[EL] If it were a World Cup of Democracy....

[Larry Levine]

First, TV and radio advertising rates are driven up by statewide candidates and ballot measures during the General Election season.  Second, many stations sell out their time at top dollar to ballot measures and tell down ballot races – even some statewide and state legislative races – that they are not selling time for those races. 

Third, stations that may broadcast debates during stand-alone municipal elections won’t appropriate the time when there are “bigger” issues and candidate campaigns to cover.

Fourth, the print media already is stretched for political coverage. In competition with statewide campaigns, coverage of local races will all but disappear. 

Finally, it’s not a matter of voters not being able to hear through the din; it’s a question of whether the municipal candidates and issues can break through to even make their messages.

Larry

From: David Ely [mailto:ely at compass-demographics.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:50 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net
Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] If it were a World Cup of Democracy....

 

“and the increased difficulty in having a “down ballot” message heard in the din of the Presidential or gubernatorial campaigns”.  

 

A slightly different question occurs to me related to this.  Is it more difficult to have a down ballot message heard in the din of other campaign messages that people are paying attention to, or is it more difficult to have a down ballot message heard in the din of non-campaign messages, when people are not interested in campaign messages (absent highly divisive or charged issues)?

 

From: Larry Levine [mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:31 PM
To: 'David Ely'
Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] If it were a World Cup of Democracy....

 

That is exactly the question. Large numbers of people who vote in Presidential or gubernatorial elections have made the decision to not vote in municipal elections that are not held at the same time. The leading reason most likely is that they are not interested in the issues or candidates involved in municipal politics. The question then becomes whether their votes for municipal candidates and issues when the elections are consolidated with the statewide General Elections is any more informed than their votes for judge. An additional factor to consider, unless one is interested only in numbers of voters attending the polls, is the higher cost of campaigning in a statewide General Election cycle, the increased difficulty in raising funds in that cycle, and the increased difficulty in having a “down ballot” message heard in the din of the Presidential or gubernatorial campaigns and statewide ballot measures. 

Larry

 

From: David Ely [mailto:ely at compass-demographics.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:20 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net
Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] If it were a World Cup of Democracy....

 

There is no reason to believe that historically low interest in the 2014 primary statewide contests would have actively reduced interest in the City’s mayoral election. In Long Beach, the concurrent municipal runoff had a higher turnout than the Statewide primary this year, and about the same as the LA city 2013 primary. If the LA 2013 mayoral election had been held in June and November of either 2012 or 2014 instead, the primary might have had roughly the same participation as it did, but the general would have had a far greater participation rate.

 

My point in discussing the Assessor’s contest is not that it was responsible for the higher turnout, but that even though it was much less interesting than the contests at the top of the ballot, turnout was relatively low for a November election, and there was quite a bit of drop-off, it still had a much higher participation rate than the 2013 mayoral runoff. There are a lot of people who only engage with elections once every 2 years (or once every 4 years), and it takes something massive (like the 2003 recall election) to get them to vote more often than that. The open questions of course are how engaged those voters are with the down ballot issues that they do vote on, and how much different their representational interests are than those who vote at every opportunity. 

 

From: Larry Levine [mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:20 PM
To: 'David Ely'
Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] If it were a World Cup of Democracy....

 

If the concern is simply numbers, and not civic engagement, then November of even years for municipal elections can be argued successfully. However, in this case you are comparing apples and oranges. The November 2010 was a gubernatorial election and the turnout was generated by the races at the top of the ticket, not by the assessor’s race or any other “down ballot” race. The fact is if the L.A. City municipal Primary Election had appeared on the June 3 statewide ballot the turnout actually would have been lower than it was in the 2013 city elections. Turnout is driven by voter interest. I refer you again to the 82% turnout in the 1969 L.A. Mayoral Runoff Election. I don’t think anyone would want to recreate the circumstances that created that turnout. 

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David Ely
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:04 PM
Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] If it were a World Cup of Democracy....

 

There was a run-off for LA County assessor on the Nov 2010 Ballot. Not a race that generated a lot of media attention or public interest.  Participation was 36.4 % within the City of LA.  The last time a LA City mayoral race got that high a turnout was the 2001 runoff between Hahn and Villaraigosa (37.7%).  The 2005 rematch runoff only managed 34%, and last year’s runoff only got 23.3%.

 

I don’t mean to advocate for any particular position here, but I think it is clear that the facts indicate that timing of elections is far more important to participation than local media coverage or interest in particular contests, at least in Los Angeles County. 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David Ely
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:41 AM
Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] If it were a World Cup of Democracy....

 

I have looked at municipal elections in many different jurisdictions, and cities with council and mayoral races consolidated with even year November elections in LA County have had far higher participation in those contests in recent years than LA City has in its municipal elections. For example, Pomona had 3 council races on the Nov 2010 ballot. Contest participation ranged from 36.4% to 48.5%. A municipal ballot measure had 42% participation. Inglewood Mayoral race on the same ballot had 46.8% participation. Countywide turnout in that election was 53.8%. Even Long Beach, which holds its own even year April primary gets better participation for the June runoff which is held concurrently with the Statewide primary (same polling places, different ballots, limited drop-off). In Long Beach Council District 4 in 2012 turnout was 15.5% in April, 21% in June Municipal election and 24.4% in Statewide Primary.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140710/58e50b36/attachment.html>