It's a Record Turnout In New Hampshire

[liz_marcs]

For those of you not familiar with the Presidential Primary Season, the first voting in the nation (Iowa is a caucus, not a secret ballot vote), the first actual voting in the U.S Presidential Primary occurs in Dixville Notch at 12:01 a.m., followed quickly by the folks at Hart's Location.

In case you're curious, here are the vote tallies:

Dixville Notch
Republican
John McCain: 4 votes
Mitt Romney: 2 votes
Rudy Giuliani: 1 vote

Democratic
Barack Obama: 7 votes
John Edwards: 2 votes
Bill Richardson: 1 vote


Hart's Location
Republican
John McCain: 6 votes
Mike Huckabee: 5 votes
Ron Paul: 4 votes
Mitt Romney: 1 vote

Democratic
Barack Obama: 9 votes
Hillary Clinton: 3 votes
John Edwards: 1 vote


*points to vote tallies above* Yup. This is what everyone's getting all excited about.

Or rather, they were.

Right now, they're all excited about the record voter turnout, as in the kind of a turnout where towns are worried they're going to run out of ballots.

And New Hampshire, which notoriously has people who register as UNDECLARED but tend to vote Republican in the elections, are breaking heavily for (astoundingly) the Democratic Party this go-round. A blue New Hampshire? Crazy-ness.

Of course, it's always fun to read what people have observed at the polls while voting. A lot of people have seen the same thing: the undeclared signing up to vote in the Democratic Party primary before (in the great New Hampshire tradition), switching themselves back to "undeclared" before they leave the polling location.

Of course, no first-in-the-nation Primary Day would be complete without oodles and oodles of pictures.

And you know what? I don't care who they're voting for. The picture below just simply makes me happy:


Voters lined up to cast their ballots at a polling place in Manchester. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch predicted a record voter turnout as early reports filtered in
about some polling places running short on ballots. — Caption and Photo taken from The Boston Globe; Credit Getty Images/Mario Tama.


And so on that note, Happy Presidential Primary Day to all my peeps in New Hampshire.

Comments

[hobgoblinn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that photo rocks. Especially all the kids. Future voters. Be neat to see how it turns out.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

It is a happy-making photo to be sure.

[lizziebelle.livejournal.com]

Awesome! Maybe people will actually ignore the pundits and take back this country. Hey, a gal can hope!

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Hope is the thing with feathers...

[lynnenne]

One of the greatest things about this year's Democratic race is that it has inspired people to get out and vote - people who have historically been politically disenfranchised. Women, young people, minorities - they all are getting excited about an historic election campaign, and about seeing someone who actually looks like them running for president. Clinton and Obama have both made good use of the Internet to get young people interested in the race, and Oprah's endorsement of Obama has her fans coming out in droves. They've both made excellent use of old and new media to get people excited about politics.

Of course, the fact that the Republicans have so little to offer by comparison certainly doesn't hurt, either.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

It is a strange, strange election year to be sure. Although truth to tell, we have to remember that we're talking about the Democratic Party. If there's any party that knows how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's pretty much them. :-)

So, I'm keeping fingers crossed, because the only Republican candidates that don't make me nervous is Mitt (familiarity breeds contempt — *bitter MA resident here* — because Gov. Deval would fucking love to know where the ol' Mitt-ster left our "state surplus" because he and the Legislature have looked everywhere for it) and McCain.

The others? Gah! Scary, scary bunch.

[ebony14.livejournal.com]

Oh, come now. Surely a fine, upstanding man like Reverend Scudder would inspire you to vote Republican?

[lynnenne]

Did you see The Simpsons this week? There was a meeting of the Democratic party at an organic food court. One of the organizers cheered on the troops thusly: "I don't know how we'll blow it, but somehow we will, because that's what we Democrats do!" Heeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[hilleviw.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I feel like the lone voice in the wilderness. The fact that so many Repugs and putative Repugs want to vote for Obama doesn't actually strike me as the kind of endorsement which increases my (thus far non-existant) enthusiasm for him.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Normally, I'd agree with you.

Except...

The thing is, I know a lot of people who were Republicans (the so-called RINO contingent), but found themselves basically without a political party as they were slowly driven out right after the 2004 election. By about 2006, most of them had been pretty much purged or put in the "ignore" box, which is why you saw a lot of "seat switching" in the 2006 Congressional elections.

So, I think that's what you're seeing is even more of the same: RINOs and Independents breaking for the Democratic Party, simply because the Republican Candidates scare 'em witless.

I'm also not convinced that all those votes are pouring into Obama's checkbox, either. Most of his support trends younger, first-time voters, etc., etc. To be honest, I think you're seeing those votes split between Obama, Clinton, and (to a far, far lesser extent) Edwards.

As for me, Edwards is my second choice after Kucinich. Now that Kucinich is out, I'm going to cast for Edwards. If Edwards is out by Feb. 5, I'll probably vote for Obama. So really, he's my third choice.

[hilleviw.livejournal.com]

See, Obama makes my skin crawl. Kucinich was choice one. Then there's a tie for me between Edwards and Clinton - I've got deep reservations about either of them, but they both have important strengths. I'd vote for Giuliani or Romney before Obama - that's how much I dislike him. As far as I can tell his only real strength is rhetorical skill.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

I love that blurry-americans are now allowed to vote. The soft-focus community had been oppressed for too long.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Heeeeee! Blurry Americans Unite!

