http://www.freep.com/article/2009110...troit-expected
Wow. Just abysmal. Inexcusable and undefendable.
Probably not the 20%-25% of people who are unemployed in the city, is it?
http://www.freep.com/article/2009110...troit-expected
Wow. Just abysmal. Inexcusable and undefendable.
Probably not the 20%-25% of people who are unemployed in the city, is it?
Let's hope not.
But, really, even for a big federal election, the U.S. turnout is usually something like 37 percent, with the well-to-do better represented than the poor. And Detroit is astonishingly, amazingly, incredibly poor. So why so surprised?
Does anyone actually believe that there are 572,000 registered voters in Detroit? Out of maybe 900,000 citizens, 64% are eligible and registered to vote? Does that not sound incredibly high?
And for perspective's sake, an election official in Rochester Hills was quoted on Freep.com as saying she expects 150 voters out of the 2500 registered at her precinct. Voter apathy and low turnout is not just a Detroit issue.
Having said that, there are very few legitimate excuses for eligible Detroiters to not register and vote. Low citizen participation in the political process, even if it's not as bad as the inflated registration numbers indicate, is a detriment to progress in the City.
Yeah, that's very suspicious. Detroit's median age is fairly low [[31 years), which suggests that a significant segment of the population [[probably ~40%) is below voting age. If my guesstimate of the age demographics percentage is in the ball park, then that would mean every single adult in Detroit would need to be registered to vote... Which is completely unrealistic.
ETA: During the last mayoral election, I thought that there were more like 200K registered voters in Detroit.
Over 200,000 voted in the 2005 Hendrix/Kilpatrick election
From what the paper has been reporting - Detroit is having a higher turnout than the burbs - just like last time. Not sure what this thread is about?
|
Bookmarks