IBJNews

Indiana primary election turnout only 13 percent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's May 6 primary elections drew only 13 percent of registered voters to the polls.

Secretary of State Connie Lawson announced the turnout Tuesday, saying only 617,000 of Indiana's 4.5 million registered voters cast a vote in the primaries.

There were no key statewide races or issues to pique interest among voters.

The turnout figures show polls attracted fewer than 6 percent of voters in Vanderburgh County, where Evansville is located.

Lawson says she believes turnout was higher than the numbers indicate because lists of registered voters might be outdated.

Lawson says 16 percent of voters cast early ballots, compared with 12 percent in 2012 and 11 percent in 2010.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Only 13% have decided for all of us?
    Is there a minimum or Quorum below which the results of an election are invalid? No wonder Indiana can't elect qualified people to represent us.
  • Primary voting is party voting
    Primaries in Indiana are already "open". The purpose for a primary is to choose candidates for a particular one party. It's intended for party members, even though Indiana doesn't require you to vote for individuals of a party you prefer in November. The "open" means you are free to choose which ever party ballot you want.
  • open primary
    We need an open primary, i.e. a voter can vote for any candidate no matter which party. The primaries in IN seemed "rigged" from the start because before you can vote only one party's list of candidates. Many states have open primaries and we should too. What's the point here in IN?
    • Just what they want
      With only 13% turning out, the complete opposite is true. A motivated voting base can oust a long-seated politician easily. I agree, that it is difficult to ascertain what a politician stands for from a sign in the yard. But it is my responsibility as a citizen to use tools at my disposal and determine what the candidates in my district intend and stand for. Personally, I uphold the belief that if you do not participate in the voting process, then you cannot complain about the results.
    • It's difficult too
      They told my wife that she had "already voted", because I had voted earlier in the day, and obviously our address & last names are the same. Even in low-turnout they are still fishing for those "frauds" as they try their hardest to turn away legit voters.
    • lack of campaign
      It is unlikely that citizens will get out to vote when the candidates do not campaign. A sign on the corner with name and office does not make a campaign. People need to know "who" they are voting for and what they stand behind. I did not waste my time. Candidates need to earn the votes through active campaigning.
    • What's the point?
      Very few challengers can defeat well-funded, establishment candidates in gerrymandered districts. The system protects corrupt politicians building fortunes off their positions and discourages decent people from running for office. The political system is a joke, and voting is a waste of time.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

    2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

    3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

    4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

    5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

    ADVERTISEMENT