Covering elections: the end times?
When only 7% of eligible voters bother to go to the polls is that a fair approximation of readership interest in the election? And if it is, should our coverage efforts reflect that intense indifference?
We have spent a great deal of staff time over the last 8 weeks reporting on the candidates, holding Town Hall meetings, getting out information about campaigns and endorsing candidates. We plan to spend even more between now and the general election in November. But why should we if such a small percentage of the market seems to care?
Covering politics, elections and City Council has long been at the core of what newspapers do. But should it be? When so much else about reader wants and needs are changing -- and voter turnout has been declining for years -- why shouldn't our coverage respond appropriately? Local television seems to have made this decision already.
These are rhetorical questions for us now. We don't intend to scale back. Regardless of whether eligible voters want to participate in the process, the makeup of City Council is too important to the future of Greensboro. And if you believe that "the primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing," then doing what we can to provide that information begins with local municipal election coverage.
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I would be interested in seeing the Pre-WWII Germany voting trends. It amazes me that in the land of the free, we neglect how much freedom we have. I can not imagine walking half a day to vote, then having to walk home with a purple finger - being targeted by snipers just for going outside.
Do we have to provide incentives just to vote? What will it take - a $500 tax credit for voting? Or may be reverse - $500 Tax for Not Voting!
Posted on October 11, 2007 11:45 AM
John,
Disheartening? Yes! I don't know whether the old wisdom that people remain silent if they are satisfied holds true in this case or if it is just plain apathy. Such lack of interest was evident at the candidate forum sponosored by the Democratic Women last week and no District 5 voters attended.
Don,
I am not advocating this but just passing it along for enlightenment: According to friends in Australia, there is a $50 fine for not voting in their elections; the only allowable excuse is a doctor's note certifying one was medically incapable of doing so. My questions are -- "Are people just showing up and pushing any button just to avoid the fine or are they truly researching the candidates and making an informed choice?" -- and if they aren't doing their homework -- "Is that better or worse than not voting at all?"
Posted on October 11, 2007 1:12 PM
Sandy, as you know, if they are satisfied and don't vote their satisfaction, they may well get change. That's why I'm thinking it is apathy.
I have heard people say that it was too much trouble to sort through all the names in the at-large race so they'd let others narrow the field and then vote in the general election. I can understand that, particularly if you lived in District 2 or 4 where there was no primary.
Posted on October 11, 2007 2:37 PM
No excuses! With 13 candidates on the at-large ballot, how hard can it be for a voter to find at least one person he or she would like to see on the city council?
The idea of paying people to vote isn't new. In some parts of the country, candidates are expected to fork out a little cash on election day.
Posted on October 11, 2007 5:26 PM
"But why should we if such a small percentage of the market seems to care?"
What percentage reads the paper?
You might be reaching the bulk of the local voting population. ...feel better? :)
Posted on October 11, 2007 8:28 PM
I think it's hard for folks who read the paper, the blogs, or are participatory citizens (the minority of the population, I believe) to understand that majority of folks probably had no idea there was a primary at all. I know, I know, all the news (written & broadcast) and they didn't know? I'd be willing to bet that if you asked regular people, they'd tell you that they didn't realize it was "today" or whatever day. With the information overload many of us experience, it's hard to imagine but I think it's true.
I think we should be able to vote near where we work (I've heard we don't do that because of possible intimidation) but how hard is it to let people vote at any polling place instead of only at one? Does that take an act of Congress or of City Council?
Posted on October 11, 2007 8:52 PM
I can buy stuff online and no one seems to be concerned with fraud.
Why can't I vote online? It is the same me in either example.
Posted on October 11, 2007 10:29 PM
I have voted more years than most of you have been alive. I have never missed a vote. Young people have told me why bother to vote they are all the same. I see their point now. Its all about them and their special interest friends. None give a damn about city, county, state, are country.I took Doug Clark to task a few years ago about a man I worked11 months to get elected, his frist vote was against everthing we promised the people and for the special interest group that worked against him . The deal is still on the table MR. Clark. Anytime, any place, I want be waiting for my phone to ring.
Posted on October 12, 2007 6:39 AM
Sue: with regard to being able to vote anywhere:
It would take an act of the state legislature. The requirements for precincts and what not on election day are layed down in state law and you can ask John Parks and Trudy Wade all about them. (Their go 'round over the 2004 election was all about that law.)
I'm sure the board of elections folks would like to point out that early voting was available for the two weeks or so running up to the election, including at least one Saturday, I think.
Doug J: I certainly hear enough of the "their all bums" mentality. And I am far from covering this election full time.
But as someone looking in fromout outside the pool, I'd have to say that if you couldn't find the differences between the 13 at large candidates you just weren't looking.
John: Maybe we should hire a polling firm and poll the Mayors race versus some big pop culture thing and see what we get. Might be fodder for the One Guilford discussion anyway.
Posted on October 12, 2007 10:52 AM
"These are rhetorical questions for us now. We don't intend to scale back. Regardless of whether eligible voters want to participate in the process, the makeup of City Council is too important to the future of Greensboro. And if you believe that "the primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing," then doing what we can to provide that information begins with local municipal election coverage."
Then I guess I can expect plenty of coverage for my own campaign for Mayor? http://www.musecrafters.com/bloggingpoet/2601/Write-in+Billy+Jones+For+Mayor+Of+Greensboro.html
Posted on October 12, 2007 8:46 PM
I would just like to say that in 2003 I wrote an op ed piece on this very subject. I said then as Chairman of the Guilford County GOP that we should make these races Partisan to promote more participation. I was made fun of and criticized for suggesting such a thing; in the resulting elections the percentage of citizens participating has continued to fall to now a new low, I believe of 7% in the primary.
I was right then, and I'm right now. Non-partisan elections ALWAYS result in less citizen participation because the public has no way to know the core beliefs of the candidate, which are shown by their membership in a party organization and its platform.
As for those who might fault me for not living in the city and paying city taxes, I do. I have a business which pays taxes in Greensboro, along with all the taxes we pay for business related items. And we will soon be paying property taxes on a new building.
Posted on October 22, 2007 11:45 AM