this is my term paper for my political science class, Fall 2010 at San Francisco State University. the topic was why is voter turn out decreasing.

————————-

 

 

The issue of consistently decreasing voter turn out in the United States since the 1950s is of growing concern to every American, regardless of their demographic or political alignment. Despite that trend, in very recent history, voter turn out spiked dramatically during the presidential election of 2008, after a highly contentious campaign, highlighted by intense electioneering from Republican candidate Senator John McCain, and the then Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

Another high profile, and highly contested election day, the mid-term elections, occurred on November 2nd, 2010 in which the Republican and Democratic parties did everything in their collective powers to incite as many voters to the polls, to vote on various state representatives and local ballot initiatives. Or, were these candidates perhaps doing what they can to keep voters away? Generally on average, voter participation in mid-term elections range from 30 to 40% of registered voters, [McDonald] and around 50% in presidential elections. [Education]

What are some potential factors in reasons why eligible voters are not turning out in numbers consistently during elections over the past 50 years, and what do these voter turn out percentages represent? Are politicians on either side of the political spectrum given the means to convince voters to stay away?

Economic and political conditions indicated good reasons for voters to turn out in larger than average numbers during the Presidential election of 2008. Incumbent president George W. Bush, winner of two highly controversial elections of 2000 and 2004 inspired voters to voice their desire for change in electing Barack Obama. Voter attendance was up almost six percent for the election of 2008, signaling the largest increase in voter participation since 1992.

Personally, as a voter with great interest in the state elections on November 2nd 2010 in California, I noticed via the media, a certain amount of highly charged rhetoric from both sides of the political spectrum, but a decidedly more charged version of that rhetoric stemming from one side. And it made me think. Has this rhetoric served as the catalyst for the formation of new conservative political parties, inspired a new defiance of state and national government, and created a culture of fear that could, if not balanced by reasonable fact based political coverage, actually inspire apathy among voters. Or violent, politically charged behavior among troubled citizens.

Because data indicates that half of registered voters do not participate in general elections, are voters just flat out mislead and confused, therefore choosing not to vote? Could lack of comprehensive non-biased media coverage, angry or cynical political rhetoric issued by various media commentary, confusing political parties with radical core values, combined with general public mistrust of the political system actually be keeping voters away?

Let’s first examine a few examples, factors, and regulations with historical precedence that determine how average citizens receive their political coverage.

According to Martin Kaplan, the director of media studies at the Norman Lear Center in the Annenburg Communications and Journalism school at USC, Americans tune in daily to their local news to receive information about state, national, and international events. Local news stations are granted free broadcasting licenses by the Federal Communications Commission based on their agreement to provide local viewers with free information about community issues. This is deemed important by the FCC as a public service to viewers.

In August and September of 2009, the Norman Lear Center conducted a study of local Los Angeles TV stations during a time when Los Angeles County was suffering from an intense budget crisis. The study recorded their local news broadcasts for a two week period, 24 hours a day, then analyzed the content discussed within each stations broadcast. The study broke down each newscast into an average of a thirty minute block of news, each stations topics were categorized into coverage of state and local government, sports, soft news, weather, entertainment, teasers of upcoming stories, and advertising time allotted.

The study found that on average, the eight local television stations that were catalogued dedicated roughly 22 seconds of each half hour to local civic and government issues. [Lear] These issues ranged from coverage on local budget, law enforcement, education, city and state governmental issues. Of the averaged thirty minute chunk of broadcasting, roughly fifteen minutes was devoted to sports, weather, advertising time and teasers on upcoming stories. This finding was alarming as at the time of study, Los Angeles was in the midst of a budget crisis, an issue that seemingly has deep implications on the publics well being.

In a video presentation posted to YouTube, reporting the studies findings uploaded March 2010, Kaplan makes the point that the head of a group of representatives speaking on behalf of the TV stations studied stated to the FCC that “there is no such thing as the public interest. We broadcasters as content creators monitor what the public wants on a daily basis.” In answer to that Kaplan brazenly states, “What the public wants. Well, I want ice cream, I need a well balanced meal. Apparently, the people of Los Angeles, want, twenty two seconds about their local government. Maybe if they got more than that, they’d want more than that.” [Kaplan]

Kaplan’s assertions imply that a more informed citizen population on their local government would increase voter turn out in state or local elections, based on a voters knowledge of the issues, and the idea that these issues personally affect them.

Can similar issues exist in private cable television coverage of national politics? Could radical and non-comprehensive coverage of national politics be another contributing factor to general voter malaise?

Fox News, regularly billed as the voice of the conservative agenda in the United States sports various conservative personalities and bills its coverage as “fair and balanced”. A particularly emergent voice from amongst its group of on air personalities is charismatic show host Glenn Beck. Beck’s radio and television programs often times focus on conspiracy theories involving the United States government, or President Barack Obama. His, and the Fox Networks ratings led to the August 2010 Restoring Honor rally at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Beck hosted the rally, with the intention to, in his words “reclaim the civil rights movement”. [Elliott]

Beck’s TV and radio shows often times focus on conspiracy theories that involve philanthropy groups which, in his opinion, are working to undermine the ideal of capitalism. In July 2010, Byron Williams was arrested after a shootout with police on Interstate 580 in Oakland, California. According to Williams, angered by “ the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items“ , was on his way to attack the Tides Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union offices in downtown San Francisco. [Jabali-nash] Williams was armed with several automatic weapons, and has a criminal history. He was apprehended after injuring two Oakland Police Department officers.

Glenn Beck repeatedly denies having any direct involvement in instructing his viewers to openly attack any specific persons or organizations. Yet, according to Media Matters dot Org, Beck regularly mentions specific organizations and those organizations plans to directly attack him. [Strupp] His on air rants are often times angry, and deeply defiant against President Obama on various religious, social, and political grounds. In the Byron Williams situation, Williams himself was interviewed by Media Matters dot org in which he said specific Glenn Beck programs influenced his decision to carry out his attack.

It should be noted that it is not the fact that there are dissenting opinions or political parties that are openly exercising their differences via the media. That is a natural exercise of politics. But it is the basis on which media entities present these conflicts that is alarming, or not covering them at all, that is detrimental to voter turn out. Within this charged or absent coverage, there seems to be no aim on reaching a broad and beneficial consensus. Politicians in turn, utilize this media, or lack of, to formulate and substantiate their policies.

This is important to highlight because if any political process utilizes angry rhetoric, or lack of consistent coverage, as a barometer for creating policy, this is perceived by the general public as its politicians not working to reach broad and beneficial compromise, that divisive politics and policies are the norm. That attributes to voters perception that the process is not worth getting involved in, and doesn’t directly relate to them. This condition lends itself to consistent decline in voter participation during elections, with the exception being in 2008.

“Let us move from the era of confrontation to the era of negotiation.”
-Richard Nixon.

In an attempt to turn around drastically declining voter turn out rates at the polls, the Reagan Administration in the 1980s eliminated many laws pertaining to governance regarding the amount of time, and type of coverage devoted to the political parties via the media in the United States. The Equal Time Rule and Fairness Doctrine both were pieces of legislation enacted by the FCC in an attempt to provide the public with accurate, credible, and non-partisan coverage of political candidates and issues. These guidelines were relaxed and ultimately rescinded in an effort to combat what was called voter freeze. [Limburg] Despite the relaxation of these guidelines, and a shift towards private cable television political coverage with less content restriction, voter turnout continued to decline. Attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were thwarted by both President Ronald Reagan and President George HW Bush in the late 1980’s and 1990’s. [Fletcher]

In the 1990s private cable television media took to task initiatives to raise awareness towards a low turn out demographic, that of aged 18 to 24 year old voters. On average, this demographic represents itself at the polls in numbers varying from roughly 35 to 50 percent in presidential elections. [CIRCLE] Various programs such as Rock the Vote were geared towards mobilizing young voters to the polls. However, there was criticism of these programs by right wing media as mobilizing liberal voters, or mandating teenagers to vote liberally.

We have established some very strong social agents, or lack of, at play in the United States, whose goals are to shape the publics’ opinion about their political beliefs, presumably with the intention of attracting as many voters as possible. Or not. Without involving a discussion about the need to change, or a means to change those social agents to better serve the public, lets highlight changes within the political process itself, in efforts to enhance voter interest and turnout.

Perhaps a most extreme remedy to improving voter turn out in the United States is to make voting a mandatory process for all registered voters. This is the case in Australia for instance, where voter turn out is 98% consistently for each of its elections. [Rosenberg] Those who do not vote face a small fine. Voters, if disenchanted with the balloted candidates can also write in a vote for whomever they wish. This could fundamentally change the way political campaigns in the United States are organized, funded, and carried out due to the simple fact that politicians could no longer expect voter apathy in carrying out, or campaigning on potential policies. The implication that certain politicians rely on voter apathy comes from the negativity in which some politics are covered within the current form of US media.

Some would argue that mandatory voter participation would challenge the fundamental right of freedom of choice in becoming involved with the political process. However, while eliminating the choice to attend the polls, requiring voter participation in elections could increase accountability for everyone involved, from policy makers, to those whom would benefit from those policies, to those who provide coverage of those policies. This substantiates the notion that politics is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Voter participation in the 18 to 24 year old demographic has been remarkably low, for the last two decades consistently, with an upsurge in 2008. One possible remedy to maintain and build upon the upsurge in this demographic, is to include state or even federal ballot initiatives that would consistently attract these young voters to the polls. In 2008, Barack Obama represented a candidate that appealed to a wide range of voter demographics. He is a young man who is well educated and worked as a community organizer in Chicago, working in underprivileged neighborhoods to better their conditions. He is well spoken, compassionate, and also confident that his ideals would benefit many, even those he doesn’t represent directly with his politics.

