Less than 30 percent of the registered voters in California bothered to vote in the June 6 primary - a new historic low in voter turnout.
Since 30 percent of eligible voters are not even registered, the recent primary results suggest that 4 out of 5 Californian's either don't care who runs our state or think that voting is a complete waste of time.
The low turnout in Tuesday's primary is part of a continuing downward spiral in voter participation nationwide. The U.S. is now ranked at the very bottom of all developed democracies in terms of voter turnout.
While many pundits ring their hands over the decline of America's democracy, the lack of citizen participation in government is not completely surprising.
Few elections are competitive and the outcome is often determined by whichever candidate has the most money, with the overwhelming majority of funds coming from large corporations, who exert great influence over government decisions.
Campaigns are waged on corporate controlled media through manipulative ads, in which real issues are rarely addressed honestly.
We have a highly undemocratic winner-tale-all election system, which insures the political hegemony of the two corporate funded parties.
Finally, redistricting has resulted in a situation in which 90% of Americans live in congressional districts that are essentially one-party monopolies.
Today, the effects of unbalanced campaign financing, gerrymandering, and third party disenfranchisement are so significant that the Center for Voting and Democracy was able to accurately predict the outcome of 99.7 percent of the U.S. House races in 1998 - 2004.
These statistics mean that most voters are faced with unappealing choices: ratify the incumbent party, waste their vote on a candidate who is sure to lose, or sit out the race. Not surprisingly, increasing numbers of American are opting for the latter option.
Election Reform
So given these circumstances what are our best options for implementing a more democratic form of government. The first, and perhaps most important, is to work to change our system of voting. Without a more democratic voting system that allows for the development of third, forth and fifth parties, we will remain a captured constituency, continually forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils", with little chance to make real institutional changes.
We must remember that our electoral system was born in a time when the democratic ideas of the founders were still an experiment in people rule. Their approach was to "error" on the side of economic caution, by allowing only the male landowner gentry to have a voice in government. To ensure further safe guards, these men were only allowed to vote for electors, who in turn could vote for the candidate of their choice. Then, as today, money and influence were the primary factors in determining the outcome of an election.
History shows that under this system the Democrats and Republicans (who grew out of the Whigs) have not grown into two counterpoised forces, but rather complementary halves of a single two-party system: one animal with two heads that feed from the same corporate funded trough.
The two major parties have worked "hand in hand" to make ballot access increasingly difficult for alternative parties. They have conspired to defend indirect elections such as the Electoral College, insisted on winner-take-all voting to block the rise of alternative voices, opposed proportional representation to prevent representative democracy, and collaborated in district gerrymandering to create "safe" legislative seats.
The immutable status we have given to our electoral system is actually quite mind-boggling. Many of us are capable of articulating solutions to many of our most deep-seated socio-economic problems, yet when it comes to a destructive institutional feature of our political system, we accept it as permanent, almost as though it were part of the natural order of things. This attitude is all the more astounding given the enormous benefits electoral reforms such as proportional representation or even instant runoff voting would instantly produce (e.g., a widening of our political options, greatly expanded participation, and the elimination of the "spoiler" effect).
Why Support a Green for Secretary of State
In order to implement meaningful change, we must also begin to support candidates who truly represent our value system, which generally means supporting third party candidates. While the historical success of third party efforts in the U.S. is terrible (owing to our electoral system), this is not a reason to abandon all future efforts.
Today, I believe the Green Party offers the best hope for implementing a progressive agenda on the local and (eventually) national level. To be honest, the Green Party is not particularly well organized or experienced, and in fact, suffers from some not insignificant divisions. But this is also not a sufficient reason to write it off. Arguing that we cannot opt for a third party until such a party is strong, well organized, and experienced is to create a catch-22. If our involvement is essential to building such a party, waiting until it emerges before we lend it our support is to ensure its demise.
The Secretary of State is the statewide position where is makes the most sense to support a third party candidate. First and foremost, they are the chief elections officer whose primary duty is to facilitate greater voter registration and voter participation in elections, and to ensure that all votes are accurately counted. The Secretary of State, however, is also in a unique position to advocate for free and fair elections that allow for full representation in government. Only through such reforms will we ever increase voter turnout in this country.
It is important to remember that it is not in the Republican or Democratic Parties interest to change the electoral system which has served them so well. Doing so would only open then up to challenges from outside the political status quo.
Sarah Knopp, Green Party candidate for Superintendent of Public Education, just received over 600,000 votes in the June 6 primary election. The fact that she got almost 2/3's as many votes as Phil Angelitis, the democratic nomination for governor, shows that more and more citizens are willing to vote for candidates outside the mainstream parties.
The truth is our democracy is at a cross roads and our two party system is on life support. If ever there was a time to vote Green, that time is now.
Find out more at: www.voteforrest.org