Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

Why do fewer and fewer Americans participate in elections? What has led to the steady decline in voter turnout over the past fifty years? How serious is the problem and can it be fixed?

Author Thomas E. Patterson was online to discuss his new book "The Vanishing Voter," public involvement in politics and the 2002 elections.

Dr. Patterson teaches at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of numerous political books including "Out of Order" and "The Unseeing Eye."

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Thomas Patterson: Hi. This is Tom Patterson, author of The Vanishing Voter. I'm delighted at the opportunity to join with you in a discussion of voter involvement.

Alexandria, Va.: In recent years, there have been big increases in the numbers of resident aliens (i.e., non-citizens) and prisoners -- two groups that cannot vote but are counted as part of the voting-age population. What effect has this had on voter turnout, since turnout rates are calculated by dividing the number of voters over the voting-age population?

Thomas Patterson: In the past few decades, there has been a substantial increase in both groups. The United States today has, on a per capita basis, more people behind bars--and more people disenfranchised because of a conviction--than any country in the world. This and the increase in the number of non-citizens has contributed to the declining turnout rate. But even when they are factored in, turnout is down substantially from what it was a few decades.

Denver, Colo.: There are two reasons people don't vote, IMO:

1. There aren't enough candidates worth voting for. Most of the time I feel like I'm voting for the lesser of the evils instead of for a candidate I really like.

2. A lot of races are pretty much pre-determined because of the advantages of incumbency. There's no reason to vote when the challenger has no chance of beating the incumbent. If we had term limits the races would be much more interesting.

Thomas Patterson: I'll pass on the first part of the question because it's difficult if not impossible to say whether today's candidates are inferior to those of the past. However, you're on to something in your second observation. Declining political competition is a reason for declining participation. Control of the House will depend on the outcome of at best two dozen races this fall. In the large majority of the other congressional districts, competition is weak and, in many districts, non existent. Through redistricting, PAC money (nearly 90 percent of which flows to incumbents), and their large congressional staffs (which spend much of the time serving the member's reelection needs), House incumbents have been able to put a lock on their seats. We can't expect voters to get excited about prefunctory races. The U.S. Congress has less turnover than any national legislature in the western world.

Springfield, Va.: Isn't low voter participation due to the enormous amount of money involved in politics? The average person never talks to or connects with his/her elected officials, only the very rich who can afford to spend $1,000 for a fundraiser/dinner. It's all about people with deep pockets buying access and influence.

Thomas Patterson: Americans are concerned about the money in politics. In our Vanishing Voter surveys, about 80 percent felt that "money more than voters" determines election outcomes. We found,however, that money was less of a turnoff for voters than the style of the modern election campaigns with its negative advertising and attack journalism. Campaigns are not very appetizing and, for some Americans, this is a reason not to participate.

Indiananpolis, Ind.: I've always suspected that the major political parties are literally praying for low voter turnout and the only people they want at the polls are their died-in-the-wool-true-believers. What's your opinion?

Thomas Patterson: Although public officials routinely say they want everyone to vote, not all of them are to be believed. As you are aware, there is a long history in this country of attempts to keep some groups from voting. Most of those practices are now buried in the past, but some persist. Only a few states, for example, allow same-day registration so that nonregistered citizens can participate on Election Day. In other states, registration may close as much as 30 days before the election and with little fanfare. As well, some states close their polls pretty early as a way of discouraging the participation of working people. Amidst all the hoopla about the Florida debacle in 2000, no commentator saw fit to ask: Why do the polls in Florida close at 7 pm? There is a reason for it and, sadly, it relates to a desire for less participation, not more.

Dale City, Va.: I know that I am personally getting frustrated that it appears that the future of voting will end up in the court system, With the past presidential election, the Florida Governors race, and currently the New Jersey Senator ballot, do you feel that the political parties, or anyone else for that matter, realize that these small scale fights will have large scale consequences, such as citizens turned off by the political system?

Thomas Patterson: Tocqueville said that, in America, nearly every issue at one time or another ends up in the courts, and we have seen that recently in the case of Florida and New Jersey voters. These developments gain even greater significance in the context of other types of manuevering by political elites--legal and otherwise--for narrow advantage. Our surveys showed that Americans are quite disgusted with the type of leadership they are getting on basic issues of democracy and that some citizens are disgusted enough to stay home on Election Day.

New York, N.Y.: Mr. Patterson, how do you account for the anomaly of a midterm election in 1998 when the Democrats uncharacteristically picked up seats, despite the impending impeachment of their party's standard bearer? It seems to me the unions and Democratic African-Americans slipped under the radar that year. I seem to remember them doing a similar thing in 2000, when Bush was expected to win the popular vote and Gore wound up beating him by half a million votes. Even if overall numbers of voters are going down, is the makeup of those voting now changing in the Democrats' favor?

