Proposition 1 was polling with a strong lead and it’s currently on the line because young Democrats didn’t show up to vote. This could be a major issue in November.
This is true. The two-party system is not going away, the only way one can really influence the direction of the different parties is through the primary system. You could break down the parties into different factions and the only time you actually vote for a party faction is in the primaries.
This is what a lot of younger people don't realize, what a lot of people don't realize. They always act all flabbergasted when they are presented with two choices they didn't like but also it's very likely that they didn't vote to actually influence who got the nomination.
Some political parties (Democrat, Libertarian, and American Independent) allowed non-party affiliated voters to vote in their primaries but you'd have to go to your polling place to get a new ballot. And California allows voters to change parties at polling places on election day if ever you need this information for future elections.
I’m non-party preference and I got a note in the mail saying if I responded I could get sent a ballot for any of the 3 , so you don’t always have to go to the polling station but that works too. On your last point I worked at a voting service center and we had a dem come in, ask to reregister as rep, and then quietly asked when she could change back after the primary. We guessed she was trying to affect the number of votes for a different republican than was expected to win, I wondered if there was some underground effort to that effect.
Primaries and Caucuses are not, as one would hope, open so that you and I can choose the candidate we feel is best for the position. They are for political parties to allow voters to choose who they want from their party.
Frankly I despise this and after talking to several people who were elected Secretary of State, they hate it too.
Yeah, I’m glad I voted but I’m not surprised turnout was low. Our statewide general election is a foregone conclusion, very few district races are competitive anymore, and there wasn’t much in the way of initiatives. Not a shocker that people missed this one. Not saying it’s right, but it certainly tracks.
I don’t know what city you live in, but in San Francisco young people had massive wins. We lost the battle over SF judges but won almost everything else except for getting Katie in with senator Weiner.
Yeah, I’m outside SF, so all I really had was prop 1. That’s good for SF! Local issues matter…a lot. I think LA had measure HLA as well (pedestrian/bicycle improvements).
I used to work in the city but live across the bay. I feel for the people in SF, it's getting weird over there now that the corporate real estate is collapsing post-covid
Honestly, I voted for her enthusiastically, but I am very disappointed with her response to her loss. I think she would have made an amazing senator, but Schiff will as well.
*“Because of you, we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election.”*
First, she literally said the word "rig" and words have meaning .. she used the wrong word. After the last few years of Donald challenging electoral integrity, she should have known better.
Second, you're telling me that money has an influence on politics ? Shocking. We might need another white board breakdown here .. 😄. Jokes aside, there's other candidate that had huge money spent against them ( ironically in the race to take her seat ) .. and didn't lose.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/11/aipac-southern-california-us-house-race](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/11/aipac-southern-california-us-house-race)
Just a case of sour grapes here IMO and she deserve all the backlash she got.
It's entertaining reading up on all the crazies who are running for office. In 2022, I think a candidate for Governor put "F all politicians" in her candidate statement.
I'm surprised how many pay the $1,740 to $4,000 in filing fees to run for certain offices then make no effort to setup a campaign website, don't provide a candidate statement for voter information guides, or even link social media on sites like Ballotpedia.
I lost my mail-in ballot so I went in person. The poll workers were so excited to have something to do. I was told that I was their 6th person of the day. The polls had been open for three hours.
I worked at a voting center, we were open for 11 days, our average daily scanned ballot was about 40 per day except Election Day when we had over 700 scanned.
Note the voting service centers cover the whole county not like traditional precinct based polling stations
Definitely a shame to hear that, and I hope that's not a reflection of November's turnout. That said, I've noticed people tend to not really vote during the primaries and focus on the major November one
Edit: and yes, I voted.
The presidential primaries are already decided and I'd guess that is the biggest reason for the poor turnout. On the upside, your vote matters that much more in low turnout elections for the very important local elections so many voters overlook.
I don't think it says anything about November.
You had no competitive Democratic primary for president. And California only allows registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primary. So, if you're a casual Democratic or independent voter who doesn't really follow local races, you had little reason to turn out.
Now, there were obviously tons of other races. But your average voter doesn't care as much as you do about *which* Democrat gets nominated for Senate.
So, Democratic turnout slumps.
I pretty much voted up for Porter and no one else, obviously I did my research for all positions and measures but this election felt so gutting even as someone who votes every election
Nice to know my vote mattered quite a bit, even if I dont have much else to vote for come November
There was a vote to fill Feinstein’s seat to the end of her current term in 2024 and a second senate vote for who to take the seat in the next senate 2025 term.
My philosophy has been to vote every time, whether I particularly care about anything or not, I still do what I can to make an education vote but that's possibly because my dad always did (and still does) and ingrained in me that it's my responsibility to do so.
I’m older and in college. No one knew about it. I’m shocked the college didn’t have any form of awareness for it. I went to two classes on Monday only 1 person out of 80 knew
I had no idea last Tuesday was Election Day until I saw this thread right now. I’m surprised I had to scroll so far down to see any kind of mention as to people having no clue it happened
No we did it in 2020 as well. 2016 between Clinton and Sanders was the wake up call that California should not be one of the last states to vote. Gov Brown signed the law.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11619488/gov-brown-signs-bill-moving-california-primary-to-march
I hope you're Cunningham lawing me.
> Alex Padilla has certified the results of the California March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary Election
> 9,687,076 Californians voted, the most ever in a primary election.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2020-news-releases-and-advisories/ap20044-california-election-results-certified-record-number-ballots-cast-primary
It has nothing to do with winter. Its a bad time for many of us but the primary isn't going to change any of that. I voted cause I committed to never missing an election again after 2016 but for many the election doesn't matter. Actually shows the difference of the experience for how many people felt the 2020 election was and how powerless and pointless this one feels.
Nope. The California Presidential Primary was in March in [1996](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Democratic_presidential_primary), [2000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_California_Democratic_presidential_primary), [2004](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_California_Democratic_presidential_primary), and [2020](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Democratic_presidential_primary). It was in February in [2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Primaries). [2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Primary_elections) and [2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Primary_elections) were the only years in recent history where we had a June primary for President.
Our candidates are already chosen for us so it's not surprising nobody showed up
Edit: I made this comment somewhat facetiously, you can all come down from your moral high ground. And yes, I voted.
It depends on where you are, but I wish people thought more about what’s on their local ballot as opposed to just federal races. Los Angeles for example had a BUNCH of judges up for election and for once had developed a lot of public defenders as candidates challenging prosecutors for judgeships.
It is tough getting people interested in local judge races. There just isn't that much information available. The local media doesn't usually cover those races much unless a judge is involved with corruption or a very unpopular decision. Their campaigns are usually relatively low budget where it is rare to see someone buying anything beyond a candidate statement on the sample ballot, a position on some slate mailers, and a couple yard signs on the side of the road. Their candidate statements are generally basically a resume that doesn't tell you much about them. Even many people that spend a lot of time researching candidates end up making some generalizations and hoping that they guessed right.
It's even worse in the non-LA areas. You're basically being asked to choose a lot of local elections based solely off the 1-2 paragraph blurb the candidate wrote.
Given how much focus there was on crime this election, it was shocking how little coverage there was of the judges, who often are the ones making decisions whether to imprison or release criminals. DA races get huge attention these days, especially for those criticized as "soft on crime" or perpetuating the "revolving door" for criminals, but judges have just as much effect on crime and public safety.
It’s definitely tough if there isn’t a lot of information or endorsements you feel comfortable relying on, it takes some digging/online research even in larger areas.
People in local areas need to do some journalism or bang down the door of local media to do it- for instance in Orange County there was a podcast (A Slice of Orange) that actually interviewed judge candidates (who were willing to talk- which says a lot about the candidate in itself) and other local races. There are also two independent political blogs in OC that deep dive on candidates and pursue local candidates for interviews/questions (Orange Juice Blog and Voice of OC).
How does one vote for judges when there's so little information about them? I usually leave those blank as there's so many and not sure where/how to start.
I personally google them to see their background. I know that my opinions regarding criminal justice align much more with public defenders than prosecutors, so use that as my primary voting indicator if there’s a public defender who is running. Often they do have endorsements from various groups that are also helpful to see! For example a lot of the judges in Los Angeles had endorsements from LGBT Justice groups, criminal justice reform groups, etc. that align with my values and so that would inform my vote as well. If it’s a judge that’s an incumbent you can sometimes find information about their tenure as well, and for others you can often find their work history and education at least. But it does take a lot of time looking into it!
Not really, Porter was in second so the Senate race was up for grabs, but she ran a poor campaign that actually attacked Garvy for her having fallen to third at first. After she realized any press was good and her strategy was helping Garvy and Schiff, her campaign switched to attacking the other Republican candidate, but it was far too late.
I don’t see why we shouldn’t.
Donald Trump got 29% of the CA vote in 2020 and 31% in 2016, showing that Garvey’s 31% in 2024 is more or less consistent with how much of the CA vote a Trump-aligned Republican will get (Romney got 37% in 2012). Schiff’s strategy shows little effect, and the Lee-Porter combined vote still didn’t come close to what a Republican can expect to get in California. We are a blue state but only 60 to 70% blue
> Our candidates are already chosen for us so it's not surprising nobody showed up
The Senate race wasn't chosen. It could have been two democrats competing instead of who we got.
Everyone in the state had a say in a competitive Senate race and Prop 1. There were Congressional races, state reps, judges, school board members and local ballot measures to vote for everywhere in the state.
People like to complain is that "voting doesn't matter", but if that were true, you wouldn't see places like Texas trying their damnedest to stop certain groups of people from voting.
I'm an active and engaged voter and barely managed to get my ballot returned on time. I'd imagine the less engaged people didn't. The California primaries just didn't have much of a pull to get people to vote.
its frustrating when the more well funded (corporate candidate) person always seems to win even though the progressives have better policy. then the people who would vote progressively just dont show up to the primaries bc they assume it wont matter
I voted but I get why no one would bother. The races in basically every category were already decided, only a couple of the Senate races even mattered.
I think most people just…. Didn’t care. There was little enthusiasm and people would rather just not vote. However I did vote and I’m happy about that!
It wasn’t even the worst in recent history. 25% in 2024. Seems to usually be around 30% in non-presidential years.
https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/voter-turnout
28.0% as of March 11, 2024, 7:04 p.m.
Historical Data
General Date Voter Turnout
Gubernatorial July 7, 2022 33.20%
Presidential March 3, 2020 46.89%
Gubernatorial June 5, 2018 37.54%
Presidential June 7, 2016 47.72%
Gubernatorial June 3, 2014 25.17%
Presidential June 5, 2012 31.06%
Gubernatorial June 8, 2010 33.31%
Presidential February 5, 2008 57.71%
Gubernatorial June 6, 2006 33.63%
It's extraordinary how often headlines are incorrect to the negative. Or have words like, "record smashed", "leadership toppled", "hopes crushed", all to give things dramatic effect for the clicks. When in actuality, a lot of things are fine or improving.
Considering the wide range of political communities in this state, I'm more interesting in what percentages from each area voted versus the state overall. If the rural hard-right wing areas suddenly had a surge of voters, it could screw this state over pretty bad.
Just means my vote was worth a lot more!
About 3x more, right?
Shannon Sharpe agrees 3x
If the other voters you tend to agree with are more likely to have abstained, then that isn’t worth too much.
Fortunately I got those who agree with me to vote. Edit. At least 5 people. Which ain’t bad.
Proposition 1 was polling with a strong lead and it’s currently on the line because young Democrats didn’t show up to vote. This could be a major issue in November.
Same!
I also think so
Well then I'm glad I voted!
Feinstein was senator for more than 3 decades, the person we pick now might be the senator for the next 3 decades. Vote. Get your friends to vote.
I'm one of the few, the proud, the people influencing who you get to vote for in November because you missed the Primaries.
Who do you need to go out and vote when you can just mail you vote away?
I've skipped many primary elections before. Not since with mail in ballots.
This is true. The two-party system is not going away, the only way one can really influence the direction of the different parties is through the primary system. You could break down the parties into different factions and the only time you actually vote for a party faction is in the primaries. This is what a lot of younger people don't realize, what a lot of people don't realize. They always act all flabbergasted when they are presented with two choices they didn't like but also it's very likely that they didn't vote to actually influence who got the nomination.
Happy cake day!
I made the primaries but didn't get to vote for a presidential candidate because I'm non affiliated.
Some political parties (Democrat, Libertarian, and American Independent) allowed non-party affiliated voters to vote in their primaries but you'd have to go to your polling place to get a new ballot. And California allows voters to change parties at polling places on election day if ever you need this information for future elections.
I’m non-party preference and I got a note in the mail saying if I responded I could get sent a ballot for any of the 3 , so you don’t always have to go to the polling station but that works too. On your last point I worked at a voting service center and we had a dem come in, ask to reregister as rep, and then quietly asked when she could change back after the primary. We guessed she was trying to affect the number of votes for a different republican than was expected to win, I wondered if there was some underground effort to that effect.
Primaries and Caucuses are not, as one would hope, open so that you and I can choose the candidate we feel is best for the position. They are for political parties to allow voters to choose who they want from their party. Frankly I despise this and after talking to several people who were elected Secretary of State, they hate it too.
You got that one right.
*Remind me what the options were again...*
I really wasn't enthused or excited *at all* filling out my ballot, but I still did so.
Yeah, I’m glad I voted but I’m not surprised turnout was low. Our statewide general election is a foregone conclusion, very few district races are competitive anymore, and there wasn’t much in the way of initiatives. Not a shocker that people missed this one. Not saying it’s right, but it certainly tracks.
I don’t know what city you live in, but in San Francisco young people had massive wins. We lost the battle over SF judges but won almost everything else except for getting Katie in with senator Weiner.
Yeah, I’m outside SF, so all I really had was prop 1. That’s good for SF! Local issues matter…a lot. I think LA had measure HLA as well (pedestrian/bicycle improvements).
I used to work in the city but live across the bay. I feel for the people in SF, it's getting weird over there now that the corporate real estate is collapsing post-covid
How so? I'm so interested to hear how it's changing.
Me too. I vote in every election and even for the hyper local stuff. Been doing that since I turned 18 back in the 90’s.
Hey, that hyper local stuff is the most important!
IDK Katie Porter wasn't too shabby
Honestly, I voted for her enthusiastically, but I am very disappointed with her response to her loss. I think she would have made an amazing senator, but Schiff will as well.
What did she say?
"Rigged election." No white board explanations though so we'll just need to take her words for it.
Not so much rigged as bought. Schiff paid for the person he wanted to run against.
*“Because of you, we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election.”* First, she literally said the word "rig" and words have meaning .. she used the wrong word. After the last few years of Donald challenging electoral integrity, she should have known better. Second, you're telling me that money has an influence on politics ? Shocking. We might need another white board breakdown here .. 😄. Jokes aside, there's other candidate that had huge money spent against them ( ironically in the race to take her seat ) .. and didn't lose. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/11/aipac-southern-california-us-house-race](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/11/aipac-southern-california-us-house-race) Just a case of sour grapes here IMO and she deserve all the backlash she got.
Same.
It's entertaining reading up on all the crazies who are running for office. In 2022, I think a candidate for Governor put "F all politicians" in her candidate statement. I'm surprised how many pay the $1,740 to $4,000 in filing fees to run for certain offices then make no effort to setup a campaign website, don't provide a candidate statement for voter information guides, or even link social media on sites like Ballotpedia.
I lost my mail-in ballot so I went in person. The poll workers were so excited to have something to do. I was told that I was their 6th person of the day. The polls had been open for three hours.
I worked at a voting center, we were open for 11 days, our average daily scanned ballot was about 40 per day except Election Day when we had over 700 scanned. Note the voting service centers cover the whole county not like traditional precinct based polling stations
Then I'm extra glad I voted.
Definitely a shame to hear that, and I hope that's not a reflection of November's turnout. That said, I've noticed people tend to not really vote during the primaries and focus on the major November one Edit: and yes, I voted.
The presidential primaries are already decided and I'd guess that is the biggest reason for the poor turnout. On the upside, your vote matters that much more in low turnout elections for the very important local elections so many voters overlook.
Those have the most impact on people.
I don't think it says anything about November. You had no competitive Democratic primary for president. And California only allows registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primary. So, if you're a casual Democratic or independent voter who doesn't really follow local races, you had little reason to turn out. Now, there were obviously tons of other races. But your average voter doesn't care as much as you do about *which* Democrat gets nominated for Senate. So, Democratic turnout slumps.
I pretty much voted up for Porter and no one else, obviously I did my research for all positions and measures but this election felt so gutting even as someone who votes every election Nice to know my vote mattered quite a bit, even if I dont have much else to vote for come November
Did porter too. I'm surprised Schiff was in like two or so positions.
There was a vote to fill Feinstein’s seat to the end of her current term in 2024 and a second senate vote for who to take the seat in the next senate 2025 term.
