The Journal Gazette turns in a standard-issue civics lesson editorial lamenting the record-low 26 percent turnout in this year's city election. The piece goes through the usual list of possisble turnout inhibitors (the negative mayoral campaign, apathy and cynicism, the too-complex main issue of municipal finance, civic burnout) before concluding that nothing can probably be done in the end and delivering the final lecture to recalcitrant voters:
While it would be great to identify some concrete methods to improve participation, the bottom line is that more people will vote when they have better reasons. That will probably take some combination of a dynamic candidate or candidates and a hot-button issue that captures voter attention.
But in a year when thousands of protesters in several Arab nations took to the streets to dump rulers and seek democracy, it's a sad commentary that many local politicians and government observers would be pleased to double participation
Comments
I realize a newspaper can't really say this in an editorial, but isn't it better if people who don't feel strongly about an issue or candidate just stay home? Is it really a civic good to show up and cast an uninformed vote?
I had a feeling that if we waited long enough, Littlejohn would eventually espouse a conservative thought.
It may not be the greatest idea ever expressed, but it's genuine conservative thought: sometimes, the best solution to a problem is to do nothing, because it will fix itself.