In response to an article about counting votes, I received an interesting analysis from a reader in North Carolina.

When approaching any topic you’re not already immersed in, a quick thumbnail or spot-check is a good way to start.

North Carolina had an early voting period, and the state Board of Elections released daily turnout reports, so this reader decided to compare the 2004 early turnout to early voting in the 2000 election.

He found that when early voting closed (Oct. 31), the SBOE had recorded 705,462 early voters. In 2000, there had been 393,152 early voters. That’s an increase of 312,310 early voters.

Furthermore, in 2000, early voters were 46% Democrat and 38% Republican. In 2004, early voters were 50.4% Democrat and 36% Republican. That’s a 6-point net gain in Democratic turnout.

As he points out, “it seemed reasonable to expect that John Kerry would gain at least several percentage points over Al Gore's showing four years ago. But when the votes were tallied, Kerry registered virtually no improvement on Gore's vote in North Carolina (Kerry 43.6%, Gore 43.2%).”

The same reader makes two good points, anticipating possible objections:

• Crossover voting might be a factor. But nothing indicates that crossover voting was bigger in 2004 than in 2000.
• Southerners might have voted more for Gore than for Kerry. But that does not explain why Democratic turnout increased significantly, while GOP turnout decreased.

All in all, it was reasonable to expect Kerry to perform better in North Carolina in 2004 than Gore did in 2000, even aside from the fact that John Edwards was on the ticket. Although Kerry could not have won the state, there’s still an issue.

He winds up: “If Kerry were getting, say, 47% in North Carolina, that would have put another 130,000 votes in his column. It's not enough to win the state's 15 electoral votes, but a 4-point upward shift across the country is in line with the exit poll projection of a 51-48% popular vote lead for Kerry. And it would have moved Ohio and a couple other close states into his column.”

What we need, among other things, is for our supposed “backwaters” not to be left to the tender mercies of the GOP, GOP-funded fundamentalist religious organizations of a sort, and the DC political press. It is a mistake not to investigate what’s happening in small towns and rural areas – especially in any areas within reach of either a city or a river.