I Vote For Apathy

Yesterday there was a local election in my town. Going in I knew the ballot was almost exclusively small town positions, but because I think voting is a really important right and people who don't vote forfeit their right to complain (something I enjoy), I decided it would be worth my time to go and stand up to be counted. Sadly, I was in the minority. The crowd was so thin that when I got there I thought the polling station was closed or I had gotten the date wrong. The people taking the ballots were lamenting the low turnout and when the votes were counted today, some sites were reporting that only about 6% of eligible voters made it to their district's polling station. That number is almost disgustingly low. Voting really doesn't take that long (and it takes even less time when there is no waiting in line because there aren't enough people to form a line). Now, I get this wasn't a Presidential election but they say all politics are local, so you would think people would be more interested in the choices which are going to hit them most directly. Plus, I thought the recent interest in the Papal Conclave had shown that while we may not care once an election is over, nothing gets Americans more excited than the chance to pick a winner. Evidently not.

Of course, the low turnout could probably be attributed to the fact that there while there were several positions to vote for there weren't many actual races to decide. The majority of the incumbents were running unopposed or the races were for positions which had more open spots than people running for the job. In fact there was only one actual race and it was for a position where I am not sure what the person actually does. (If anyone can explain what a constable does that is different from a regular cop or a sheriff, I would appreciate it. If the fact that I voted a person into a job while having no idea what his responsibilities would be isn't enough to get you out to vote next election I don't know what will. ) Anyway, in cases like this it works out that you don't actually have to fill in the Scantron bubble and it wouldn't really matter because the person was winning no matter what. It was a time saver, but we're it is not like we're talking about a lot of time. Now, because I am a dork and a perfectionist I made sure to fill in every bubble for every candidate. But in checking out the election results this afternoon I discovered that, like the election itself, I was one of the few.

Since you didn't have to vote in each race, I thought most people would do one of two thing - fill in every bubble or skip them entirely. However, as I was looking to see who won the one race as well as see how many people eventually turned up to vote, I quickly noticed that in many cases the math didn't add up. In the races which had multiple people running for multiple open positions the two candidates almost never had the same number of votes. That meant people took the time to vote for certain candidates, but not for others even though it didn't actually matter. This is what I like about local elections - they are incredibly personal. While candidates at the state or national level could pass a law which eventually ends up affecting the people in a specific town, the local candidates are guaranteed to do so. On top of that, the people in the small races live in those town (or at least are supposed to). So while you may occasional see a candidate running in a major election walking in your town's parade on the 4th of July, the local guy is your neighbor. And since proximity is a great contributor to animosity, it is only a matter of time before the two of you butt heads of something. It could be they shoveled their snow into your driveway or maybe you fought over a parking spot. Either way there is no way you are voting for that guy because if he can't park a car correctly how can he be trusted to run the town? This is just what the Founding Father's envisioned.

I don't want you to think I am knocking people who use this method in the voting booth - far from it, actually. One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to politics are the people who vote against a candidate based solely on political affiliation. Even if a voter knows nothing else about a candidate other than the fact that they are in the opposite party from them, that voter will stand up and loudly defame everything about that candidate, even though if they actually went issue by issue they may find they agree more often than not. At least with local elections you have an actually and real reason to vote against a person. Sure, it might be petty and I doubt it's legitimate, but it's better than blind hatred. Also, never underestimate the power of spite to get people involved in local politics. In fact, I'm pretty sure a few of the people on yesterday's ballot ran not because they thought the could do a better job but purely out of a desire to see the other candidate lose because his dog keeps crapping in their yard. They just need to be careful they don't let it go too far, because if you look at the current political climate it wouldn't be a stretch to assume this is how everyone in Congress got started in politics and it just kept spiraling out of control.