Voter turnout

Low Voter Turnout: A good thing, or a bad thing?

May 11th, 2018 |

Author: admin

I like small voter turn-outs!

8,297 people voted in our May local election this year out of 39,731. That’s about 21% but if you factor in how messed up our voter rolls are (thanks Mercer County Clerk’s office) and assume 10% of the people on the rolls no longer live in Trenton, then it’s more like 23%. Compared to an election day featuring the first ever black Presidential candidate, that’s a low turnout. But then, every turnout is low compared to that.

Odds are that only the more engaged and knowledgeable voters voted. That said, 560 people who must spend most of their time as extras on Walking Dead, did manage to wander into a voting booth and press an Alex Bethea button. Also somehow, a former City Councilwoman with an undistinguished career that included presiding over the Mack era, got more votes (for At Large Council) than anybody. Go Figure.

But enough of that, why is this good for me?

If one reads the research “Local Elections and Small Scale Democracy” by J. Eric Oliver, you can get perspective on Trenton’s voter turnout.

Here are some of the conclusions that the research informs:

Average turnout for “local only” elections like ours is 18% nationally.

We were above average at 21%. If higher turnout were important we’d move our election to November. Our current crop of council members, including Marge, Zac and George: declined the opportunity to do that.

High turnout might not matter in a place like Trenton.

Our turnout numbers were statistically significant. Statistically speaking if 1000 voters had been picked at random they would have generally reflected the will of the entire city. This is especially true when a population is not diverse. My previous research has shown than Trenton not at all economically diverse. Of course voters were not picked at random but still 8,000 votes may well have been statically significant enough in a population like Trenton’s.

Depends on who you ask.

Older, educated homeowners (like me) are statistically more likely to vote and were likely over-represented in the turnout on Tuesday. To the extent that Trenton does have diversity, the low turnout favored the interests of people like me. It’s not a bad thing and is to be expected that long tenured residents that own homes will be more committed to voting. They have a lot invested in the city. I’m OK with a turnout that’s homeowner heavy.

Low Turnout favors the organized.

It takes effort and organization to get out the vote. Simply being organized enough to ask voters to vote increases turnout dramatically. In my book, being organized is a virtue that we want in a candidate.

So according to Mr. Oliver, Trenton’s low turnout, was higher than average and worked in my favor.

Sure we’d all like to see everyone have a voice. But you know what, if you can’t take the time to be an informed voter, I’m not so sure I want you to cast a ballot that affects my family’s well-being.

In the past, we’ve seen voters brought to the polls to vote for the promise of a gift card or a turkey sandwich. We’ve seen large amounts of money out of proportion with our city’s size being used to influence the vote. We’ve seen un-substantive campaigns that were nothing more than beauty contests.

I’d rather have a small number of informed and committed voters determine the fate of our city.