Monday, October 04, 2004
WHY DO PEOPLE NOT VOTE?
Those of us who regard ourselves as political activists, or at least of being politically aware of what’s going on often lament the low turn-out and lack of interest in elections. Why are voters apathetic? I think one reason is our system of single-member election districts and winner-take-all elections. As a result, even if voter participation were one hundred percent, nearly half the voters would be unrepresented on the average. Suppose I am a Green or Libertarian. I can never hope to have a State legislator or a Congressman of my party to represent me. Suppose I am a Democrat (Republican) living in a “safe” Republican (Democratic) district. My legislator or Congressman doesn’t represent me. In our system, the elected representative represents only those voters who voted for him or her. In actual practice and with typical low voter turn-out, that could be as little as ten percent of the eligible voters.
This lack of interest is especially notable in State and local primary elections. This situation has led some to advocate various reforms the primary system, such as the “Open Primary,” in which a voter can vote for candidates in any party’s primary election. There is a proposal here in California to carry this reform one step further. The top two vote-getters in the primary election are placed on the general election ballot, regardless of party. Thus, in the general election, voters may have to choose between two Republicans or two Democrats.
It is a radical reform. I don’t know whether it will pass. I don’t know what effect it will have, if any, on the make-up of the State Legislature or the State’s Congressional Delegation. In any case, I plan to vote against this particular “reform.” My main objection is that it doesn’t go far enough. I would abolish primary elections completely, and let all candidates run in the general election with run-off elections to follow. Ideally, the general election would incorporate the instant run-off feature, in which voters indicate first, second, third, etc., choices.
Another objection is that it is a backward-looking reform and amounts to a return to the cross-filing system that we used to have in California, in which a candidate could file and run in the primary elections of several parties. Under that system, William Knowland was able to win election in both the Republican and Democratic primaries and didn’t need to campaign in the general election. Knowland was a rather ultra-conservative Republican and hardly a good representative for a majority of Californians. Moreover, even then the turn-out in primary elections was much lower than that in general elections.
This lack of interest is especially notable in State and local primary elections. This situation has led some to advocate various reforms the primary system, such as the “Open Primary,” in which a voter can vote for candidates in any party’s primary election. There is a proposal here in California to carry this reform one step further. The top two vote-getters in the primary election are placed on the general election ballot, regardless of party. Thus, in the general election, voters may have to choose between two Republicans or two Democrats.
It is a radical reform. I don’t know whether it will pass. I don’t know what effect it will have, if any, on the make-up of the State Legislature or the State’s Congressional Delegation. In any case, I plan to vote against this particular “reform.” My main objection is that it doesn’t go far enough. I would abolish primary elections completely, and let all candidates run in the general election with run-off elections to follow. Ideally, the general election would incorporate the instant run-off feature, in which voters indicate first, second, third, etc., choices.
Another objection is that it is a backward-looking reform and amounts to a return to the cross-filing system that we used to have in California, in which a candidate could file and run in the primary elections of several parties. Under that system, William Knowland was able to win election in both the Republican and Democratic primaries and didn’t need to campaign in the general election. Knowland was a rather ultra-conservative Republican and hardly a good representative for a majority of Californians. Moreover, even then the turn-out in primary elections was much lower than that in general elections.
