Some Thoughts about Louisville’s Mayoral Primary Race from an Independent

There’s been a lot of gnashing of teeth since the primary election results of May 19^th rolled in. How could we end up with two Democrats in November and no Republicans? To compound matters, one of those Democrats is the much disliked current mayor, Craig Greenberg, the bane of nearly every Jefferson county resident; viewed by many to be one of the worse mayors since the city/county merger of 2003.

The other, lesser known, Democrat is Shameka Parrish-Wright, the current metro council represent for District 3,  which covers some of the city’s West End and much of Shively. First elected in 2023, she serves on the Budget, Planning and Zoning, and Public Safety committees as well as on the Commission for Persons with Disabilities.

As a community organizer for 25 years, Shameka is the executive director of VOCAL-KY, a social activist organization dedicated to ending AIDS, the failed drug war, overcrowding jails and homelessness.  She was the co-chair of Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression and was active with Black Lives Matter and the protest movement pertaining to Breonna Taylor.

 In addition, she has been involved with numerous other social justice groups such as The Coalition for the Homeless, Kentucky Reproductive Freedom PAC, the Anne Braden Institute for Social Justice Research, and other progressive causes. In short, all things many on the Far Right would consider “socialist” or “communist”. That leaves local Republicans and conservatives between a rock and a hard place with many looking for someone to blame.

Several have suggested Rep. Jason Nemes (R-Middletown), who proposed making the Mayoral and metro council races nonpartisan. He was a lead sponsor of HB 388 making Louisville, one of just six cities with partisan races out of the state’s 400 other cities. The idea was to bring Louisville more in line with the other cities and communities in the Commonwealth and in keeping with the growing trend nationally.

HB 388 was also based on recommendations made the bipartisan Louisville Metro Comprehensive Review Committee (which, by the way, excluded Independent and third party participation or input). Thus, no longer will the mayoral or metro council races reflect a candidate’s party affiliation. As a result, uninformed voters by and large, weren't sure who they’re voting for.

Just because no party loyalty label ("D" or "R") was shown on the ballot, the candidates were still very much partisan. In a true non-partisan election, candidates shouldn't be tied to any party, otherwise you end up with what we got---two Democrats running. Of course, it could have just as easily gone the other way with two Republicans facing off in November. 

In non-partisan elections, voters need to be educated to look at a candidate's position on issues and make their decision about who to vote for based on that. Given that most voters are generally conservative leaning (though not extreme), the moderate Right and moderate Left should do well while the extremists on both sides would likely be defeated. This would bring us back to where rationality and compromise are the order of the day.  

The second big issue was that most voters, despite their near constant kvetching about Mayor Greenberg, didn’t bother to vote. Of the 585,088 registered voters in Jefferson County, just 151,288 showed up at the polls. That works out to be a measly 25% of the vote. Where was the other ¾ of the county’s voters? As an aside, of Louisville’s 7,655 Independents and third party voters, 6,516 turned out to vote. That’s an 85% turnout.

Therefore, it looks like the fault (or blame if you prefer) rests with the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties for failing to get their people out to vote, and especially that of the local Republican party for not helping its voters to know who on the ballot was a Republican! An apparent failure in understanding non-partisan ballots.

I should also mention that it is my understanding that Republican metro council members, as well as other elected Republicans, decided to “stay home” as well. While technically the party doesn’t openly endorse during a primary, individuals, elected or not, most certainly can support a candidate of their choice. Afterall, since this was a “non-partisan” race, there would obviously be no bias or violation of bylaws since no one on the ballot was a “D” or “R” (or “I” if we were so allowed).  

I suppose if anyone is looking to fix blame on the mayoral election outcome, Republicans can look to their party leaders and to other elected Republicans for not supporting their own as well as failing to alert their partisan “congregation” just who was and wasn’t a member and working to get out the vote. From my perspective, this is a not just a failure of leadership, it’s a betrayal of Republicans and conservatives alike.

Finally, we need to look at our fellow voters. Three-fourths of those eligible to vote stay home,. Most of those were in the county while urban Louisville came out to vote in force---as it usually does. It makes me wonder just how much worse things are going to have to get in Louisville to get us off our collective butts and do something aside complain. To paraphrase President Teddy Roosevelt, “if all you want to do is complain and offer no solutions, then sit down and shut up. We need doers to change the system. Not whiners".

