Home General Over 22% of Voters in California's 31st U.S. House District Voted for President, but Cast No Vote for U.S. House
formats

Over 22% of Voters in California's 31st U.S. House District Voted for President, but Cast No Vote for U.S. House

Published on December 26, 2012, by in General.

At the November 6 election, voters in the 31st U.S. House district cast 207,095 votes for President. But those same voters only cast 161,219 votes for U.S. House, which means that 22.2% of the voters in that district chose to abstain from voting for U.S. House. This is undoubtedly because the ballot only listed two Republicans for U.S. House, and did not permit write-ins. So, many voters in that district disliked both candidates, and therefore abstained.

There are always some voters who cast a vote for President and then fail to vote for U.S. House. For example, in 2008, in California, 8.6% of the voters who voted for President did not vote for U.S. House. Obviously, though, there is a significant difference between 22.2% and 8.6%.

The vote in November 2012 for President inside the 31st district was: Obama 118,043; Romney 83,822; Johnson 2,027; Barr 822; Stein 807; Hoefling 721; various write-ins for President 853. The vote for U.S. House for the two Republicans was: Gary Miller 88,964; Bob Dutton 72,255. The 31st district is entirely in San Bernardino County.

8 Responses

  1. johnO

    Should have “none of the above” then. Same as Nevada.

  2. Demo Rep

    How many of the CA gerrymander districts are 60 plus percent ONE party — i.e. to get 2 Ds or 2 Rs in the next top 2 primary ???
    —-
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

    NO primaries are needed or wanted.

  3. #1, actually, Nevada doesn’t have “none of the above” for U.S. House races. Nevada only has it for statewide office. Technically it is “none of these candidates.”

  4. Larry Allred

    Undervoting is underreported and underconsidered, though not here. It is appropriate to focus upon it as it is a soft vulnerable spot of a crappy electoral establishment. It cannot be well explained away.

  5. No Difference

    Maybe this is exemplary evidence against the case for top-two.

  6. Be Rational

    Yes. This is a good example of how “top-two” eliminates voter choice to the point where voters don’t participate in the electoral process. Eventually, if instituted nationwide, fewer and fewer voters will participate to the point where few will complain as the end of free elections takes hold.

    “Top-two” is designed and intended to impose a one-party state on the US. When there is only one primary with all candidates included and all voters voting, there is only one party. All participants eventually behave just as in well-known, one-party dictatorships such as the old Soviet Union; free elections disappear; defacto 0ne-party rule is established; the end of liberty follows.

    The evidence against “top-two” is mounting. Some people are waking up to its dangers. Even some of its erstwhile proponents are becoming less vocal – perhaps out of embarrassment at the obvious nature of this evil scheme.

    It is time to repeal “top-two” anywhere it has been adopted … while we still can.

  7. Douglas Johnson

    But dropoff in CD 8 (also entirely in San Bernardino County, also Republican vs Republican in its Congressional election) was only 8%. So perhaps it’s not a clear-cut case to say the CD 32 drop off is due to the “top two”?

  8. Demo Rep

    The CA SOS will shortly be producing the SOV Supplement showing the 2012 Prez votes in all gerrymander areas — i.e. show the NONVOTES in such areas — esp. the gerrymander districts NOT having 1 D and 1 R — due to the CA top 2 primary machinations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus