DFW Has the Most Unregistered Eligible Voters, Making Dems and GOP Salivate

Categories: Elections

IVotedSticker.jpg
Dwight Burdette
Around 490,000 eligible DFW voters won't get their stickers this November. Trust us -- you want the sticker.

For the last few days, you may have been busy warding off a flurry eager people with clipboards. This weekend marked Dallas County voter registration days, and volunteers from both sides of the aisle were hustling to try to get your vote in November. They had good reason to be eager: Recruiting those eligible but unregistered voters in DFW may be crucial to determining the next election.

DFW has the largest number of eligible unregistered voters in the state. Census and Texas secretary of state data show that around 490,000 eligible voters are not registered in North Texas, compared with 355,000 in Houston, 224,000 in San Antonio and just 73,500 in Austin.

Which means DFW is attractive hunting ground for both parties. "We have a lot of volunteer engagement. They've been organizing events and knocking on doors every week. There's about 6,200 volunteers and they've knocked on about 238,000 doors," says Erica Sackin, a spokesperson for Battleground Texas. "We're working to make sure that every eligible voter is registered."

Sackin says the sheer number of DFW voters makes the North Texas vital to the November election. "It is important for us to be talking to so many voters and making sure they're getting engaged," she says. "By the reaction that we've been getting, I think people are really excited to have that opportunity to get involved in politics again."

Republicans also are increasingly focusing their efforts on the large number of potential DFW voters. Steve Munisteri, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, says there's no question that his party has been pouring resources into DFW.

"Right now we have three full time employees in Dallas, and we've not had that before," he says. Those workers are here to supplement to the Dallas County Republican Party office. "Our areas are concentrated on the movers, people who are new to our state or new to the county and they haven't registered to vote yet. So we mail them a welcome packet, and followup through our survey teams."

And that's just one effort the state party is turning its eye to DFW. "We think we have a chance for first time since 2004 to take the county," says Munisteri. "I think we have better than 50-50 chance for Abbott to win Dallas. So for the first time in several election cycles we feel very hopeful to reverse the tide."

My Voice Nation Help
28 comments
everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

Remind me again why it is desirable for everyone to vote again?  Why would we be better off if people who can't even be bothered to register started making decisions about how to run the government?


Hell, there are some people who are so daft that they want to make voting mandatory.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Just let'em vote from the couch.  Or allow the Left to gather the votes by petition thus allowing the best among us to assign their vote in blocks.


And employ the new Scotty concept - just allow 12 year olds on up to vote too.


This way we won't have to offer them largesse or cigs.


just candy

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Yep that's the ticket; get more folks who are too lazy to register to vote, when most that are registered are too lazy to vote.   We're doomed.

Tim.Covington
Tim.Covington

@everlastingphelps I agree. There are enough people on the left and right that I really wish they would choose not to vote. Though, I also have to say that the people on the ballot aren't exactly making me happy to be voting myself. I really wish we could have none of the above added to all races for office. 

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@TPFKAP

Depends on the brands of smokes and booze the voters prefer.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Oh, I'm one of those for repealing the 17th, and you should be too.


Representatives are close enough to their constituents to actually represent the People.  Senators, being a statewide election, are too far away to actually represent the People.  It costs too much to get elected, so they end up serving their donors -- corporations and the rich.


If you really wanted campaign reform, repealing the 17th would be a damned fine place to start.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

no, anyone who values representitive democracy should be against repealing the 17th Amendment.

it is a fallacy to say that an appointed Senator, as opposed to an elected Senator, would be more of a representitive of the people, the voters.

the appointed Senator would simply be representitive of the person who apppointed them.

"campaign reform" is a wonderful goal, but in this case what is being advocated is to abolish the campaign. that isn't reform at all, that's removal.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@Sotiredofitall @TheRuddSki 

No, I am not getting in any ratty old van with a bunch of folks who got who knows what kind of diseases.  Besides the seats in the van probably haven't been cleaned in a month of Sundays.  No telling what kind of cooties is on them seats.

I want some car fare to get to the voting location or I ain't going.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps "....the appointed Senator would simply be representitive of the person who apppointed them...."

And that, in my opinion, is the big problem with Federal and Supreme Court Judges and Justices as well.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps I don't say that an appointed Senator would be more representative of the People.  I say the opposite, and that it would be better that way.


Senators aren't supposed to represent the People.  Representatives (see that word?) do that, and they do a better job of it.  Senators are supposed to represent the states, and they are supposed to block laws more than they pass them.


If you want the people and only the people represented in congress, remove the Senate entirely.  Without representing the states, they are entirely vestigial and anti-Democratic (since Senators from differently populated states represent vastly different levels of power).  Just have a unicameral congress.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

balderdash, Senators are there to represent the people of their State.

Madison said it well "in a compound republic partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation"

the bicameral makeup of Congress accomplishes this goal, and there is zero reason to take the election of any of our representitives (this includes both Representitives and Senators) away from the electorate.

since Senators from differently populated states represent vastly different levels of power

you fail to see the beauty in the structure of the Senate, in its form the Senators from each State, no matter its size and density of population, have an equal amount of power in the chamber.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@MaxNoDifference @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul @Sotiredofitall @TheRuddSki 

Some  equity might be nice.

All that I was thinking is that my neighbor's cousin could give me a ride to the voting place.  But he needs four tires on his car cause the ones on there is bald and the motor is running kind of rough.  That need fixin' too.


My neighbor and her cousin could vote too.  We would all ride together in the same car. 

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@MaxNoDifference

No equity, but how about a cell phone?

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps you fail to see the beauty in the structure of the Senate, in its form the Senators from each State, no matter its size and density of population, have an equal amount of power in the chamber.


That part in particular is the biggest lie.  If you support general election of Senators, then you absolutely cannot support "one man, one vote."  You are supporting a system that makes a Texan's vote worth 1/44th what a Wyomingan's vote is worth.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps That's a lie, and you know it.  


Madison, Federalist 62:


In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty.


(My emphasis)


Hamilton, Federalist 60:


But the circumstance which will be likely to have the greatest influence in the matter, will be the dissimilar modes of constituting the several component parts of the government. The House of Representatives being to be elected immediately by the people, the Senate by the State legislatures, the President by electors chosen for that purpose by the people, there would be little probability of a common interest to cement these different branches in a predilection for any particular class of electors.


(My emphasis.)


Your progressives fucked that up in 1913, and it's been downhill ever since.  The Senate has become more and more corrupt, and more and more power has been concentrated in DC.


This intended division is felt through the entire structure of the Senate, and is why, for example, impeachment is tried in the Senate but lodged in the House:


Hamilton, Federalist 65:


Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?


(HAMILTON'S emphasis.  You just got comment-slapped from 200 years ago.)

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

You are supporting a system that makes a Texan's vote worth 1/44th what a Wyomingan's vote is worth.

the vote is worth the same no matter if it is cast by a Texan or by a Wyominan. or a Kansan.

so you are arguing (in a very deceitful manner BTW) against the Federalism of our nation, and for the eradication of States?

didn't know how strongly opposed to the US Constitution you were.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

Federalist 62 does in no way speak against my point.

Federalist 60 speaks to the "dissimilar modes of constituting" the chambers, which is currently maintained with statewide election of the Senator and local election of the Representitves.

The Senate has become more and more corrupt, and more and more power has been concentrated in DC.

not germaine to this discussion, and BTW it is not "The Senate" that has become "more corrupt" it would be government in general...although I would argue it is LESS corrupt than a century ago.

The allusion to Impeachment does nothing to support your position, as it is carried even fiurther in its structure to have the SCOTUS involved as well. The Impeachment process was done to establish equity to the accused.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps 


the vote is worth the same no matter if it is cast by a Texan or by a Wyominan. or a Kansan.

so you are arguing (in a very deceitful manner BTW) against the Federalism of our nation, and for the eradication of States?

didn't know how strongly opposed to the US Constitution you were.


My argument is a little more nuanced than that -- I'm arguing that you, and you in particular, are a stupid liar.  Federalism rightly demands that the sovereign states have a seat in Congress, which your fellow travelers disenfranchised them of.


As for the Constitution, I am actually quite against it.  (See Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".)  I would much prefer it to the jackbooted thuggism you propose, though.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@mavdog The governmental architecture of our constitution is as brilliant as it is far-reaching.  The U.S. Senate had two purposes:  1) It gave all of the states the same number of senators, regardless of size, and 2) Reflected the intention of reinforcing the superiority of the states to the central government.  The federal government was set up as servant, with citizens and their states  the masters. 


By electing senators by state legislatures, that reinforcement was emphasized, and and it gave states a superior position to the subordinated federal government.  It also provided "balance" between the states and emphasized the importance of state-elected officials. 


This construction was not only masterful of some very smart men creating a brand new government for a brand new country, but it helped accomplish more harmony between slave states and free, and large powerful states and smaller states with few resources and not near as  much industry. 


This was, in part, why the construction of our government was often called, "The Great Experiment".  Never before in history had our unique form of government existed.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

I'm arguing that you, and you in particular, are a stupid liar

well then,with that petulant writing you have clearly shown that you don't have any desire nor aptitude to actually discuss a subject, you have the desire and aptitude to be a dumbfuck and a total asshole.

well done.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...