 

In Focus: State Rep. Jason Nemes discusses updates toKentucky Law that governs partisan and non-partisan races in Louisville

Commonwealth Secretary of State’s Election Results

Who Votes in America? A Snapshot of the Average American Voter

It's ironic that nearly every election is billed as the "most important" to our democracy, and yet voter turnout in the United States is among the lowest of any democracy. I remember when I first ran for a seat on our newly created Metro Council, voter turnout in my district was between 5% and 7%. You would think there would be more interest for electing representatives to a newly created local metro government council (we had just merged city and county governments), but nope!

Other democracies have a far greater percentage of voter turnout that we do (we're ranked 31st in the world). For many people it means trudging on foot for miles enduring all kinds of terrain and weather, through dangerous areas controlled by drug cartels, terrorists, corrupt police and military troops, all trying to intimidate voters. But Americans, it seems we will stay home at the drop of a hat. Any ole excuse will do. Is it that we just don't care anymore? Who does show up to vote? Let's look at the numbers.

Voter turnout in the United States in the 2020 presidential election was 66.1%. Of the eligible 240 million voters, 158,427,986 bothered to show up (and of that, an estimated 5% of the votes were cast by illegal immigrants).  Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington State and Oregon had the highest percentage of turnout with 75% or better of eligible voters showing up at the polls. Hawaii, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Missouri, and West Virginia had the lowest turnout---under 55%---of registered voters.

Historically, voter turnout for presidential elections has been in the neighborhood of 55%. The lowest turnout since 1932 was in 1996 when just 49% of the voting age population showed up to decide between between Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and Ross Perot. Clinton won with 49% of the vote, Dole received 40.7% and Ross Perot got 8.4%.

As an aside, the lowest voter turnout in U.S. history was the 1792 presidential election between George Washington (seeking a second term) and John Adams.  The turnout was just 6.3% (or 28,000 voters out of a population of 3,919,023). Of course, there were only 15 states back then. Apparently being "Father of the Country" didn't count for much.

Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, following the passage of the 19th Amendment and the hard work of suffragettes. The last state to approve the amendment was Tennessee on August 18, 1920 (incidentally, my great grandmother was one of those suffragettes. She lived in Nashville). 

The highest voter turnout at the polls was in 1876 when 82.6% of eligible voters showed up to vote for Rutherford Hayes or Samuel Tilden. This was one of the earliest elections to allow former slaves to vote following the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870.

Although America has had a wide variety of political parties since 1790, the two main parties nowadays are the Republicans and Democrats, although there are several strong third parties which include the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party (according to a October 4, 2023 Gallup report, support for third parties is up 63%, the highest increase since 2003).

Nevertheless, both of the two major parties have been hemorrhaging voters, especially since the Supreme Court upheld the "Citizens United" ruling in 2010 which effectively gave over control of the U.S. political system to corporations by declaring they had  "personhood" and basic civil rights. It also declared money was  "free speech",  and without a cap on donations, they could give what they wanted. That meant the few would have more "free speech" than the many.  

For about the last 10 or so years, voters have shifted away from the growing extremism of either corporate owned party and becoming Independents or joining third parties. Today, registered Independents make up about 41% of all registered voters with the Democrats and Republicans comprising 28% and 31% respectively (Independents were as high as 51% in June 2024).

There are currently 244 million eligible voters in the U.S.. Of that, there are 168.31 million registered voters. As we said above, the majority of voters are registered as Independent, followed by Republican and Democrat. When it comes to gender, women tend to vote more often than men. In fact, according to the Center for American Women and Politics, there were 7.4 million more female voters in 2022 than men. To rephrase it, 68.4% of registered women voted compared to 65% of men.

According to a Pew survey, in 2020 48% of registered male voters who showed up voted Democrat compared to 55% of females. 50% of registered Republican males voted while 44% of Republican women did. In 2022, a presidential off year, 44% of male Democrats voted as did 51% of Democratic women. So, in both instances, Republican males showed up more than Democratic males. Among females, the opposite was true.  More female Democrats voted than Republicans.

The survey left out the political majority---Independents (does that subtlety imply a measure of partisanship I wonder?), which is interesting given that Independents made up over a quarter of all voters who showed up at the polls in 2020. Independents tend to lean conservative when it comes to the economy and taxes and lean liberal on most social issues. Independents are, to frame them, typically moderates. They oppose the extremism of the prevailing duopoly.

 When it comes to voting, Independents look at individual candidates and their positions on specific issues compared to their partisan counterparts who tend to vote along party lines (even if it means holding their noses to do so). For instance, in 2022 Democrats voted for Democratic candidates 96% of the time with just 3% refusing to walk in lockstep.

It wasn't any different among Republicans which had the same percentages. Independents, however, tilted more for Biden in 2020 than Trump (54% to 41%) because of the latter's perceived unpredictability and the extremism of the Republican Party. In 1994, more Independents backed President Bush than Bill Clinton by 18 points because he was a unknown factor with a questionable past.

What does this mean? In 2022, 74% of voters disapproved of how Biden was handling (or mishandling as the case may be) of the economy. Given the lockstep mentality of both parties, and their near dead heat in voter registration, it will be the Independents who may decide the 2024 election and do so into the future. The question is which, if any, of the two corporate owned parties can pull in the Independent voter? Independents are political "free agents" and the Democrats and Republicans aren't the only game anymore.

According to a CNN poll, Democratic voters between ages 18 and 29 and 30 to 39 turned out in heavy percentages---63% and 51% respectively---then the percentages drop off significantly to the mid and lower 40% range.  Among Republicans, the inverse was true. The percentages for the same age brackets were 35% and 47%. Ages 40 and older saw the numbers jump to about 55%.

Married Republicans voted 58% of time compared to 39% who are single. For Democrats, just 41% of married couples voted. But if you're single, that percentage jumps to 59%! So, in looking at these two sets of statistics provided by CNN, young single Democrats are more likely than not to show up at the polls. On the other hand, older married Republicans are most likely to be dedicated voters.

Looking backward, although the historical affiliation among the youth vote has been Democrat, it has been by decreasing margins coming forward. If Pew had included Independents, the data would have shown that the general trend among the youth in both parties are deserting the two corporate parties in droves and becoming Independent. As an aside, almost 50/50% favor some form libertarianism  or type of social democracy. Support for traditional capitalism is also in decline.

When it comes to race, 92% of Black voters voted for Democrat in 2020 compared 8% who voted Republican. In 2022, 93% voted Democrat while 5% backed the GOP. In looking at the 2020 white vote, 43% went Democrat in contrast to 55% who voted Republicans. in 2022, 41% of white voters voted Democrat while 57% went Republican.

Hispanics, who are now the second largest population in the U.S., voted 61% Democrat in 2020. 36% backed Republicans (most were of Cuban descent). Those number changed slightly in 2022 when 60% voted Democrat and 39% when Republican. Asians weren't much different. 70% voted Democrat in 2020 compared to 30% Republican. 2022 saw 68% going Democrat and 32% voting Republican.

If we look at race and gender,  60% of white males voted Republican in 2022. 38% voted Democrat. Among white females, 55% voted for the GOP in 2022 while 44% sided with the Democrats. Among Black males, 93% backed Democrats while just 6% supported the Republican Party. Black women were nearly identical with the male counterparts. 93% went Democrat and 5% back Republicans.

Among Hispanic males in 2022, 43% sided with Republicans. 56% back the Democratic Party (one reason may be for the perceived leniency toward illegal immigration and less willingness to deport compare to the Republicans). It appears that 64% of Hispanic females agree. 34% side with the Republicans. Unfortunately, there was no data for Asians.

 In the 2022 election, individuals with a high school or less level of education leaned Republican by a margin of 59% to 39%. Those with an associate degree favored the GOP by 54% to 44%. However, those with a four year degree favored Democrats to Republicans, albeit narrowly, 51% to 48%. For those with a Master's degree or better, 61% voted Democrat versus 37% went for the Republicans.

Does this mean that the more educated you are the more liberal you become or is it the longer exposure to a liberal infused education? Higher education is supposed to be about encouraging critical thinking skills and enhancing the ability to reason rationally and without bias based on facts right? But what if the "facts" are tainted?  A 2023 study showed that 26% of professors considered themselves conservative while 17% said they were moderate. But, 50% admitted they were liberal.  

When it comes to income, more lower income families are registered Democrat than Republican, and they're also more likely to vote. 58% compared to 36%. Among upper middle class voters, 52% will turn out for Republicans compared to 46% for Democrats. Meanwhile, the very wealthy actually show up for Democrats over the Republicans 53% to 46%. It appears that the average Republican voter is someone with a lower middle to upper middle class (the very class which is decreasing the rapidest).

As an aside, union members are more likely to be registered Democrat (59%) than Republican (39%) although the Democratic Party depends on corporate dollars. Among non-union voters, it's almost a even split with 48% Democrat and 49% Republican. Most renters are Democrat compared to Republican (64% to 32%) whereas most homeowners vote Republican (51%) as opposed to Democrat (45%).

