Ever wonder why Portland and Lewiston hold their mayoral elections in odd-numbered years when hardly anything else is on the ballot?
If you guessed it’s because both cities are run by freakazoids who are naturally attracted to off-off years, you’re probably right – but there’s another reason.
Elections held at odd times are guaranteed to produce low turnouts.
Wait, you say, aren’t low turnouts a bad thing? Aren’t Democrats, who comprise the majority in both cities, on record as being in favor of getting as many people as possible to the polls because every vote matters? Wouldn’t it make sense to schedule races for mayor at the same time as gubernatorial or presidential contests when the turnout is bigger?
The numbers certainly support the idea that consolidating elections in even-numbered years would produce more representative results. In 2012, a presidential year, nearly 37,000 voters cast ballots in Portland. In 2014, with the governorship up for grabs, over 30,000 turned out. But in 2015, with a hotly contested race for mayor, less than 18,000 bothered to vote. It’s much the same in Lewiston. The governor’s race in 2014 drew more than 13,000 to the polls. The mayor’s race in 2015 attracted about 8,300. And that was for the first round. Expect the runoff election in December between incumbent Robert Macdonald and challenger Ben Chin to generate less than 6,000 votes.
The average turnout in Maine in presidential years since 2000 has been nearly 69 percent. In gubernatorial elections since 1998, its been close to 54 percent. In 2011, Portland’s shift to a popularly elected mayor drew the interest of just over 40 percent of registered voters, close to 20,000 people. In 2014, the second go-round of elected mayoralty, the turnout declined by about 2,000 to 35 percent.
So why aren’t Democrats – ardent foes of what they perceive as Republican efforts to suppress participation by cutting off voter registration before election day and requiring everyone to show identification at the polls – screaming loudly about the need to consolidate elections on the most attractive dates so more of our citizens will have their voices heard?
The reason, according to a posting on the FiveThirtyEight blog and in a recent book, is because Democrats like it that way. “Scheduling elections at odd times appears to be a deliberate strategy aimed at keeping turnout low …” wrote Eitan Hersh, an assistant professor of political science at Yale. “When school boards and other municipal offices are up for election at odd times, few run-of-the-mill voters show up at the polls, but voters with a particular interest in these elections – like city workers themselves – show up in full force. The low-turnout election allows their policy goals to dominate.”
Of course, that’s not the official reason Dems give for insisting on voting at inconvenient times. Instead, according to a recently published study by University of California at Berkeley political scientist Sarah Anzia, they claim that keeping municipal elections separate from the big races helps prevent local issues from being swamped by the national or statewide noise. Anzia also noted that supporters of weird election scheduling insist it produces a more engaged electorate that’s well informed on local issues.
To which Hersh added, “[I]t is worth noting that these are very much the same arguments that Republicans might make in favor of voting restrictions that make voting a little bit harder for the average American. Just like voter ID or voter-registration requirements, off-cycle elections impose a cost on political participation.”
As last week’s balloting showed, off-off-year voting doesn’t always produce the results its Democratic advocates expect. The GOP won both special elections for the Maine House of Representatives, thanks (in a large measure of irony) to local issues. Two initiatives pushed by progressives in Portland to raise the minimum wage and protect scenic views from development were defeated (although that can be attributed to lackluster campaigns by proponents). And in Lewiston, Chin, the darling of the state’s left, failed to win a majority of the vote for mayor, forcing him into a difficult runoff against right-winger Macdonald.
Still, this scheduling scam works well enough most of the time that Democrats are unlikely to be put off by the off-off.
On the off chance you want to get your outrage on, email aldiamon@herniahill.net.
Maybe so, Al. Then again, maybe it’s a good indication of the interest voters have in local government which, interestingly, is more likely to have direct effect on them than any other level. Using your reasoning, should we assume that because municipal elections are customarily held on town meeting day rather than in the Novembers of even-numbered years, the purpose is to discourage voters? Maybe, but in mayoralty, select board, municipal council, school committee or any other local balloting, my vote is for voter indifference rather than managerial conspiracy. I can recall but one “election” in recent years when a local question drew a large turnout: it was whether a municipal ordinance would be waived to allow a Walmart expansion.. Judging by the temper of the crowd that day, it was clear there was anything but indifference (the waiver was granted amidst great jubilation)! So, maybe all it takes in the “off years” is a perceived threat to something held most dear (bolstered by a well financed campaign) to get ’em to the polls.
pffff, more lefty propaganda from al dem-on! why, if given the choice between speaking ill of his precious democrat party and holding his breath, he’d be the late al diamon! he is soooo liberal, he… wait, what? maybe i should read the article… something’s not right… conservatives not being unfairly attacked… worldview crumbling… brain… exploding…
Correction: In the sixth paragraph above, I say Portland’s second mayoral election was in 2014. It was actually in 2015.
Al Diamon