Only 18 percent of Dems in my PA county voted in U.S. Senate race. HOW can the pundits say ...

[gauguin57]

I'm sure turnout wasn't great in a lot of places for Pennsylvania's midterm primary.

So how can the pundits say this means ANYTHING? or NOTHING? When only a small percentage of the electorate votes, how can the pundits conclude, "The electorate was enraged and threw the bums out?!?!?"

When only a relatively small group of people like me, who go to the polls faithfully twice a year -- sun, rain, snowmageddon -- are deciding these things ... the main lesson we can draw from this is that our government is being run by a bunch of people chosen by a very small group of Americans. Sheesh.

[stray cat]

1. only voters count - opinions of nonvoters are irrelevant if they don't exert any effort to vote

[ThomWV]

2. Any poll that surveyed 18% of a population, asking a binary question would be very accurate

And that 18% that got out and voted in the Primary are generally people who effect the votes of others in the General Elections, they are the most knowledgeable and active.

[gauguin57]

3. yes. but it's still an itty-bitty percentage of the population deciding something as important ..

... as who will run for a U.S. Senate seat.

What if all the people who just can't be bothered to vote in a nonpresidential election got out and voted for Specter? We don't know they wouldn't have. (For the record, I voted for Sestak).

I just can't get all that excited over the pundits' bloviating when I know how few people actually decided this race. It disgusts me that so few people give enough of a crap about who runs our country to drive a couple of miles and fill out a few blocks on a ballot.

Really depresses me, to tell the truth. I like having this much power; being one of the intrepid few who decide a race with national implications. But it sucks to know that a such a small group of us determines who will represent our interests in D.C.

We'd better get out there and get NOISY like the teabaggers in November ... or a small group of nutbags will set us on a baaaaad course.

[zipplewrath]

4. Statistics

yes, one can over read the results of an election. And you do have a "biased" sample (known as a self selection bias) because it is of people choosing to go to the polls. However, with large samples, increasing the sample size will often not change the outcome.

In this case, the ones that chose to vote, were influenced by the same factors that influence the ones that don't. So it can be seen as an indication of perceptions of the larger population.

One does have to be careful, and the professionals know how to adjust for the sample size, but unfortunately many of them don't appear on national news programs.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Gives 'em something to say, just like around here on DU. The real test is...

in November when there might also be miserable voter turnout, but we see who cares enough to vote and who becomes the new Senator.

Most places in the US, 50% voter turnout even for a Presidential election is a big deal with primaries way down from that. Hot local elctions can throw all that out out of whack, though.

And I'm one of those who says if you didn't vote you have no right to complain.

(then they complain there's no one good enough to vote for, and once in a while they're right)