When it comes to military service, 63% of veterans vote Republican while 51% of non-military tend toward the Democrats. 72% of white veterans lean Republican but 82% of Black veterans are Democrat. Similar numbers hold true for those who attend church regularly. The majority of white churchgoers---59%---tend to vote Republican while Black churchgoers vote Democrat in near equal numbers.  

So, there you have a snapshot of the average American voter. Women are more likely than men to show up at the polls to vote. The older the voter, the more likely they'll vote. Higher education doesn't equate to more conservative voting. Those with a high school (or trade school degree) are more likely to turn out to vote than someone with bachelor or higher degree.

Among race, whites and Hispanics are more likely to vote than Asians or Blacks. The excuses varied. It could range from getting away to vote, a lack of convenient transportation, no ID or simply a lack of interest. Ultimately, the missing factor appears to be a lack of motivation to show up. But regardless, the result is the same. No vote no voice no b*tching.

The voters of 2024 won't be much different from the voters of 2022, except that turnout will likely be higher. Right now the polling numbers show a virtual dead heat. Will it be who can get their side out in numbers that stands the best chance of winning? Is it who can swing the Independent vote that will win? Personally, I think Joseph Stalin had it right when he allegedly said "those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything", but then that's a problem we've been experiencing with greater frequency isn't it  

 

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article. 

 

Voting Patterns in the 2022 Elections

Voter turnout in United States presidential elections

Gallup: Party Affiliation Week of October 1, 2024

Citizens United vs. FEC

Women's Suffrage in the United States

Gender Differences in Voter Turnout

Independent Voters Have the Final, and Future, Say

Conservative Faculty are Outliers on Campus Today

Partisanship by family income, home ownership, unionmembership, and veteran status

Most White Americans who regularly attend worship servicesvoted for Trump in 2020

Turnout in U.S. has soured in recent elections but by somemeasures trails that of many other countries

Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%

Gerrymandering: Herding the Sheeple or How to Nullify the Vote Without Really Trying

In my last article I wrote about the need for term limits. Voting alone no longer works, thanks to partisan gerrymandering and near unlimited funding of campaigns, politicians, and political parties by corporations (thanks to the Supreme Court's "Citizens United "debacle"). Between the three, voters have very little chance of removing corrupt or ineffectual politicians of either political party from office.

With no hope of changing the situation, voters have expressed their frustration in several ways. The first, and most obvious way, is that they simply choose to stay home. After all, why go the polls and vote when you know going in that the deck has been stacked against you? As a result, approximately 45% of those registered to vote don't. In the 2016 Presidential Election, 55.7% of registered voters showed up, which is pretty good. But the other side of that also means that just under half didn't.

Secondly, about 25% of Americans eligible to vote haven't even bothered to register. Meanwhile, countries like Malta and Belgium have a 95% voter turnout. India, which is the world's largest democracy with 911, 950,734 registered voters, had in 67.40% turnout in its May 2019 elections. Kind of embarrassing isn't it? Others have simply walked away from both corporate controlled parties which is one reason why Independent have been the dominate political demographic since 2008.

Of course incumbents and their respective parties love low turnouts. The fewer voters turning up at the polls mean that controlling the outcome is that much easier. Term limits, however, are not a panacea to fix our broken political system, but it is one important piece of the puzzle. Another tool that we need if we want to restore our Republic is to end partisan gerrymandering.

As an aside, the Republican firm, McLaughlin and Associates, a national survey research and strategic services company, conducted a poll in 2018 to see what registered voters thought about term limits. They found that 82% of those polled wanted term limits. This included 89% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 83% of Independents. Not only that, but it seems race didn't matter either. 86% of whites favored term limits as did 70% of blacks and 72% of Hispanics.

In 2017 there was a survey conducted by the bipartisan group Campaign Legal Center (CLC). They wanted to know what people thought about gerrymandering. Perhaps not surprisingly, 71% of those surveyed want to end partisan redistricting of voting districts. But before we get into ways to stop this form of vote suppression, we need to talk about what gerrymandering is.

Pretty much everyone has seen a map of their voting district. Often they twist and turn; reaching here and there, and not making any sense whatsoever. Well, to those who hold power, they make perfect sense. It is, after all, how they keep power. To be more specific, gerrymandering is a way in which both of the corporate controlled parties are able to draw or redraw districts in a way to gain or keep control over a particular voting district.

