[lr5497]

During that mid-term election in 2010, the voter turnout was just under 50 percent of eligible voters, and won with 48.9 percent of those voters. Sad, but true. After these last elections and the bad reputation Rick Scott had with voter suppression in the state, EVERYONE knows who he is and what he is capable of; he's definitely trying to come off a the nice guy now.

Voter Turnout Statistics - Florida Division of Elections - Department of State

Florida - Election Results 2010 - The New York Times

[OrlFlaUsa]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

Yes, that would be correct.....you know, the ones who move here to avoid paying taxes and have an overall aversion paying for services they use every day (such as toll roads for example) and simultaneously expect everything to be of the same quality they had "up north"....

Okay, fair enough .

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by lr5497

After these last elections and the bad reputation Rick Scott had with voter suppression in the state, EVERYONE knows who he is and what he is capable of; he's definitely trying to come off a the nice guy now.

Voter Turnout Statistics - Florida Division of Elections - Department of State

The voter turn out was a little higher in 2010 (49%) than 2006 (47%), a little lower than 2002 (55%) and the same as 1998 (49%) for the general election.

For 2012 it was 72% compared to 75%, 74%, 70%, 67% 83%, 73%, 85% for each of the presidential election years prior.

My post is not to back any elected official only to address this alleged suppression. Was there suppression in 1996, 2000, 1988? It doesn't seem last year was out of line with the usual fluctuations especially since many were calling for a lower turnout throughout the U.S.

The Bipartisan Research Center had these figures for voter turnout for the last few Presidential elections nationwide, 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%. It seems while some were claiming voter suppression back in 2008 also, there was a higher turnout than many previous years. This also show a Florida drop that was much less than the national drop between 2008 and 2012 and overall a much higher percentage than nationwide.

Show me the suppression.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

The voter turn out was a little higher in 2010 (49%) than 2006 (47%), a little lower than 2002 (55%) and the same as 1998 (49%) for the general election.

For 2012 it was 72% compared to 75%, 74%, 70%, 67% 83%, 73%, 85% for each of the presidential election years prior.

My post is not to back any elected official only to address this alleged suppression. Was there suppression in 1996, 2000, 1988? It doesn't seem last year was out of line with the usual fluctuations especially since many were calling for a lower turnout throughout the U.S.

The Bipartisan Research Center had these figures for voter turnout for the last few Presidential elections nationwide, 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%. It seems while some were claiming voter suppression back in 2008 also, there was a higher turnout than many previous years. This also show a Florida drop that was much less than the national drop between 2008 and 2012 and overall a much higher percentage than nationwide.

Show me the suppression.

"Voter Suppression" is a term used when a Republican wins.

[kyle19125]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

"Voter Suppression" is a term used when a Republican wins.

Nice try Ryan but not so much. Though while on the topic, what's your spin on district gerrymandering by the GOP to swing elections?

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

Nice try Ryan but not so much. Though while on the topic, what's your spin on district gerrymandering by the GOP to swing elections?

Gerrymandering is everywhere and not confined to Republican district no matter what you may want to think.

Here are some good ones




This one is not even legal but the Dems in NY don't seem to care

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Gerrymandering is everywhere and not confined to Republican district no matter what you may want to think.

Here are some good ones




This one is not even legal but the Dems in NY don't seem to care

Unfortunately, I can't rep this because I have to spread it around... Nice post!

Ironically, last year Texas tried to redistrict and liberals cried foul which caused the fed to step in and say it "discriminated" against minorities.. which is especially ironic when you consider that Texas is a "Minority-Majority" state, meaning that whites are minorities.

[kyle19125]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Gerrymandering is everywhere and not confined to Republican district no matter what you may want to think

Actually the Florida district you mention was federally mandated as noted below, and not manipulated through state level Democratic efforts....which is virtually impossible since the Florida state legislature has a GOP majority.

"[FL-3] was drawn in 1992 to be North Florida’s black-majority seat and Democrats were shifted from the surrounding districts to make the surrounding districts more Republican. It currently stretches from Jacksonville’s downtown in the north to Orlando’s in the south, and stretches east and west to include other largely minority and Democratic areas such as Gainesville, Sanford and Eatonville. As a result of this gerrymandering, the district is strongly Democratic with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D +18 and gave Obama 73% of its vote in the 2008 election. It is 50.9% black and 35.4% white. … The 3rd District is at the center of the debate over the potential impact of the FairDistricts initiative. Due to its shape, the 3rd is one of several districts that violate restrictions in the initiative which require compact districts that conform to geographical and political boundaries. On the other hand, the 3rd District is protected by the Voting Rights Act and a non-compact shape may be necessary to ensure it remains an effective African-American seat."

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

Actually the Florida district you mention was federally mandated as noted below, and not manipulated through state level Democratic efforts....which is virtually impossible since the Florida state legislature has a GOP majority.

"[FL-3] was drawn in 1992 to be North Florida’s black-majority seat and Democrats were shifted from the surrounding districts to make the surrounding districts more Republican. It currently stretches from Jacksonville’s downtown in the north to Orlando’s in the south, and stretches east and west to include other largely minority and Democratic areas such as Gainesville, Sanford and Eatonville. As a result of this gerrymandering, the district is strongly Democratic with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D +18 and gave Obama 73% of its vote in the 2008 election. It is 50.9% black and 35.4% white. … The 3rd District is at the center of the debate over the potential impact of the FairDistricts initiative. Due to its shape, the 3rd is one of several districts that violate restrictions in the initiative which require compact districts that conform to geographical and political boundaries. On the other hand, the 3rd District is protected by the Voting Rights Act and a non-compact shape may be necessary to ensure it remains an effective African-American seat."

I'll start out by just highlighting part of your "supporting documentation" but then also point out that the Florida senate was not a republican majority until 1992, after the district was first picked to be redistricted, the house was not republican controlled until 1996. In addition the U.S. house and senate were both Dem. controlled at that time.

Looks to me that the dems had total control over that redistricting.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

I'll start out by just highlighting part of your "supporting documentation" but then also point out that the Florida senate was not a republican majority until 1992, after the district was first picked to be redistricted, the house was not republican controlled until 1996. In addition the U.S. house and senate were both Dem. controlled at that time.

Looks to me that the dems had total control over that redistricting.

You can't argue with a liberal.