Wampum

Yeah, I thought that was odd too. Do people vote separately for Principal Chief and Deputy Chief?

Yes, however, the liklihood of voters marking a ballot for Chad Smith and Raymond Vann, other than because of misleading ballot design, is small to zero.

Numbers in the update.

So it all comes down to the absentee ballots. I got very positive responses on the Texas list (granted, only 320). There's still hope.

Hope fades. God save the Cherokee Nation.

To Stacey Leeds:

You fought a good fight, and I commend you for putting the "Cherokee" people first, instead of "seed corn". That many elderly have to live in third world country conditions, that the housing situation among Cherokee is beyond dismal and water has to be hauled over many miles, if anything, it is damnable; that healthcare is practically non-existent; that the Freedmen/women who have been with the blood Cherokee, through thick and thin, only to be told that they are not Cherokee, nevermind that the Cherokee changed the genetic bloodline of black people just as white people have, when they kept black people as slaves, and when the Cherokee sided with the white against black people during Jim Crow segregation---these are many thoughts that crossed my mind as the election results came in after 7:OOPM.

You, Ms. Leeds, sought to make a change that would create a difference, but, instead, many people who cast their votes for Chad Smith, choose not to see a change. They were prepared to have more of the same old same old.

"In total, less than 13,000 Cherokees voted, out of a population of over 250,000. The system is broken and no election it seems can fix it."

What the hell, does voting even mean anything to people?

No, the system is not the only thing broken.

Too much me-myself-and-i mentality, too much mendacity, too much apathy, too much, "I got mine, now you get yours".

Those who voted for Chad Smith are no different than those who voted for President George "Shrub". They made the choice to keep in office that which hinders progress and forward movement; that which keeps dissent, rancor and consternation continuing.

Those who voted for Smith sent a message loud and clear:

"Go to Hell, we do not want change. We want to continue down our path to destruction."

And they spoke that message loud and clear.

The Cherokee nation has torn itself apart over petty small-minded internal strife that has been pulling them apart for generations, but, it isn't the first tribe to do this, and it won't be the last.

Ann,

Your analysis assumes that the electorate is well informed. The entire point of the Watson-Smith consipiracy was to ensure that as few news cycles as possible were available for the local media (television, radio, and print, in particular the Muskogee Phoenix) to report on the most important issue of the election -- budget and core services continuity.

Having spent only two weeks of my entire life "in district", and most of that taking children to the pool or the library, and speaking about children and kitchen table issues with only a few lifetime in district residents, I don't know if Cherokees are substantially worse off than rural non-Indians in northern Kentucky or Arkansas ... to be sure most of the people I spoke with, and most of the material culture I observed, in Tahlequah and the surrounding area are in the "other America", to use John Edwards' characterization, and also Lyndon Baines Johnson's, of the division of a society into haves and have nots.

Is there a correlation between votes for Bush and votes for Smith? I really don't know. I take your point that both, as advocates of faction, exploit fear to achive power to distribute wealth that is unrelated to the exploited fear, and not distributed to the electorate motivated by fear. The Bush voters have their consciousness to answer to and the Smith voters may in time have buyers remorse.

I don't think Stacy reads Wampum, and we don't write with the intent to affect candidates for, or incumbent holders of elected office -- we work campaigns and elections when we want to affect change. Stacy is someone wicked rare in electoral politics -- a wicked good candidate. I simply wish she'd done about 5,000 doors, to talk with the voters who don't go to political events because they have to take kids to the pool or the library, or seniors who can't get out, and those too poor to risk more snubs than ordinary life already hands them.

"Your analysis assumes that the electorate is well informed."

Please, perish the thought, but, I did not intend to give that impression.

Most people are woefully very uninformed of what a candidate stands on. Most people do not have the time to read all the newspaper articles, editorials, campaign literature, visit the offices of the candidates, meet IN PERSON no less, the candidates, and go to every debate or speech that the candidates give.

It's just that the low voter turnout for this election shows up something that happens all across America when the act of voting comes up. If not enough is known of the issues and candidates, many people simply will not vote, and unfortunately, an entire election, as always, is decided by a few. And if some people feel that it is the lesser of two evils in addition to voting for what/whom they are used to, in some cases, they may not vote at all.

A low turnout can also mean many things: not enough knowledge of the candidate; how that candidate MIGHT help the needs and agendas of her/his constituents; what unknown bedfellows that candidate may be in bed with. You name it.

Many people do not vote because of apathy. They just don't care. But, many don't vote because who can they believe? Who has the most ads, the best TV campaign? The most reporters trailing after them? And will they simply vote for the incumbent because he's. . . .well . . . .just what they are used to?

I know that it takes time and effort to keep up with all the information one must obtain to get even an inkling of what issues a candidate stands on. Believe me, I have a hard enough time keeping up, and that's starting months before the candidate's campaign really starts to gear up. (Case in point, I have been following the 2008 candiates for a year, and before that, before any of them threw their hats into the proverbial ring. And then there is sitting down and sifting through all of the double-speak and talking out the side of their necks as candidates are wont to do, that I have to decipher through. Sheesh. It's like going to college for a Ph. D to figure out which candidate to vote for.)

"Is there a correlation between votes for Bush and votes for Smith? I really don't know. I take your point that both, as advocates of faction, exploit fear to achive power to distribute wealth that is unrelated to the exploited fear, and not distributed to the electorate motivated by fear. The Bush voters have their consciousness to answer to and the Smith voters may in time have buyers remorse."

You took my point correctly. Only I hope the Smith voters only have buyer's remorse to contend with. God knows the Bush voters have damned us all with their voting Shrub back into office. By putting him back in, they have committed a hate crime.

On wishing Stacey Leeds Godspeed, I did not mean to assume that she reads this blog, only in case she does. I will comment at John Cornsilk's site on her campaign.

Like so many of the rest of the world, I was watching this election intently, waiting for what answers the final election tally would yield.

Looks like I've gotten my answer.