fleetfootmike: (Default)
fleetfootmike ([personal profile] fleetfootmike) wrote2010-05-06 10:40 am

A thought.... provoked by [livejournal.com profile] filklore_on_lj

What percentage of the folks who don't vote in a supposedly 'sure' seat don't vote because they don't think voting against the clear favourite will make any difference?

What if they all voted?
billroper: (Default)

[personal profile] billroper 2010-05-06 03:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Then the Chicago Democratic Machine would "find" more votes for the person in the 'sure' seat.

Oh, wait! This is your election we're talking about. :)

(After the last census, I was gerrymandered from a safe Republican district to a safe Democratic district. The old Republican district is now a block away from my home and somewhat less safe than it was. Of course, it's still worth voting in other races, but U.S. House is a joke.)

[identity profile] antonia-tiger.livejournal.com 2010-05-06 03:19 pm (UTC)(link)
We have had some boundary changes in England, which makes prediction a little harder, but we have enough constraints on how the boundary changes are done that gerrymandering isn't an issue, in the way that US maps of district boundaries suggest it is.

[identity profile] plaid-dragon.livejournal.com 2010-05-07 08:25 am (UTC)(link)
We got moved, apparently to balance population disparities in districts to try to keep the numbers even. What's amusing is some of the candidates haven't worked this out so I have friends who have been leafleted by candidates from both districts.