By Lee Mortimer
With a wide-open race for the White House and control of the U.S. House of Representatives at stake, campaign 2000 is shaping up as one of the hardest-fought in recent memory.
Yet the respected Committee for the Study of the American Electorate predicts Nov. 7 could see an all-time low for voter turnout -- even lower than 1996, when less than half the voting-age population came out for a presidential election. Some analysts say Americans are disillusioned with the power of money in politics. Others say voters are content, and that good economic times make us less inclined to throw the rascals out.
A simpler but more fundamental explanation -- borne out in surveys by the Pew Research Center -- is that people believe their votes don't count. It's hard to motivate the players if they feel they're not really in the game.
The rate of U.S. voting has been higher in the past, but always low compared to most democracies. Now it has been more undermined by one-party-dominated elections, widespread "gerrymandering" of legislative districts and the effects of the Electoral College.
The presidential election, of course, is actually 50 separate winner-take-all state elections. The candidate with the most votes in each state wins all of that state's electoral votes. (Nebraska and Maine allocate some of their electoral votes by congressional district.)
Most states are reliably won by one major party. That means that the only real way people in those states can help their candidate (aside from sending money) is to move to one of eight or 10 "battleground states," like Michigan or Ohio, whose electoral votes will decide the election.
Winner-take-all elections waste votes and subvert competition. The "two-party system" usually means a one-party Democratic system or a one-party Republican system, depending on the state or legislative district. Rather than compete, the two parties dominate within their respective spheres.
Only six of 435 seats need to change hands for Democrats to gain control of the U.S. House. But fewer than one in ten congressional seats were won by less than 10% in 1998, and more than 80 percent of districts could be certified as "safe" for one party a year ago. Voters in those districts will have no role in shaping the next Congress.
Most state legislative districts are, likewise, strongholds for the incumbent-party legislator. More than two in five state legislative elections weren't even contested by one or the other major parties in 1998. Few of the rest were competitive, and the rate of incumbent re-election consistently is well over 90%. Most legislators can take their constituents for granted, even those who voted for them.
Most legislative contests are settled in the primary by the most active partisans. Incumbents rarely lose -- in fact, as many U.S House Members have died in office as lost in primaries since 1994. Furthermore, primary voters tend to be a fraction of the voters who turn out for the general election in November. But lopsided outcomes typically render general elections meaningless.
It's not that most supporters of a major party are completely sold on that party. But when their only other choice is the other major party, most consider that shift goes too far in the opposite direction. Independent or third party candidacies could give those voters more meaningful options.
Viable competition can only be achieved through restructured elections. Abolishing the antiquated Electoral College would re-enfranchise voters in some 40 states, who today are effectively excluded from presidential elections. That would require a constitutional amendment.
But state legislatures or even local governments can enact other reforms for local, state and most federal elections, such as easier ballot access, instant-runoff voting and proportional representation.
If voters want competitive elections, they will have to demand them from elected officials who have grown satisfied with the status quo.
[Lee Mortimer is a North Carolina member of the Center for Voting and Democracy in Washington, D.C.: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 901, Takoma Park, MD 20912, http://www.fairvote.org.]
Yet the respected Committee for the Study of the American Electorate predicts Nov. 7 could see an all-time low for voter turnout -- even lower than 1996, when less than half the voting-age population came out for a presidential election. Some analysts say Americans are disillusioned with the power of money in politics. Others say voters are content, and that good economic times make us less inclined to throw the rascals out.
A simpler but more fundamental explanation -- borne out in surveys by the Pew Research Center -- is that people believe their votes don't count. It's hard to motivate the players if they feel they're not really in the game.
The rate of U.S. voting has been higher in the past, but always low compared to most democracies. Now it has been more undermined by one-party-dominated elections, widespread "gerrymandering" of legislative districts and the effects of the Electoral College.
The presidential election, of course, is actually 50 separate winner-take-all state elections. The candidate with the most votes in each state wins all of that state's electoral votes. (Nebraska and Maine allocate some of their electoral votes by congressional district.)
Most states are reliably won by one major party. That means that the only real way people in those states can help their candidate (aside from sending money) is to move to one of eight or 10 "battleground states," like Michigan or Ohio, whose electoral votes will decide the election.
Winner-take-all elections waste votes and subvert competition. The "two-party system" usually means a one-party Democratic system or a one-party Republican system, depending on the state or legislative district. Rather than compete, the two parties dominate within their respective spheres.
Only six of 435 seats need to change hands for Democrats to gain control of the U.S. House. But fewer than one in ten congressional seats were won by less than 10% in 1998, and more than 80 percent of districts could be certified as "safe" for one party a year ago. Voters in those districts will have no role in shaping the next Congress.
Most state legislative districts are, likewise, strongholds for the incumbent-party legislator. More than two in five state legislative elections weren't even contested by one or the other major parties in 1998. Few of the rest were competitive, and the rate of incumbent re-election consistently is well over 90%. Most legislators can take their constituents for granted, even those who voted for them.
Most legislative contests are settled in the primary by the most active partisans. Incumbents rarely lose -- in fact, as many U.S House Members have died in office as lost in primaries since 1994. Furthermore, primary voters tend to be a fraction of the voters who turn out for the general election in November. But lopsided outcomes typically render general elections meaningless.
It's not that most supporters of a major party are completely sold on that party. But when their only other choice is the other major party, most consider that shift goes too far in the opposite direction. Independent or third party candidacies could give those voters more meaningful options.
Viable competition can only be achieved through restructured elections. Abolishing the antiquated Electoral College would re-enfranchise voters in some 40 states, who today are effectively excluded from presidential elections. That would require a constitutional amendment.
But state legislatures or even local governments can enact other reforms for local, state and most federal elections, such as easier ballot access, instant-runoff voting and proportional representation.
If voters want competitive elections, they will have to demand them from elected officials who have grown satisfied with the status quo.
[Lee Mortimer is a North Carolina member of the Center for Voting and Democracy in Washington, D.C.: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 901, Takoma Park, MD 20912, http://www.fairvote.org.]
