Oct 98 - Why, before each and every election, do the expert pundits tell us that voter turnout is going to be lower than ever before? Typically the pundits turn out to be correct, but would it be so if they didn't tell us in advance? And why is low turnout a better story than high turnout? People like me want to know. Now we hear that voter turnout in the 1998 off year elections may at record lows. How low can we go?
What I really want to know, what I worry a lot about, is can we sustain the American system of government of, for, and by, the people, if the people don't give a damn? Can we sustain our republic if we don't concern ourselves with the quality of representatives we send off to national and state capitols?
Can we sustain democracy if citizens don't vote? What if voter turnout in my district is 20% and the turnout in your district is 40%? Is my vote worth twice as much as yours?
What if we had an election and no one showed up? Would we still be a democracy? Would it be a front page story? Would CNN and MSNBC find a bunch of partisan nabobs to shout at each other about whether or not it's important to be democrats? The Soviets used to call themselves democrats. So what? The People's Republic of China - how about that one? Isn't individual freedom the bottom line?
I ponder all of these questions in my book, IS AMERICA BEYOND REFORM?
(Sligo Press, 1997):
"One of the facts that I've learned in politics over these many years is that there is little connection between how many people are registered to vote and how many actually vote. The writers of editorials, after their reporters have demeaned all in the electoral process, usually proclaim that ease of registration would increase voter participation. But it doesn't. Open registration might increase the illegal votes, but it's not a motivator for those who don't see the value of the vote. Neither would Sunday or holiday voting increase voter turnout. The problem is not with the process, which is typically open and easy. The problem is with attitude.
Congress passed the motor-voter law, which was a federal mandate to register voters in welfare lines, and license branches, and by post card application and other broad-brush tactics. People standing in line to get a government service or check felt obligated to sign the registration form, but they didn't feel obligated to vote. The motor-voter law required government officials to seek out the nonregistered and get them registered to vote. Voter roles blossomed across the country and promoters of motor-voter proclaimed success, but they were premature in their praise. The first test election for the federal motor-voter law was in 1996 and we had the lowest U.S. voter turnout since 1924.
It's another one of those political lessons that we have to learn over and over. There is little relation between voter registration and voter turnout, especially when the registration is forced or, at least, quasi-forced. The same goes for the commonly discussed relationship between registration and which party is going to win the election. In 1964, Democrats won almost every office on the ballot, and in Indiana they took control of the legislature. Having done so, door-to-door registration became a first order of business. My Republican colleagues and I thought that it would be a long time before we won another election, because the Democrat workers could go door to door and register people who normally did not vote. The result was that the newly registered still did not vote, and Republicans won nearly every office on the ballot in 1966.
Other than for the few who fall through the cracks, if people want to vote, they will get registered and show up on election day. If they don't want to vote, no new cute government program is going to make them do their civic duty.
In the past, Americans held the vote as a sacred responsibility. Some of us still do. We believe it to be the premier stand-alone civic duty perched on a pedestal above all others. But many people don't see the connection between the vote and their daily lives. Most people don't vote because they don't care, they don't see the relevance, or they don't think that their vote will make any difference. Many think that all politicians are crooks and are only out to feather their own nests. Many people don't read newspapers or watch or listen to the news, so they will tell pollsters that they don't feel qualified to vote. A few want to remain anonymous and not appear on any voter list that might cause them to be noticed for jury duty or other civic responsibility.
A little over 51 percent of the REGISTERED voters did NOT vote in the 1996 American presidential election! Even with the great motor-voter push for easy registration, fewer people voted.
With that in mind, it's time for another question. Can we sustain a democracy if over one-half of its eligible voters do not think that voting is important? As the pollsters might say, I fear that 80 or 90 percent of the people will never hear the question, and among those who do, I suspect that about 50 percent don't care.
Too many Americans do not know what it would be like to not be free. We haven't been taught. Those of us who talk about such basic ideas as patriotism and freedom are treated as radicals. Television comics use us for joke fodder. So it shouldn't be surprising that in 1996, after several decades of anticultural rhetoric from commentators, educators, and entertainers, a majority of Americans opted against democracy.
If we are to reform America, the responsibilities of freedom must be taught from kindergarten on, and that will require instilling pride and patriotism into the being of oncoming generations. If educators refuse to do that, then we must find new educators or simply accept the unacceptable."
* * *
It's been over one year since I wrote those words, and now campaigns, politics, and government, are sliding off on an even more precipitous slope. What're we gonna' do?
You might consider attending the first annual Bulen Symposium On American Politics on December 1, 1998, at Indiana University Purdue University - Indianapolis. We hope to discuss such issues as what's gone wrong and what do we do about it. The Chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Natioanal Committees will be there. So will national journalistss such as David Broder, Mark Shields, Ken Bode, and many others. Maybe you should be there.
More information about the symposium is available at:
www.plainenglish.com/bulen/bulen.html
Gordon Durnil
Author of: IS AMERICA BEYOND REFORM?, Sligo Press www.sligopress.com and THE MAKING OF A CONSERVATIVE ENVIRONMENTALIST, Indiana University Press
<yxwu81a@prodigy.com>
