I'm not one to make direct predictions about election outcomes, but I do have one for Tuesday's primary that might surprise some people: I think the number of Democratic ballots will outnumber Republican ballots by a significant margin.
Why? Past experience. We've had two party preference primaries, in 2004 and 2005, much like that the citizens of Washington state are voting in right now. I recall in both cases the contrast between Democrat ballots versus Republican ballots was striking. So in advance of this primary, I did some digging and found the following examples of the trend:
1) Snohomish County
This is generally accepted to be a swing county, narrowly supporting hometown Maria Cantwell in 2000, electing a Democrat County Executive in 2003 in a heated, open race, and voting for Dino Rossi in 2004. Yet, in the 2004 primary, not exactly a season when voter interest was low, the number of Democrat ballots crushed Republican ballots 52.9% to 32.2% (with 1.3% Libertarian, and 13.5% not declaring affiliation).
2) 8th Congressional District
In 2004, Dave Reichert beat Dave Ross 51.5% - 46.7%. Yet in the primary for that race, contested on both sides of the aisle, total Democratic votes outnumbered Republican votes 81,242 - 72,215.
3) 38th Legislative District
In the 2004 primary, Democrats posted 12,754 votes to the Republicans 5,741. Yet in the general election, Rep. John McCoy only beat Kim Halvorson 53.8% - 46.1%, or 23,663 to 20,247.
There you have three clear examples of the trend of Democratic ballots being selected in significantly higher proportion to Republican ballots in the primary, but very different results in the general election. Political analysts can make all sorts of conjectures as to why this is the case.
I've observed Democrats tend to work harder at GOTV and exciting their base in the primary season than do Republicans, even in non-contested primaries (such as this rally for Darcy Burner). I would also theorize based on the evidence above, to the consternation of the Reagan Wing, that a notable number of independent, suburban voters end up picking the Democratic party when forced to choose based on the reputation created by some Republican candidates in the '90's. Such a trend should give Republicans pause, though candidates like Dino Rossi and Slade Gorton found ways to win such votes in general elections, even from some of the same voters supporting Democratic candidates for President and other statewide offices.
Perhaps this year will be different, with notable GOTV efforts in conservative, but not necessarily Republican, circles in support of judicial candidates. And perhaps in Snohomish County, the mail-only election may change dynamics a bit. Yet on the whole, don't be surprised to see raw Democratic numbers well-outpace Republicans during the primary in key jurisdictions. And based on recent experience, election observers would be wise not to make much of it.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 17, 2006 10:54 PM | Email ThisBut when the general election came around, all 3 democrat candidates got crushed with losses in the double digits range. Today, those same two republicans up for re-election for the state House are runnning unopposed!
So yes, bigger dem turnout in the primary. In fact, one of those democrat voters will be me-- because I voted the democrat ballot so I could vote for Hong Tran and give Maria Cantwell more of a challenge. And no, I did not vote for Burner in her primary. I wrote in the name of my dog for that race instead of voting for Burner!
Posted by: Misty on September 17, 2006 11:00 PMFree dog bones for everyone!
Posted by: Arf Arf on September 17, 2006 11:15 PM
Democratic Votes Party %
Don Barbieri 56,199 100.00%
Republican Votes Party %
Shaun Cross 19,878 23.00%
Larry Sheahan 23,593 27.30%
Cathy McMorris 42,948 49.69%
(Total Dem 56,199; total GOP 86,419)
And the Democrats had the contested primary for governor in 2004.
Never mind.
Posted by: ScottM on September 18, 2006 04:39 AMMore interest, it seems, in latest TV or cable sitcoms than voting. Get what you pay for, so don't whine later.
Why--in this free country--we are not at at least 90% voting levels is beyond me. Have time for Desperate Housewives, but no time for desperate local politicians & their tax effects.
Problem is, the apathetic are pulling ME along with them over the cliff.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 18, 2006 09:46 AMCount me as a "Democrat" voter too! I also voted for Hong Tran.
Posted by: pbj on September 18, 2006 10:05 AMI sometimes wonder if conservatives really understand the mistake that they make when they do not take any elction seriously, even if it is a primary election.
Posted by: Jaybo on September 18, 2006 10:19 AMI share your dismay at low turnout, although the reason seems obvious. Most people don't consider voting to be a rational use of their time. Don't get me wrong -- I always vote. But while the outcome certainly matters, the expected value of voting -- the difference between the candidates multiplied by the probability that any one person's vote will change the outcome -- is small relative to the value of their time. (Of course, the more people who feel that way and don't vote, the greater the chance that your vote actually will affect the outcome. But the chance is still very small.)
The better question is why people vote at all. Largely it's because of the feeling of civic involvement. I read one study that suggested another reason: people vote because they feel proud to publicly participate in the process. That study found that mail balloting, while encouraging some people to vote because of convenience, actually discourages others because it doesn't provide the reward of being seen in public.
By contrast, people perceive a real benefit from watching inane TV shows: it makes them feel good. In a free country, that's their choice.
Posted by: Bruce on September 18, 2006 10:24 AMi never considered the 'seen in public' angle--i personally never thought of it that way; MY reasons are civic involvement, taking SOME action and the (perhaps deluded) feeling that in some way, I am helping to steer the big political rudder to my preferences; also to prevent the "didn't vote, don't bitch" truism i apply to others;
I also defend peoples' rights to choose TV/not voting; to me, it's a matter of trying to influence my future, even if hopeless; that's more than a TV program will do in terms of lasting value to me/my future;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 18, 2006 10:37 AMIf an election winner is announced before the website says your ballot was received, does that mean that your vote didn't really count?
Already. I miss the polling booth.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2006 11:07 AMElection night returns are not final...the county auditors wait to get mail with the postmarks and will continue to update their voter databases and election totals...the final certified election isn't until a week and half later. Some pundits call elections based upon a substantial return or scientific polling...we know how well that works here in WA state.
Posted by: Old Faithful on September 18, 2006 03:51 PMIt will be interesting to see how the national pundits spin the vote and what it says about all the new names on the ballot for federal office.
Tomorrow's primary results will send messages to a lot of people about whether any of the challengers to incumbants have any chance.
Conventional wisdom says that Washington remains a blue state and that this is a blue year. Watch the numbers for the US Senate statewide and US House in the 8th.
Posted by: thor on September 18, 2006 05:10 PMSame thing in 2005 in Snohomish County, where the Republicans had no contested races for Countil, and the Democrats did (although the Republicans had contested races in King County).