Democracy Sucks

On election eve, local turnout is again depressingly low. Sadder still is the recommendation, seemingly unanimous among political consultants, that a surefire way to increase voter turnout is to dump more cash into local elections.

Saddest thing is that they’re probably right.

A story on News 8 Austin hawking a potentially record low mayoral election turnout has consultant Peck Young citing Austin’s low campaign contribution limits – $350 per person, this up from a staggering low $100 limit enacted by charter election in 1997. As we wrote back when the limit was implemented, “time will tell whether this stab at reform will actually bleed a significant amount of money from campaigns.” According to the consultants, it has: In Fact Daily quotes Young crediting a 17% turnout (that's high, remember) in the 1997 mayoral election on greater campaign spending, as the changes hadn't yet took effect. (An interesting historical aside: who does Austin have to thank for low campaign contribution limits but Linda Curtis, now half of the brains behind ChangeAustin.org.)

So is our electorate really that slothful, that unless they see candidates wedged between breaks on the Maury show, they’re not interested? If an election occurs in the city without much advertising, did it really occur? And how much responsibility does TV bear? Because with a paucity of local coverage, buying commercials on the airwaves is the only way for candidates to get their message out.

Unless something changes – campaign spending limits rise, a switch to single-member districts, or a miraculous reclamation of our public airwaves – we're going to be stuck in the same depressing feedback loop.