SEVENTY MILLION Americans who could decide the outcome of the November presidential election do not plan to vote, according to the findings of a survey reported in early September. This includes 60 million who have never voted and 10 million who have voted in the past but now have become political dropouts.
Remember the bumper sticker, "Don't vote — it only encourages them"? These Americans are taking it seriously.
The survey covered 1,486 non voters in 200 separate neighborhoods in 42 states and the District of Columbia. They were interviewed in late July by Peter D. Hart Research Associates of Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.
Half of those interviewed said, "I just don't bother with politics." Their reasons? "Candidates say one thing and do another" (68 per cent). "It doesn't make much difference who is elected" (55 per cent). "Watergate proved that elected officials are only out for themselves" (52 per cent). Only a small minority mentioned such practical reasons as not being able to get to the polls (18 per cent) or the difficulty of registering to vote (12 per cent).
| Fewer than 50 per cent of the people eligible to vote will take part in the November election if the intentions reported in July hold up until November. Perhaps the TV debates between Ford and Carter will change that. But if they do not, a downward trend in voting will continue: |
|
| Examination of Illinois voting statistics shows that the same trend has been taking place in this state, except that voting participation is about 10 percentage points higher here than in the United States as a whole. The percentage in Illinois of those who voted for president and for governor compared to all eligible voters in the state shows about 1 per cent of those voting cast their ballots for president but not for governor. In 1972, the difference was 7/10 of 1 per cent, but when rounded to a full percentage the statistics show no difference. |
|
Voting participation in this country
looks pretty bad when we compare it
with the record in the national elections
of other western democracies, as reported in the
Christian Science Monitor:
Is compulsory voting the answer? In Australia, there is a fine (about $15, according to the Australian consulate spokesman in Chicago), if you fail to vote and don't have a satisfactory excuse. That accounts for the 97 per cent turnout.
In a democracy, a nation led by the will of the people, a declining voting
trend should be a source of concern, and
compulsory voting is not necessarily the
answer. It may only suppress the
feelings of those who are "turned off by the political system. When this happens,
they may express their feelings by acts of
violence — as was the case in this
country a few years ago.
On the other hand, people who fail to
vote are not necessarily dissatisfied with
the system — even though their excuse
is, as quoted above, "1 just don't bother
with politics." Failure to vote may be a
negative way of saying that existing
conditions are satisfactory, or at least
not bad enough to stir up a protest. Still another explanation of non-voting may be that the candidates do not
offer sufficient choice to bring out
people to the polls. In Italy, for example, where the Communist party is
active, undoubtedly voting participation is high because people are voting
for or against Communism. In England,
Canada and the United States, there is
no threat of a Communist party winning
at the polls, and this threat does not
rouse voters who are complacent and stay at home. Yet the dissatisfaction expressed in
the survey with political leadership
cannot be dismissed. Eighty-seven per
cent of those in the survey agreed with
this statement: "What this country
needs most, more than laws and political programs, is a few courageous,
tireless, devoted leaders in whom people can put their trust." Our two-party system and our checks and balances in government make
leadership difficult. Legislatures and
executives are often at odds. The two
Republican presidents since 1968 have
had to deal with a Democratic Congress. In Illinois, although Gov. Dan
Walker has had a Democratic legislature, it might as well have been an
opposition party because it was largely
controlled by the Daley Democrats in
Chicago who are Walker's opponents in
his own party. How can a leader lead
when his opponents control the law-making branch? Or, to turn it around,
where can the law-making branch look
for leadership when the executive is the leader of the other party? The fact is that one of the most
difficult tasks in the world is to provide
strong leadership in a democracy. When
people cast their ballots for a candidate
they believe will be a strong governor or
president, they are often going to be
disappointed because the legislative
branch will be controlled by the other
party. That awareness seems to be missing./ W.L.D.
November 1976 / Illinois Issues / 25