. Kerry did win new registered, but they explain Bush's increase as a result

of people who were already registered Republican but did not vote in 2000 and maybe some time before that.

[ArkDem]

11. ...

Tin soldiers and Bush is coming,
We're finally on our own.
This winter I hear Bev calling,
More votes in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Neocon's are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew Diebold
And didn't utter a sound
How can you vote when you know?

Tin soldiers and Bush is coming,
We're finally on our own.
This winter I hear Bev calling,
More votes in Ohio.

[m berst]

13. it isn't possible

To have this kind of new voters going substantially to an incumbent with the approval ratings he had makes no sense. The results show something that common sense and all other data and the wisdom from all past election experience contradict. You just don't get a turnout like that and lose. You don't have exit poll numbers like that and lose.

So something weird happened. There may be some secret unexplained new growth of the Republican party. It is possible. Ideas for explaining that have been floated. At first we were told of a massive religious right turn out. When that fell through, the war became the reason.

Or the numbers for the results are phony.

Either way, we have entered uncharted territory. Either the Democratic party knows nothing anymore about how voters act, nothing about how to get the vote out and nothing about how to campaign, in which case we are in big trouble and may never win an election, or the election was rigged, in which case we are in big trouble and may never win an election.

[MXMLLN]

14. Bush didn't win more of the new Ohio voters ...

In 2000, Bush got 165,000 more Ohio votes than Gore.

In 2004, Bush only got 119,000 more Ohio votes than Kerry ... a net loss.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi MXMLLN!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: