University Daily Kansan
Friday, October 29,1976
17
budget is it be done
halkmark,
stronger
he liberal
possible.
conducts
then says
attitude
Carter's governor,itors who state? e there is Carter's ans?
words were
accommodation
for return up
in and the list
include 11
server's ad-
terer's e-fook at his but he did special
years as es, false s doubts
ack
g Writer
and an-
ve him a debt to
she said she
if she or
or later
society
her con-
cynics about said. stand a
when we er the of the as just illmore, b better, ting and e voter.
Voter turnout rises. falls with age of electorate
Bv ALLAN CIGLER
Associate Professor of Political Science
The widespread decline in voter turnout in recent years in American elections is disturbing to many people and has received considerable attention during this presidential election campaign.
Some think that voting is so basic to the theory of the democratic state that the failure of a sizable proportion of the U.S. electorate to take the trouble to vote appears to challenge the essential validity of popular democracy. In a low-quality environment, where both men who wins, the elected government will be denied the legitimacy so necessary for effective leadership in domestic and foreign policy.
RECENT POLLS indicate—and they may be conservative on the matter—that turn in this election may well be under 50 per cent, a figure that hasn't been approached since the early 1970s. It was rising in light of the common perception that the 1976 election will be an extremely close contest.
If poll results prove accurate, this will be the fourth consecutive presidential election in which a candidate can win in the electorate election in which 63.5 per cent of the electorate voted. Even the 1972 election, the result of which was evident to most observers by the end of the campaign, was the summer, had a turnout rate of $5.7 per cent.
Just what figure would constitute an "acceptable" rate of turnout is of some conjecture. Critics of the current levels of participation are quick to point out that in the latter part of the 19th century, turnout rates approached 80 percent in some presidential elections.
But the context of politics nearly 100 years ago is too dissimilar for significant comparison. For example, women and blacks, traditionally low in wealth and education, are even part of the electorate in that period.
FURTHER, ballots weren't secret, there were essentially no registration barriers for white males and political parties often acted like a militia on election day, virtually herding potential voters to the polls and giving them ballots with only one party's candidates on them.
In some eastern cities dominated by political machines, turnout even exceeded 100 per cent of those eligible to vote in some precincts. Obstacles to the turnout figures were a function of political corruption.
A comparison of our turnout rates with those of other western democracies also is fraught with error. Some countries impose a fine for not voting in a primary, while others raise turnout rates in the United States.
MOST IMPORTANT, the meaning of turnout varies among countries. Some western democracies report turnout as the percentage of those eligible to vote who participated in the election. U.S. turnout figures are derived from surveys of all voters dividing the total of those who voted into the total "potential" electorate, or all persons of voting age as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
According to survey data compiled by the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, more than 72 per cent of the U.S. respondents who were eligible to vote in 1972 said they did so, which is, in relative terms, a good turnout compared with many other countries.
WHAT IS truly surprising about turnout in the United States is not so much that it's low, but that it's consistently getting lower. After all, the period since the 1960 election has been one of rising educational levels; increasingly salient issues; the removal of many voting barriers, including poll taxes and registration and residency requirements; increasingly available
'What is truly surprising about turnout in the United States is not that it's low, but that it's consistently getting lower.'
political stimuli provided by the mass media, particularly TV; and campaign efforts unparalleled in the history of American politics, in which the magnitude of both cost and candidate exposure.
Just about all observers of American politics have their pet explanations for decreasing turnout. Most think that decreasing turnout is a result of the events of the most recent period in American political history and the personalities associated with them.
FOR EXAMPLE, in the final presidential debate, one panelist, in phrasing a question dealing with turnout, suggested that the electorate be divided among them and their election tactics. Not surprisingly, Carter and Ford agreed, that the electorate was indeed turned off, not by the choice of candidates, but by memories of the Southeast Asian intergate and the Washington morality scandals.
Both candidates made clear that they viewed us as having nothing to do with these disruptive issues.
