Myths 1 & 2: The Incumbents & Slated Candidates Like Low Turnout
No matter what people say: in America few, if any, politicians like the idea of low voter turnout. One incumbent in Montgomery County, Councilmember George Leventhal, was furious at the disastrously low turn out in Montgomery County this June. Leventhal, who narrowly beat challenger and future MoCo superstar Beth Daly could be said to have benefited the most from poor turnout, as he and Daly were neck-and-neck by most accounts for the fourth at-large seat on the county council. Had turnout been a shy bit higher, Daly could have won, to the hurrahs and cheers of Millennials and Environmentalists everywhere.
Still, Leventhal was not thrilled at all that so few voters exercised their right to vote, and neither were his incumbent colleagues. MoCo's penultimate statesman Phil Andrews and the county's progressive powerhouse Marc Elrich also spoke out against the county's dismal voter turnout (read Bill Turque's WaPo article quoting all three of them here).
Slated candidates running for the first time together with incumbents do not like low turnout either. What possible advantage does a newcomer have by not building their own political base within existing voters? Absolutely none. To depend on the coattails of another candidate or elected official means to be doomed when said candidate suffers a political setback or serious public error in judgement. Just look at how quickly Barack Obama's majority in Congress withered away after the president failed to deliver on hope and change quickly enough for the voters following his 2008 slam-dunk victory over John McCain.
Myth 3: Incumbents Benefit The Most From Low Turnout
Contrary to popular belief amongst politicos, the clearest winners of low turnout are not incumbents, though as our fellow political blog The Seventh State points out, it sure didn't hurt them, either. Instead, special interests benefit the most from low turnout years, and we will try explain just how, below.
First off, understand that not all special interest groups are evil blood-sucking satanic monsters spawned from the one percent. Many (okay, most) are, but some others include your local PTA, Boy Scout Troop, Grass-Fed Kabob Dinner Club, and many more. In local politics, both the evil one percenters and local activist groups are present. Last year, a huge grassroots movement spearheaded by several prominent special interests groups (e.g. Sierra Club, Audobon Naturalist Society, Montgomery County Muslim Youth, etc.) came together to protect our local watershed and water-drinking supply from being paved over to make room for development. That should give all pause with what is about to be written: special interests groups can control votes, not just money.
In a low turnout election, money and votes both matter. If a special interest group can accurately claim to a candidate running for state delegate that they control 800 votes in their district, the candidate is forced to listen. The reason is because in most cases 800 votes is larger than the margin of victory in a given Delegate race. That is where special interest groups thrive in an election: at the margin. If politicians are forced to only court low-hanging fruit in terms of votes offered or shepherded by various special interest groups, then democracy suffers; we need a much higher threshold of citizens to participate in order for the public's interests to be served.
The same argument can be made when discussing the role of the all might dollar in politics. Regardless of what our rabidly gynophobic male Supreme Court Justices claim, a corporation will never be a person, and money is not free speech. Whenever politicians are forced to rely on monied interests to help them engage and contact voters who are too busy to learn about the candidates and issues themselves, they are forced to keep in mind that they owe a favor (or at least some level of influence or personal availability to discuss their political agenda) to said monied interest. Without dropping names, many a progressive leader in MoCo has made a Faustian deal with those willing to pay good money to have them elected. That was never their hope, nor their intention, but with several candidates for office all vying for the same small group of voters, politicians sometimes feel they need to make moral compromises to have a shot and shaping the bigger picture once elected. Democracy is not supposed to work that way; voters should be actively seeking to engage their elected officials on their own volition, and not be harangued into caring about their own welfare.
Myth 4: If Voters Aren't Voting, They Must Be Satisfied With Status-Quo in Government
Really? We live in a country where young people are moving across the world to Australia to find jobs (don't scoff, a former MoCo mayor's daughter has done just that!), where gas prices remain stubbornly high even after America becoming the world's largest producer of fossil fuel products earlier this year, and where large corporations and banks get financial bailouts while innocent families have their homes illegally foreclosed on everyday. We at Center State Politics refuse to believe that in any way that the people of Montgomery County-- who are a microcosm of the socio-political and socio-economic diversity of America--are satisfied with the status quo. Instead, we believe both anecdotally from speaking to countless voters and through academic evidence provided by Princeton University that MoCo's residents feel tired, weary, and outright disenfranchised from the democratic process that was designed to serve them. Voter Apathy is therefore better termed as voter disillusionment.
In the coming weeks and months, we will compile a serious and exhaustive list of policy considerations to improve voter turnout in local elections in Maryland. Look for our upcoming series identifying the young rising leaders battling to change the county's political landscape by empowering voters and not special interests, and like us on Facebook today.
