All About Turnout – Part 1: Two Decades of Decline

may november ballotBy GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff

The Falls Church City Council is considering moving municipal elections from May, their traditional date, to November, when they would conform with state or national elections.  The stated reason for the move is to increase voter turnout, which has fallen significantly since the early 1990s.

A report prepared by the Falls Church League of Women Voters in January 2001 first addressed local turnout decline, but no active consideration was given to changing the election date until October 2009, when councilmen Daniel Sze and Lawrence Webb publicly floated a proposal.

Virginia cities and towns have had the authority to conduct municipal elections in November for nearly a decade.  That the issue has abruptly surfaced seems surprising, especially as turnout here has been fairly stable since 2000 and remains far higher than in most localities.

Only last year an editorial in the Falls Church News-Press suggested that a low voter turnout was not necessarily a bad thing:

“They won’t [vote] that is, unless they’re really upset.  It is safe to say, therefore, that non-votes in a local election, especially in election-savvy Falls Church, constitutes a tacit vote of confidence for the status quo. “[Why the Low Voter Turnout? June 12, 2008]

In the election held that spring, 32% of the registered voters turned out to choose Council and School Board officers.  Though much lower than local turnouts aligned with national contests, turnout in the May 2008 election was much higher than that in the previous election, which had been uncontested.  However, the May numbers in the current decade are low when compared to those of twenty years ago.

In May 1988, when six candidates ran for Council, slightly over half of the registered voters participated in the municipal election.  The race saw the high tide of the Falls Church Citizens Organization (FCCO), whose candidates won all three seats at stake.  The turnout  was the highest since the 1970s, as the previous four elections had been uncontested.

Two years later Citizens for a Better City (CBC) candidates won all four contested Council seats.  That election saw an even higher turnout as 55% of those registered came to the polls.

However, May turnout began a steady decline after 1990.  School Board members were first added to the ballot in 1994, but the turnout that year slipped below 50%.  By 1998 it had dropped to 42% and then fell sharply to 34% in 2000 (one City tally says 32%).

This represents a drop of 38% in only a decade, a decline remarkable both in size and speed, especially considering that every Council election in the 1990s was contested, with seven or eight candidates in the running for three or four seats.

The decade also saw turnout decline in November elections, but the level seldom fell below 50%.  The November record of 93% was set in 1992, a figure that exceeded even the 82% achieved last year, in which Falls Church had the highest turnout in the Commonwealth.

November turnout remains relatively high, but has declined from the levels reached in the 1990s.  Since 2000, fall turnouts have ranged from 86% to 28%.  Turnout in 2009 was nearly 51%, far higher than that achieved in Arlington or Fairfax Counties.

Turnout for May elections has generally stabilized since the 90s, falling below 30% only once.  It dropped to 13% in 2006, but that likely was the result of four candidates standing for Council unopposed.

Various theories have been advanced for the post-1990 decline and the apparent apathy in the current millennium.  One is that many recent municipal elections featured few substantive issues, due in part to prosperity and general citizen satisfaction.  The 2008 News-Press editorial continued:

“.  .  .  [a tax rate hike or cuts in city services] would improve voter turnout for sure .  .  .  Angry voters would storm the polls to demand relief from such effects of failed governing.  The fact that they didn’t, and by-and-large stayed home, means they’re happy with how the current City Council has been navigating the pathway for the sustainable future   .   .   .  .”

Another theory is the continued dominance of the Citizens for a Better City.  After CBC crushed FCCO in the 1992 election, winning back the three seats it lost in 1988, the opposition party gradually faded away, leaving Falls Church again a one party democracy.  Under-financed independents since have found it difficult to challenge CBC-selected candidates.

The CBC may not be a party in the traditional sense, but many residents perceive it as such because its mission is the same as that of a party — to elect candidates.  Accustomed to the two-party system at the state and national levels, voters may conclude that in a one-party town there is no reason to vote.

Advocates of changing the election date to November maintain that many people are unaware that municipal elections are held in May.  Councilman Webb has stated on several occasions that while campaigning in 2008 he encountered citizens who had no idea Falls Church was about to hold an election in a matter of days.

However, one the great ironies of the local turnout decline is that it parallels an information explosion.  When voter participation peaked in 1990 there was neither a print newspaper nor an on-line news source for the City.

The News-Press, which began weekly publication in 1991, now appears on thousands of Falls Church doorsteps every Thursday.  For years the paper also has operated a website, which  recently began covering local events almost daily.

The prominent Blueweeds site has been actively commenting on Falls Church politics since July 2006.  The Falls Church Times began on-line publication two years later.  Other websites surfaced during the 2008 campaign, including the CBC’s Vote Falls Church and Save Our Falls Church, organized by proponents of a Charter change referendum.

This is a significant media presence for a community of only 11,000, which insures that local contests receive far more notice today than in 1990.

But as the pace of life continues to accelerate, many local residents tend to focus most of their civic attention on national events, while virtually ignoring those close to home.  The  24/7 news cycle, perpetual presidential campaigns, and a sense of continuing crisis combine to obscure the local scene, despite the best efforts of local media.

All of the above have contributed to lower turnout over the past 15 years, the absence of any counter-weight to the CBC probably being the most significant.   However, there is another factor that has had at least as great an influence on the turnout in local elections: Falls Church has seen major demographic changes over the last two decades, changes which began and were documented long before high-rises began appearing along West Broad Street.   The changes have created a new city and a very different electorate than resided here in the 1980s.

Wednesday:  Demographics Are Destiny:  From Old to New and Red to Blue

PrintFriendlyFacebookTwitterYahoo MailDeliciousAIMShare

By George Bromley
November 30, 2009 

Comments

7 Responses to “All About Turnout – Part 1: Two Decades of Decline”

  1. Andy Rankin (Falls Church) on November 30th, 2009 2:43 pm

    When comparing election turnout numbers I think it’s important to consider what is being voted on, not just what time of year it is. Below is some recent history (other things are voted on in these elections – not just the positions I point out).

    The past 3 Presidential elections went like this:

    2000 – 86%
    2004 – 81%
    2008 – 82%

    The year after Presidential elections we vote on Governor:

    2001 – 58%
    2005 – 59%
    2009 – 51%

    The year after that we elect a Senator:

    2002 – 60%
    2006 – 66%

    And then after that we elect a State Senator:

    2003 – 42%
    2007 – 28%

    These are all November elections and when you average them all together you get a number – but there seem to be obvious trends related to the positions being voted on. The turnout goes down the more local the election becomes. Again, these are November elections – everyone knows about them.

    I don’t know why more people tend to vote in elections with national impact as opposed to local impact, but I don’t think it has much to do with when the election is held.

  2. Sara Fitzgerald on December 1st, 2009 8:06 am

    An additional factor impacting turnout is the extent to which a race is perceived to be competitive. Note that in November 2007, when neither the State Senate candidate nor the House of Delegates candidate faced real opposition, the turnout figure dropped very low (28 %). In November 2006, there was a very close statewide race for the U.S. Senate (Webb versus Allen), which undoubtedly helped produce a turnout of 66 percent. But next November, there will not be a statewide race on the ballot. And it remains to be seen how competitive the race for the U.S. House seat will be, thanks to partisan redistricting that transformed most Virginia congressional districts into “safe” districts for one party or the other.

  3. Pam Callison, City of Falls Church on December 1st, 2009 10:49 am

    One interesting bit of information that has not been widely discussed and is contrary to Nick Benton’s recent editorial is the informal poll conducted by the Falls Church News Press, which showed that 76% of respondents opposed moving the election from May to November. The results of the poll can be found at the following link http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2187641/?view=results&msg=voted

  4. Barry Buschow on December 1st, 2009 11:43 am

    Excellent commentary George. So at the heart of the matter, as I try to read between everyone’s lines, the Council feels that May elections favor Republicans and small interest groups while November elections favor Democrats. I believe the News-Press recently said this, although the above quotes seem to indicate a change of thought since 2008. Nothing new there. I would like to know what data or reasoning was used. Do more Republicans vote in May, or do we just live in a hotbed for Democrat voting and as such every advantage must be taken?? Such wonderful small town politics……..Let the voters decide……

  5. Jonathan Smythe on December 1st, 2009 2:26 pm

    Pam, that 76% must be stocking the poll. As we know these are not scientific. Mr. Lippman hears the silent majority, those who don’t speak out, vote in polls, or vote in May, and knows they want the election moved. This poll also can’t possibly include the Panera patrons Mr. Sze favors- they’re too busy drinking coffee. The poll clearly wasn’t done on Facebook, or we’d hear differently from the Mayor.

  6. Mary Lynn Hickey on December 1st, 2009 2:48 pm

    RE: the FCNP polls, the 76% reported as opposed moving the election can be somewhat misleading if say, just 20 people actually voted in the poll. Another skewing factor is that there are no insurmountable barriers to voting early and often so the reported majority in this poll may be anything but.

  7. Andy Rankin (Falls Church) on December 1st, 2009 3:51 pm

    The PollDaddy polls have limited “security” to prevent people from voting multiple times. It’s not hard to get around, but it does require a little effort to vote more than once. I’d give the PollDaddy results about as much weight as the Mayor’s Facebook results.

    This week’s poll asks when such a change to kick in (if a change is made): http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2299606/

Feel free to leave a comment. Please increase the credibility of your post by including your FULL NAME and CITY. All comments are subject to editing for courtesy and content.





Subscribe without commenting