Low voter turnout for municipal elections is nothing new. One hundred thousand residents in Cambridge — approximately 50,000 registered voters — and about 13,000 turn out.

In America, this number has declined from more than 70 percent in the 19th Century to about 50 percent in the late 20th Century. Off-year elections result in very low turnout rates — only 36 to 39 percent will show up to vote if presidential candidates are not standing for election. European democracies have much higher turnout rates, primarily because they have automatic voter registration, which the United States has yet to adopt.

Why is this? This is, with all intent and purpose, not a simple question with a simple answer. Many factors weigh why people don’t turn out. Higher income and older people are more apt to vote. Statistically, those who vote Republican are of a higher income, while those who tend to vote Democratic are lower income. Women are more likely to register and vote for the Democratic Party, while men are more likely to support Republicans. Both parties attract loose coalitions of voters who believe that the party they have supported will, in turn, support them with programs that benefit their interests.

From some of the outreach I’ve done with grassroots organizations regarding “get-out-the-vote” in the past, I found some of the following issues that reflected why many people didn’t vote. Families, who work low-wage jobs, people who feel that their local government is unreachable to them. Additionally, many felt that they didn’t want the government to have their personal information and felt as if they would be pried upon.

The highest voter turnouts are also usually people who have an interest in politics, and which still favors those with higher income and higher education. For instance, someone with less education is more inclined to have a lack of self-confidence, assurance and communication proficiency that’s required to employ the level of understanding necessary for issue-related ballot initiatives.

In addition, understanding the political arena is key, especially among the various complex issues facing the city of Cambridge. If the Cambridge constituency has a hard time grasping the understanding of those problems, they will remain unengaged. A few years ago, I made a phone call to my state senator in another city regarding an initiative that I wanted him to support and he spurted complex terminologies that a political scientist with a Ph.D. would need time to analyze. If our own political leaders are speaking in jargon, then most often the person will stay away from the political fray. In addition, some people feel as if their vote won’t be powerful enough to help the outcome of any political race, especially if they aren’t too enthusiastic about the candidate. Not being familiar with the candidates, election system, or political figures with a new move.

Many do not meet voter registration requirements, which sadly disenfranchise many; the top three being former convicts, the registry and same-day voter registration. First, those who are convicted are unable to vote, which I find to be odd. A former convict attempts to assimilate back into society and a lot of their basic rights are stripped away. Secondly, when you get your driver’s license, the registry registers people to vote, and over the years the registry has fallen behind with getting the registration information to the election commissions; and third, lack of same-day voter registration. When people have busy schedules, they forget. It would be great if we had same-day voter registration — people would be able to register and vote the same day of the election. Also, I’ve met people who didn’t vote because they felt that if they spoke out, they would be complaining, and often times the word “complaint” can be viewed in a negative connotation.

In short, if Cambridge wants to see more voter participation and civic engagement at the city’s meetings, I think one of the best ideas that has worked for a former city I used to live in is to alleviate the barriers that cause people not to attend and seriously began to address those issues. Personally speaking, as a parent, childcare is the main issue for me. If childcare was provided at these meetings, i.e., School Committee or City Council, I would be at every single meeting, and I’m sure that this doesn’t just affect parents with limited support system because childcare costs do add up. If the people reading this will adopt the ideas that School Committee candidate Patty Nolan has suggested regarding market research, perhaps it will be a beginning force into helping to address why people either don’t care, gave up or remain unconnected.

Cambridge Chronicle – Posted Sep 29, 2009 @ 10:12 AM

To view article, click here

The way that Congressman Michael Capuano has entered the Massachusetts senate race for Edward Kennedy’s seat is disconcerting. Attacking his opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, for being “timid” when she was the first person to enter the Senate race – really? He waited until Joe Kennedy declined before entering the race, as many other people were also deciding whether they would run if he didn’t. Attorney General Coakley is a lawyer and a professional, and I hardly think that she would have gotten as far as she has if she were timid.

Although negative campaigning is nothing new, politicians who think that is the route toward victory are in for a wake-up call. In attempting to win this campaign by attacking someone’s character rather than emphasizing their reason for running, their goals as US Senator and policy ideas will garner no support or may push more people toward the other opponent. If the negative campaigner does indeed win, they face the trouble of entering the office with an embarrassing start on the first day on the job, and this is only if Capuano chooses to continue down this route.

In the 2008 presidential race, people rejected that behavior, and I think that it’s time we move past it. Most voters are turned off by attack ads, vague platform ideas, and indecisiveness. In addition, what was obvious during the 2008 campaign was that negative campaigning led to candidates losing their current supporters, especially if they already held elected office. Most voters are hungry to learn about the ideas and why the candidate believes he/she is best fit for the job over the other candidates running, and if it becomes polarizing between two candidates from the same party, some voters will be turned off, and may not show up to the polls, or vote for someone else.

Choosing our legislators is the most frequent activity that the ordinary citizen will participate in. But as noted in the YouTube video entitled “Coakley video 1 edited down,” which was compiled by Coakley’s campaign from local news sources, we want someone who is going to represent us for the key issues, and not because “they have nothing else to lose.” Regardless of who wins, the next Senator of Massachusetts will also be a colleague that will have to be able to bring people together positively. If a campaign starts off negatively, how are voters supposed to feel positively about the candidate?

In short, various issues regarding the state of Massachusetts are at stake, from healthcare reform, budget cuts, and fee hikes to job creation. Congressman Capuano should be advised, too, that by running a dirty campaign, in the event he loses this seat, he may also lose his earlier supporters as a Congressman if he chooses to run for reelection as Congressman in November 2010. This is shaping up to be an interesting campaign since the person elected will fill the seat of Senator Edward Kennedy.

To view article at Northeastern’s The Huntington News, click here

To view article at The Standard-Times, Capuano entered race with an accusation, click here

Both articles essentially say the same thing, but they’re written differently. NEU’s is more from a basic academic approach, whereas with the local newspaper it’s a bit more expressive, so-to-speak.

This is in response to the excellent op-ed, “America is now the Promised Land,” by Ross M. Grace Jr., published June 7. I hope that those paying attention will respond to his message, and I’m confident that the bulk of those who are dissatisfied with the status quo are going to vote in November.

But for those who won’t vote, that is a big mistake. When people don’t vote, their voice isn’t heard. As Mr. Grace pointed out, there are women who fought to get women the right to vote, and civil rights leaders who died, were jailed and beaten in order to get minorities the right to vote.

My friend Marilou, who is in her late 50s, pointed out to me that not voting is a big part of the problem and does nothing to solve problems in this country. Also, you can’t complain about what you allow.

Now that the Democratic primary season is over, I urge readers to get to know the candidates for this November. They are Bob Barr (Libertarian candidate), John McCain (Republican), Barack Obama (Democrat) and Ralph Nader (Green Party).

As Mr. Grace and others have done so far, I urge those reading this to write opinion letters throughout this campaign season to talk about the candidate they are choosing and why.

Information about where to vote is available by going to www.wheredoivotema.com (from the secretary of the commonwealth). Enter a home address and it gives the polling station as well as the representatives and information on how to get registered to vote in November.

Visit the candidates’ Web sites, as well as their YouTube sites. The excellent thing about the presidential candidate-centered YouTube channel is that the candidates are posting the majority of their “town hall” meetings and personal messages to voters.

Don’t sit home this election year. Everyone should make their voice heard on Nov. 4.

Originally posted in The Standard-Times newspaper,  SouthCoastToday.com – Posted June 13, 2008 12:00 AM

To view article, click here