Poll data seem to lend strong support to the alienated voter thesis. The polls indicate a linear decline in the electorate's political trust and afflicty, starting right before the 1964 election.
Certainly disillusionment with the war, the social disruptions of the 1960s, the Watergate revelations and the credibility gaps so obvious in the Johnson and Nixon administrations cast strong doubts on our nation's ability to solve problems. They also suggest that perhaps our political leadership isn't worthy of the trust that's almost automatically given.
RECENT SCHOOLLY literature suggests that it wasn't only the "message" of the disruptive period, but the medium that conveyed it that's responsible for the rise of political alienation. The author of an article in the most recent issue of the American Political Science Review concludes that TV has presented the controversies of the last decade in a manner
He also suggests that the tone of the TV medium is largely antestablishment. Much of the news, for example, is critical of authorities in general, vividly showing the human weaknesses of our political leadership. The result is a cynical view that public power is not high political efficacy is associated with a high turnout rate, decreasing political efficacy should bring about a low turnout.
that tends to overwhelm the viewer with the complexity of political problems convincing the public that it's politically ineffective and that problems may be too complex to solve.
NONVOTING probably is a result of a variety of factors, which, in varying degrees, operate in elections. Following the 1968 election for president, a poll of 450 college examiners found 44 million nonvoters and asked, "What was it that kept you from voting?" Here are the Gallup estimates for the number of people influenced by nonvoting.
- About 15 million (34 per cent) were evenly split between disinterested in or hostile to the candidates.
- About 10 million (23 per cent) could have registered but didn't.
- About seven million (16 per cent) were sick or disabled
- *About five million (11 per cent) were prevented from voting by registration request*
- A final one million (2 per cent) didn't obtain absentee ballots.
- A further three million (7 per cent) said they couldn't leave their jobs.
An understanding of the demographic composition of today's electorate can perhaps best explain the unusually low turnout projected for this election. The particularly large drop in turnout in the 1970s may be caused by the same thing that's related to the large rise in crime in recent years—the baby boom of the late 1940s and early 1950s.
FOR EXAMPLE, a major cause in the rise of crime since 1965 has been an increase in the number of people in the "crime prone" age range—18 to 25 years. Also, the electorate today is composed of a high percentage of people in the "low turnover prone" age range—18 to 30 years.
There are no official voting records that breakdown turnover on the basis of age. But survey data can give us a rough indication of voting participation differentials on the basis of age, though the social norm that people should vote tends to bias the results upward.
For example, roughly 10 per cent more people indicated they had voted in the 1972 postelection surveys than actually did vote, according to official statistics.
In 1972, 25 million voters were added to the potential electorate. Yet, according to survey data from 2008, only 64% of voters said they participated in the election. Probably, this figure was an overestimate. Of those people between 45 and 64, 81% (per cent) are likely to vote for the relationship between age and voting turnout is
YOUNG MEMBERS of the electorate have always had lower participator rates. A high proportion of people in their 20s or younger don't see politics as immediately salient to their personal lives. Many aren't paying taxes and aren't directly involved in the production side of the economy. Politics has to compete with social events and courtship concerns.
curvilinear, with those under 25 and those older of 65 having the lowest levels of turnover. The largest group is between 30 and 49.
In short, the salience of politics is an important motivation for political partisans, and politicization is a key challenge.
The current generation of young members of the electorate does differ from previous generations of young voters. The events of the previous decade have left their mark. Young potential voters are even more cynical about political change than they did in the generation. Young members of the electorate in the 1980s were markedly less cynical about politics than their elders.
ACCORDING to a poll done after the 1972 election, more than one quarter of those under 24 thought they had "no duty to vote" and "had no political power." Both figures are more than twice as large as comparable figures for people who were part of a study during the 1966 election.
Evidently, the events of the past decade not only contributed to higher levels of political alienation, but also retarded the development of civic participation values in the early political socialization process. The belief that participation is to be valued in and of itself evidently isn't widely held by the current younger members of the electorate.
