In political science, the central theme is voter turnout. Exploring how people form political ideas, how they act on those ideas and how the parties mobilize people under a specific set of ideas creates an interesting (at least to Chris Uzal) body of knowledge that ultimately strengthens democracy. The biggest problem to date, however, has been that the central theme is the most theoretical part of political science because few people vote.
During presidential elections, the percentage of eligible voters actually casting a vote has been below 50% during presidential elections since 1924. Midterm elections rarely break 30%. The notable exception is the 1994 “Contract with America” election which had an above average 37% turnout.
Because of the 37%, history remembers that election as some kind of a revolution. Only a dozen or so House seats change parties. The incumbency rate dropped from 95% to 92%. Not a whole lot changed. The major result of that election is that 30% figured out they could rule the country.
Whether or not you were a part of that 30%, it was still a sign of democracy on life support.
Cyberista makes no further comment on the events between 1994 and today but with 20% turnout in the early voting, we could hit 60% to 65% tonight. That would be amazing no matter who wins.
Even with faulty electronic voting, voter disenfranchising, voter intimidation, non-partisan water and other potential election disasters, more people will have a stake in the outcome this time around. If this election produces anywhere above 55% turnout, all election problems will be squashed out of existence for the next time around. Government doesn't pay attention when you don't pay attention but they can be pretty effective and efficient when too many people get afflicted by the same set of problems.
Here's to exposing whatever problems occur and a healthy public debate afterwards towards fixing them. Enjoy the show.
