Tag Archive: High Propensity Voters


Even before the little bugger, Coronavirus  (COVID-19), started reeking its pandemic havoc, the nation was earlier appalled that Iowa couldn’t simply count the results of its Democratic caucus last February.

A few weeks later California couldn’t tally its votes until literally one month after its March 3 Super Tuesday primary. The final results are mandated no later than … April 3 and certified by April 10 … maybe.

How many times have courts around the country extended voting hours (e.g., Illinois yesterday) because of lines of people, who could have, should have, but didn’t vote early?

And let’s not forget the infamous 2000 hanging chads of Florida.

Finally, did Almost DailyBrett readers note how quickly the State of Washington completed its March 10 primary count?

Wonder why?

Every voter in the Evergreen State has been voting by mail for nearly a decade, including last week’s State of Washington primary. Yep, everyone in the Pacific Northwest is an absentee voter.

Voting by mail works. Federalism works. Local control works. Can we learn from these Western state success stories?

Oregon Sets The Pace For The Nation

Oregon set the pace for the nation opting for all state’s elections to be — vote by mail — starting with the commencement of the new millennium in 2000.

Ballot Measure 60 was placed before Oregon’s electorate in 1998 calling for exclusive voting by mail in all of the state’s 36 counties, winning by a landslide 69.4 percent to 30.6 percent.

The chances of fraud are greatly reduced as the Oregon Secretary of State needs to be concerned only with polling locations in 36 counties with a main server in Salem, and a redundant system in Baker City.

Here is a key differentiator: All Oregon ballots must be received — not just postmarked — by the official close of voting, typically 8 pm local time on election day. If your ballot is received after that time … oh well.

California’s permissive practice, allowing for ballots to be postmarked as late as election night and received during the next three days, only delays results and frustrates the ease of voting, which Oregon’s vote-by-mail system pioneered.

Some argue romantically about voting in the neighbor’s garage, the school gymnasium, the church hall, wishing for the return of a time that has passed.

Ohio officially postponed its Tuesday Democratic primary because its polling places brought people together, exactly the wrong practice at this pandemic point of time.

Others say voting by mail negatively impacts the economically disadvantaged. Why’s that?

Each Oregon county has designated secure voting drop-offs, a stamp is not required. One can even vote on a non-mail delivery day (i.e., holidays or Sundays). Just drop your signed ballot into the secure ballot box before the magic closing hour on election day.

What about changing your mind? You can revise your ballot right up until the close of voting at 8 pm. What’s the difference between mail-in voting or standing in line at polling places with the deadline being … the deadline? Zero.

Voting By Mail Makes Us Better Voters

In Oregon, the voting pamphlet from the county registrar-recorder arrives about five weeks before election day. The ballot comes about a week later.

In reality, voting starts about four weeks before election day. Campaigns need to calibrate this change and get their messages out to the voters earlier to coincide with the commencement of mail-in voting.

And who tends to vote early? High propensity voters (e.g., senior citizens).

Almost DailyBrett is convinced that voting by mail fosters more intelligent voting. The reason, the voter has the time to read the pamphlet and secure more information about down ballot races (i.e., initiatives, bond issues, city councils, boards of supervisors,  school boards, judges etc.,).

In practice, voting by mail is far more relaxed as opposed to fighting traffic after work in foul November weather to reach a crowded polling place before the voting time elapses.

Instead, the mail-in voter has done her or his civic duty and can head on home to watch the electoral results all within a few hours of the time for the final submittal of mail-in votes (e.g., Washington Democratic Primary, March 10).

There are no hanging chads in Oregon, and never will be.

There are zero lines at polling places simply because … there are no polling places.

All the ballots are submitted by the time the election closes; results are quicker.

There are zero apps to hack.

The county registrar-recorder offices safeguard the sanctity of voting.

And if the backside of the ballot is not signed by the voter, the vote is simply not counted.

As a libertarian, Almost DailyBrett prefers for each individual state to decide whether or not to follow Oregon’s lead as is usually the case with the State of Washington.

If a critical mass of states opt for vote by mail, maybe the nation as a whole can vote by mail with a uniform poll closing time?

What’s not to like when it comes to Oregon’s pioneering voting by mail?

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/02/oregon-vote-by-mail-draws-increasing-interest-from-other-states.html

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/all-mail-elections.aspx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/10/mail-voting-coronavirus-bill/

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article240828386.html

https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic

 

Breakfast and Bay Area newspapers were served at a coffee shop, located directly across the street from the Cow Hollow motel at Steiner and Lombard.

Even though Friday, September 24, 1982 pre-dated mobile devices, there were no Thursday afternoon/evening phone calls from our campaign headquarters or even more germane, our political consulting firm in Los Angeles.

Copies of the San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune and most of all, the San Francisco Examiner were passed around over pancakes, syrup and black coffee. Next up was a morning editorial board meeting with the latter newspaper.

My boss was then-Attorney General/later-California Governor George Deukmejian.

After greeting editorial board members/reporters of the San Francisco Examiner, George Deukmejian was asked, if he saw the Los Angeles Times that morning.

