The AP reported Monday that 2006 turnout in California was the second lowest in state history, just falling short of the record low of 2002. This is especially distressing since it comes in a year that saw some states match or exceed presidential-year turnout and since 2006 should have been a year which provided California Democrats a great reason to show up- knocking off Arnold Schwarzenegger. So I have several problems with this state of affairs on the flip, and I'm sure everyone else has their favorite gripes as well.
One- Democrats had, at most, three big races that might turn people out in a big way. Governor, CA-04, and CA-11. Not much else got a ton of traction, despite efforts by many to make the sub-gubernatorial state races more exciting. An LA Times editorial on Sunday touched briefly on this issue in the context of redistricting, noting that seats simply don't change hands in California at this point. Since redistricting in 2001, there just haven't been very many compelling races. If every district is predetermined, why do people bother showing up?
Two- The recently released Democratic Party Agenda for 2007 lists nine major points, three of which are directly focused on voter registration or mobilization. Obviously an important issue if done properly. But with inspiring and ambitious goals like "Expand the Party's new citizen voter registration programs", I'll have to be forgiven if I'm wary about the underlying detailed infrastructure and institutional commitment to this plan. Particularly in a political climate in which Democrats are scared to death of the immigration issue thus don't want to court the Latino vote too hard, I'll wait for some concrete plans. In the meantime- how about a full push for the Democratic Party in Spanish? Anyways, that's another day.
Third- Perhaps most distressing, this turnout means that, for all the Democrats who tripped over each other trying to line up behind a supposed moderate, reformist winner in Schwarzenneger, he was elected with the votes of less than 19% of potentially eligible California voters. 19 percent! Let's start rolling that into his "mandate" shall we? This great force of political dynamism could only clock in just short of 19-friggin-percent. The flipside of course, even more painful, is that it leaves Angelides with an even more sad 15.3% of Californians.
If we want to reform the state party, and we do, getting people to vote is going to be the biggest way to make a difference. I haven't seen registration or turnout data that would serve as a targeting model, but I have no doubt that it's out there. But if this state party is only good for 15% in a gubernatorial race, I'd say we have a pretty good case for its being entirely impotent.
Blogging has provided incredible innovation when it comes to how messages and issues are framed, packaged and delivered. But getting people turned out hasn't seen much of the action. We phone bank, we knock on doors, but we don't innovate. MoveOn has made great strides towards nationalizing and simplifying phonebanking by allowing people to do it from home, but the fundamental methods of outreach have remained the same. Maybe they need to be, but the netroots is packed with creativity and ingenuity, there should be more ways to shake up this process.
So consider this a first sounding board. I've got a few ideas percolating already, but until I get those fully formed, what else is out there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment