Runoff Day In Georgia

It’s Runoff Day. I voted at 8:50 AM and was voter #8 at my precinct in Lawrenceville. The poll workers had a contest amongst themselves to see if any voter with last names beginning in something other than a,b or c will show up. None have thus far.

Predictions I’ve heard say turnout will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6% which would mean about 300,000 people voting statewide. Tell me again why we have runoffs?

What are you folks seeing out there?


  1. Nathan says:

    The poll workers at my precinct are expecting around 35 people to show up today…out of about 6000 registered voters. I didn’t ask what voter number I was when I got there at about 7:15 this morning, but I suspect I was probably #1 and told I would probably be the only one they’d see this morning. Hopefully there’s more.

  2. Tiberius says:

    As long as we GOPers have such a good record at winning runoffs, the runoff law will not go bye bye.

    We could cut a deal with the Libertarians; dispand your party and we’ll abolish the runoff.

  3. B Balz says:

    Will get poll results in a jiff, but this was on my mind….

    {Edited by Charlie: Seriously, have there not been enough open threads in the last few days that you still need to threadjack this one? You know better.}

  4. JRM2016 says:

    We have had over 10,000 vote in Muscogee County early and by absentee. I would not be surprised if we top 20,000 with election day turnout as we have two contested City Council races and a Mayoral runoff.

    As to the statewide runoff, didn’t we used to run nonpartisan elections with the party primaries so that the runoff would coincide with party primary runoffs? Does anyone know why it was changed that to the general election?

    Oh, yes…please vote!

    • Tiberius says:

      Must have gotten lost in all those changes made years ago when the Leg was toying with the 45% rule.

      I’d love it if we can do these judicial elections in July and then runoff in November. Unfortunatley, some legal expert will probalby respond saying it is unconstitutional. ūüôā

  5. EllisArnall says:

    I was #60 at my precinct at 9:00am. However, I am in Clarke County and there is a run-off in the mayoral race.

  6. Howard Roark says:

    The runoffs are going to cost 159 counties in the state a wad of money, for a small number of people to vote in, with the voters not knowing who they are voting for. I know our county could use the money that will be expended for something better.

    We should cast ballots for all judges in the state (local judges included) in July on primary day and hold the runoff on primary runoff day in early August. You could also hold a runoff for non-partisan races on election day in November to avoid a state wide runoff in August just for a judicial election.

    Today we will have a state wide runoff in which less than 5% will turn out to vote for Judges who they know nothing about.

    Personally if the Judges races were partisan that would solve the problem. Always being a partisan I would like that solution.

  7. JeffD says:

    I’ve served in Afghanistan where people risk their lives to vote. I don’t think this is funny at all. It’s sad.

      • JeffD says:

        Sometimes, yes. But this just goes to show how little people appreciate the freedoms that they have. Everyone says that they “Support the Troops” — the best way they could show that is by taking advantage of the freedoms that the troops protect, mainly by voting. I know, I’m a little off topic, but I’m tired of bumper sticker patriots.

        • Tiberius says:

          I thought a great way to “support the troops” was to go through the bloody body scanner at the airport and smile about it. The troops have to sacrifce. We civilians don’t and when we are asked to, people come up with “don’t touch my junk” and showing up in bimkis.

          • Jeff says:

            Troops don’t go through metal detectors or government sanction porno machines, either. Troops don’t have their wives and kids groped in some insane fear mechanism.

            Instead, troops do what troops do best: find a target, and eliminate the target. THAT is what keeps us safe from the bad guys. Not allowing our wives and kids to be some sick pervert’s fantasy.

            Apologies for the off-topic, Charlie. Shutting up now.

            • Tiberius says:

              Calling the body scanners and pat downs a “sick pervert’s fantasy” is making me quite sick. But it serves as an excellent example of how our soldiers are asked to sacrifce by being shot at and by serving multiple tours overseas but when we are asked to do something to fight terror, people scream “sick pervert’s fantasy.”

              I’ll follow your lead on one thing though, I’ll shut up now since it is off topic.

              • JeffD says:

                Actually, that’s not true. Every time I go to the airport in uniform I have to go through the same searches as any civilian does. I have to take off my boots, belt, etc etc. The last time I was deployed the TSA searched my bag which included my sidearm.

                And you’re right, it is off topic.

              • NoTeabagging says:

                I have no problem with scanners or pat downs if it keeps us safe on our flights. if people think it is a ‚Äúsick pervert‚Äôs fantasy‚ÄĚ they should take a viagra before heading to the airport to prove their own twisted theory.

  8. ricstewart says:

    I voted at 1:00 and I was the 22nd voter in my precinct to vote, and I live in the largest precinct in Bulloch County.
    No local run-offs in Bulloch.

  9. Gerald says:

    Simple solution: same day runoff. One of the reasons why I like it is that it would help third parties, because it would eliminate the “don’t throw your vote away!” excuse. So, Libertarians, Greens etc. could “vote their conscience” as the first choice, then “sell out” as their second choice. (Or vice versa).

    • I’m a fan of instant runoffs.

      North Carolina just used an instant runoff system in the November election. It received high marks here:

      Merit: For the success of instant-runoff voting in this week’s election. More than 1.9 million voters cast ballots ranking the 13 candidates to replace Judge Jim Wynn on the N.C. Court of Appeals. It was the first statewide use of instant-runoff in the United States in more than 70 years and, thanks to education efforts by the State Board of Elections and other groups, most voters had no problem with the ballot. Two well-qualified candidates – Cressie Thigpen (a Fayetteville native) and Doug McCullough, advance to the runoff count.

      • Harry says:

        Another idea for nonpartisan races would be to put identical lists in the primaries (R and D). There could be a separate ballot for independents not wishing to declare themselves and vote as R or D. The nonpartisan runoffs could then happen in the primary runoffs. It would save a lot of money.

      • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

        I would support IRV before I would support making judges races partisan. IMO, judges should have some neutrality. I’m not saying that there aren’t judges who know which side their bread is buttered on, but a non-partisan race means there’s no easy link to draw to loyalty or favors. There’s no need to turn it into the partisan cluster-**** bash-fest that exists in every other race out there.

        If you were a democrat, would you want to go before a republican judge? If you were a republican, would you want to go before a democrat on the bench? Or would you rather go before someone who has some impartiality in the administration of justice, and doesn’t really give a damn if he pisses off the republicans or democrats legislators who made the laws?

        I think we should try instant runoff voting.

  10. Theresa says:

    Muscogee had over 2000 last Monday alone. We have a Mayor’s race and two council races that people are watching closely. Pouring down rain now though…

      • B Balz says:

        That ought to be a bumper sticker:

        “Republicans VOTE! Even in the RAIN!”

        Off to hoist one with McFadden, best to all!

            • B Balz says:

              Clearly, the McFadden Mandate shown in the Appeals Court race shows 60++% of voters were not sufficiently upset about the placement of campaign signs to sway their choice.

              Whinging about robo-calls and campaign sign placement is so lame, IMHO.

              Best going forward, Chris, you fought a good fight and your counsel at Rosetta did well.

Comments are closed.