According to a couple quick google and wiki searches, roughly 1 million more people came out this past election and in 2008 than did in both the special election of 2010 and the senate election in 2006. Roughly a 33% increase. I'm on my mobile, otherwise I would have links. But the info is there. Approx 3.2 million come out for the presidency is up for grabs, 2.1 million if not. That's 1 million 'casual voters'. Of those, I'm convinced a great deal are uninformed filling in D. Like I said though, if this were Texas I would suggest just as many uninformed voters would be filling in R.
Millions of dollars were spent by both campaigns, on ads talking about anything other than the issues. I would argue that not only is there a large uninformed vote showing up to these presidential elections, but that they were specifically targeted by both candidates for senate with Warren winning the vast majoirty because the region.
Now, what is your definition of uninformed? Because I would argue that knowing whether you want a Democratic or Republican Senate is plenty informed to vote on this.
Wanting a democrat or a republican based on preconceived notions that are untrue, or peer influence, or an attack ad, is uninformed.
Seems like about everyone involves would be partialy uninformed here by your definition. Did you read the Brown/Warren thread? It was basically one big attack ad and defense on Warren, with multiple appeals to the implied morality and integrity not only of Brown or Warren, but also those who voted for them.
Scott Brown and/or Elizabeth Warren didn't win or lose Mass on the backs of uninformed voters that 'just clicked D'.
I agree but Warren did win based on voters who just clicked D. They werent necessarily uninformed though
How many voters just clicked R though? I would argue that they cancel each other out.
In Massachusetts? Highly unlikely. There are many more registered democrats than republicans, I don't see a reason the percentages that just clicked their party would vary much from the percentage of total voters for those parties.
Yeah, I mean they cancel each other out as a representation of the total electorate. So, 80% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans just click on the D and R, they cancel each other out. Then you have a balanced election of "informed" voters.
But in Mass the number of democrats that just click D would be 3 times as high as the number of republicans who just click R, which would be a significant number of votes in a fairly close election.
Whats this based on? Are you saying there are 3 times as many Democrats in MA, or are you suggesting Reps don't just vote the party line?
3 times as many democrats as republicans.
Well, then, that would suggest that a much lower percentage of Democrats than republicans simply voted by party lines. Which might be the case.
I can definitely see how more Democrats would have been moved to break the whole "just check the D" thing, and vote for the more moderate Brown, than Republicans doing the same.
But we come to the same conclusion. The election wasn't swayed by uneducated voters just checking the D. It was a Democrat winning in a state that is disproportionately Democratic. Exactly what is expected, based on the values of the overall electorate.