If one word could describe the political events of last Tuesday, it would be apathy.
For those of us involved in the machinations of elections and government, that word is about the least likely to be understood. How could people not understand that by not voting they are leaving in other people’s hands the fate of how they are governed?
Most people would answer, “So what?”
The disconnect between these two polar opposites is easily seen in the numbers. Of a possible 17.8 million registered voters in California, only 5.2 million decided to vote last Tuesday. Over the following 28 days until the vote is certified, additional ballots, such as provisionals and absentees that arrived on Election Day will be included. However, this abysmally low turnout, now at 29.9 percent shatters the previous low of 50% in 2002.
Nevertheless, the one who did vote stuck through the ballot to the bitter end. In total, nearly 5.2 million voters chose between Gov. Brown and Neel Kashkari, his Republican opponent. At the end of the ballot, nearly 5.1 million people voted on at least four of the six propositions. This goes against conventional wisdom that the voting numbers drop off as one goes “down ballot.”
Some people believe that lower turnouts provide for good governmental choices, since the people voting are more aware of issues and tuned into politics and government. The numbers on Tuesday certainly support the interest and involvement hypotheses.
But, is it right?
The national exit polls show that this election reported a dramatic drop-off in voting among people under 30. It seems that the only thing that motivates this segment of the population is a Presidential election. That is likely because those elections are generally about the future while mid-term elections are about the past, specifically a referendum on whomever is in the highest office, be it President or Governor.
This is of no interest to them.
Secretaries of State across the country, whose primary job is running elections, have tried just about every trick in the book to get people to, first, register and then to vote. They have been, for the most part, successful in the first, but have consistently fallen short in the second.
That’s because getting people to vote is not their job. The candidates need to generate that heat. But, it is actually in the best interest of most incumbent candidates to keep the voting population from expanding. So, political consultants get very good at “cherry picking” voters.
Combine with this a general anger at politics and politicians in general and this volatile admixture becomes apathy.
