Voting in a primary election
On my Monday post I said I was voting for Adam Andrzejewski for Governor. I received one comment. It proclaimed the following:
“Anonymous said
You’re wasting your vote. Good luck with that. Enjoy the McKenna candidacy this fall.
11:23 AM”
First, and foremost, no vote that has been cast for any candidate has ever been wasted. The essence of a democracy (republic, if you prefer that identification of the type of democracy that we are) is voting. The only vote that is wasted is the vote that could have been cast and was not. Those who have the privilege of voting and do not are wasting their vote—no voter is!
Second, how long have you (anonymous) been clairvoyant? Strange things can and do happen in primary elections. I can almost assure you (anonymous) that McKenna is not that confident.
Three weeks before the special election in Massachusetts how many people were confident that Scott Brown was going to win the election? How many were confident that Scott Brown would lose the election?
The classic, classic example occurred in Arizona for a primary race for the selection of the gubernatorial candidate for the Republican Party. There were only two Republicans running for the nomination. One was the Speaker of the House for the Arizona House of Representatives. He was so powerful that no other Republican dared run against him except one perpetual candidate who, if I recall correctly, had never won an election although running at least half-a-dozen times for various offices. Every published public opinion poll up to the day of the election had the Speaker of the House easily winning the election. Every major newspaper had endorsed the Speaker of the House.
Meanwhile, I was also running in a primary for the Democratic nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives—I won that primary by 53 votes defeating a candidate who was both a doctor and a lawyer. (No newspaper gave me a chance of winning the nomination. No newspaper endorsed me.) Behind the scenes, I was being helped by a Pima County Board member who two years before was a Republican and changed parties to run as a Democrat for the county board. He was also working for the election of the perpetual, loser Republican challenger. Several times during the primary he said the same thing, his candidate was going to win the nomination. Was he clairvoyant? Not at all.
Doing valid public opinion polls is both science and art. Most people who run polls cut corners to save costs. They were meticulous in their polling and their polls were showing strong support by a dedicated core for their candidate. They identified the Republicans most likely to vote (remember that the turn out at primaries is notoriously low) and they worked tirelessly to change those most likely to vote who were nominally supporting the Speaker and to get out the vote of their core voters. Meanwhile, the Speaker’s supporters were reading all the polls and already making plans for the general election. An example of “Counting your chickens before they hatch.”
Are you (anonymous) counting the votes too early? Do you have inside information that the fix is in? No legitimate election has ever been won before the votes are counted. Have you (anonymous) already counted the votes?
Primary elections are much more difficult to predict than general elections even by seasoned observers. The variables are greater. First, the turnout is much less than for a general election. Consequently, candidates who work the hardest to get their supporters to the polls can overcome the numbers game based upon nominal supporters favoring another candidate(s). Second, this primary election has six candidates running for the Republican nomination. With votes being split six ways (actually seven because even though Bob Schillerstrom has dropped out of the race, his name is still on the ballot and some small number will vote for him), it is more difficult to determine who will vote for whom. It’s likely that no one candidate will receive a majority of the votes as also happened in the Republican primary in 2006. Finally, and this doesn’t come close to discussing all the variables I’m just briefly mentioning three, the weather may play a major factor in the turnout and therefore the results at the polls. (Holding a primary election in Illinois in early February is a valid definition of insanity! Oh well, global warming will change that.) The Tuesday evening long term weather forecast for the Peoria area for the 2nd is the possibility of snow. A strong snowstorm in one or more sections of the State and not in others may noticeably impact the turnout in those areas and impact the final vote totals.
McKenna does have a possibility of receiving the nomination. So do the other five candidates. Until the final vote is cast and counted, there is no winning candidate and hope springs eternal. I’ve win elections and I’ve lost elections. I’ve never been so presumptuous as to believe I had won an election before the votes were counted.
Thanks for giving me this teachable moment! I’m still voting for Adam Andrzejewski for Governor on Tuesday.
On my Monday post I said I was voting for Adam Andrzejewski for Governor. I received one comment. It proclaimed the following:
“Anonymous said
You’re wasting your vote. Good luck with that. Enjoy the McKenna candidacy this fall.
11:23 AM”
First, and foremost, no vote that has been cast for any candidate has ever been wasted. The essence of a democracy (republic, if you prefer that identification of the type of democracy that we are) is voting. The only vote that is wasted is the vote that could have been cast and was not. Those who have the privilege of voting and do not are wasting their vote—no voter is!
Second, how long have you (anonymous) been clairvoyant? Strange things can and do happen in primary elections. I can almost assure you (anonymous) that McKenna is not that confident.
Three weeks before the special election in Massachusetts how many people were confident that Scott Brown was going to win the election? How many were confident that Scott Brown would lose the election?
The classic, classic example occurred in Arizona for a primary race for the selection of the gubernatorial candidate for the Republican Party. There were only two Republicans running for the nomination. One was the Speaker of the House for the Arizona House of Representatives. He was so powerful that no other Republican dared run against him except one perpetual candidate who, if I recall correctly, had never won an election although running at least half-a-dozen times for various offices. Every published public opinion poll up to the day of the election had the Speaker of the House easily winning the election. Every major newspaper had endorsed the Speaker of the House.
Meanwhile, I was also running in a primary for the Democratic nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives—I won that primary by 53 votes defeating a candidate who was both a doctor and a lawyer. (No newspaper gave me a chance of winning the nomination. No newspaper endorsed me.) Behind the scenes, I was being helped by a Pima County Board member who two years before was a Republican and changed parties to run as a Democrat for the county board. He was also working for the election of the perpetual, loser Republican challenger. Several times during the primary he said the same thing, his candidate was going to win the nomination. Was he clairvoyant? Not at all.
Doing valid public opinion polls is both science and art. Most people who run polls cut corners to save costs. They were meticulous in their polling and their polls were showing strong support by a dedicated core for their candidate. They identified the Republicans most likely to vote (remember that the turn out at primaries is notoriously low) and they worked tirelessly to change those most likely to vote who were nominally supporting the Speaker and to get out the vote of their core voters. Meanwhile, the Speaker’s supporters were reading all the polls and already making plans for the general election. An example of “Counting your chickens before they hatch.”
Are you (anonymous) counting the votes too early? Do you have inside information that the fix is in? No legitimate election has ever been won before the votes are counted. Have you (anonymous) already counted the votes?
Primary elections are much more difficult to predict than general elections even by seasoned observers. The variables are greater. First, the turnout is much less than for a general election. Consequently, candidates who work the hardest to get their supporters to the polls can overcome the numbers game based upon nominal supporters favoring another candidate(s). Second, this primary election has six candidates running for the Republican nomination. With votes being split six ways (actually seven because even though Bob Schillerstrom has dropped out of the race, his name is still on the ballot and some small number will vote for him), it is more difficult to determine who will vote for whom. It’s likely that no one candidate will receive a majority of the votes as also happened in the Republican primary in 2006. Finally, and this doesn’t come close to discussing all the variables I’m just briefly mentioning three, the weather may play a major factor in the turnout and therefore the results at the polls. (Holding a primary election in Illinois in early February is a valid definition of insanity! Oh well, global warming will change that.) The Tuesday evening long term weather forecast for the Peoria area for the 2nd is the possibility of snow. A strong snowstorm in one or more sections of the State and not in others may noticeably impact the turnout in those areas and impact the final vote totals.
McKenna does have a possibility of receiving the nomination. So do the other five candidates. Until the final vote is cast and counted, there is no winning candidate and hope springs eternal. I’ve win elections and I’ve lost elections. I’ve never been so presumptuous as to believe I had won an election before the votes were counted.
Thanks for giving me this teachable moment! I’m still voting for Adam Andrzejewski for Governor on Tuesday.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:18 AM
1 Comments:
Adam is not a bad guy but as the last set of debates showed he really has no understanding how Illinois State government and Springfield works. It nice to be a reform but if you do not know how the system work it is going to be impossible to reform it. Most of the recent polls have Adam to far back to really have a chance of winning. The only Conservative candidate that has a chance of winning and not sticking the party with a rino nominee in the fall is Senator Brady.
Post a Comment
<< Home