[ OUR OPINION ]
Census distorts
isles’ voting record
|
The Census Bureau's numbers are not even close to the truth. It reports that only 425,000, or 53.1 percent, of Hawaii's 801,000 eligible voters registered to vote two years ago and only 363,000, or 45.4 percent, actually cast ballots. In fact, the state Office of Elections counted 591,507 registered voters -- 74 percent of those eligible -- and 385,462, or 48.1 percent of eligible voters, who voted. The bureau estimates that 67 percent of eligible voters nationally registered and 46.1 percent voted.
The bureau spread similarly misleading information two years ago about the 2000 election, reporting that only 44.1 percent of Hawaii's then-771,000 eligible voters showed up at the polls. The Elections Office counted 371,378 voters, or 48 percent of those eligible.
Did the bureau low-ball every state? Not likely. It estimated the national turnout rate in 2000 at 59.5 percent, compared with the 51 percent rate estimated by the nonprofit Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. That organization estimated the 2002 national turnout rate at 39.2 percent of eligible voters, far below the Census Bureau's figure.
More useful than the bureau's tabulations are the reasons given in interviews of registered voters as to why they didn't show up at the polls. In remarks to the Star-Bulletin's Laurie Au, Democratic and Republican Party officials in Hawaii blamed apathy or negative campaigning for low turnout, but Census Bureau interviewers found only 7 percent of nonvoters stayed away from the polls because of dislike of the candidates or the issues.
Instead, 27 percent claimed they were too busy or had conflicting work or school schedules and 13 percent said they were ill, disabled or had a family emergency. Ten percent said they were out of town. Campaigners from both parties should recognize the importance of helping registered voters get to the polls in this year's election.
Voters need clarity
on military issues
|
The opposing views expressed by Kerry and Bush are mainly in hindsight, and even those are vague. The looming issue is what needs to be done to bring the situation in Iraq to a peaceful and stable conclusion. Both candidates need to clarify their positions and differences during the coming weeks.
While Osama bin Laden remains a fugitive, Bush claims that the toppling of Saddam Hussein makes the world safer, even though the American invasion turned Iraq at least temporarily into a terrorist arena. The Bush administration cited Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida as the reasons for invading Iraq, but both premises have been proved to be baseless.
Kerry supported the invasion of Iraq but now accuses Bush of misleading the nation into war. The Bush campaign has been running ads showing Kerry explaining his October 2002 vote against an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan, saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Kerry's campaign has said he cast the negative vote because the bill included a no-bid contract for companies, among other reasons. However, it occurred when anti-war candidate Howard Dean was leading the primary election campaign, and Kerry might have felt political pressure to change his stance.
Flip-flop? "Now I know that there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities, and I do," he said in his acceptance speech, "because some issues just aren't all that simple.
"Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so," he added. "Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so." However, Kerry has yet to say flatly whether he would have opposed the Iraq invasion if he had known that U.S. intelligence was wrong.
Despite the flawed intelligence, Bush maintains that the invasion was right. He argues that Saddam had the potential and desire to use weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq is free of his despotic rule.