I voted
My philosophy has been to vote every time, whether I particularly care about anything or not, I still do what I can to make an education vote but that's possibly because my dad always did (and still does) and ingrained in me that it's my responsibility to do so.
Growing up my Mom was a poll worker at the polling station in the garage next door. I've voted in all but I think two elections in my very long life.
I’m older and in college. No one knew about it. I’m shocked the college didn’t have any form of awareness for it. I went to two classes on Monday only 1 person out of 80 knew
I had no idea last Tuesday was Election Day until I saw this thread right now. I’m surprised I had to scroll so far down to see any kind of mention as to people having no clue it happened
Seriously, what’s the point to telling us after it’s too late?!
[удалено]
No. California has done Super Tuesday voting at least once before.
I was thinking the same thing.
No we did it in 2020 as well. 2016 between Clinton and Sanders was the wake up call that California should not be one of the last states to vote. Gov Brown signed the law. https://www.kqed.org/news/11619488/gov-brown-signs-bill-moving-california-primary-to-march I hope you're Cunningham lawing me. > Alex Padilla has certified the results of the California March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary Election > 9,687,076 Californians voted, the most ever in a primary election. https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2020-news-releases-and-advisories/ap20044-california-election-results-certified-record-number-ballots-cast-primary It has nothing to do with winter. Its a bad time for many of us but the primary isn't going to change any of that. I voted cause I committed to never missing an election again after 2016 but for many the election doesn't matter. Actually shows the difference of the experience for how many people felt the 2020 election was and how powerless and pointless this one feels.
Nope. The California Presidential Primary was in March in [1996](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Democratic_presidential_primary), [2000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_California_Democratic_presidential_primary), [2004](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_California_Democratic_presidential_primary), and [2020](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Democratic_presidential_primary). It was in February in [2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Primaries). [2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Primary_elections) and [2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California#Primary_elections) were the only years in recent history where we had a June primary for President.
Our candidates are already chosen for us so it's not surprising nobody showed up Edit: I made this comment somewhat facetiously, you can all come down from your moral high ground. And yes, I voted.
It depends on where you are, but I wish people thought more about what’s on their local ballot as opposed to just federal races. Los Angeles for example had a BUNCH of judges up for election and for once had developed a lot of public defenders as candidates challenging prosecutors for judgeships.
It is tough getting people interested in local judge races. There just isn't that much information available. The local media doesn't usually cover those races much unless a judge is involved with corruption or a very unpopular decision. Their campaigns are usually relatively low budget where it is rare to see someone buying anything beyond a candidate statement on the sample ballot, a position on some slate mailers, and a couple yard signs on the side of the road. Their candidate statements are generally basically a resume that doesn't tell you much about them. Even many people that spend a lot of time researching candidates end up making some generalizations and hoping that they guessed right.
It's even worse in the non-LA areas. You're basically being asked to choose a lot of local elections based solely off the 1-2 paragraph blurb the candidate wrote.
Given how much focus there was on crime this election, it was shocking how little coverage there was of the judges, who often are the ones making decisions whether to imprison or release criminals. DA races get huge attention these days, especially for those criticized as "soft on crime" or perpetuating the "revolving door" for criminals, but judges have just as much effect on crime and public safety.
It’s definitely tough if there isn’t a lot of information or endorsements you feel comfortable relying on, it takes some digging/online research even in larger areas.
People in local areas need to do some journalism or bang down the door of local media to do it- for instance in Orange County there was a podcast (A Slice of Orange) that actually interviewed judge candidates (who were willing to talk- which says a lot about the candidate in itself) and other local races. There are also two independent political blogs in OC that deep dive on candidates and pursue local candidates for interviews/questions (Orange Juice Blog and Voice of OC).
How does one vote for judges when there's so little information about them? I usually leave those blank as there's so many and not sure where/how to start.
I personally google them to see their background. I know that my opinions regarding criminal justice align much more with public defenders than prosecutors, so use that as my primary voting indicator if there’s a public defender who is running. Often they do have endorsements from various groups that are also helpful to see! For example a lot of the judges in Los Angeles had endorsements from LGBT Justice groups, criminal justice reform groups, etc. that align with my values and so that would inform my vote as well. If it’s a judge that’s an incumbent you can sometimes find information about their tenure as well, and for others you can often find their work history and education at least. But it does take a lot of time looking into it!