THE UNUSUALLY low turnout in the mid-1970s, then, is the result of a peculiar mix of period, life cycle and generation effects. For many members of the electorate, the events and processes of the United States political efficacy and political trust, causing a withdrawal from politics. The electorate also
'The unusually low turnout in the mid-1970s is the result of a peculiar mix of period, life cycle and generation effects.'
now is composed of a high proportion of "low turnout proven" people, bringing overall par-
And this younger political generation is further unique in that its sense of citizenship duty is unusually low, especially its sense of voting duty. It should be surprised that turnover is as high as it is.
IT SEEMS to me, however, that there's room for optimism, and it's likely that turnover will start to increase within the next decade. The high degree of political alienation as indicated by the polls doesn't seem to be deeply rooted and appears to be more directed at current political
incumbents rather than at our basic system of government.
A series of poll data by Time magazine dealing with personal happiness and job satisfaction indicates that Americans are overwhelmingly happy in their current circumstance. At the end of the survey, 72 percent of those sampled by Gallup indicated they were "in general, very happy or fairly happy."
In a 1974 poll, only 10 per cent of those sampled indicated that if they were free to do so, they would settle in another country—the lowest total among the nine western democratic countries in which the question was asked. Many political scientists think that political cynicism would quickly change under improving economic conditions and more popular leaders.
JACK CITRIN, a prominent political scientist, has recently put forth a baseball analogy. Political systems, like baseball teams, have slumps and winning streaks. Having recently endured a succession of losing seasons, Americans boo the home team when it takes the ball. But fans are often fickle; victories quickly elicit cheers. And to most fans, what matters is whether the home team win or loses, not how it ends. The team wins 'streak' and, perhaps, some new names in the lineup may be sufficient to increase trust in government.
It also appears likely that within the next decade, life cycle effects will aid rather than hinder the growth of new plants in future, the large, currently "low turnover prone" proportion of the electorate will reach the stage in life in which politics becomes extremely difficult. Because of this group should increase correspondingly.
THIS SHOULD raise the turnout rates markedly for the total electorate. The worry, of course, is that the generation effect upon this type of electorate will be exaggerated by exceptions of higher turnout in later years.
In the meantime, it seems to me that there's little that can be done to increase turnover, which is necessary for life cycle effects. Registration barriers are already pretty well eliminated, and changes such as postcard voting may increase turnover but are unlikely to influence turnover a great deal.
One suggestion would be to concentrate resources less on registration efforts and more on election day attempts to get people to the polls. Political parties used to be highly involved in this activity, but the decline of parties in losing the largest a result of the parties' losing their financial resources to the media and candidate public relation relations, has left a massive void in this area.
OTHER RECENT suggestions include having the polls open for longer periods (one writer recently suggested a three-day national election period) and a national advertising campaign, run by the Federal Elections Commission, to get out the vote.
Overall, however, such efforts probably would increase turnover only marginally.
Local contests offer test of election philosophies
Not everyone is suited for public office, and it's the grave responsibility of Lawrenze voters to decide, by Tuesday, whether victorious Victor in seven state and county races.
This year, local contests have provided an arena for the testing of a number of election philosophies. Should worthy candidates have made promises in a specific area or should they have vaguely discussed a host of problems? Does the experience of an incumbent give him a winning edge over a youthful, but perhaps naive, first-time contender in the primary race against his opponent be taken as innocent political rhetoric, or should charges, no matter what the setting, seriously affect a candidate's worthiness?
seeking his third two-year term, bases his campaign on what he says has been his responsiveness to the diverse needs of the district, which include problems peculiar to KU as well as to Lawrence. Hambleton, Lawrence's first woman city commissioner and mayor, says she primarily will strive to
Mary Ann Daugherty Contributing Writer
THESE ARE questions local campaigning has spotlighted. They must be answered by voters next week. And, as if these questions aren't difficult enough, they're further complicated this year by an overwhelming suspicion that any candidate, including the Clinton administration, many skeletons in the closet to deserve continued faith.
upgrade housing but will give some attention to civil service and the penal and court systems. Hart, who has professed few ambitions, says he will try to subdue the state bureaucracy by striking one law from the statutes for every law he implements.