They do this by drawing districts where voters are most likely to vote for their party's candidates. To do this they routinely break up neighborhoods by including or excluding certain types of voters, be they Democrats, Republicans, as well as low income, high income, and so forth. In doing so, they implicitly discriminate in various terms such as race, gender or education. As a "fun fact", with the majority of Americans now registered as Independents, each party tries to stick the other with the political "Old Maid" to help skew their opponent's numbers.

The end result to all this is that it enables a party to increase their chances of securing and keeping their party's hold on an office in a given area by several percentage points. Think of this way. Instead of voters picking who they want gerrymandering enables the parties to pick the voters who are likely to vote for them. Gerrymandering, along with near unlimited funding of parties, politicians, and campaigns, along with unlimited terms make up the illusion that you and I actually have a choice when it comes to voting.

Gerrymandering can, however, be eliminated, thus restoring some balance back to our elections. First, you need to understand that there's nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about requiring gerrymandering. In fact, there's a great deal which actually opposes gerrymandering; even making it unconstitutional since it denies some from having their voices heard not to mention denying equal representation. So "how?" you ask. Well, I'm going to tell you how.

What we want...and need...as a country is for all citizens to be heard. Therefore, what we need to do is create districts in which everyone gets an equal say in who we elect. We can do this by creating non-partisan commissions to redraw voting districts which are more reflective of those who live there. A Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) is separate from state legislatures.

IRCs are required to be transparent by publishing all their data research, holding public meetings, provide full disclosure of all contact by lobbyists, corporations, or politicians. The IRCs look at neighborhood compositions, including income levels, race and ethnic groups as well as registration to ensure balanced representation. The public is encouraged to submit information about their district to the commission, including proposed district maps.

Think IRCs could never work? Well, actually they do! In fact, voters in Colorado, Utah, Missouri, and Michigan have already approved the creation of IRCs while voters in California, Arizona, and Iowa have created similar types of commissions which have removed career politicians and their parties from the redistricting process.

Similar to an IRC, universities can be selected to create non-partisan districts as well. Typically the redistricting is performed by the mathematics departments using proprietary algorithms and data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. It wouldn't hurt, in fact, if the process be periodically rotated among different universities or colleges throughout the state in order to further ensure total impartiality.

There are some other options we should consider as well. One is called Open List Ballots. Candidates are listed together on a ballot by party. Voters can choose any of the candidates. The top vote getters win and the party gets a proportional number of seats based on the number of votes their candidate(s) receive. Another option is Cumulative Ballots. Voters get three votes each. They can assign their votes however they want. The top vote getters win. In both of these examples, five districts were combined into a single district so that the top five vote getters (one from each of the old district) win.

A third variation and one of the most popular is called the Ranked Ballots. Here, instead of just marking the ballot for the candidate of your choice, the candidates are listed together and the voters rank them (#1, #2, #3, etc). Depending in the number of seats available, the highest overall ranked win. A spin on this type of voting doesn't list the candidate's party registration so that no party has an advantage of the other. We'll discuss these in more detail in a later issue.

On an amusing note, some have suggested putting the names of the candidates on a slip of paper and drawn out of a hat. Others have suggested a similar approach except the names are drawn the way lottery or bingo numbers are drawn, out of a cage. I wonder if they realize that was the way draft numbers were drawn? Either way, I guess you can't get anymore impartial than that!

I have no doubt that there are numerous (and more serious) ideas. Perhaps one of you will come up with one. Nevertheless, partisan gerrymandering has diluted the power of our vote. It benefits no one but those who hold power and intend on keeping it regardless of what you and I want.

Partisan gerrymandering, along with unlimited terms and near unlimited corporate funding, has made the servants of the people their master. It's past time that we take back what rightly belongs to us.

As with all my articles, I've included my source links below. I've also provided you with several links to just a few of the organizations which are in the fight to end gerrymandering. I urge you to check them out and get involved.



The Supreme Court just said federal courts can't stop partisan gerrymandering

Here's how to fix partisan gerrymandering, now that the Supreme Court has kicked it back to the states.

