| Primary election turnout sets record low BY MIKE UNGER From a Washingtonian’s inside-the-Beltway perspective, it’s hard to imagine that any American could dodge the constant barrage of political ads, news coverage, and dialogue that has consumed the city since summer and surely will continue to do so through the Nov. 7 elections. Politics, it seems to us, is on everyone’s mind. A new study released earlier this month by Curtis Gans, director of AU’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate, proves otherwise. Despite a seemingly heated race involving hot-button issues such as the war in Iraq, voter turnout in the primary elections fell 17 percent from 2002, setting a new record low. Just 15.4 percent of eligible voters headed to the polls, according to the study. “I think I was a little surprised by the degree of how much lower it was than in ’98 or ’02,” Gans said. “It has a lot to do with gridlock. You have a Democratic Party without a durable message and a polarizing Republican Party.” Since 1966, only the 1982 and 1994 mid-term elections have produced high turnouts. Gans cites several reasons for the apparent lack of interest. “Essentially we’re going from election to election and not sustaining our politics,” he said. “The decrease in the quality of education in our civic institutions. The erosion of trust in our leadership, from ‘I’m not going to send American boys to do what Asian boys should be doing for themselves,’ right to ‘No weapons of mass destruction.’ Increasingly we conduct campaigns in 30-second attack ads and voters are presented with choices of bad or awful.” Despite his findings, Gans predicts voters will flock to the polls on the first Tuesday in November. “Primary turnout is not hinged to general election turnout,” he said. “My gut says that with the possible exception of the Republican Party splitting so that some stay home, turnout will be heavy, just because of deeply entrenched feelings about George Bush.” Gans sees a Democratic takeover of Congress as a real possibility, despite the fact that redistricting has rendered more races than ever noncompetitive. An anti-incumbent election, he stresses, will hurt primarily the Republicans. “There has never been an election of substantial change in which both parties lost anything resembling an equal number of seats,” he said. “An election of substantial change is about the party in power. Democrats should not make the mistake that this is a mandate for them, if it happens. Newt Gingrich made that mistake in 1994. If it turns out that way, it’s an anti-Bush election.” Gans points to two races as bright spots in an otherwise dismaying primary season. The Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut, which pitted winner Ned Lamont against incumbent Joe Lieberman, who is now running as an independent, drew a state record turnout of 11.9 percent. Similarly, Rhode Island’s Republican Senate primary, in which incumbent Lincoln Chafee won a hard-fought victory, also set a record with 8.5 percent turnout. Aside from those races, the figures are dire. Average Democratic turnout in the 44 states that held primaries was 8.4 percent, a record low. In the 40 states that held Republican primaries turnout was 7.2 percent, also a record low. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the highest turnout in a Democratic primary was recorded right here in Washington, whose mayor’s race Gans used for historical comparison. Twenty-seven percent of eligible District voters—perhaps unable to drown out the omnipresent political drumbeat in their town—made their way to the polls. To read the report, log on to www.american.edu/ccps/csae. |