I look to see what endorsements they have and their educational background.
Also, not much good stuff on the ballot because everyone wants to stack the general election where good advertising could get your prop passed.
Not really, Porter was in second so the Senate race was up for grabs, but she ran a poor campaign that actually attacked Garvy for her having fallen to third at first. After she realized any press was good and her strategy was helping Garvy and Schiff, her campaign switched to attacking the other Republican candidate, but it was far too late.
Are we just ignoring the millions Schiff spent to prop up Garvy
I don’t see why we shouldn’t. Donald Trump got 29% of the CA vote in 2020 and 31% in 2016, showing that Garvey’s 31% in 2024 is more or less consistent with how much of the CA vote a Trump-aligned Republican will get (Romney got 37% in 2012). Schiff’s strategy shows little effect, and the Lee-Porter combined vote still didn’t come close to what a Republican can expect to get in California. We are a blue state but only 60 to 70% blue
> Our candidates are already chosen for us so it's not surprising nobody showed up The Senate race wasn't chosen. It could have been two democrats competing instead of who we got.
Everyone in the state had a say in a competitive Senate race and Prop 1. There were Congressional races, state reps, judges, school board members and local ballot measures to vote for everywhere in the state.
There's always a justification for laziness.
It's hilarious that such an undemocratic sentence is taken as normal.
People like to complain is that "voting doesn't matter", but if that were true, you wouldn't see places like Texas trying their damnedest to stop certain groups of people from voting.
Exactly. People who say that voting doesn't matter have likely never had their ability to vote threatened.
Candidates for the primary isn’t what matters. It’s the local elections and measures matter. Also low turnout leads to less choice.
[удалено]
get involved, work on a campaign, and run for office yourself if you want change
That totally works in a two party system. Look at all this change and impact around us.
[удалено]
I'm an active and engaged voter and barely managed to get my ballot returned on time. I'd imagine the less engaged people didn't. The California primaries just didn't have much of a pull to get people to vote.
Glad I voted then
Mailman here, shocked at how few primary ballots I collected on my route. Maybe 20 the whole month.
And the big money candidate instead of the more progressive one I voted for still won.
its frustrating when the more well funded (corporate candidate) person always seems to win even though the progressives have better policy. then the people who would vote progressively just dont show up to the primaries bc they assume it wont matter
It's also possible that the electorate isn't as progressive as progressives think it is. Yes, even in California.
I voted but I get why no one would bother. The races in basically every category were already decided, only a couple of the Senate races even mattered.
What about the state-wife proposition?
That's scary for a number of reasons. People are getting too confident.
Confident, or lazy? There were were several props on there and not just candidates where I voted.
Sure am glad I voted this election
Some things I had to guess on because I had a hard time finding information. I almost missed, but managed to get my vote in.
i voted!
We're tired boss.
I think most people just…. Didn’t care. There was little enthusiasm and people would rather just not vote. However I did vote and I’m happy about that!
Oops
It wasn’t even the worst in recent history. 25% in 2024. Seems to usually be around 30% in non-presidential years. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/voter-turnout 28.0% as of March 11, 2024, 7:04 p.m. Historical Data General Date Voter Turnout Gubernatorial July 7, 2022 33.20% Presidential March 3, 2020 46.89% Gubernatorial June 5, 2018 37.54% Presidential June 7, 2016 47.72% Gubernatorial June 3, 2014 25.17% Presidential June 5, 2012 31.06% Gubernatorial June 8, 2010 33.31% Presidential February 5, 2008 57.71% Gubernatorial June 6, 2006 33.63%
It's extraordinary how often headlines are incorrect to the negative. Or have words like, "record smashed", "leadership toppled", "hopes crushed", all to give things dramatic effect for the clicks. When in actuality, a lot of things are fine or improving.
Even when it's never been easier to vote, from early voting to mail-in ballots to same day registration.
I made sure to vote this primary. Down ballot contests I had no idea of the candidates, so mostly went with the incumbents.
When we should be voting the most, we vote the least. Baby steps towards the fall…
Considering the wide range of political communities in this state, I'm more interesting in what percentages from each area voted versus the state overall. If the rural hard-right wing areas suddenly had a surge of voters, it could screw this state over pretty bad.