Common Cause: How Gerrymandering Hurts Our Democracy and How We can Fix It

Brooking Institute: Gerrymandering and how to fix it

Cato Institute: How to stop politicians from Gerrymandering

End Gerrymandering

Campaign Legal Center: Redistricting

Common Cause: How Gerrymandering Hurts Our Democracy and How We can Fix It

Turning Out the Turnout: How America Stacks Up in Voting

We just wrapped up a three part series on where America ranks in terms of overall freedom, income inequality and healthcare, and education. Despite the hype of being the "Leader of the Free World", we actually are pretty far down the pole. In fact, as many of you know, America is on the low end of the industrialized West and in some areas, actually among second tier nations. Not good folks. Not good at all. So, I was thinking "why don't we do something about that?". Our Founding Fathers gave us two options to change our government. The first was the ballot box. The second was the ammo box. Obviously, we'd prefer the former to the latter but that depends on the options the government gives us.
As a result, I wanted to know where America ranks in terms of voting. After all, isn't voting the hallmark of a democracy or democratic Republic? Of course, we're now a Oligarchy with a professional political ruling class comprised of plutocrats, but how has that affected our ability to influence government?

According to 2018 Pew Research study, the nation with the highest voter turnout is Belgium with a turnout of between 83% and 95% and it's been that over the last 40 years. That's pretty impressive! Next on the list is Sweden with just over 85% of registered voters showing up at the polls. Following Sweden was Denmark with a little over 80% of the voting age population voting. In fourth place was the nation down under, Australia, which had almost 79% of its voting age population coming out to vote. South Korea rounded out the top five with just under 79% of its voting age citizens voting. Other countries in the top 20 include Norway (70%), France (78%), Mexico (66%), UK (63%), and Greece (62%).

So, if the US---the "Leader of the Free World"---isn't in the top 20 in voter turnout, just where are we ranked? The US is in 26th place, behind nations like Estonia and Spain and just ahead of Slovenia, Chile, and Poland. According the study, just 55.70% of the voting age population bothers to vote. That's just slightly over half of the population. But the good news is that according to another Pew study, this time from 2013, the US ranked 31st out of 34 countries. In 2018, we were 26 out of 34 industrially developed nations. I can hear chants of "USA USA USA" now!

As a nation, we pretty much stink when it comes to showing up at the polls. But, then there's not much to vote for when you're an Oligarchy right? After all, they literally own both parties and their politicians. It also means they control policy but, at least according to Citizens United and people like Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), money is free speech. Of course, corporations are allowed far more " free speech" than flesh and blood citizens and that means more access and control; even to the point of writing or co-writing legislation. They fund campaigns and fill party coffers on both sides of the aisle. Partisan politics is really about which corporate clique gets what they want and who gets the crumbs. Naturally you and I get stuck with the bill.

Well, if we're so dismal when compared to the rest of the world, how do we stack up against each other? According to several reports, the most recent data (from 2016) shows that in 10th place, the highest voter turnout was Louisiana, which by the way, has the third highest poverty rate in the US. In 9th place was Mississippi. Voter turnout out was 67%. The 8th place winner was Massachusetts with a 68% turnout. The 7th spot went to Nebraska which had a voter turnout of 68%. Coming in 6th place was Oregon with 69%.

The state making it into the 5th spot was Iowa with 69.6%. 4th place went to New Hampshire, but not by much! It's voter turnout was 69.8%! The 3rd place winner was Maine with a 70.8% voter turnout. The "bridesmaid" state at number two was Wisconsin which had a impressive 73% voter turnout. Finally, the state with the highest voter turnout was Minnesota! Minnesota has a amazing turnout of 74.5%! That's nearly three in four voters who showed up to vote. That's outstanding by any measure. In case you're interested, out of the top ten, seven of the states went Democrat while only three went Republican.

Now that we looked at the ten best, who were the ten worse? What ten states cared the least about showing up to vote? In the 10th spot was the Peachtree state of Georgia. It's voter turnout was 59.3%. In 9th place was New York with 59.2%. The 8th place spot belonged to Arizona, which had 58.4%. 7th place went to Oklahoma. They had a voter turnout of 58.3%. Coming in 6th was Nevada with only 57.7% showing up to vote.

Now we get into the top five, which brings us to Texas. You would think their voter turnout would have put them on the other list, but nope. Texas had a voter turnout of just 55.3%. Well, at least Texas wasn't Tennessee which came in 4th place with a voter turnout of only 54.9%. In 3rd place is Arkansas which had a turnout of 54.3%. The runner up for the worse of the worse in voter turnout belongs to West Virginia. West Virginia had only 52.9%. Yikes! Finally, in first (or last) place, depending on how you look at it was Hawaii. The 50th state showed up with only half its population bothering to voter---50% exactly. Seven of the bottom ten tend to vote Republican by the way. I don't know if I should offer my congratulations or condolences.

