That is quite a population explosion over less than 4 year period.. If this were a 20 year gap, I could see that.. But it is not.. The simple fact is more people than ever before that normally did not vote were voting.. These were not necessarily all new voters... That is the difference.
Mia, I have to say I agree with Grim. Raw numbers aren't really useful because they don't provide a means of comparison across time. In order to have something useful, we need percentages - what would be interesting would be to compare popular votes cast as a percentage of voting age population. If the percentage spikes, it might be telling. I'm kind of sick of looking up numbers - anyone have databases handy, that would compare various years' popular vote with total U.S. voting population?
Yes, but more people came to the polls and on a 'percentage' base it was actually closer than the norm. The population growth does not account for all of it, it does however account for some of it
Working on it, gents...so far, here is what I have, 1980-2004. As a percentage of voting age population (VAP), the winning candidate's popular votes: 1980 - 26.70 1984 - 31.30 1988 - 26.87 1992 - 23.54 1996 - 23.70 2000 - 23.94 2004 - 28.03 Hence, 1984 was actually much higher than 2004, with 1980 and 1988 coming close. Clinton, and Bush's first term were quite low. You'll forgive if I don't post sources - drawn from a variety of places. The VAP data comes from: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout%201980-2006.xls Also, this is pretty lousy causal analysis. It doesn't account for demographic changes relative to other changes (i.e., radical changes in electoral laws that encourage a profusion of third, fourth and beyond-party candidates entering the electoral stream would "artificially" deflate the percentage of the winner's tally, as a percentage of the VAP). But it's a start.
Alright, to keep things consistent, 1948-2004. For winning popular votes as a percentage of voting age population, the amended figures 1960-2004 are: 1948 - 25.37 1952- 33.25 1956- 33.45 1960 - 31.35 1964- 37.80 1968 - 26.42 1972 - 33.51 1976 - 26.81 1980 - 26.70 1984 - 31.21 1988 - 26.75 1992 - 23.70 1996 - 24.12 2000 - 24.52 2004 - 28.76 Bush's number in 2004 is interesting to me, but not all that remarkable relative to many other elections. Nixon's second election, for one. (whoops! ), and Johnson's first election (I think many were voting for JFK, posthumously). I've got VAP to 1948, and popular vote to 1932. Anyone having a source for VAP all the way back to 1932, it would be appreciated. IDEA - VAP data VAP - Wiki
From The Ron Paul Updates thread. Will.Spencer needs some education. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5750959&postcount=440 Ron Paul is not running as a Libertarian candidate. He's running for the Republican nomination. I imagine he is also not a good Democratic or Green Party candidate. LOL. If that summarizes your feelings Will, then you're in for a surprise. It's almost wholly false. Ron Paul's effect on Libertarianism has been so profound, that the Libertarian party itself has offered him it's nomination, as well as use of their voter database in the Republican nomination race. Free Trade has already been debunked in the Updates thread. Paul is a free trader without using managed trade agreements. He's as pro-free trade as someone could hope a candidate could be. Paul's a minarchist, one of many flavors of libertarianism. He simply wants legal immigration. He's the only GOP candidate claiming that the welfare state makes illegal immigrants scapegoats for an economy that is hurting. Paul opposes school vouchers because they are not freedom. You can only use them in government approved opportunities. Paul favors full tax credits for private and home schooling. Zero cost educational choices, decided by the parents. Paul has repudiated the White Supremacists on PBS NOW, and 9/11 Truthers on his full hour with Glenn Beck. When you quote dated sources, it's good to do follow up, otherwise you might be believing or endorsing something that is not relevant, or current.
Post moved from the RP update thread to a thread where it belongs. Being open to reason is a bit different than following half truths. You talk about against freedom simply because he votes no on certain things. It couldn't be because he was against something in the so called 'free trade' agreement for good cause could it? Nope in your mind that must be against free trade without looking into it further. Who is trully the person not open to reason in this case? I suggest you look in the mirror Will. You used to post you liked RP, now all you do is try to trash him with bogus shit. I'm not going to argue with you here other than this post because there really is no point. Trying to claim crap when you know full well how RP votes can not be determined by the name of a bill, you have to look into the entire bill itself. Was it constitutional, was it trully free trade and so much more. He's not like all the others who pander or support a crap bill because the title is catchy. If something is in it he doesn't like he will vote no, simple as that. It DOES NOT mean he's against the concept at hand.
They are compromises. Great source to quote from, I advise everyone read it. Summation When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size. But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.First, the role of President is not to make progress. That is the role of the House. The duties of the President are quite clearly laid out in the Constitution. The last bit is conjecture, and the article is dated. Paul has already explained his role, as well as the compromises he is willing to make in transition, provided he has the approval of Congress. If the tariff reductions are bundled in broader bills, Paul will vote against them, plain and simple. He's not going to make compromises for "progress". Can't answer for Pete, but your comparison is flawed. Do you want compromised freedom, or work towards true freedom might be a better question to ask. Carter is the polar opposite of Paul. So if Carter was wildly impractical, perhaps it could be said that Ron Paul is wildly practical.