In the race for the 3rd District Douglas County Commission seat, incumbent Democrat I. J. Stoneback, 59, is opposed by Republican Bradley, Debrady charged that Stoneback had had excessive absences from commission meetings. Stoneback explained that the absences were for good reasons, in connection with and to a commissioner's convention.
Republican incumbent Lloyd Buzzi, 32, Buzzii has said an estimated $20 million in revenue sharing funds could be used by the state to continue funding state services without increased taxation. Francis has proposed that the state set up a toll-free telephone service that would provide information on needed state services. Calls were tabulated, she said, to determine what new services are needed.
IN THE 45th District House race,
Democrat Carol Francis, 48, challenges
IN THE sherrif's fire, Republican incumbent Rex Johnson, 43, has met a tough challenger in Democrat James Huskey, 26, to the nomination. County attorney's office, he charged that Johnson allowed his deputies to accept gratitudes from local businessman. He also said Johnson has refused to debate the election. Johnson, rather feelly, denied the charges.
from the 2nd District pits Republican Robert Neis, 52, against American party candidate Robert Elder, 47. Neis favors long-range planning, and Elder, in true American party form, argues against increased government intervention of any sort.
The race for county treasurer between Republican deputy treasurer Bessie Leslie, 46, and Democrat Ruth Verynck, 43, is largely unissueless.
Although all candidates are somewhat deserving, my choices are:
BOOTH, because he has shown knowledge of the community he expresses and of the mechanics of the legislature in which he wants to work.
GLOVER, because he's willing to stick his neck out for a variety of groups, whether their concerns are liberal, conservative or moderate.
Run for state representative of the 44th District are incumbent Democrat Michael Glover, 29. Republican Nancy Pelosi, 30. Democratic David Thomas Hart, 52. Glover, who
BUZZI, because he understands how important federal revenue亭, without increasing taxes.
**BRADLEY** because she can replace a commissioner who has sometimes neglected the good of the entire county for the sake of his own interests.
NEIS, because he sees there's a need for government intervention in a properly structured society.
IN THE race for the 2nd District Kansas Senate seat, incumbent Republican Arden Booth, 64, is challenged by a lawyer, Arnold Berman, 46. Booth, who has served six years in the Kansas Senate, says Berman, who has lived in Lawrence since 1973, doesn't know the needs of the community or what it takes to be effective in the legislature. Berman on the other hand, Boven power of KIWN media domain has been responsive only to big business, public utilities and the news media and Lawrence represents representation by someone who would work for the entire district.
Without question, most local races this year have one or more elements of concern, question, interest and debate that voters shouldn't discount without scrutiny. Tuesday, when votes are counted, it would be unusual if victors could be acclaimed because they were not by voters, who went to the polls with definite ideas about what was for fit public office.
HUSKEY, because he has promised increased public participation in a legally operated sheriff's office.
LESLIE, because, in a contest in which neither candidate seems to outshine the other, experience is reassuring.
Tuesday, Lawrence voters, including students who have registered in Douglas County.
Candidates' personalities, motives get attention
BY MARION BAXTER
The American electorate in this campaign is paying a great deal of attention to the personality and motivations of both major party candidates. Both President Ford and Jimmy Carter seem to be at搐ing the attention of the Democrats in a particular posture. It is now a matter for the vote to choose the more believable personality.
Ford wants to be perceived as the steady, dependable leader who rescued his country from its deep recession and the shock of Watergate. He devoted his first campaign weeks to being presidential, grasping opportunities without actively taking risks. Instead of going directly to the people, he depended on his record.