Some other entries include Delaware in 12th place with a 66.6% turnout, Michigan in 15th place with 66.1%, Alaska in the 20th spot with 64.6%, Ohio at 25 with 63.5% turnout, Florida making the 32nd spot with 62.2%, Kentucky in 36th place with 61.1% voting, California came in 38th with 60.3%, Indiana was 40th with 59.5%. An interesting aside is that for the majority of the states, it's the older voters who tend to come out consistently. Younger voters (mostly the Millennials) tend to stay away, but they seem to also be the most vocal when it comes to politics. Guess it want to change things you have to stop bellyaching and actually show up. Just saying you know. Women are also more likely to vote than men. I guess they took that 19th Amendment pretty seriously! They certainly fought long and hard for it.

So what does this tell us? Well, it seems to go hand-in-hand with the results of our other results in that the rhetoric of the US being the world leader in democracy doesn't match the reality of where American actually stands. It also shows the frustration that Americans feel toward politics. Most Americans are turned off by all the childish and petty playground drama which seems to define not just Washington but state capitals and local city halls. Of course, we already know the distain from Washington is reciprocated to us out here in "flyover country". They don't even pretend to listen to us anymore. Hell, they don't even have the decency to lie to us anymore. Have you noticed how many tied elections we've had recently? How many contested elections? How the fact that the 2016 Democratic Primary was fixed and nothing actually happened!? They just do as they please and leave it to the corporate controlled media to spin it however they want.

We can, of course, change this...if we really want to. Washington and others want us to believe they have the power and control. They don't. We do. Unlike countries like the UK where the government simply ignores the decision of the voters (such as with Brexit) and the voters have little recourse, we have options. Americans need to demand term limits and an end to partisan gerrymandering of districts. We can demand a level playing field, and that includes third parties and Independents, who also just so happen to be America's largest voting bloc, and this includes opening up debates and equal access to the media. We also need to remove corporate money from politics which all but eliminates other groups and individuals from having a voice. That, of course, means dropping "Citizens United". As an aside, we can all start supporting and voting for non-lawyers and corporate VIPs like teachers, police officers, firefighters, blue collar workers, small business owners, and so forth; in other words, we can start electing individuals who are like us rather than millionaires and other elites.

It's up to you. We have the power and the ballot box remains...at least for the moment...our best option. However, if we're to preserve what's left of our Republic (which isn't very much as the numbers have repeatedly shown us), then we must act now. We can't wait and there won't be a second chance.



US voter trails most developed countries in voter turnout


Americans Don't Show Up at the Polls But Neither Do the Swiss


States With the Highest (and Lowest) Voter Turnout

2014 Election: What Changed?

I purposely held off commenting about the recent election until now. I figured there would be a plethora of the proverbial ink and verbiage spewed forth that most everyone (except us political junkies) would be in a need of break. I also wanted to wait until some of the dust had settled in order to gain a better insight as to how the lay of the political landscape has changed.

It appears there were several changes of significance. Let's start with the States. The Republicans were the primary beneficiaries, going from controlling majorities of 59 legislatures to 67. Specifically, pre-election, Democrats went from controlling the State Senate in 18 States to 15 post election while the GOP went from 31 to 34. In State Houses, the Democrats went from controlling 21 to 16 while the GOP increased from 28 to 33. For Governor, the Republicans went from 29 Governorships to 31 while the Democrats went from 21 to 17. Meanwhile, marijuana became "legal" in three more States, plus Washington DC., bringing the total to 23. The biggest and perhaps most important change was, of course, to the US Senate where the GOP finally, and some would argue, convincingly, took control but that wasn't only change.

The Elephant's Heard

To loosely paraphrase Mark Twain, "Reports of the GOP's demise are greatly exaggerated". First, let's deal with the seat pickup. The Republicans needed six seats to take control of the Senate from the Democrats, which they got, thus giving them 52 seats to 44 for the Democrats with two seats undecided. The victory will elevate Mitch McConnell (R-KY)---often accused as the nation's obstructionist-in-chief---to Senate Majority Leader, replacing uber-liberal and occasional "funny guy", Harry Reid. (D-NV). This should dramatically change the national direction on a while array of issues, such as Obamacare, the War on Terrorism, government surveillance, and illegal immigration just to name a few. As important as this is, there was a back story which has received almost as much coverage as the election itself, and that's the makeup of the incoming Republicans.

