UA Researcher Predicts Lowest Voter Turnout Since 1920s in 2000 Election

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - In the 1996 presidential election, voter turnout plummeted to its lowest point since 1924. Now, a University of Arkansas researcher predicts that the year 2000 election may drop even lower.

Less than half of the nation’s registered voters - approximately 49 percent - visited the polls in 1996, said Todd Shields, associate professor of political science. With co-author Chi Huang of the National Chung-Cheng University, Shields recently presented a study on voter participation in the ’96 election at a political methodology conference held in Taiwan.

With turnout in America at the bottom of a four-decade slump, only a narrow margin of votes determined which candidate won the election in 1996. As a result, Bill Clinton’s second presidential term came to characterize many of the problems associated with low voter turnout.

"Presidents who win by such a small majority find it difficult to get things done in office. They can’t stand before Congress and claim to have a mandate from the people," Shields said. "Their lack of popular support gives Congress little incentive to back them up - especially when Congress is ruled by the opposition party."

Yet if politicians suffer from low voter participation, they are also guilty of inspiring it, he added.

Since the early 1960s, voter turnout has steadily declined, and it has done so in spite of measures that make voting more accessible and convenient. With "motor-voter" laws in many states, citizens can register to vote when they renew their drivers’ licenses. More lenient residency requirements have enabled people to vote despite being fairly new to a community.

And higher levels of education as well as increased media coverage ensure that voters are more informed than ever before.

Each of these factors should serve to increase participation in politics, yet they have failed to do so. Many political scholars believe this is partly due to a growing cynicism that has developed over three decades of political scandal.

Watergate ruined Nixon. The Iranian hostage crisis struck during Carter’s term. Reagan’s presidency generated both the Iran Contra affair and the Savings and Loan scandal. Bush faced a war, a recession and his own broken promise of "no new taxes." Add to that the foibles of the Clinton administration, and it amounts to 30 years of nearly continuous controversy.

Such scandals have marred the credibility of politicians and driven many voters away from the political process. While trust in government officials is currently at an all time low, apathy has hit an all time high. But lack of credibility accounts for only a portion of candidates’ problems. Lack of charisma makes up the rest.

Following a trend of moderation, platforms have begun to blend, personalities have begun to blur, and recent elections have presented voters with a very bland choice, Shields said. Simply, candidates rarely stand out or speak up in a manner that motivates people to vote.

"There appears to be less and less difference between Republican and Democratic candidates. Many groups in the electorate feel like they don’t have a choice, so they don’t make a choice," Shields added. "It takes a controversial or charismatic candidate to drive people to the polls. If people feel a strong opinion about a candidate, they’ll also feel compelled to express that opinion by voting."

Previous presidential elections have shown this to be true. In 1992, voter participation bucked its downward trend and slightly climbed. Shields’ research indicates that this peak of interest was generated by the controversial candidate Ross Perot whose reform positions attracted new voters to the polls.

Finally, Shields also blames the candidates for failing to cultivate new voters. Rather than encouraging new people to participate in the election process, candidates focus on demographic groups who already show a steady voting record.

"Candidates act on the idea that it’s easier to convert a voter to your party than lure a non-voter to the booth," said Shields. "This policy perpetuates the ambivalence of young people and minorities - those who most need to have a voice."

In fact, the policy creates a fruitless cycle in which under-represented groups refuse to vote because candidates neglect to address the issues that impact their lives. And because these groups refuse to vote, candidates feel no pressure to represent their interests or recruit them into the next election.

The year 2000 campaign has already shown signs of each problem - George W. Bush’s alleged cocaine use; Al Gore’s lack of charisma; and the public’s general indifference to both. But the lackluster kickoff of this year’s campaign will be compounded by an even greater disastrous force: ten years of steady economic growth.

The 1990s produced the most stable economy this country has seen in nearly a century. As a result, Americans feel secure and complacent - lulled into indifference by their own satisfaction.

Research has long shown that when people feel confident about the economy, they tend not to vote. Those who do vote pick the candidate whom they feel will most benefit the nation economically. If the economy remains stable during an election, the incumbent nearly always wins. If the economy fluctuates - even slightly - the opposing candidate has a chance.

"Generally, the economy outweighs all other issues in American politics," Shields said. "People will vote for a candidate they neither agree with nor like if they feel he will improve the economy."

Such narrow priorities are peculiar to American voters. In other nations, issues such as the environment, civil rights or foreign policy can sway an election, but in the U.S., even people who hold strong beliefs about specific issues often vote by their pocketbook.

American voters are so consistent in this tendency that it’s practically a sociological phenomenon. The economy represents the one issue on which voters will act for the overall good of the nation rather than for their own benefit, Shields said.

However, with the economy steadily growing, voters won’t feel compelled to act at all. This complacency, combined with an indifference toward the candidates, will likely mean short lines at the voting booth.

"It’s unfortunate that this combination of factors has converged this year," Shields said. "Unless the economy falters or a third party candidate shows up with a bag full of charisma, there’s a good chance that we’ll see the lowest voter turnout in almost a century."

# # #