The candidates' use of the word "trust" is an example of the dichotomy they have drawn for the voter. "Just trust me," the candidates say, "their response is that trust must be earned.
With Fird's showing in the second debate and thereafter, with increased exposure, however, his earlier strategy may have been better. Voters saw his six-day delay in correcting his foreign policy "boo-boo" of the United States (in the case of eastern Europe) as incompetence. Ford's personal style of a "bumble" had been widely discussed, and he depended on
It follows that Carter would do well to take the opposite stance, with Republican transgressions all too fresh on the voter's mind. To offset the incredible amount of secrecy in the Nixon administration and Ford's known conservatism, he epidemicized the compassionate underster to the Washington bureaucracy and related scandals.
his mistake to blow over rather than admitting such an obvious gaffe.
His grass-roots beginning gave that role
secretary. Carter has had cause to regret quick judgments, however. His rapid evaluation of FBI Director Clarence Kelly could have cost him some support. Carter's staff might be concerned about rapid turnover in the unit. An instant removal of anything embarrassed.
The voters don't see Carter's self-assurance in Ford's personality. He trusts experts to the extent that he isn't ashamed to say, "I don't know" at times. Henry
'In spite of all the ways to assess the candidate's personalities, they appear similar to many observers. Either candidate is likely to begin his tenure rather conservatively.'
creditibility. His constant availability to the people and unusual candor have also strengthened it. Candor is his strength, but it is also his weakness. In baring his secret longings to the world through the windows of his office, he has had reason to question his motives.
Carter's attempt to use his personality to present a clear choice to the voters is also evident in his too-quick opposite reaction to anything in which Ford has been involved. He was a naturalist, and he often affix to Ford after his hesitancy in dealing with Earl Butz, former agriculture
even though still unproved, has passed difficult tests.
Kissinger's success in Rhodesia presented a hollow victory for Ford because, to some Americans, it was still another symptom of Ford's dependence on others. This, along with Ford's cautiously deliberate, nature-driven approach, generated serious flair to many Americans. The capacity of his gifted has often been questioned.
those of other 20th century presidents. They were rated in the areas of power motivation, affiliation (need for friendship) and achievement needs.
The study showed that Carter might instead be inclined to govern in the manner of former president Lyndon Johnson, with scores closest to him in those three areas.
Quite the opposite is true for Carter. His intellect has proved superior under difficult circumstances. Even for supporters must be reminded that he was a man of stature and figures in the debates. His competence,
Lack of experience may not prove a liability for Carter as much as that image he has earned of trying to please too many people. In her first assessment, his many-faceted personality may only stem from the fact that his parents had opposing effects on him. His mother is a social liberal whose compassion and sensitivity made him the businessman, a was hard-nosed segregationist with rigid self-discipline. One can even see the roots of Carter's candor in his mother's surprising statement about never lying.
"Psychology Today," however, looks at this another way with a comparison of Ford and Toyota cars.
But, the intricacies of the candidates' personalities are still examined. Giving Richard Nixon a virtual mandate in the 1972 Presidential election should give the voters ample reason for caution. It wouldn't seem outraged to predict that a candidate lose the election because something in his personal style was reminiscent of Nixon.
Carter's personality, that of the often-complex Ioner who seldmakes others into his confidence, has been compared with Nixon's.
Ford, who scored lowest of any former president on desire to exert power, was
His achievement needs higher of
needsthese needs for afl-
filiationwere also extremely
Carter scored above average on all three motives, but not as high as former President John Kennedy, the only former candidate who scored unusually high in all three areas.
In spite of all the ways to assess the candidates' personalities, they appear
Either candidate is likely to begin his tenure rather conservatively. Carter and Ford can see what the needs of the economy are, and found personal success through hard work.
Neither Ford nor Carter's integrity has been seriously questioned and personality shows detecting are largely exaggerated and the possible result of campaign circumstances.