|
|
|
BERKELEY — In a city where civic participation is in vogue, this year’s election failed to bring out even the people who were registered with only 45% of them bothering to show up. Updated Nov 6, 2:45 pm
It gets worse.
Eligible but nonregistered voters, 20 percent of Berkeley residents over 18, were left out of the election curcuit altogether. No florescent lawn signs, candidate voicemail messages and colorful flyers.
The result is that just over a third – 37 percent – of Berkeley eligible voters voted in yesterday’s midterm election. Still the focus on registered voters seems to be a trend voters will stick to in the future.
Loni Hancock, candidate for the 14th District State Assembly, which includes Berkeley, ran unopposed yesterday and won with 98% of the vote.
"Loni focuses on people that are going to vote," said an assistant to Hancock before the election. The former Berkeley mayor doesn’t have time to go after non-registered voters, she said.
Another local winner made a concerted effort to get out the vote, yet still only 34% of those registered in his district cast ballots yesterday.
"We did a massive voter registration drive," said Berkeley City Councilman Kriss Worthington who won a second term with 61% of the vote in District 7. "And on the last day, thousands of ballots were left out on the steps of the registrar’s office at the county courthouse. Just left there, unbelievable."
"Progressives have an obligation to support disenfranchised groups, those who are left out," he said speaking about the students and low-income residents who don’t register to vote or seem to care about the elections.
But that view is not widely shared, said local political analysts. Politicians are more concerned with the outcome of a single vote than the process in which it is carried out, they said.
"Some people on the city council don’t want to expand the pool of voters, they have made that very clear, because that would mean more young, more poor people voting," Worthington said.
He added that as a consequence, white people get the lion’s share of appointments, jobs, contracts and grants.
That Berkeley is so segregated and unequal didn’t surprise one UC Berkeley professor.
"Those most revolutionary in empowering out-groups are also the most elitist," said John Quigley, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy. "They may not identify with those they could help."
Berkeley’s educated liberal citizens may want an egalitarian society, but don’t necessarily want everyone in the society to have a say in choosing those ends, he said.
"Why would I care if everyone votes, particularly if they are not as smart as I am," Quigley said, trying to illustrate how an elitist might think.
Worthington denied that local politicians were elitist.
"I’m hesitant to say they’re elitist, or racist," he said. "It’s more that they’re oblivious."
That one could describe Berkeley as an elitist society should not surprise anyone. Though the median family income hovers at slightly more than $70,000, almost a quarter of Berkeley’s families make less half of that. But a look at a few of Berkeley’s neighborhoods paints an even sharper picture of two vastly different worlds.
In the very upper northeast corner of Berkeley, where houses have stunning views of the Golden Gate Bridge, the U.S. Census reports that four of every five neighbors are white. More than 60 percent of the hill households in census tract 4211, for example, have at least a B.A., and their median income in 1999 was almost $110,000. Some 95 percent of the residents of this neighborhood participated in the 2000 election.
The flatlands, where residents have views of liquor stores and warehouses, are less homogeneous. In the northeast corner of District 2, which encompasses "the flats," only half of the neighbors are white and only 37 percent of its residents have a B.A. The median income was only $37,000 in 1999, and only 40 percent of the voting age population cast ballots there two years ago.
The other large non-voting bloc lives in the neighborhoods around the university. Residents there — mostly young students who still rely on their parent’s income — post voter turnout rates that dip below 40 percent.
"(These) people look for a grocery store, a liquor store … they’re not looking to register to vote," said Henry Brady, a professor of electoral politics at UC Berkeley. "And that leads to disenfranchisement."
Two years ago such pockets in Berkeley were masked by a citywide turn out rate of about 60 percent. It is a rate that dwarfs state and national averages of 44 and 51 percent in the last presidential elections.
But political experts said that the numbers should be considered in real terms; that is, 60 percent by itself is not a great score. Applauding Berkeley’s voter turnout rate would be like congratulating a D-student for not failing, they said.
There will be no congratulations after Berkeley’s failing grade yesterday.
The 45% turnout citywide most likely follow similar trends as in 2000, leaving even fewer disenfranchised citizens with a say in city politics.
Berkeley should study the practices of some international civic-minded countries. France routinely has voting turnout rates above 70 percent, while the Dutch populace has posted rates that have topped 90 percent. Brazil’s new president, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, was elected last week after 70 percent of Brazilians came out to vote.
Experts might argue that some of these countries have such high participation because they also have compulsory voting laws, where apathetic citizens could face fines, loss of social services and, in some case, imprisonment. But according to the International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), while Brazilian citizens theoretically could get fined for staying home on Election Day, the government rarely enforces that law. French citizens only face fines if they keep away from Senatorial elections, while the Dutch face never face sanctions for blowing off elections.
Explanations have yet to be found. The IDEA offers many theories about literacy rates, electoral systems and socioeconomics, but draws no conclusion.
Meanwhile, some wonder why anyone cares about voting participation.
To turn the problem entirely on its head, UC Berkeley’s Quigley suggested that 100 percent voter participation wouldn’t necessarily lead to a better society.
"Do we want a world in which there is a high voter turnout? Yes, but I can’t figure out why," Quigley said. "Would is lead to better decisions? Not necessarily. There would just be more legitimacy."