When I started doing the election judge thing, thirty some-odd years ago, the turnout in our precinct for elections including primary elections was around 90%. Citywide the turnout was 70% or higher. In this year’s mayoral primary the total turnout including early voting, mail-in votes, and voting in person appears to be around 30%. Why so low? Here are some possibilities:
- Fatigue
- Disinterest
- Despair
- It wasn’t actually that high years ago but deceased voters don’t vote as regularly as they used to
- It isn’t actually that low—a lot of the voters presently registered don’t exist, i.e. died, moved away, etc.
- The people who’ve moved to Chicago come from places where they just aren’t accustomed to voting
I’m guessing some combination with a heavy emphasis on despair.
BTW the turnout among voters aged 18-24 is estimated at less than 3%.
Distraction!!
I believe NYC’s mayoralty turnouts are something over 20%. So, something like 10% of the electorate controls the mayor’s office.
Of course, 25% of the national electorate will make you President.
Should we care? W. F. Buckley thought too many people voted.
The bigger problem in my mind is the unelected, un-removable senior civil service who run the country and set its policies.
I’m trying to figure out the rationale for extending the franchise. If making more people eligible to vote lowers the percentage of those who do, what is actually being accomplished by it? Clearly, it’s not making the system more democratic.