> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
>
> "No, near record-low turnout. It was only a point or two above the
>last gubernatorial election, which had set an all-time California
>low. This confounded the predictions of a high turnout."
>
> No, I'm sorry, I think you are myth-making here. California voter
>participation in this election was about 6% higher than in 2002. At 56% it
>was comparable to off-year elections since '86 which varied from about 60.5%
>to about 57.5% with 2002 being the outlier at 50%.
Dunno where you're getting this from. This is from today's San Jose Mercury News:
<http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/6996239.htm>
>VOTE UNDERWHELMING: While we're on the subject of recall, what ever
>happened to the voter stampede to the polls that pundits were
>predicting?
>
>The Secretary of State's office last week said turnout was about 60
>percent -- a respectable showing, but hardly overwhelming
>considering all the media hype. And even that three-fifths figure
>overstates the actual level of participation. That's because it only
>takes into account the 15.4 million who are registered to vote, as
>opposed to the 21.8 million who are eligible.
>
>Based on the latter number, the turnout was about 43 percent. To put
>the worst possible spin on it, the next governor had the support of
>just more than one in five Californians eligible to cast ballots.
>
>That's less a reflection on Schwarzenegger -- who, by every other
>measure, won an unexpectedly strong mandate -- than it is on public
>apathy, even when a movie star is running.