Election Redux

It was the last thing I expected in the mail.

Less than four months after George W. Bush’s victory over John F. Kerry, I thought I could take a breather from the insanity of elections. But there was the overstuffed envelope in my mailbox—my absentee ballot. Apparently I had overlooked local elections, and for some unknown and likely unintelligible reason, Los Angeles is having its mayoral election today. While my ignorance may not be surprising given that I am 3,000 miles from home, among my fellow Los Angelinos, I am unfortunately not alone.

Percolating through America is an overwhelming apathy toward local government. Turnout ranges from bad to worse in local elections across the country. For example, in Los Angeles two thirds of registered voters turn out for Presidential elections, but only half that many turn out for a mayoral election.

What is so surprising about the low interest in local government is that this level of government wields an unusual amount of power and influence over our daily lives. It would be impossible to enumerate the ways in which local government affects each of us. Many of the laws and issues of greatest public concern—from road construction to building permits to the police—are all overseen by local government. In fact, the mayor of Los Angeles has more direct influence over the life of an average Los Angelino than his or her representative in Congress. Given the importance of local government, which is supposed to be the level of government most in touch with the people, low participation is undoubtedly a bad thing.

This low turnout can be attributed to a number of factors, but the bottom line is that in the public eye, national politics trumps local politics. Politics in Washington D.C. is glitzier, more exciting and is covered more extensively by the media than politics in any state or city, and there is no reason to think that this will change anytime soon.

But given the dominance of national politics, there is a simple and effective way to boost participation in local elections: put local elections on the same ballot as national elections. A single local and national election day (when possible) has several advantages:

First, it chains voting in local elections to voting in national elections, which people are more likely to care about and vote in. Although this may not increase voter interest in local politics, it will certainly increase participation, which in a representative democracy is almost always a good thing.

Second, a single election day will alleviate election and campaign burnout. Many voters felt overwhelmed by the November election and are turned off by the “permanent campaign” of national politics. Staggering local elections with national elections only makes this burnout worse. For example, the mayoral election in Los Angeles is the fourth major election in a year and a half (after the recall, the primary and the presidential election), and the runoff that will likely follow will be the fifth. As a result, the Los Angeles Times has reported greater voter apathy and disinterest in the current election than in past mayoral elections. It’s hard enough to get voters to the polls once, so there is no reason to drag them there several times.

Some cities already use a single election day, which results in higher turnout for local elections almost without exception. It’s time for other cities, like the City of Los Angeles, to commit to increasing participation in local politics by holding all elections on a single Election Day.

Adam M. Guren ’08, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Wigglesworth Hall.