Champaign County Final Canvass

Posted November 18th, 2008 at 02:56 PM by IlliniPundit
in

The Champaign County Clerk's office has final 2008 election results.

The countywide sales tax ended up failing by 262 votes.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Regnad Kcin's picture
On November 18th, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Regnad Kcin said:

Very interesting only a  few hundred undervotes for President/VP but thousands and thousands for some offices.

On November 18th, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

It's unfortunate that the undervotes indicate so many people think democracy it built from the top down amd requires no other effort, when government functions best when people have a clear voice based on input from the bottom up.

On the other hand, it's sad that so many people realize that they're ignorant about so many local races once they step into the voting booth. Many of them will probably be wondering why things locally stay the same, although the reasons for griping about Illinois government at all levels continue to grow.

On November 18th, 2008 at 11:43 PM, pattsi said:

Anonymous @ 10:32 P, let me suggest some possible reasons for undervotes. When I analyzed the results of my primary run for CC Distrist 6, I was amazed at the range of undervotes--9-17% with my own precinct being one of the higher percentages. I had campaigned door-to-door though it was a very cold January and the super bowl was occupying most peoples' attention rather than the primary. After this analysis, I tried to figure out why people did not vote to the bottom of the ballot. Here are some of the reasons I came up with--the precinct captain did not do a sufficient job of explaining the ballot and encouraging a person vote; the candidates did not do a sufficient job educating the public about their ideas and qualifications; the entities "for and against" a referendum did not do a sufficient job getting out the information; the media, especially in the category of judge retention, does not do a sufficient job of telling the public about their records; the general public is so over worked just trying to make ends meet that there is virtually no discretionary time to educate oneself about the ballot, etc. I am certain others can add to this list of explanations.

Pattsi Petrie

On November 18th, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Run4cvrlib said:

I think there are a few reasons for undervotes. If you are a democrat and the only person running for state rep. is the Republican Shane Cultra you won't vote. You also might be a Democrat that does not like Naomi (or the republican) but can't vote for Frank (fill in democrat name) this goes on and on. I think you are right there are many that feel they don't know who they are voting for so they undervote, like I think the students do down ticket. Judges are the ones that people tell me most often that they don't vote for because they just don't know what that Judge has done on the bench.

Dan Fielding's picture
On November 19th, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Dan Fielding said:

I remember the first time Parkland College trustees appeared on my ballot.  That was also the last time I left anything blank.

Laura Sandefur's picture
On November 20th, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Laura Sandefur said:

Some times those under votes are a form of "protest" against specific candidates.  To cite one example, several years ago when Poshard ran for Governor on the IL Dem ticket I knew several women who refused to vote for him because he was not a pro-choice Dem.  They told me they skipped that race on the ticket for that reason.

Oddly enough, Poshard was running against George Ryan, and I knew several Dems who crossed over and voted for Ryan, while many Republicans REFUSED to vote for Ryan and they skipped that race on the ticket.

The end result (as we all know now) is Ryan won, but the final numbers for that particular race are completely skewed.  Usually, if there is a candidate that is unpopular (for whatever reason) you will just see a drop off in votes but the next race will be back up where you'd expect it to be--with a slight drop off each step further down toward the end of the ballot.

I'd think that a longer ticket would show more undervotes for the ballot items appearing at the end, but I have to admit I'd like to hear Mark Sheldon's analysis of the phenom because it could prove to be some pretty interesting stuff.

 

Laura

Glock21's picture
On November 20th, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Glock21 said:

One ballot item (actually group of ballot items) that interests me are judges.  There seems to be a trend of people who generally vote to retain them all that heavily outweighs folks who generally vote against retaining them.  The numbers seem to work out roughly even for all the candidates except one this year.  Judge Blockman.  He got roughly two thousand more votes against than the rest on average.  He wasn't at the beginning or the end of the list, so it seems to be a statistical oddity.  Is this a fluke or is their a good reason to oppose his retention next time and work to make a concerted effort to see that happen? Is there a bad reason?  What drove this little statistical anomoly?  Will we ever know?

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On November 20th, 2008 at 11:44 PM, pattsi said:

To Glock 21--there was a concerted campaign against Blockman. If memory serves me correctly, the stimulus for the campaign was connected with a decision he handed down concerning child support. Maybe someone else can explain this with more detail. There were signed posted at the polling places urging people to vote not to retain.

Pattsi Petrie

On November 20th, 2008 at 11:44 PM, wayward said:

There were some people actively opposing him - I saw a "throw out the judge" sign outside my polling place.  It sounded like they were unhappy about some of his decisions in family court, though I'm not completely sure.

On November 20th, 2008 at 11:55 PM, History Guy said:

@Wayward/Pattsi:  Judge Blockman was targeted because he presides in family court.  The NG ran an article about those who advocated for his dismissal (firing? non-rentention?) because they fealt his decisions were improper and unfairly tilted towards mothers (regarding child support).  The above is from memory, because the NG article in question is now behind their pay-for archive section.

I do remember one of the final paragraphs, and finding it to be quite funny...one of the anti-Blockman people interviewed said Blockman was unfair, improper, etc.  The NG framed his statement by noting he had been married at least twice, and had at least one child by each ex-wife.  Maybe you should stop marrying people and having children with them, at least for a while?

 

 

HG

Glock21's picture
On November 21st, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Glock21 said:

I tend to vote at poll opening so the signs around the polling place are still in the dark of the early morning.  Missed the signs, but that makes a bit more sense.  Be interesting to know if their beef with him was well founded, or just mere bitterness without objectivity though.

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On November 21st, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Run4cvrlib said:

HG- I am not sure about how many times the guy has been married I may agree that marriage may not work for him. I do agree you are right that the issue with Blockman was he was in charge, so the group thought he should be replaced. Some cities have groups that watch judges and make reports to voters about their actions and decisions. I think that is about the best way to inform voters if you trust the group doing the monitoring anyway?

On November 21st, 2008 at 02:27 PM, prairie biker said:

The movement against Judge Blockman was born out of ignorance, plain and simple. Judges have almost no latitude in how much child support to order. It is an amount fixed by law. Some guys were upset. Those who lose the most are the children. But don't penalize the judge because he has to follow the law.

Laura Sandefur's picture
On November 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Laura Sandefur said:

Wasn't there some other issue with Blockman they were also upset about--something about joint custody agreements? 

I can't speak with any authority here, but I was thinking they also had some beef with him because he is not a big fan of joint custody agreements in specific cases.  I'm thinking I heard it was because (in his opinion) they tend to end up back in court too frequently.

I may not have remembered that right, so feel free to correct what I got wrong!

 

Laura

On November 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 AM, prairie biker said:

They may have said that, but I can tell you for certain it's not true. I've never seen him deny joint custody to qualified parties seeking it.

Local Voter's picture
On November 22nd, 2008 at 02:27 PM, Local Voter said:

Over the years people have told me the process they employ when voting on judge retention.  I believe these top four examples show the validity of voting for judge retention in the State of Illinois.  And we wonder why people do not vote.

"I always vote 'NO' for judge retention.";

"The first time I see the name, I vote 'YES'.  If I see it ever again, I vote 'NO'.";

"I always vote 'YES' unless I have specific experience with a judge which requires a 'NO' vote.";

"I just never vote on judge retention as there is no general public basis available to make an informed decision."