President Obama represents a political figure which inspires many to become involved in the political process (myself included). Using that same ideal, there certainly exists voter initiatives and issues that resonate with the young voter, particularly social or environmental causes. These issues, if presented properly on a state or national ballot, would inspire more of their attention, interaction, and involvement.

One such ballot initiative, or group of initiatives, could be more robust public funding for the arts. In introducing a state or federal ballot initiative that increases public funding for an entity like the National Endowment for the Arts, or creates a new entity all together, a young voter would feel empowered by directly casting a vote towards an issue that they feel directly affected by, and could directly benefit from.

A survey via Grant Makers for the Arts, working closely with the National Endowment for the Arts, finds during a 1998 survey, coinciding with an attempt by the House of Representatives to eliminate the NEA all together, that 60% of Americans believe the arts should be funded more by federal government grants. [Dimaggio] By introducing federal legislation that increases grants awarded to foundations, schools, and individuals, a voter demographic such as the 18 to 24 year old voter would be mobilized to the polls, voting on policy that directly affects their lives.

Campaign finance reform is also another issue that could benefit voter involvement. The average cost of running a political campaign in the United States, say for example, for a House of Representatives seat, is currently in the millions of dollars [Birnbaum] largely because of costs associated with television advertising. By lowering, or capping the amount of money needed to, or that could be spent during the course of a campaign, whether that campaign is for a House of Representative, Congressional, or Presidential position, this opens the door to candidates that may not be, for whatever reason, financially able to participate at the level of a multi-millionaire. Thus by including more candidates from more walks of life, the political process becomes much more inclusive and represents a more broad spectrum of issues.

Americans will always be deeply interested in the political process, whether by passing fancy or close quarters. Our people share a core value of fairness and justice, however politics are covered by our mediums, or represented by our elected officials. It is healthy to examine and improve the political process to represent and enable more people to become directly involved. There is much talk in private conservative media today about conspiracies, and a break down of our political process, without much effort in looking forward or hypothesizing about how our process can improve, reach compromise, or enhance itself to be more representative. In using terms such as conspiracy so flippantly in coverage of state and federal government, failing to cover these processes accurately, or at all, voters are being chased away from their political process, by a private media that has other interests, and a public media that aims to keep things private.

“It does not matter what we say or do; it matters only what is reported about what we say or do.” [Miller]
- Jon Stewart, during the Rally to Restore Sanity and or Fear

Works Cited

McDonald, Dr. Michael. Data Visualization at The Pew Center on the
States. 1 Jan. 2007. Pew Charitable Trusts. 8 Nov. 2010 .
Education, Pearson. National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-2008 –
Infoplease.com 1 Jan. 2008. Pearson. 7 Nov. 2010 .
Lear Center, Norman. USC Annenberg | Lear Center Report: sports & weather,
crime, fluff dominate L.A. TV news. 11 Mar. 2010. University of Southern
California. 24 Oct. 2010 .
Kaplan, Martin . YouTube – New Lear Center Study on Local TV News. 16 Mar.
2010. YouTube. 25 Oct. 2010 .
Elliott, Phillip. Glenn Beck Rally, ‘Restoring Honor’, Stirs Controversy . 26
Aug. 2010. Huffington Post. 6 Nov. 2010 .
Jabali-nash, Naimah. California Highway Gunman Byron Williams Aimed for
“Revolution,” Says Cops – Crimesider – CBS News. 21 July 2010. CBS
Interactive INC. 2 Nov. 2010 .
Strupp, Joe. Psychiatrists: Beck Conspiracy Show Raises Concerns About Viewer
Reaction | Media Matters for America. 21 Oct. 2010. Media Matters for America . 1 Nov. 2010 .
Limburg, Val E. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE – The Museum of Broadcast Communications.
2010. MBC. 6 Nov. 2010
.
Fletcher, Dan . A Brief History of the Fairness Doctrine – TIME. 20 Feb. 2009.
Time Inc. 2 Nov. 2010 .

CIRCLE >> Youth Voting. 2006. The Center for Information & Research on
Civic Learning and Engagement. 6 Nov. 2010
.
Rosenberg, Matt. Compulsory Voting. 2010. The New York Times Company. 3
Nov. 2010 .
Dimaggio, Paul , and Becky Pettit. Surveys of Public Attitudes toward the Arts
| Grantmakers in the Arts. 9 Nov. 1998. Grantmakers in the Arts. 1 Nov.
2010 .
Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. Cost of Congressional Campaigns Skyrockets
(washingtonpost.com). 3 Oct. 2004. The Washington Post Company. 8 Nov.
2010 .
Miller, Nancy. ’Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear’ best lines and quotes –
Associated Content – associatedcontent.com. 1 Nov. 2010. Associated
Content, Inc. Yahoo! News Network. 9 Nov. 2010
.