A lack of participation in the democratic process is an implicit “No” vote for all the available choices. If there were any choices that the non-participants felt they could support, they would participate.
Looking at the 2004 U.S. presidential election, 56.2% of the voting age population participated. Never mind the percentage of “registered voters,” that is a stupid figure which only proves the point: if the choices elicited enthusiasm, an overwhelming majority of the VAP would not only register, but would actually show up and vote. Bush received 50.73% of that 56.2%, Kerry received 48.27% of it.
In other words: 71.49% of the VAP effectively voted “No” for Bush; 72.87% did the same for Kerry.
These turnout figures are typical. At best, about one third of the electorate makes the decisions in American politics. Any lower and I would be tempted to throw around pejoratives like “oligarchy.” But it would be an oligarchy by consent (if that makes any sense), which somehow makes it sound even worse. Turnouts for state and local elections run from slightly better to much worse.
What should this tell us? That something is fundamentally wrong. It’s not that “the system” is flawed; that is just a convenient scapegoat for people who lose elections. It’s not that the people aren’t politically educated; they don’t need to be educated (although ideally they would be), they just need to be motivated.
There is a lot of hype for Obama this time around, but I am not convinced that it is genuine. I don’t foresee an overwhelming turnout. I hope that I am wrong. Regardless of who wins, a 100% turnout should be the goal, more so than victory for any particular candidate. If the victor cannot induce a majority of the VAP to vote for him, then he did not “win” anything. It is possible to win and still be a loser.
Give people something to vote for, and they will vote. If they are not voting, then the choices suck. It is just that simple.
(Figures taken from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.)
June 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm
And now we have The Power of a Positive NO–people who won’t vote for the first time in their lives because they are angry at the DNC. It is a time when change could happen–like a new political party that actually represented more of us.
Obama tended to win in primaries with lower voter turnout averaging about 24%. When voter turnout was higher (31%) Hillary Clinton tended to win. I don’t see the groundswell here. The DNC keeps talking about all the newly registered voters, but we’ll see if they come out in November. I think if you could access it from the internet and do it like a Zogby Poll, you might get more participation.
Good post.
June 21, 2008 at 8:10 am
Thanks, I enjoyed yours as well.
June 21, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’ve said that there should be a “none of the above” option on the ballot. Give dissent a clear voice. Truly give a vote of no confidence! I think people who are fed up would show up for that.
June 21, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I’d definitely support a NOTA option.
I sometimes flirt with the idea that compulsory voting would be good, but the idea never lasts. You can’t force someone to exercise their freedom; it is nonsensical. And like I said here, if the candidates were any good, people would be tripping over themselves to vote. But if voting was compulsory, a NOTA option would be paramount.
July 7, 2008 at 10:32 pm
What does it take to electrify the masses? Who could possibly appeal to everyone in America? We are such a diverse, multi-cultural country with so many opinions, so many prejudices, views, and, yes, non-views. Many people don’t care. It’s easier to let someone else do it, etc.,etc. etc.. The danger in a direct democracy set-up is that the man on the white horse would come along (a Hitler?) and get himself elected. Throw NOTA in and that would get quite a few votes to be sure. But there are many people who don’t care and would vote for that as a lark if they vote at all. I don’t think there is a simple answer to the problem of increasing voter participation.
July 14, 2008 at 7:47 am
I’m definitely not in favor of direct democracy, which has been likened to two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Most functioning democracies have protections against that sort of thing. Increasing turnout won’t turn the US into a direct democracy.
It’s true, no candidate can appeal to everyone. I’m not even suggesting they should try. But if everybody had a candidate they could vote for, then everybody would vote; this is not happening.
Anyway, I agree, there’s no simple answer.