9/11/98

One of the great laments every election season is the low voter turnout. People always ask why. This week I would like to address that issue and hopefully put it into perspective.

Let me say at the outset that I consider, as many others do, less than fifty-percent turnout to be unacceptable. The question is what is acceptable. Once you determine what a reasonable turnout is, then you spend your energies towards closing the gap, not striving for some unattainable figure. The fact is there are a lot of people in this country and they have the free will, or right, to NOT vote if they so desire. This contrasts with certain other countries where you are required to vote. We do not ever want to cross that line.

First a quick recap. There are presently over 7.3 million people in this state. Over 3.8 million voters are registered. In a good year, somewhere around 55% will vote. That would translate into 2.09 million voting. Of that, the winner would only need 1,045,001 votes to win. Just over one million votes to represent over seven million people. Is that fair? Is that what democracy is all about? Let us look closer. Let's ask some questions.

Why is our turnout low? Is it the negative media coverage? Is it the lack of true discussion on the issues? Is it the perceived lack of differences between the candidates? Or is it the fact that, in this country there simply are too many other things going on in our life that are deemed more important? Are the hours in which we vote not long enough? Is the day of the week (Tuesday) a bad day on which to vote? Should anyone be allowed to vote without proving he or she is or where he or she lives? All of these ideas and suggestions have actually been put forth as problems or ways to improve voter turnout. But would it? Are the underlying reasons actually something more complicated?

My answer is yes. Because here in America we live in a democratic-republic and we agree to live by the will of the majority winner. The "losers," in other words, agree to abide by the results. By that definition, the winner is representing everyone. If someone chooses not to register to vote, you would have to conclude that they do not feel the process is important enough to participate in. If they were forced to register, they, in all likelihood, would not vote. Those that are registered must be motivated to vote. Most all the time, when the turnout increases for a particular election year, it is because the people are motivated -- by a negative motivation. Is this good? Many would say no.

This fall, many are predicting that the turnout here in Georgia will be really low, among both black and white voters. With the economy doing well and voters mostly contented, there are no compelling reasons to go out and cast a negative vote. Is that a good or bad result?

May I suggest a different outlook on this problem? I think we have gotten to a point in this country where many people vote for the wrong reasons. Who's prettiest, who's got the best message, who's spent the most money are not the best reasons in the world to vote. After a while, these people get disenchanted and stop voting. But, if they voted for the right reasons, then, regardless of the outcome, they would be able to live with it. In other words, the negative, nasty, divisive tone we have seen evolve in this decade needs to be replaced. What a refreshing change to have an honest discussion of the issues not predicated on who spends the most money. The candidate with the best vision on carrying Georgia forward into the 21st century should be rewarded as the victor. Then we are all winners.