It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Experts Expecting Larger Voter Turnout for 2004 Elections

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 02:50 PM
Some experts are predicting that with all of the extra money being spent this year by Democrats, Republicans, and other organizations on voter drives, that such efforts may generate as much as 4 million additional votes for the 2004 elections than the 2000 elections. By comparison, the 2000 election turnout of eligible voters was about 2 percentage points higher than that of 1996 but about 4 points lower than 1992.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Unprecedented get-out-the-vote efforts by Democrats, Republicans and a host of partisan and non-partisan groups will likely drive turnout in the Nov. 2 presidential election significantly higher than in 2000, political analysts said on Wednesday.

The two parties and various interest groups will spend hundreds of millions of dollars more this year than in 2000, according to Donald Green, a political scientist at Yale University and co-author on a book about turnout.

"We calculate a rough return of one extra vote for every $50 spent on mobilization efforts so an extra $200 million in the system, which may be a reasonable estimate, might produce 4 million new votes," he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I also have the feeling that voter turnout for this year's elections will be higher and I think it will be interesting to see how much of an impact early voting in some states will have on that turnout. That combined with concerns about problems that may be encountered when voters turn out should make this year's elections as closely watched, if not more so, than 2000.

Related Discussion Threads:
(POLL RESULTS)Who are you voting for in 2004?

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Nerdling]

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 06:49 PM
It's all because of the media and the internet. We have an incredible amount of access to information these days (mostly because of the internet).
As bad as it sounds, I am wondering whether or not this is going to be a good thing. I remember an episode of Dilbert that dealt with elections (primarily the idea of internet voting) and the writers brought out some really good points. At one point in the episode, Dilbert hears two people discussing who they're going to vote for, and one of them says, "oh, I usually vote for the taller one". That may sound exagerrated, but I've actually met some people similar to that stereotype. People who always vote a straight ticket fall into the same category IMHO.

Parker and Stone of South Park made this point not long ago (as I'm sure you've all read), and maybe... just maybe not everyone should vote. Before you all rip me to pieces over that comment... I think that this says more of our education system than anything else. Voters need to know what they're talking about before they take part in such an important event.

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:17 PM
Actually veritas, someone on another submission I made about early voting in some states made a very similar comment. I posted the link below. I do agree that more is not necessarily better but I suppose the first step to getting people educated about the voting process and the candidates is to get them interested in voting first. Though it would certainly seem logical to start the process by educating oneself before going to the polls, I could also see people maintaining more interest in the candidates once they've voted for them, regardless of the reason. At that point, hopefully, that interest would carry through to future elections and spur some individuals to make even more informed choices the next time. Then again, I've heard einy, meiny, miney, moe works well for many people also

new topics

log in