Despite claims by partisans on the Left, the Republican brand seems to still have some life in it yet. Long accused by the Left of being the "Rich Old White Man's Party" and bastion of institutionalized racism and "war on women", the Republican Party appears to have finally got the message that those of us in "fly over country" have been preaching for years now. Forget the fact that the GOP had the first black female Secretary of State or had the first black head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now they can add Mia Love of Utah. Ms. Love is daughter of Hatian immigrants, a mother of three, and a Mormon. Will Hurd became the first black Congressman from Texas since Reconstruction while Tim Scott has become the first black Senator from South Carolina since Reconstruction (and first to be elected to both House and Senate). In addition, Shelly Moore Capito became West Virginia's first female senator (winning the seat which had long been held by Democrat Jay Rockefeller), and the State's first Republican since 1956.

Joni Ernest, whose campaign burst onto the national scene thanks to her humorous spot-on "pig" commercial, and becomes Iowa's first female Congresswoman. Meanwhile, Elise Stefanik has become the youngest women ever elected to Congress at 30 years of age, and the first Republican to win New York's 21st district seat (on a related subject, 18 year old Millennial Sara Blair became the young person ever elected in US by winning a West Virginia's State House seat). So, anyone on the Left looking to place the race or gender card needs to find a deck.

Bidding Their Time?

As for Hispanics, the nation's largest minority, they voted two to one for Democrat candidates, however, in certain key races,

Hispanics voted for Republican candidates, specifically in New Mexico and Nevada, where two Republican candidates of Hispanic origin, Susana Martinez and Brian Sandoval, were running for reelected as governor of their respective States. In Texas, Greg Abbott won 44% of the Hispanic vote in defeating Democrat Wendy Davis for Governor who won 55% of the Hispanic vote. In Georgia, which like most Southern States has a small but growing Hispanic population, Republican incumbent Nathan Deal won 47% of the Hispanic vote in defeating his Democrat challenger, who received 53% of the Hispanic vote. In Kansas, the incumbent Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, got 47% of the Hispanic vote compared to 46% by Democrat challenger, Paul Davis. Not majority numbers, but definite improvements.

So, what does this mean for both Republicans and Democrats? While the national trend for Hispanics, as well as for Asians, has been away from affiliating with both parties, the GOP has much more to do in making inroads with Hispanics, who are expected to reach near parity with white non-Hispanics in about 10 to 15 years. Much will be decided on how the GOP handles the immigration issue, especially concerning illegal immigration. Meanwhile, Hispanics seem leery of Democrats which have come to treat minorities (not to mention unions) merely as resources to be courted, used, and discarded. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a new political party formed out of the Hispanic vote. They certainly have the numbers, which will continue to grow, and they have a unique shared culture and language as well as specific needs which neither the Republicans or the Democrats are equipped to or willing to deal with. Lastly, they have a political infrastructure already in place with organizations like La Raza, not mention all Hispanic media outlets. Now, wouldn't that be something?

Following (Executive) Orders

As for Obama, he's already made it clear that with two years to go, he's going down fighting. Obama has made it abundantly clear that he will use the Executive Order to push through whatever agenda he wants unless Congress capitulates. First on his list will be some form of amnesty for the some 12 million illegal immigrants now living in the US. In addition, we can expect further confrontation between the Obama Regime and Congress over ISIS and the promise, now apparently broken, of no more boots on the ground in Syria, Iraq, or other parts of the embattled Middle East, Obamacare, and the economy. Meanwhile, cracks are already appearing on the Republican side of the aisle, as Speaker of the House Boehner, the soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and the Tea Party have begun to argue about whose message it was that the voters were endorsing.

One thing is clear though. Voter turnout was low with just over 36%, the lowest for midterm elections in 70 years. That's down 41% from 2010. It was not because of the weather, or being too busy. It was because of voter anger and frustration. Those that did turn up and voted many Democrats (and some Republicans, but that appears to be more localized) out did so not in support of the GOP's message. They did so to send their own message that the policies of the current regime are not acceptable. If the direction of this country doesn't change, voters will be just as happy to vote the Republicans out next time. Americans are miffed, and they've been miffed for some time now at both political parties. A major housekeeping of huge portions may be coming sooner than later.

Election Review: Big Gains
http://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2014

Riding Wave of Discontent, G.O.P. Takes Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/us/politics/midterm-elections.html

West Virginia Elects America's Youngest State Lawmaker
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04/west-virginia-elects-americas-youngest-state-lawmaker/

Meet Elise Stefanik, The Youngest Woman Ever Elected to Congress
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elise-stefanik-youngest-woman-elected-congress/story?id=26694806