Thomas Patterson: The decline in voter turnout has actually worked to the Democrats' disadvantage. The horserace polls that appear in the media before an election are not based on the entire adult population. They are based only on "the likely voters" in that population. Thus, Bush's poll lead in 2000 had already factored in projected turnout levels for different groups. When all respondents and not just likely voters were looked at in the 2000 polls, Gore had roughly a 3-5 percent lead. But the larger point is this: as the electorate shrinks, those of lower income and education drop out in disproportionate numbers. Most of these citizens lean Democratic in their vote preference. The United States has the most skewed electorate among Western democracies. In Europe, there is only a few percentage points in turnout separating the top fourth by income from the bottom fourth. In the United States, the difference is more than 20 percent, which works to the Democrats' disadvantage.

Arlington, Va.: Is turnout more of a State by State issue than a Federal one? The States determine pretty much everything except voting ages mandated by the Constitution and, I believe, the States can go lower.

Thomas Patterson: States do control most issues of voting, although they must work within federally imposed limits in certain areas. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that states must keep registration open until at least 30 days before a federal election. Within the 30 day limit, states have a choice. Some, like Maine, Minnesota, and Idaho, allow people to register on the day of the election. Others shut it down 30 days out.

Vienna, Va.: I think the main reason that we see a declining percentage of voters if not in actual numbers is that the country is becoming more and more "mainstream" and many people simply don't have very strong political feelings or opinions either way. The Paul Wellstones, Ted Kennedys, and Jesse Jacksons on the so-called extreme left represent only a small minority of the country at large, as do the Jesse Helms, Bob Barrs, and Orrin Hatches on the so-called extreme right. The vast majority of the electorate nowadays doesn't really have strong political feelings -- they are tied up with other things -- their families, schools, the stock market, meetings, churches, long commutes, their vehicles, etc -- the so-called "Leave it to Beaver" crowd. Many of theses types of persons are not likely to vote, or to really care who wins, as long as their lifestyle is not impacted.
Also, many of the problems of modern life -- such as population growth, traffic, development, commuting problems, etc. -- are so firmly entrenched in today's society that there seems to be an attitude that politicians can't (or won't) do anything about it anyway -- and when they DO try, the judges strike them down.

Thomas Patterson: The nature of the political alternatives, as you suggest, does affect people's interest in voting. The leadership of both parties has been pulled from the center by groups within them. The influence of the Christian Right on Republican candidates may be the most obvious example, but is not the only one. Meanwhile, most voters, as you suggest, as nestled in the political middle. I would add, however, that the sheer complexity of today's issue competition is also a reason why people have difficulty recognizing their stake in elections. For a long period, US elections were fought mainly over the pocketbook issue. The New Deal and Great Society programs took a lot of the steam out of that issue. It was replaced by a bewildering array of issues, from school prayer to prescription drugs. Each issue speaks to a particular constituency but rarely to a majority. Moreover, because candidates are forced to campaign across a wide range of issues, they usually seem to be speaking to "someone else" rather to "us." All of this diminishes our sense that the outcome truly matters.

Philadelphia, Pa.: Forgive the elementary question, but how soon before an election do you have to register to vote?

Thomas Patterson: The deadline varies from state to state, and I regret to say that I cannot recall what Pennsylvania's deadline, only that it is not among the states with last-minute registration. You should contact your local election officials as soon as possible. We are nearly at the 30-day minimum deadline for this November's election, meaning that within a week or so, it will be too late in some states to participate unless you are already registered.

Gambrills, Md.: What is your position on voter registration? Rules on registration work to harm both parties in that people who fail to register in time can't exercise their right to vote. Further, the counter argument would be that registration rolls may be outdated and not accurate.

Wouldn't it be simpler if people were permitted to simply show their driver's license or a picture ID to vote, instead of a registration card?

Thomas Patterson: I'm with you on this issue. Those opposed will say that eased registration requirements will lead to widespread fraud. However, Oregon, which has some of the easiest registration and voting requirements in the country, including voting-by-mail, has prosecuted only one citizen for fraud in the past 15 years. The fact is, the individual citizen has almost no incentive to engage in fraud. Who wants to face a fine or worse in order to cast a single vote that, in a statewide or congressional district, is not going to decide which candidate wins or loses. When fraud has occurred, it has been at the hands of election officials who had the chance to move hundreds or thousands of votes into one column or the other. If we're worried about fraud, we not to clamp down on those who run elections rather than the citizens who vote in them.

Washington, D.C.: I think that the decline in voter turnout over the past 50 years is a fraud.

Turnout percentages have decreased because people find it easier to register and corrupt officials at the local courthouses find it more difficult to purge names from the voter rolls.

