Voters giving the finger
Bill Page writing in the Kane County Chronicle today.
I don't understand why people don't vote, and I never will. It is the one activity that defines us as a democracy, and the one denied so many other people in the world. When open elections were held in Afghanistan and Iraq, we were inundated with images of beaming citizens proudly holding up their dyed fingers as proof they had voted. In Kane County, we seem to be using a similar hand signal to show our disdain for the whole process.I've been one of those who thought if someone's too lazy to vote then we're better off without them. But when I called it quits election night, you would have been hard pressed to find a precinct that had gone beyond a single digit turnout.
It's not healthy for our politics.
***************************************************
The Economist did a survey of Chicago last week. A good review but ultimately not optimistic one. Here are a few paragraphs from it,
Daley comes out pretty well and nice discussion on some econmoic turn arounds with trading, services, transportation, and the influx of hispanics and overall population growth as America's index of urban prosperity. But the author says we've hit the limit and ends with,RUNNING Chicago is no easy task. Even knowing who is responsible for what is difficult enough. The metropolitan area covers six or nine Illinois counties, depending on where you draw the lines, and more if you take in the sprawl in neighbouring Indiana and Wisconsin. The smallest of these areas, the six-county one, encompasses (at a recent count) some 113 townships, 272 municipalities, 303 school districts and 587 special-purpose governments, including individual authorities for such matters as cemeteries, street lighting and TB sanatoria—and, it is often pointed out, 13 mosquito-abatement districts.
[***]
A system involving nearly 1,300 units of government, serving some 8.5m people, is bound to be fragmented and inefficient. Worse, the dependence on the property tax encourages these mini-governments to compete with each other for expensive developments, which in turn reinforces white flight and suburban sprawl. The suburbs generally have little love for the city itself, often overlooking the benefits of their proximity to it while bemoaning the traffic, the pollution, the aircraft noise and above all any designs on their tax base.
But Chicago, like almost all America's older cities, still faces the prospect of decline, or at best stasis, unless it can find the elixir of urban life—how to grow richer without growing bigger. Failing that, it must content itself with the knowledge that it has succeeded better in reversing decline than anyone else—and that its broad smile is even more attractive than its erstwhile broad shoulders.Our non-voting voters are going to have to quite giving pols the fingers and accept some responsibility if we want to do more that reverse decline and grow the economy without growing bigger.
10 comments:
Bill,
One thing to consider is how informed some of the people who would be voting. I know people who just vote and pick the person the think seems nice or has an R or D in their name. They know nothing about the candidates I am just as concerned about this as I am concerned about people not voting.
So we need to get more people to vote, I agree 100%, but we need to make sure they are informed to.
I remember in grad school a friend from California was shocked that all voters don't receive a nice booklet summarizing all the candidates and their views on the issues. Something like that would be nice here--especially for judges.
Yet, I think all the angst being thrown about by various pundits on the issue is a bit misplaced here since this was a primary election. Illinois may have open primaries, but that does not mean they are not first and foremost exercises for party members. I am not registered with any party, and thus I have never voted in a single partisan primary election: I do not feel it is my place to weigh in on the internal deliberations of an organization to which I belong. I feel this way even knowing that here in the city the Democratic primary is effectively the 'real' election.
However, it's a different story come the general election, I'll definitely agree that it's flabbergasting when citizens don't exercise their right to influence the government.
We do have non-partisan ballots Ian that allowed you to vote on the school referendum.
It was a critical vote regardless how you felt on it.
How does one register with a party? We don't do that in Illinois, you just go in and say which ballot you want.
Shorten the election season. Limit campaign spending and encourage more political parties to help decentralize power. Now I don't know if any of these ideas will help, but I detect less civic interest. I think the cultural wars have alienated many voters, while others feel a growing inability to affect change on bread and butter issues, particularly at the national level.
I used to be against term limits, but now I might support, just to shake things up.
I'll concede that there usually are nonpartisan issues on the ballot. However, in my ward (44) that would have left me with exactly one item, the advisory referendum to have Cook County create a board similar to CUB to advocate for health care rights. It passed with nearly 89% of the vote--but it's only advisory, so I hardly think I passed up a chance to significantly affect anything.
Greg is right, there are plenty of other ways to participate: attend public hearings, comment upon agency proposals, contact elected officials, join volunteer groups. Many of these will arguably have more impact on government affairs than the results of some down-ballot election. Election turnout is only one indicator of public engagement, so to castigate those who pass on the opportunity to vote on occasion is unfair, especially when the nonpartisan impact is minor.
And this makes a *huge* difference when comparing turnout here to someplace like Iraq or Afghanistan that has only been recently introduced to democracy. There, it's the first time they've had the opportunity to have any participation in the process, so of course they're going to turn out in jubilant droves. If real democracy takes root, eventually their ability to participate and influence the process in other ways will almost certainly lower the election turnout rates.
Ian, regarding your earlier comment on why there isn't a guidebook giving judicial candidates' views on issues... it would not be allowed. Under existing rules of conduct which apply to sitting judges and to judicial candidates alike here in Illinois, there are severe limits to what a judicial candidate can say in the course of a campaign.
Judicial candidates are not to comment on how they might rule on cases that might come before them. They can't say, "I'll throw the book at criminals" or anything like that. They can't campaign for candidates who are running for non-judicial offices.
They can tout their experience, in the courtroom and elsewhere. They can voice their support for issues regarding the internal structure of the judicial system (such as continuing legal education for judges and lawyers). They can promise that they will listen that will come before them in a fair and impartial manner. But that's about it, and that may not be a lot to go on in many races.
RANDALL SHERMAN
Secretary/Treasurer,Illinois Committee for Honest Government
Chicago
Randall,
Would it be legal if there were guidebooks given to voters that gave judicial candidates' ratings from the bar associations? It seems like it might not be kosher, but I think that it would really improve judicial elections.
Most people who do not vote MAY be too lazy but us non-voters shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush. In political towns, it is very unwise to vote in primaries since your voting record is there for all to see and if you have a city, county or state job, it can be held against you. As an American by choice, one of the things I learned when I took citizenship classes was that you have open elections to exercise your vote in private. Primary elections go directly against that teaching. There is no privacy when you vote in the primaries. I have voted in every federal and non-partisan local election since I became a citizen but not in state-wide primaries, especially in central Illinois. I couldn't even vote on the referendum for open primaries because it wasn't offered on the ticket in the town I live in. What a shame.
I think some miss the point. The purpose of a primary is for the political parties to choose which candidate they wish to put forward. The General election then affords everyone the opportunity to choose who the party has chosen to represent it's views. The worst possible thing would be to not declare your party in a primary. After all that is what the primary election is about building that parties ticket for the General election. If someone does not wish to declare a party of their choice, then by all means stay home or use the none party ballot. The primary was never ment for the general public. If you do not like any of the choices then start your own party or join a party and work for like minded candidates. There are no excuse for not voting and for not knowing why you vote for or against someone, there are only excuses, and lazyness.
Post a Comment