Your Almost DailyBrett author, who was serving as the press director for the Deukmejian Campaign Committee, instantly experienced a pang of dread.

As the editorial board waited, George Deukmejian read the Los Angeles Times story. One thing was always certain: The Duke did not like surprises.

The Los Angeles Times story written by veteran political reporter Richard Bergholz reported on outrageous comments made by our gubernatorial campaign manager Bill Roberts.

Roberts predicted to Bergholz that our final election day results would be 5 percent better than what was being forecasted in the public opinion polls.

Roberts concluded that 5 percent of respondents would not admit their inner prejudice/bias to a pollster, and simply would not vote for our rival, a black candidate on election day.

The African-American candidate in question was our opponent, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. As a result of the coverage by the Los Angeles Times of Roberts’ on-the-record comments, the much-discussed/debated for nearly four decades, “Bradley Effect,” was born.

And George Deukmejian was blindsided.

.Photo by Steve McCrank / Staff Photographer

Why didn’t Roberts call the attorney general on Thursday? Most likely, he knew the result of his free lancing. For some reason, he believed it was better for George Deukmejian not to know and to find out later (in the presence of editors/reporters).

The question that still comes back to me:  Why did Bill Roberts make this assertion? There is absolutely no way that George Deukmejian would agree with this conclusion, let alone authorize Roberts to say it on-the-record, on-background or off the record. We were running an effective, well-organized campaign.

In the presence of the San Francisco Examiner editors/reporters and throughout the next few days, George Deukmejian rejected the premise of “The Bradley Effect” about the under-the-surface 5 percent racial bias.

Leaving the Examiner offices, my boss turned to me and said: “Bill Roberts is now an issue in this campaign.” Roberts and his political consulting firm were fired that day.

The immediate reaction from the pundits/media elite was our campaign was dead. Obviously, this projection was not the first time the political class has been wrong, forecasting an election.

George Deukmejian was elected governor six weeks later 49-48 percent, a margin of 93,345 votes.

Bradley Effect/Reverse Bradley Effect

Typing “Bradley Effect” into the Google search engine results in 88.9 million impressions in 0.32 of a second. The “Bradley Effect” is eternal.

The term also raises the blood temperature of the author of Almost DailyBrett in less than two nanoseconds, even though the Bradley Effect Blindside occurred 36 years ago.

There have been recent applications of the Bradley Effect, questioning whether there would be an under vote against Barack Obama in 2008 because of his skin hue. He was twice elected the 44th President of the United States.

And just two years ago, the elite political class introduced the “Reverse Bradley Effect” to characterize voters who refuse out of embarrassment to admit to pollsters they were voting for Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

As your author writes this Almost DailyBrett epistle, I am mindful and grateful that Bill Roberts and others in his consulting firm supported hiring me as a very green press director back in early 1982. Roberts passed away in 1988.

Having acknowledged my gratitude, your author knows that our 1982 victory and landslide re-election (61-37 percent) four years later against the same Tom Bradley are tarnished in some eyes because of the so-called “Bradley Effect.”

Yours truly to this date is proud of the campaign we ran in 1982, and better yet how we governed California for eight years (1983-1991).

Two Million Absentee Ballots

The large absentee vote in the 1982 general election (6.4 percent of the total) came about primarily as a result of an effective organized campaign to get Republicans to vote by mail.” – Mervin D. Field, director of the California Poll

Based solely on the voters who went to the polls on November 2, 1982, Tom Bradley beat George Deukmejian by nearly 20,000 votes.

Having said that, the Deukmejian Campaign Committee without fanfare distributed 2 million absentee ballots to Republican voters. George Deukmejian won the absentees 59.6 percent to 37.4 percent, a margin of nearly 113,000 votes.

Game. Set. Match.

The distribution of absentee votes to high propensity, philosophically aligned voters was novel in 1982, and now its di rigueur in today’s campaign GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts.

Reportedly an overconfident Tom Bradley stopped campaigning the weekend before the election, comfortable with his upcoming victory. For example, the projected 20 percent electoral participation by minorities turned out to be only 15 percent.

Would another four days of campaigning by Tom Bradley have made a difference in the closest gubernatorial election in California’s political history? One could think so.

Time to Let It Go?

Some would suggest to Almost DailyBrett that it’s past time after nearly four decades to let go of the “Bradley Effect.”

Tranquillo.

Keep in mind, the “Bradley Effect” keeps coming back even when a Caucasian hombre (e.g., Trump) was running against a Caucasian mujer (e.g., Hillary) in 2016.

The worst impact in my mind as the former press director for the Deukmejian Campaign Committee is the implication that we were racist.

We also did not receive the credit deserved for running an effective, winning campaign with an outstanding candidate/future governor: George Deukmejian.

It’s a shame the “Bradley Effect” seemingly resurfaces every four years.

The reports of the death of the Bradley Effect have been greatly exaggerated.

https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/FieldPoll1982analysis.pdf

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect/

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-01/news/mn-6379_1_bill-roberts

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/28/local/me-5509

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pancakes-and-pickaninnies-the-saga-of-sambos-the-racist-restaurant-chain-america-once-loved

%d bloggers like this: