Thursday, November 25, 2004

Undecided = uninform(-ed/-able)

There's a lot of post-election analysis in the liberal blogosphere, but this one amazed me. Apparently there is a large class of undecided voters who seem to be unaware not just of issues but of the existence thereof. Why the hell do these people bother to vote at all? And by the way, I do have a favourite prime number.

3 Comments:

Blogger Quark said...

This is interesting, but can one really make the claim that Bush had an advantage with undecided voters because of it? (And thereby claim that it was why he won.)

Someone mentioned to me that what was interesting about this election was that Bush won purely on the Republican base. That no one believed Rove that a get-out-the-vote effort could lead to a win for Bush, but that he did just that. The claim is that Bush didn't win a majority of the democrats (obviously) and that he didn't win a majority of the *undecideds* either (!!). That he won only the Republican vote and by getting that group out in numbers.

Are there any numbers to support or discredit this?

11/26/2004 12:59:00 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

This seems like more useless babble from the liberal blogosphere that likes talking to itself. :) So I'll add to it...

One point that the campaigns in this election were weak on issues. Nearly all their talk was either attacking each other or talking about Iraq. Issues such as how to transition social security from a pyramid scheme to a savings plan, how to curb health care costs, or how to deal with the twin deficits were barely discussed. As the author points out, if you ask people, then they often point out something they're concerned about such as health care. So it sounds to me like these "uninformable" voters are better at figuring out what's important than the politicans are.

The author seems suprised that they don't beleive him when he tells the voter that Kerry has a plan to lower their health care premiums. IMHO, this was one of Kerry's better plans, but I still think that the voters are wise to be extremely skeptical. Look at what the federal government has done about reducing health care premiums over the past decades. Look at what Kerry has done about it while he was a senator. Think about how the politican system works and what compromises might be made to get the plan passed into law. Would the end product reduce the ammount we pay for health care? I doubt it.

So why do they vote? Well, I vote because I'm extremely annoyed with the political games in Washington and their results. I'd like to influence the elections to increase government responsibility, decrease government waste, etc. But mostly I vote because I beleive that I have a responsibility to vote my consicous and so I can preserve the right to complain about the government's stupidity.

12/01/2004 02:15:00 AM  
Blogger Justin said...

To follow on to Eric's comment, it is very rare that the issues politicians talk about during the election even come up during the next 4 years. No one anticipated that the isolationist Bush during the 2000 campaign would become an interventionist in 2003 and 2004. The "Social Security lockbox" that both candidates fell all over themselves to talk about in 2000 wasn't mentioned in the next 4 years.

Are we shocked that voters don't care about a proposal that Sen. Kerry developed in the campain? He didn't care enough as a Senator to actually introduce this legislation, we have no idea what the bill would look like after Congressional committees got done with it, we have no idea whether a President Kerry would be able to get enough Republicans on board to get a vote on the bill, let alone get it passed, we have no idea what parts of the legislation Kerry would compromise on. In reality, it always comes down to your feelings on the candidate himself, whether you are an "issues voter" or not.

12/05/2004 02:01:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home