"Uncertainty is when 56% of the population doesn't even show up to vote, because they do not feel represented by either of the two available choices."
The article you cite is dated 2002 - interesting history, but dated. I don't think you can cite an analysis of low turnout to illuminate a primary of record turnout. E.g., the article cites party-non-identifiers as low rate voters, yet both O's non-partisan message and C's 'turn up the heat' message are driving massive turnout. We're in uncharted territory.
As for showing zero votes: what about this 'second-choice' thing in the caucus system? I don't like the idea of reducing a 14% candidate to zero. If anything reinforces mainstream candidates, it's a viability threshhold. And non-viable candidates bartering away their supporters? Just because I vote for a candidate doesn't mean that candidate owns and can reassign my vote.
Slashdot Mirror
"Uncertainty is when 56% of the population doesn't even show up to vote, because they do not feel represented by either of the two available choices." The article you cite is dated 2002 - interesting history, but dated. I don't think you can cite an analysis of low turnout to illuminate a primary of record turnout. E.g., the article cites party-non-identifiers as low rate voters, yet both O's non-partisan message and C's 'turn up the heat' message are driving massive turnout. We're in uncharted territory. As for showing zero votes: what about this 'second-choice' thing in the caucus system? I don't like the idea of reducing a 14% candidate to zero. If anything reinforces mainstream candidates, it's a viability threshhold. And non-viable candidates bartering away their supporters? Just because I vote for a candidate doesn't mean that candidate owns and can reassign my vote.