Low Voter Turnout: Crisis of Democracy, Condition for the Reproduction of the Two-Party State

Arguably, one of the most important strategic questions for independent and third party activists is how to motivate non-voters in future elections. Voter turn-out was quite low, for instance, in the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, where 39% and roughly 45% (according to my calculations) of registered voters cast a ballot, respectively. Thus, though Bob McDonnell received 60% of the vote in Virginia, he only garnered the explicit support of 24% of registered Virginia voters. Similarly, in New Jersey, Chris Christie received 49% of the vote, but only garnered the explicit support of less than a quarter of New Jersey's registered voters. Partisans of the Democratic-Republican Party and supporters of the two-party state frequently maintain that low voter turn-out is a sign either of voter apathy or satisfaction. Yet, it might also express a rejection of the two-party political order as such.

Consider the following speculative scenario, which is somewhat fantastic. A majority of voters desire the election of third party and independent alternatives to the representatives of the political status-quo, as is consistently indicated in public opinion polls. However, they and many others are convinced that third party and independent alternatives are not viable candidates for office and do not stand a chance of winning because the two-party system is based on the election of Democrats and Republicans. On election day, a majority of serial non-voters appear at the polls, and cast blank ballots. "Blank" wins in a landslide.

Now consider this slightly different scenario, which is all too real. A majority of voters desire the election of third party and independent alternatives to the representatives of the political status-quo, as is consistently indicated in public opinion polls. However, they and many others are convinced that third party and independent alternatives are not viable candidates for office and do not stand a chance of winning because the two-party system is based on the election of Democrats and Republicans. On election day, a majority of voters do not cast ballots, and a Republican or Democrat is elected to office with the support of less than a quarter of registered voters.

It may well be the case that depressed voter turnout is simultaneously a crisis of representative government and a condition for the reproduction of the two-party state.

5 comments:

Ross Levin said...

This is your best post in a while. I'll post it to IPR. It's a very important topic.

d.eris said...

Thanks, Ross.

Bob Richard said...

While a multi-party system wouldn't bring every current non-voter to the polls, it would attract many of them. But persuasive arguments alone won't get us there, especially when they are restricted to the blogosphere.

Many of the props supporting the two-party duopoly -- winner-take-all voting, too many voters per representative, direct election of the executive, lack of geographical concentration of third party support, ballot access laws -- are both chicken and egg. They can't be remedied until we have more than two viable parties. We need to focus on things we can change step-by-step within the existing political framework.

The most important thing, in my mind, is to start with local government, an arena that many small parties ignore. Local elections are winnable, especially in towns and smaller cities, if you take the time to become involved in local affairs. Serving at the local level not only builds reputations, it also teaches you how to govern. How many small party candidates are truly qualified to fill the offices they run for (other than qualified by general intelligence and sincerity)?

I think some Greens and Libertarians understand this. They are getting elected, learning how to govern, and earning the respect of voters. The time will come when these folks are ready to run for the state legislature and start winning in a few districts. But the rest of us mostly seem uninterested in local government.

d.eris said...

Bob, you're right on target. Though I do think many small party candidates are "truly qualified" to fill the offices they run for, given their competition that is: obviously Democrats and Republicans have set the bar pretty low.

Two different strategies are provided by the Working Families Party and the Libertarian Party. The WFP runs few of their own candidates, but is building up strength while supporting palatable duopolist candidates. Ideally, this would eventually lead to them running more and more candidates of their own, until they have full slates. The Libertarians, on the other hand, are running lots of local candidates, as are the Greens. The LP candidates won 17 local races in Pennsylvania this month. And recent news states they're looking to field up to 400 candidates for local offices in Texas next year.

Michael said...

Bob -
You make exceptionally good observations about where to start. "Change" will occur from the bottom up, not the other way around. It won't happen overnight but instead will be incremental. I got my "political education" over the last 6 years of attending and participating in local government meetings before I decided to run for office.

Combatting apathy is a daunting challenge. In my experiences, "interest" always seems short-lived no matter how much progress you're actually making. My approach now involves personal perserverance and discipline...get behind me and get involved, if you wish, but don't look for me to hold your hand along the way. Their is a role for each of us to play though if we care enough.

 
http://www.wikio.com