How do conclude that our system is worse off today than it was 1952?

Thomas Patterson: The trends are undeniable. Turnout is not calculated on the basis of registration numbers. It is calculated on population numbers--the number of voters divided by the number of adults. And across the board, the numerator (the number of voters) has been shrinking. Turnout is down in presidential general elections, in presidential primaries, in midterm elections, in congressional primaries, in statewide elections, and in local elections. And that's not the only indicator of declining involvement. The October debates have been steadily losing their audience. Well over 50 percent of TV households had their sets on and tuned to the Carter-Ford debates in 1976. In 2000, only 30 percent were tuned in, and the third debate in 2000 hit a recorded low. The voters are vanishing.

Laurel, Md.: Is the decline in voting more an idication that something's wrong or that something's right?

Before 9/11, issues like social security lockboxes and $300 tax rebate checks, which pale in comparison with issues of the past like the civil rights movement or great society, were extremely partisan.

There are relatively few partisan terrorism related issues (not many care about union representation in the Dept. of Homeland Security) although the politicians are trying hard to make Iraq one.

In a Post article about non-voters before the 2000 election someone said "This is America. How bad can things get?"

Is the lack of interest in voting an indication that few things fundamentally divide us?

Thomas Patterson: You've identified an important reason for the decline. Voter participation is higher when people believe the stakes are high. Turnout increased dramatically, for example, in the 1930s when fundamental economic issues and the Depression were on people's minds. Americans today are more contend with policy. Interestingly, however, they are less content with politics. They are quite disenchanted with how candidates and officials conduct themselves. And this, too, according to our Vanishing Voter surveys (we interviewed nearly 100,000 Americans over the course of the 2000 campaign), is a disincentive to participation.

Laurel, Md.: I find that only the most informed non voters are concerned about money. Many of my neighbors and friends don't vote because they don't feel it matters. How do we reconnect people to the impact that elected officials have on their day to day lives?

Thomas Patterson: There are two groups that have contributed disproportionately to the turnout decline: working class whites and young people. In 1972, nearly 50 percent of adults between 18 and 30 voted. In 2000, barely 30 percent did so. In my book, The Vanishing Voter, there is an extensive analysis of why young people don't vote. One reason is that, though they are no more disenchanted than older Americans with the way elections are conducted, their disenchantment is more likely to result in nonvoting, in part because they have not developed a voting habit and in part because, unlike older Americans, they have not experienced a time when politics seemed more inviting and uplifting. A second reason is that many young people today have almost no interest in news and therefore don't get the day-to-day stimulation about public affairs issues that the news provides. Most young adults today grew up on cable TV and, thus, at 6:30 in the evening were tucked in front of a television watching entertainment program. Earlier generations of children and adolescent were forcefed at least some news because their parents at 6:30 pm were watching network news---the only programming available in many markets.

Silver Spring, Md.: The old adage that lower-income Americans tend to vote Democratic seems to be going out the window. This is still true among African-Americans (particularly female), but other low-income areas are becoming steadily more and more Republican. Among low-income Hispanics (a group that has grown enormously in recent years) there are more Republicans that democrats now. Mississippi, traditionally the poorest state in the Union, is majority Republican now. Once solidly Democratic West Virginia -- another very poor state -- went for Bush in 2000.

Thomas Patterson: The South was, and remains, politically different than the rest of the country. Race has always mixed with class in ways that produce voting patterns unlike those found elsewhere. Indeed, when southern blacks began to vote in large numbers in the 1960s as the result of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, lower-income whites in the South also began to vote in larger numbers, and usually on the opposite side of the partisan fence.
It is not true, however, that Hispanic voters lean Republican. As a group, Hispanics have low turnout but, in 2000 for example, they voted heavily for Gore and for Democratic congressional candidates. South Florida, among the heavily Republican Cuban-American community, was the only clear exception. The pro-Democratic leanings of Hispanics--at least at this point in time--are nowhere more evident than in California. That state, once Republican or at least evenly balanced, has tilted clearly toward the Democratic party as a result of the weight of the increasing number of Hispanic voters,

Thomas Patterson: One of my colleagues was kind enough to provide information relevant to any earlier question about the registration deadline in Pennsylvania. Its registration closes 30 days before the election, so, if you want to vote this November, you need to hurry.

I think we're out of time, too. I'm grateful for this chance to talk with you about voting and to provide you some of the information and arguments contained in my book, The Vanishing Voter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have an urgent question that I failed to get today. Goodby and I hope you make to the polls in November.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Post Columnist Bob Levey at 1 p.m. ET
Nightwatch: Fugazi's Ian MacKaye at 1 p.m. ET
Film Producer and Motown's Funk Brothers at 3:30 p.m. ET

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>