THE NONVOTERS HAVE IT
OUR BIGGEST `PARTY' - 120 MILLION STRONG - IS INCREASINGLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHORUNS AMERICA

WHY DON'T MORE AMERICANS VOTE?

Author: BY MARTIN P. WATTENBERG
Date: 09/21/2003 Page: D12 Section: Op-Ed

ON SEPT. 11, 2001 - the day the World Trade Center fell - thousands of NewYorkers were standing on line, waiting to vote in the mayoral primary. In thedays following that tragedy, as preparations mounted for a rescheduledprimary, the New York City Board of Elections posted a large banner on itswebsite reading, "Vote. Or Liberty is History."

By all accounts, New Yorkers, like Americans everywhere, came to appreciatetheir liberties even more than usual after Sept. 11. But that hardly affectedtheir urge to vote. Only 13 percent of New York City's voting age populationturned out for that rescheduled primary. And only 25 percent voted in theactual mayoral election.

Nor is it just in New York City that voter participation rates havedisappointed. In Massachusetts in 2002 just 45 percent of voters turned out,compared to 66 percent when Ted Kennedy was first elected in 1962.

The absent voter

American turnout rates in primaries, municipal elections, and specialelections are often so abysmal that they raise a terrifying question: What ifan election were held and no one voted? Here are some stunning examples ofpoor turnout: 1) In Comfort, Texas, a local school board election in 1998motivated just 17 out of 720 registered voters to cast ballots; 2) In a 1997statewide special election in Texas only 5 percent of the voting agepopulation participated. This occurred even though then-Governor Bush stumpedthe state for a week, promising that a "yes" vote would result in a major taxcut. Ironically, one of the people who did not vote was Richard Cheney, then aregistered Texas voter.

Poor turnout is hardly a new story in the United States. Numerous effortshave been made to improve America's voting levels over the past four decades.In 1964, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, abolishing thepoll tax. A year later the Voting Rights Act was passed, which made itpossible for African-Americans who had faced discrimination in the past toregister to vote. Federal law now forbids states from closing the registrationbooks more than 30 days before elections. And most recently, the 1993 MotorVoter Act required that states permit people to register when they apply foror renew drivers' licenses.

Although legal changes have succeeded in making the registration processmore user-friendly, they've failed to encourage greater electoralparticipation. Registration rolls have swelled, but these additions haveconsisted largely of people with marginal political interest who don't takeadvantage of their voting opportunities.

I believe that one basic aspect of US politics explains much of why so fewAmericans vote: American elections are complex and anything but user-friendly.We ask Americans to vote too often and for too many things. Our practice ofdemocracy has been taken too far - asking for more participation than manycitizens care to provide. Those who don't vote are those with the leastresources to meet these many demands - Americans with less education, lifeexperience, political interest, or partisan attachment.

The young don't vote

When I am asked to identify the one factor that best predicts who votes Ialways choose age. Young people have long had the lowest turnout rates, whichis perhaps why there was relatively little opposition to lowering the votingage to 18 in 1972. But even the most pessimistic analysts could not haveforeseen the record low turnout rates of today's youth. According to theCensus Bureau, just 32 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24voted in 2000 compared to 68 percent among those over 65 years of age. Thegeneration gap in primaries is even greater. Official statistics provided bylocal registrars typically show older people being four to 12 times as likelyto take part in nomination contests.

If one had to choose a single word to describe the current relationshipbetween candidates and young citizens it would be "neglect." Politicians knowwho their customers are. Why should they worry about young nonvoters any morethan the makers of denture cream worry about people with healthy teeth?Indeed, studies have found that candidates mostly place ads on televisionprograms with older audiences, such as "Jeopardy" or "Wheel of Fortune," andavoid placing ads on shows like syndicated reruns of "Friends," which draws ayounger crowd.

While some older voters might envy younger adults for not being exposed topolitical ads, studies have consistently shown that people learn frompolitical advertising - both positive and negative. Furthermore, as politicalads both shape and represent the agenda of any modern campaign, the concernsof young people are being ignored. Rather than focusing campaigns on programsthat young people might be interested in, such as job training, candidatesdiscuss health care and retirement issues.

