[photo by Tony the Misfit]
In 2008 the United States elected its first black President. By the time the elections actually took place on 3 November however, there was little doubt about the outcome of the voting.
The following year, in an off-year election, residents of Salt Lake City turned out in record low numbers. A local paper reported these statistics:
“The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that of the 1,022,651 residents living in Salt Lake County in 2008, 518,448 residents are registered voters. Last week’s election recorded an 18 percent turnout in Salt Lake County.”
This was the main thrust of an article by Kelly O’Neill in the 11 November 2009 edition of The Daily Utah Chronicle, the school newspaper for the University of Utah.
Both the tone and content of the article conveyed her deep disappointment with Utahns for not fulfilling their civic duty.
It’s a popular argument but in my opinion, she failed to make her case.
Some people have suggested the fascination with social media and other forms of online entertainment have caused people to withdraw from society. I feel the opposite is true. In any social media network people are selecting leaders all the time, they’re just not voting.
I understand the desire to have a robust participative democracy and from that perspective low voter turnout indicates a lack of appropriate and desirable civic responsibility. Rather than take a pejorative view of Utah voters however, and say they have failed, I have asked myself if there is an alternative, and more positive, explanation.
Maybe they are just happy with their leaders.
Where citizens have the ability but not the obligation to vote you can generally find four distinct conditions: voters who care and vote, voters who care but don’t vote, voters who don’t care and vote, and finally, voters who don’t care and don’t vote.
Of these, the “everyone should vote” philosophy comprises both voters who do and don’t care. Following this way of thinking injects an element of random noise in the voting data and allows politicians who get massive media exposure to gain an inordinate share of the vote simply through name recognition.
In social media this is known as the Ashton Kutcher effect. As a social media icon he is supremely successful, as a social media leader he is a failure.
Isn't there a better way?
Wouldn’t it be better to allow voters who don’t care about the outcome to not vote without feeling guilty about their decision? This would leave the voters who do care about the outcome, and make the effort to vote, essentially de facto representatives of those who don’t care and those who do care but chose not to vote.
This is the way communities are built. Social media sites have used the idea of connected communities to provide guidance and leadership.
Governments whose citizens are unhappy with the performance of their elected officials will express that dissatisfaction by voting out the offending politicians. In societies where the people are pleased with the performance of their government you would expect to see a lower voter turnout as there would be fewer people concerned about the outcome of the election.
The article continues:
“Utah and Hawaii are among the states with the lowest voter turnout, reporting 52 percent in the last presidential election, compared to the 75 percent turnout rates of Minnesota and Washington, D.C.”
I find it interesting both states mentioned in the article, Utah and Hawaii, were recently reported to be the two happiest states in the U.S. according to a Gallup poll.
Perhaps rather than castigating the people who didn’t vote, and seeing low voter turnout as a shameful sign of voter apathy, we can simply thank those who did take the time to vote for being self-selecting representatives of the people and view low voter turnout as a positive sign of a well run state.
Social media sites beware; the happier your followers are the more likely you’ll be considered a failure.
Not for of a lack of leadership however.
Posts
