Just for some perspective...

[turil.livejournal.com]

Joe Curtatone, while winning the election for mayor, was voted in by less than 8% of Somerville's human population.

Comments

[turil.livejournal.com]

Sorry. No. It didn't seem like a particularly interesting bit of information (since the mayor makes decisions that affect everyone, not just registered voters).

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

It seems particularly interesting to me, because if you're not allowed to vote in an election, the fact that you didn't vote for a particular candidate in that election is meaningless. The percentage of those who COULD have voted for him and did not is more interesting and meaningful as a statistic.

[turil.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the people who can vote are in charge of who can vote. It's sort of a circle jerk democracy...

But the question was about "registered" voters, not "eligible" voters. I agree that knowing the percentage of eligible voters who voted for him would be at least somewhat interesting. But I seriously doubt anyone keeps track of that figure with any accuracy.

(For the record, I'm not sure if I counted as a registered voter, but I did vote. I was on the green pages, because I didn't fill out the census thing, and was removed from the rolls.)

Exactly who is being excluded here?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

Fair enough, but you have yet to specify who is being excluded.

Any man or woman 18 years of age or older, who is a legal resident not presently incarcerated for a felony, can vote in Massachusetts.

So who is being excluded here?

Felons in prison?
People who don't actually live here?

Re: Exactly who is being excluded here?

[thespian.livejournal.com]

My cat.

Re: Exactly who is being excluded here?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

I wonder what cats would vote for in Somerville, if they were able to vote.

Re: Exactly who is being excluded here?

[turil.livejournal.com]

Well, for starters, those who are under 18 and are felons...

Plus... everyone else who either lives here and isn't a human, or "lives" here but isn't a "resident" are being excluded, too. People who work here, but don't live here can't vote here even though they might spend much of their lives here, people who are birds can't vote here, people who live in more than one place but are only allowed to register to vote in one of those places might not be allowed to vote here, and people who are illegal aliens aren't allowed to vote here, and even some people who just didn't have the resources to register weeks ahead of the election can't vote in that election, even if they wanted to.

Re: Exactly who is being excluded here?

[thespian.livejournal.com]

people who are birds. huh.

Re: Exactly who is being excluded here?

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

people who are birds

I don't even know what to say about this.

Look, the birds don't let us vote in their elections, and we don't let them vote in the human elections. I think it's fair.

Re: Exactly who is being excluded here?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

That's correct: we do not allow people who have not reached an age to enter into contracts decide on the social contract of ruling us.

I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Additionally, we do not allow people who have shown that they have a low regard for the law participate in electing those who write and enforce the law - that would be like having the foxes guarding the henhouse.

Felons can vote in Massachusetts

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

Only presently incarcerated felons cannot vote. A person convicted of a felony who is not incarcerated can vote.

As for people under 18, the belief is that they lack the knowledge to enter into a binding contract, and likewise, lack the knowledge to make an informed decision about voting.

Aside from the non human voting, I still fail to see who is excluded. You can't have non-residents voting in elections.

Re: Exactly who is being excluded here?

[ron_newman]

legal resident U.S. citizen

[georgy.livejournal.com]

I think you're using statistics to make a non-statistical argument, which thereby makes your argument flawed.

[turil.livejournal.com]

I'm not making an argument. I'm merely pointing out some information. You're free to make your own decision about what it means. :-)

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

you are making an implication, and not a very good one.

[turil.livejournal.com]

I'm not making any implication beyond the facts. If you don't like the facts, that's not my fault.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

In which case, what's your point, or do you just like spouting off facts for no reason?

[fefie.livejournal.com]

I'd find that piece of information interesting as only registered voters could vote for him.

[fefie.livejournal.com]

Replying to myself here, the page which Ron mentioned in another election thread: http://www.somervillema.gov/alert.cfm?alert_id=247 lists how many voters actually voted for the Mayor, left that item blank on the ballot, or specified a write-in candidate. (I went looking for this to see how many actually voted for the uncontested Ward 5 alderman)

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

Huh, so about 20% of those who cast a ballot DIDN'T vote for Curtatone. Now that is a more interesting statistic.

Stats says...

[secretlyironic.livejournal.com]

Out of the votes, 20% voted against Curtatone and 80% voted for. Even though voter turnout was a small portion of the population, as it always is, especially in elections like this one, it was still a statistically significant poll.

Even though registered voters are not a perfect representation of the entire population, and even though actual voters are not a perfect representation of the registered population, it still sounds like a statistically significant portion of our fair city actually likes Mayor Joe.

[closetalker11.livejournal.com]

And way more relevant!

That's a pretty arbitrary number.

[turil.livejournal.com]

The number of "registered" voters doesn't represent much of anything specific in the real world, as far as I can tell. It's a fairly random set of people. It's a combination of those who are eligible, plus those who find it convenient enough to do, plus those who remember to actually do it, plus those who believe that it's worth doing, or just those who were automatically registered when they got a car driver's license. :-)

Plus, I voted (not for him though), but I might not have been actually "registered to vote" up until yesterday. I was kicked off the voter list because I didn't fill out the census from (I'm guessing), and so I had to sign a piece of paper swearing that I was indeed a Somerville resident before I was allowed to vote. But my guess is that the city's data for yesterday, people like me weren't counted as registered voters.

Re: That's a pretty arbitrary number.

[secretlyironic.livejournal.com]

Uh, "registered voters" represents those citizens who have established permanent residence within the city and care enough to register to vote. That's a pretty significant real-world representation of people who are allowed to vote and may actually do so.

Now, you can argue til you're blue in the face about who ought to be allowed to vote (White male landowners over the age of 21? Women? Ethic minorities? Legal immigrants? Illegal immigrants? Tourists? Felons? Domestic animals? All have been debated at one point or another).

But don't tell me that "registered voters" doesn't mean anything in the "real world."

OK, I'll instead say that it doesn't mean anything important.

[turil.livejournal.com]

As I said the combination of factors that go into being registered is fairly unimportant when it comes to deciding how well a politician is representing the people who their decisions affect. In scientific studies, the goal is to eliminate most if not all other factors except the one you are studying. In this case, what I want to know is how many of the individuals who are directly affected by the mayor's decisions voted for him.