[stephanierb.livejournal.com]

I still feel some lingering bitterness over NH going red in 2000. If they had voted Democrat, Gore would've been president.

Still, it's encouraging to see so many people turning out to vote in this election, and coming out to vote Democrat at that.

A lot of people have seen the same thing: the undeclared signing up to vote in the Democratic Party primary before (in the great New Hampshire tradition), switching themselves back to "undeclared" before they leave the polling location.

This kills me. Last time I canvassed in NH, I got a few complaints from folks who were tired of the constant phone calls and having volunteers knocking on their doors all day. If I end up doing it again this year, I won't feel so bad about bugging them now that I know they intentionally remain undeclared.

New Hampshire went blue in the last general election, here's hoping the same will happen this year.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

OOoooooo. Getting involved in GOTV this year. That does sound fun. *grins* Last presidential election, I wasn't able to, but during one trip to New Hampshire, I bought avan load of Kerry GOTV people bottled water while their van and my car were gassing up.

Hmmmm...I'll definitely have to think about it for this year.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

It is so good to see young people getting involved. Good to see so many people out to vote, full stop!

[anelith.livejournal.com]

It's very exciting! The talk in our household is almost exclusively about the primaries. The boys have been infected with election fever to the point where they elected the cats Supreme Rulers of the Household. Hmmm... don't quite know how that worked out. But the cats seem satisfied.

[omegar.livejournal.com]

You know you have the Oddest election system i have ever encountered (and that's from someone who understands the single transferable proportional representative vote). I used to think primaries were basically were paid up members of a party selected there leader to go forward to the General election.

To me that makes sense. However I instead find out that anyone can declare themselves to be a supporter of a party on the day of a primary (assuming they didn't have a preference already registered, or am i wrong and can you make a full switch on the day?)

It just really confuses me. Every time i think i have a handle on your election system a new twist emerges and confuses me.

Oh well!

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

It gets even more confusing....because there actually are state-by-state rules.

Some states have what's called an "open primary," that is, you can vote for whatever candidate in whatever party you want, regardless of whether you're registered as a Democrat or Republican. Which means, that in these states, a registered Democrat can ask for (and get) and Republican primary ballot and vote the Republican primary ticket.

Some states, like a lot of the New England states, you have to vote your registration, i.e., Democrats vote the Democratic ticket, Republicans vote the Republican ticket. The exception is if you're registered undeclared (or in Massachusetts, you're registered independent). In which case, the day of the election, you can declare yourself for one party or another, vote that party ticket, and then as you leave the poll switch back to your formally undecided status by declaring that you don't wanna be part of no political party any more.

And then, there's a third class of states where it's closed, and you have to be registered in that party to vote in that party's primary. I think this is in the minority of states where this happens.

All of this, of course, is thrown out the window in the general election, which is basically a free-for all. All candidates of all parties are put on one ballot and everyone gets the same ballot. This was the source of the Florida 2000 shenanigans and how people could accidentally vote for the wrong candidate in the wrong political party (especially after seeing the butterfly ballot that was used — I was even confused by it).

And by the way, that's nothing compared to the nomination process at the national convention for each party. The Republicans and the Democrats actually have different rules on how to win the final nomination going into the general election. While being the most popular candidate helps, just winning the primaries actually isn't enough. You also have to win over the state reps to the convention. The primaries are almost like a "guidelines" for the conventioneers to pick the final candidate, but it's not actually binding.

So, for example, say Edwards wins the primary in Massachusetts. We send our reps to the Democratic National Convention to pick a final candidate. Just because we voted for Edwards, doesn't mean the conventioneers have to. They very likely to, but if something happens at the convention (i.e., Edwards throws his support to Clinton, Edwards bows out and doesn't support anyone at all), those conventioneers can support whatever candidate they see fit.

[rileysaplank.livejournal.com]

Elections are so much simpler in the UK (as long as you understand whether they're using a first past the post system, a single transferable vote system or a Proportional Representation system (or all three)) as the parties themselves decide who their leader is and you vote for the party at the general election or the person, as their can be more than one person representing each party, at the local elections.

[omegar.livejournal.com]

So here's a question for you.

Who pays for the Primary?

Is it the parties (on a local or national level) or is it paid for by the government?

Anyway in my mind the first and second class are insane, the third class makes a touch of sense.

Going back to the first type, can a person vote in the primary for one party, and then in the primary for the other?

I get confused by the whole issue. At least in our system the parties put forward the candidate for election, and then we select from them. Of course the fact our president has about the same amount of power as the Queen of England, less even, there isn't much of importance about a presidential election (every 7 or so years.) of course we didn't have one this time as there was only one candidate.....(warm bucket of spit comes to mind.)

of course we make up for that by having one of the most difficult to poll systems for general elections in the world.

In a recent election i voted along left wing lines(well more centre left). However it is quiet common for people to vote geographically.

In a five seater (i.e a constituency where 5 people get elected) a person will put there vote down in a preference that means that they may place 3 candidates down because they live in the locality.

basically once a candidate is deemed elected any extra votes are spread around among other candidates, which is where second and third preferences come into it. Try polling that and getting an accurate result!

I should probably explain our system properly, but well that would remove the confusion.