Yesterday I was talking with a coworker about the demographic statistics of the election. Most of us have seen them, 93% of the black voters voted for Obama. 50 some odd percent of the Hispanic voters voted for Obama.... blah blah blah percentage of women voters and such and such percentage of young voters....But those demographics don't tell the whole story, do they? What % of eligible blacks voted at all? Same for every other group? I read somewhere that less than 1/3 of our voter eligible population voted.

How can we claim there is this giant, bitter division in this country when over half of the population could care less? It seems to me it's all sensationalism driven by partisans and the media.

Most of those that don't vote, should not vote.

Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff

Most of those that don't vote, should not vote.

Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff

Most of those that don't vote, should not vote.

That kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean if they don't care enough to vote, what's the likelihood they care enough to understand the issues at hand?

But that's not the point. We're supposedly this huge close to 50/50 divided population. Each side is supposedly bitterly against the other. I saying if only 1/3 of the population voted, how can we come to that conclusion.

A better indicator of where we stand as a country would be to express the election demographics a percentages of the entire population of one group or another and not just of those that voted. Then you could see who was motivated by the issues and who wasn't. You know the campaigns have these numbers. Why don't the people get to see them?

Mike

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

That kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean if they don't care enough to vote, what's the likelihood they care enough to understand the issues at hand?

But that's not the point. We're supposedly this huge close to 50/50 divided population. Each side is supposedly bitterly against the other. I saying if only 1/3 of the population voted, how can we come to that conclusion.

A better indicator of where we stand as a country would be to express the election demographics a percentages of the entire population of one group or another and not just of those that voted. Then you could see who was motivated by the issues and who wasn't. You know the campaigns have these numbers. Why don't the people get to see them?

Mike

easy enough to generate - 2012 participation - 57.5%
Obama - 50.6%, Romney - 47.8

Obama preference out of all eligible voters - 29.1%
Romney preference out of all eligible voters - 27.5 %
Someone other than those two clowns - 1.6%
meh, frankly my dear - I don't give a damn - 42.3%

Now...add to this story the electoral system and ask me how I feel about voting in beautiful California.....

57.5% total participation.... See, that's a lot different than the approximately 1/3 participation I'd heard about on the radio.

And still, can you take the 57.5% from the total and use that for each group? I wouldn't think so. If I had to guess Id say the overall percentage for white males is higher than say the the youth percentage. What percentage of eligible black population actually voted? That would be an interesting number to me. I mean 93% of 100 guys isn't particularly telling to me. I know more than 100 blacks voted but you see what I'm getting at.

And then look that the numbers you did post. Only 29% voted for "socialism" and in the political rhetoric it was quoted at 47%. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

57.5% total participation.... See, that a lot different than the approximately 1/3 participation I'd heard on the radio.
..

You are probably misremembering - I think the point was probably less than 1/3 of those eligible to vote voted for O, so a bit less of a mandate than the electoral college would indicate.

I think the wide differences across demographics merit serious consideration.

I'm a little surprised that more people aren't chiming in on this discussion.

Originally Posted by radix2

You are probably misremembering - I think the point was probably less than 1/3 of those eligible to vote voted for O, so a bit less of a mandate than the electoral college would indicate.

I think the wide differences across demographics merit serious consideration.

No doubt. I'm surprised that the conservatives haven't pointed this out. My guess is they don't because they are afraid if they did more people would vote and that would make the situation worse for them and not better.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

No doubt. I'm surprised that the conservatives haven't pointed this out. My guess is they don't because they are afraid if they did more people would vote and that would make the situation worse for them and not better.

Here is an article that has numbers across more of the demographics, with the idea that less participation was better for the incumbent, I don't know if that is always the case. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-election.html

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

I'm a little surprised that more people aren't chiming in on this discussion.

Could it be that folks are tired of the incessant chatter on the topic of the American election? I don't even live in the country and it's all we've heard about for going on a year now...

Just sayin'...

Originally Posted by Steve85

Could it be that folks are tired of the incessant chatter on the topic of the American election? I don't even live in the country and it's all we've heard about for going on a year now...

Just sayin'...

Nope.... Not a chance.

Oh well, it was worth a try! How about them Blue Jays?

From what I've seen both candidates polled less votes than Obama/McCain in 2008. The voting population then was (speaking from memory) about 250 million. That leaves little doubt that the biggest sector of the vote in 2012 was the "I can't be bothered".