Interesting editorial in this morning's Standard-Examiner.
It's entitled "The Stay at Home Vote" and it laments, at some length, the low voter turnouts across the Top of Utah in the recent municipal elections, elections in which voters probably [the editorial correctly notes] can have more of an impact on their daily lives than in other larger elections.
It begins by quoting H. L. Mencken [usually a wise thing for an editorial to do]: Mencken... opined that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." And it goes on to bemoan with a pessimism boarding on resignation low turnouts that, the SE says, "almost make us want to give up trying." Ogden's turnout was 15%.
OK, nothing unusual about that. Newspapers and talking-head TV newsreaders bemoan low turnouts regularly. What sets the Std-Ex editorial apart is that it then discusses what is in the US usually considered to be a radical, and faintly unAmerican notion by many: that perhaps the willfully ignorant [meaning those who don't keep up with public events, who don't read newspapers regularly] should not be encouraged to vote. That perhaps the best thing the willfully ignorant can do for the Republic is stay well away from the ballot box. The Std-Ex does not agree with that POV, but it gives it a full and fair discussion in the editorial.
From the editorial:
If we seem a little cranky, it's because we've seen the low voter turnout numbers for the Top of Utah communities that held primary elections on Tuesday; we are passionate about our part of the state, but it almost makes us want to give up trying. The expectations of local officials are so diminished, have been so beaten down over the years of voter apathy, that Perry City Recorder Susan Obray told our reporter she was "really pleased" by her city's 18 percent turnout.Interesting editorial. Chewy. Worth the reading, I think, and worth some thought. And for those engaged in the coming November ballot, the Std-Ex editorial contains a reminding they will ignore at their peril: Turnout is everything. If you don't get your people to the polls in greater numbers than the other guys, it doesn't matter if you've won the debate on points, or had the better arguments, or even if you have convinced most Ogdenites your way would be the best way. If the other candidate gets more of his people off their couches and out to the polling place, he will win. Turnout is everything. It's the endgame, and without a successful endgame you can't win a chess match... or an election.
We mean no disrespect to her, but less than 1 in 5 voters bothering to vote is nothing short of shameful, and Perry voters did better than any other city in Weber or Box Elder counties....
It's just ugly and sad, and maybe Mencken was right -- maybe that's exactly what we deserve.
18 comments:
Apathy at it's best.
The people not the government make up the city and if the people don't vote then the government will decide for the people what is best. I believe that Abraham Lincoln said it best.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
Lets shake off the Godfreyites and elect a new government that best suits the people of Ogden!
So Curmudgeon, who cares about all this apathy business anyway?
Oz:
[grin]
It amazes me that municipal turnout is often low, whereas turnout for national elections is higher, given that the value of one's vote is much higher for the former than the latter.
And given that Ogden's primary was important, with widely divergent candidates, I would have thought it would have gotten people to the polls. Perhaps Ogden's 15% is relatively good for such an election. In any case, it is clear that the candidates must get their people to the polls. On supposes the best way to do that is to explain why they are different from their opponent, and why that difference matters to the voters.
In my opinion, in the primary election, it was rather hard for the average person to see much difference between the candidates. Saying you love Ogden and want to get along with everyone doesn't really gun anybody's engine.
We need to know what you are FOR, why you are DIFFERENT, and why that MATTERS.
And I would add, what exactly did the SE do to help? I don't remember a single candidate forum published. So what are the crocodile tears for?
Amen Danny
The Standard did very little in way of informing the citizens of the different candidates and what they really stood for. The Salt Lake Papers by way of contrast had lots of coverage of their races over quite a long time.
Now the Standard is castigating the voters for not turning out. If those same voters that didn't turn out were relying on the Standard for information and motivation it is no wonder they stayed at home.
As far as I'm concerned the Standard definitely were the ones who dropped the ball on this election. For a one paper town they acted pretty irresponsible and apathetic, and they are now being rather disingenuous in casting stones with their accusations of voter apathy.
As Rosanne Rosannadanna would say, "What's all this I hear about Apple Tea?"
All this voter apathy talk takes me back to the balmy days of November, 2005, when the drumbeat from the just-spat-upon "Gang of Six" was: "It was only 10 percent of the voters who made this decision."
Then they went ahead and financed the Rec Center anyway.
So, Mayor Godfrey, remember this. It was only 6 percent of Ogden's eligible voters who endorsed the last seven years of your administration with their votes Sept 11.
Your kind of faulty logic and manipulation of numbers cuts both ways, bub.
I broke down and paid Sandusky $6.95 so I could quote some old John Wright articles in the November 2005 S-E.
Note the remarkable similarity in the phrasing between these quotes.
Two weeks later and midway through a public contest period on the bonds, Jorgenson and Burdett were defeated in the election by Bill Glasmann and Dorrene Jeske, who ran on anti-rec center platforms. Meanwhile, another critic of the proposal, Doug Stephens, won the seat being vacated by Filiaga.
