Boy, the election was intriguing
to watch. How about Karl Rove not wanting to accept the projected
Obama victory in Ohio? That was entertaining. How about those long
lines in Florida and elsewhere – a friend of mine waited four and a
half hours to vote. That people were willing to endure some very
trying conditions in order to participate in our political process
was inspiring. How about Romney's concession speech? That was
classy. All and all – and believe me, I'm glad it's all over at
last – the end was fun for political junkies to watch.
This ending reminded me of being a
classroom teacher trying to get my students interested in the
process. I really looked forward to elections, especially
Presidential Elections, because of the interest they engendered among
many who otherwise did not feel much affinity for politics. The real
human stories that surround an election provide concrete examples
that a teacher can use in the classroom to illustrate more general
understanding about politics and governance. Each election provides
lessons; this election is no exception.
In my last posting, I expressed my
fear that a lesson that might be learned in this one was that there
is value in participating in obstruction. That lesson was avoided –
I'm glad. But there are many other lessons that were offered. I
would like to review some of the more prominent lessons I gleaned
from the 2012 election. I will share them in this and upcoming
postings.
The first one, and these lessons
will not be offered in any order of importance, is the final
realization that Presidential Elections and mid-term elections are
two very different events. One cannot state from the results of a
mid-term election that the nation is going in any particular
direction. I am afraid that is what happened in 2010. In 2010, 88.7
million Americans cast their votes. This represented 40.7% of the
electorate. This past Tuesday, the total number of Americans casting
votes was over 118 million (a final number is yet to be determined).
Basically, mid-term elections draw a subset of the voters who show up
for Presidential Elections. In relative terms, mid-terms tend to
attract those voters who are more emotionally engaged given the
political environment of the time in which that election is held. In
2010, that represented more predominately voters who were upset with
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. For example, the
passing of Obamacare really ticked some people off. It didn't make
everyone angry but, and this is what needs to be learned, those who
were angry were many times more motivated to vote.
But Presidential Elections have an
aura all their own. They are seen to be much more important and, as
a result, many more people want to take part. Let me explain. To
many people, the President is the government. To them, what happens
in terms of government and even the economy are the products of
Presidential actions. Too many place much too much credit or blame
on the President for what is going on politically or economically.
Unfortunately, Presidents encourage this view; after all, we all know
where the buck stops. This leads to a greater sense of importance on
the Presidential election.
By comparison, all of this
underestimates, in the mind of too many citizens, the importance of
mid-term elections. Consequently, those who are by and large content
with the conditions of the country or feel those in charge are
adequately dealing with any shortcomings are much more likely to stay
home on election day. On the other hand, those who are angry are
much more likely to vote. That is why in 2010 the President's party,
the Democrats, suffered great losses. This was not unusual. The
President's party usually loses seats in Congress during mid-term
elections.
If I were teaching today, I would
point out this pattern and comfort my Republican students by saying
that they should not be surprised if President Obama's Democrats face
significant losses in 2014, the next mid-term election. Unless we
find the way to Primrose Lane, there will probably be enough angered
citizens to bolster the President's opposition party. Remember, all
House members are up for election every two years along with one
third of the Senate, many governors, and many state legislators.
This offers a lot of opportunity for the opposition party.
In terms of mid-term elections,
not all of them are equal. If a mid-term election takes place in a
year ending in zero, like 2010, it has inordinate influence. Why?
Because the resulting state legislatures determine the Congressional
and state legislature district boundaries which are determined by the
census that takes place every ten years in years, you guessed it,
ending in zero. Hence, the party in the majority in any state
legislature gets to draw those district lines for that state and the
lines are drawn to enhance the chances of that party maintaining
power. Since the Republicans did extremely well in the 2010
election, they gained majorities in many states and consequently were
able to draw district lines in those states. That, in turn, helps to
a large extent explain why in this election of 2012 where the
Democrats won the White House and the Senate handily and won more
votes nationally in the House elections, the Republicans were able to
hold on to the control of the House of Representatives.
So, one lesson to be learned is
that no party should become complacent or overly distraught over the
results of the 2012 election. As a matter of fact, I would suggest
that instead of spending all that money on TV ads – which for the
Republicans, in terms of gaining power, proved to be wasted – I
believe the parties would be wiser to spend that money on strategies
geared to keep their followers engaged, physically and emotionally.
I don't mean parties should keep running ads for four years, but
perhaps they can think of creative ways to do this. For example, and
I'm not sure this is feasible, their agents could function as
intermediaries between their members – citizens who register as
either Democrats or Republicans – and government bureaucrats. That
is, they could be ombudsmen of sorts.
No comments:
Post a Comment