You turn on your television set on Election Tuesday. It's 6 p.m.The polls in our state are just closing. On the screen, the newsteam of your choice will be reviewing vote totals as they come inand "calling" a state for a particular candidate (although afterthe fiasco with Florida last election, expect to see the networksrefraining from making projections in states where the vote totalsare close).
At about 6:02 PM, the duo will likely make an announcement tothe effect of "with a projected 60% of the final vote tally, GeorgeW. Bush has carried the state of Indiana."
It's going to happen. It always happens, right? Indiana hasn'tgone for the Democratic candidate in a presidential election since1964. So, why vote? If you're a Democrat, your vote seems wasted inIndiana. If you're a Republican, you don't need to get out andvote; after all, your candidate will win by hundreds of thousandsof votes, right?
Maybe for now. But what if everyone thought like that? Lookingat the poll results from the last election, if half of the peoplein Indiana who voted for Gore had stayed home, Bush would have wonthe popular vote as well as the electoral vote. If a quarter ofIndiana's Bush voters had failed to show up to the polls in 2000,Gore would have carried the state, and Florida could have beenspared a tedious recount process and thousands upon thousands ofjokes and Floridian voter's expense. Apathy by what, nationally, isa very small amount of people can have far-reachingconsequences.
In 1960, Indiana's voter turnout was near 80% - well above thenational average. In 2000, only 49% of eligible voters could sparethe hour or so from their life that it took to voice their opinionon who should lead the most powerful nation in the world. Imagineif we could manage to get our turnout back up to near that 80%mark. Anything could happen. It would only take Democrats getting aquarter of those who stayed home in 200 to vote for Kerry this timeto turn Indiana blue. Republicans turning out that same percentagecould help avoid the electoral winner/popular winner debate of2000.
The electoral college was designed to keep candidates fromfocusing on the few most populous states and ignoring the rest ofthe country. All it has done is make sure that candidates onlyfocus on states where the polls are close. The whole "battlegroundstate" issue is a viscous cycle. Republicans don't think they canwin in New York, so they don't spend money in New York, andneglected Republican voters stay home in New York. Democrats don'tthink they can win in Indiana, so they don't spend money inIndiana, and Indiana Democrats stay home because they feelneglected and, nationally, fairly useless.
What would happen if each party at least attempted to compete inevery state? What if people stopped worrying that their vote didn'tmatter and started realizing that this mindset is part of theproblem? What would happen if a majority of Americans showed up atthe polls and the electorate was still evenly divided? What ifthere were 50 battleground states, instead of 11?
Now that would be an election worth tuning in to.
Write to Tim at tabirkel@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
