Voter apathy in LA

Only 16% of Angeleno voters participated in Los Angeles’ municipal elections last Tuesday. Even after adding absentee ballots that have not arrived, voter turnout won’t exceed 20%. In other words, of 1.8 million registered voters in the city, only 293,000 bothered to participate. This is out of a population of 3.8 million.

This minuscule turnout is not unusual, but it is at the lower level of the normal average for municipal elections in Los Angeles. That average is around 26%, compared with Chicago, where it is 48%.

The reasons for this apathy can be many. Voter tiredness after a long, disputed presidential election; few obvious differences among mayoral candidates; customary attacks on an opponent—those that happen in every election; and having municipal elections that are separate from state and federal ones.

No one can say that what was being voted on last Tuesday was not important. The municipal government of any location may be the one that most directly impacts the welfare of its population. It ensures that the streets are paved, the police department is effective, there are adequate water and electric services, the trees are planted in a way that a branch does not fall on your house. The mayor and the City Council, whose members were also being elected, do all of this and more. Not to mention education, the most essential of public services needed to build a society. Hotly contested races for the School Board, which involved millions of dollars from unions and businesses from outside L.A., were also decided on Tuesday.

Even so, this did not motivate voters. We must consider which changes can be made to facilitate, promote and stimulate voting. The more money is invested in campaigns and the fewer the people who vote, the less we can complain that our government is in the hands of “special” interests, handled by a few who finance the politicians.