A day after the election, Jorgenson and Burdett said they would rethink their positions on the rec center. But on Monday they said they do not view the election results as a mandate on the issue, in part because only 20 percent of registered voters cast ballots.
-- "Ogden Rec Center OK Expected", November 22, 2005
Filiaga, who did not seek re-election, said the election will not affect his vote because he thinks the majority of people support the rec center, whereas only 20 percent of registered voters cast ballots Tuesday.
-- "Ogden Council to Take Hint?", November 10, 2005
(also quoted in the Nov 10 2005 WCF Archives).
It might be fun to have WCF readers search out their own Nov and Dec 2005 examples of the Kool Aid Drinkers Greatest Hits album.
Mono:
Nice research. Amazing how in some circumstances, 8 percent of the populace on your side can constitute a mandate and on others, twice that can be ignored because it doesn't represent a majority. Ah, Democracy....
Julia:
While I would like to have seen more and better coverage of the primary race, and while I agree that if no one else was organizing a candidate forum, the SE should have as a public service, and reported it in depth, I can't go as far as blaming the SE for the low turnout.
If folks don't turn out, it's because they don't want to, or think they have no reason to, or don't much give a damn, or some combination of the above. But it's their choice in the end, no matter how much campaign coverage the SE includes on its pages or doesn't.
The standard answer I get from students who tell me they don't vote when I ask them "why" is: "I'm not political."
To which the answer is: "Sure you are. By choosing not to vote, you're voting to give those who are political the power to make decisions on your behalf." Which is precisely the point the SE editorial made.
As I remember It was everyone that Neil Hansen endorsed that won that year. Will that be the case this year? I think so. You can bet he will not be taking his endorsements lightly.
Curm: I'm gonna side with Julia and say that the S-E is pretty hypocritical for bemoaning low voter turnout after doing so little to help educate voters about the candidates. Just compare the Trib's two articles (one on the mayoral candidates, one on the council candidates) to the Standard's. The Trib actually asked questions that would differentiate the candidates from each other; the Standard merely told us, one by one, that each candidate is for motherhood and apple pie.
Mono: Don't pay Sandusky for access to archives. Just get a Weber County Library card, then go to the "premium sites" portion of their web site and look for newspapers, then Newsbank. Yeah, it takes a few clicks, but the S-E's web site isn't exactly user-friendly either.
The S E is part of the "Republican Secret Combinations." "Wolves in sheep clothing." Take from the poor and give to the rich. Call it "Less Government" and call it "Economic Development."
Dan S:
OK, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.I think that ultimately, a citizen who chooses not to vote is the one responsible for that decision. Period.
Yes, the SE as a daily paper had, I think, a public-service obligation to its readers [and to Ogden City] to do more extensive primary coverage than it did. I was disappointed by the amount and the general wimpiness of what it did do. [Remember the top of the fold front page gem "Candidates Confident of Success"?]
If the SE covered the primary brilliantly, or if it hadn't printed word one, the decision of a citizen not to vote would still have been the citizen's decision, entirely. His or her responsibility. Can't load that one off on the SE, I think.
Oh common Curm, for hells sake why don't you just come out and tell us you are from Sandusky and your fortune comes from ownership of a cheap ass newspaper chain that won't spend money on competent reporters!
The Standard does a SubStandard job on practically every single thing they do. That way they can send more money back to Ohio, which is their only true purpose.
Victor:
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of the SE. I pay them [I subscribe]. They don't pay me. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a journalist of any kind, or a reporter, or an editor or even a newspaper delivery boy.
And sorry, but I don't see how saying each citizen is responsible for his or her own decision not to vote, that it is unreasonable to try to load blame for that off on a newspaper, constitutes being in the SE's pocket. [And that was the only point I was making above. That citizens are responsible for their decisions not to vote, regardless of what a paper prints or doesn't.]
Sadly, the Suits from Sandusky have never offered to cross my palms with gold [or even silver, or even an alloy of copper and zinc engraved with a portrait of Lincoln] "beyond the dreams of avarice" to sway my POV. If they ever do and I accept, you'll be able to tell since my first subsequent post will be from Maui.
Curmudgeon
I notice in your "denial" to good old Victor that not once did you deny that you actually were a Suit from Sandusky! Seems to me that is in fact what he accused you of to begin with. Very clever are you sartorially superior Ohio boys. Some have even been know to go so far as to pretend they are Brooklyn bums. Very clever indeed.
Oz:
A suit? A suit? Me? I've been accused over the years of many things [including treason in the public prints once!]. But a suit? That is not far, Sir, not far from accusing me of being a Republican!
You go too far, Sir. My seconds shall call on yours directly.
Post a Comment