If more young people voted, their voice might profoundly impact thenation's political direction. Survey research consistently indicates thatyoung people are naturally much more supportive of government spending forpublic schools and jobs programs. They are also more in favor of spending toprotect the environment, an equal role for women in society, and abortionrights. In terms of ideology, young people are virtually as likely to say theyare liberals as conservatives, whereas among senior citizens conservativesoutnumber liberals by 20 percent. In sum, if young people had turnout ratesequal to older people, voting behavior and public policy would probably beshifted leftwards.

Notably, had more young people voted in Florida in 2000 Al Gore wouldprobably be president. According to the 2000 Florida exit poll, voters under30 supported Gore over Bush by a margin of 55 to 40 percent. In contrast, themuch more numerous group of Florida voters over 60 favored Bush over Gore by51 to 47 percent. The fact that only 33 percent of young Floridians votedcompared to 69 percent of Florida's elderly population thus probably cost Gorethe White House.

Can we change the pattern?

If election observers at Iraq's first post-Saddam election noticed thatolder people were voting at twice the rates of younger people, it would bepronounced a severe problem. Here in the United States, we are so accustomedto this pattern that it hardly attracts notice. What can be done about it?

If in an ideal democracy everyone votes, what if we required people toparticipate? This is what Australians did in 1922, when they institutedcompulsory voting after their turnout rate fell to 58 percent. Since then,their turnout has never fallen below 90 percent, even though the maximum finefor nonvoting is only about $35 and judges readily accept any reasonableexcuse.

Young Australians, like their counterparts in the United States, expressrelatively little interest in politics. But they vote because they have to.Unlike American youth, when asked if politicians pay attention to theirgeneration, they respond affirmatively.

Although compulsory election attendance would certainly solve our turnoutproblems, do we really want to force American turnout rates up to 90 percent?People with limited political knowledge who are forced to vote might picktheir politicians the same way they choose lottery numbers. In Australia, thisis known as the "donkey vote," for people who approach voting like the oldchildren's game. Given Australia's relatively simple electoral process, thisis a small proportion of voters; in America it would likely be greater.

Furthermore, compulsory voting goes against the grain of American culture,which treasures individual rights. Indeed, most Americans would probablyassert that they have a right not to vote.

Evidence from around the world also indicates that our turnout rates couldbe increased if we adopted some form of proportional representation. In ourwinner-take-all system, many Americans rightly perceive that their vote isunlikely to affect election outcomes. Proportional representation changesthis perception by awarding legislative seats to small voting blocs. With anumber of viable parties to choose from rather than only two, people tend tofeel that their party truly embodies their specific interests, and hence theyare more likely to vote. In particular, young Americans - like those in Europe- might be motivated to go to the polls to support Green parties that focus onenvironmental protection.

More parties would come at a price, however. The current system bringsdiverse groups together under the umbrellas of two heterogeneous parties; amulti-party system would set America's social groups apart from one another.The melting pot culture would no longer be reinforced at the political level.Therefore, proportional representation hardly appears any more in tune withAmerican political ideas than compulsory voting. And Democratic and Republicanlawmakers are hardly likely to vote for it, in any event.

Although many states have experimented with policies designed to improvevoter turnout, there are no clear success stories. Oregon has recently triedall-mail balloting, but this has increased turnout for municipal and specialelections. Texas and other states have experimented with early voting, butvoting early has not led to voting often. Absentee voting has been made easierin many states; in California, no reason is necessary to receive a mailballot. But again the results have been disappointing.

Why Tuesday?

Lest one despair of any means for improving turnout in America, a simpleyet effective change could be made in election timing. With an ordinary act ofCongress, the date for federal elections could be moved to a leisure day,thereby giving more people more time to vote. The number one reason thatpeople who are registered but fail to vote give for not participating is thatthey were too busy with work or school on election day. This excuse isparticularly prevalent among young people. So why not change election day froma Tuesday to a weekend or holiday? Research has shown turnout is higher incountries that vote during weekends.

Indeed, it is doubtful that any experts on elections would recommend thatIraq emulate the American example and vote on a Tuesday. So if we wouldn'trecommend Tuesday elections to other countries, why should we continue thispractice ourselves? By joining the modern world and voting on a leisure day,it is likely that we would experience an increase in election turnout,especially among young people.

SIDEBAR:
US VOTING AGE POPULATION AND ELECTION TURNOUT
PLEASE REFER TO MICROFILM FOR CHART DATA.