No matter what people say: in America few, if any, politicians like the idea of low voter turnout. One incumbent in Montgomery County, Councilmember George Leventhal, was furious at the disastrously low turn out in Montgomery County this June. Leventhal, who narrowly beat challenger and future MoCo superstar Beth Daly could be said to have benefited the most from poor turnout, as he and Daly were neck-and-neck by most accounts for the fourth at-large seat on the county council. Had turnout been a shy bit higher, Daly could have won, to the hurrahs and cheers of Millennials and Environmentalists everywhere.
Still, Leventhal was not thrilled at all that so few voters exercised their right to vote, and neither were his incumbent colleagues. MoCo's penultimate statesman Phil Andrews and the county's progressive powerhouse Marc Elrich also spoke out against the county's dismal voter turnout (read Bill Turque's WaPo article quoting all three of them here).
Slated candidates running for the first time together with incumbents do not like low turnout either. What possible advantage does a newcomer have by not building their own political base within existing voters? Absolutely none. To depend on the coattails of another candidate or elected official means to be doomed when said candidate suffers a political setback or serious public error in judgement. Just look at how quickly Barack Obama's majority in Congress withered away after the president failed to deliver on hope and change quickly enough for the voters following his 2008 slam-dunk victory over John McCain.
Myth 3: Incumbents Benefit The Most From Low Turnout
Contrary to popular belief amongst politicos, the clearest winners of low turnout are not incumbents, though as our fellow political blog The Seventh State points out, it sure didn't hurt them, either. Instead, special interests benefit the most from low turnout years, and we will try explain just how, below.
First off, understand that not all special interest groups are evil blood-sucking satanic monsters spawned from the one percent. Many (okay, most) are, but some others include your local PTA, Boy Scout Troop, Grass-Fed Kabob Dinner Club, and many more. In local politics, both the evil one percenters and local activist groups are present. Last year, a huge grassroots movement spearheaded by several prominent special interests groups (e.g. Sierra Club, Audobon Naturalist Society, Montgomery County Muslim Youth, etc.) came together to protect our local watershed and water-drinking supply from being paved over to make room for development. That should give all pause with what is about to be written: special interests groups can control votes, not just money.
In a low turnout election, money and votes both matter. If a special interest group can accurately claim to a candidate running for state delegate that they control 800 votes in their district, the candidate is forced to listen. The reason is because in most cases 800 votes is larger than the margin of victory in a given Delegate race. That is where special interest groups thrive in an election: at the margin. If politicians are forced to only court low-hanging fruit in terms of votes offered or shepherded by various special interest groups, then democracy suffers; we need a much higher threshold of citizens to participate in order for the public's interests to be served.
The same argument can be made when discussing the role of the all might dollar in politics. Regardless of what our rabidly gynophobic male Supreme Court Justices claim, a corporation will never be a person, and money is not free speech. Whenever politicians are forced to rely on monied interests to help them engage and contact voters who are too busy to learn about the candidates and issues themselves, they are forced to keep in mind that they owe a favor (or at least some level of influence or personal availability to discuss their political agenda) to said monied interest. Without dropping names, many a progressive leader in MoCo has made a Faustian deal with those willing to pay good money to have them elected. That was never their hope, nor their intention, but with several candidates for office all vying for the same small group of voters, politicians sometimes feel they need to make moral compromises to have a shot and shaping the bigger picture once elected. Democracy is not supposed to work that way; voters should be actively seeking to engage their elected officials on their own volition, and not be harangued into caring about their own welfare.
Myth 4: If Voters Aren't Voting, They Must Be Satisfied With Status-Quo in Government
Really? We live in a country where young people are moving across the world to Australia to find jobs (don't scoff, a former MoCo mayor's daughter has done just that!), where gas prices remain stubbornly high even after America becoming the world's largest producer of fossil fuel products earlier this year, and where large corporations and banks get financial bailouts while innocent families have their homes illegally foreclosed on everyday. We at Center State Politics refuse to believe that in any way that the people of Montgomery County-- who are a microcosm of the socio-political and socio-economic diversity of America--are satisfied with the status quo. Instead, we believe both anecdotally from speaking to countless voters and through academic evidence provided by Princeton University that MoCo's residents feel tired, weary, and outright disenfranchised from the democratic process that was designed to serve them. Voter Apathy is therefore better termed as voter disillusionment.
In the coming weeks and months, we will compile a serious and exhaustive list of policy considerations to improve voter turnout in local elections in Maryland. Look for our upcoming series identifying the young rising leaders battling to change the county's political landscape by empowering voters and not special interests, and like us on Facebook today.
