Want a better democracy? Quit asking us to vote so dang much | Opinion

This article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.

One of the problems with our democracy is this: There’s too much to it.

Our cherished system faces more imminent threats, and no democracy will crumble because there are too many elections. But the breadth of what we ask voters to decide and the frequency with which we expect them to do it distorts results, allows vested interests to dominate and invites citizens to tune out.

We elect too many offices, including some that require specialized knowledge and experience. We vote on too many questions directly, asking voters to evaluate complicated financial proposals, such as bonds, and arcane legal questions.

And we vote too often. Between primaries, local elections and runoffs, a citizen might be asked to go to the polls six times in certain years. That doesn’t even include the occasional special election.

The result, and the reason it poses a threat, is incredibly low voter turnout. Beyond presidential elections and midterms, when a lot of state offices are on the line, a tiny number of voters participate in so many local elections. The sad irony is, those are the offices — city council, school boards — closest to them that can affect their lives the most.

In the race for Fort Worth mayor in May, a little over 42,000 people cast ballots, in a city rapidly approaching 1 million residents. It was one of dozens of local governments with important races on the ballot, but overall county turnout clocked in at a little under 9% of eligible voters.

Some might chalk that up to a lack of competitive marquee races or even voters signaling their pleasure with the status quo. Perhaps, but consider Chicago. It had a competitive runoff at a time of rising crime and economic concern and still drew just 40% turnout.

OFFICES ON STATE, LOCAL BALLOT

More than half the states vote on supreme court judges. We elect officials to oversee water supply. Voters choose officials to regulate industries such as agriculture and insurance and, in many cases, their main effect is to add a layer over the bureaucrats who really do the work.

We have a republican government, but we nonetheless vote directly on policy. The Texas Constitution is an absolute mess. In November, the entire state must decide whether one of its 254 counties can eliminate the office of treasurer, a position that is — you guessed it — elected.

We’re electing state and local officials every two or four years; surely they can handle these decisions and, if necessary, be held accountable later.

Runoffs are a particular problem. One of the Fort Worth school district’s board races went to a second round, and just 2,664 people participated. That kind of turnout for Friday Night Lights would prompt a crisis in this state. For a local election, it’s the standard.

Such tiny numbers make it easier for campaigns and vested interests to control an outcome. A fancy mailer financed by, say, the political arm of a construction company can move just enough votes to pass bond proposals that finance a school building boom.

Having so many elections to sort through creates an information barrier. Normal people are not going to dive into the records and policy positions of dozens of candidates at least twice a year. Even faithful voters rely on factors such as name identification and party affiliation.

In our polarized era, that has candidates railing about issues on which the offices they seek have no effect. We get lots of talk about abortion and immigration, but not enough about the state budget or improving literacy rates in schools.

SOLUTIONS TO ELECTION FATIGUE, LOW TURNOUT

Solutions are hard to come by. In many states, constitutional amendments would be required to make elected offices into appointed ones — and those amendments would, of course, trigger another low-turnout election. The portion of the electorate that voted devoutly would understandably be reluctant to give itself less control.

One promising idea is ranked-choice voting, which eliminates runoffs by having voters express their preferences for second, third and even fourth-place candidates. Votes are reallocated based on those choices, until a winner achieves an outright majority.

The political class likes runoffs — consultants make more money, and the smaller electorate allows the most ferocious partisans to prevail. It’s one reason someone as ethically and professionally challenged as Ken Paxton keeps getting elected in Texas. When a summertime primary runoff rolls around, only the most staunch conservatives show up.

There’s also a performance issue, or at least a perceived one, with ranked-choice voting. In New York City’s local elections in 2021 and Alaska’s midterms in 2023, it took weeks for officials to announce the results. There were unrelated circumstances, but delayed results invite voters to interpret incompetence as malice.

In an age when supercomputers will soon be writing novels, ranked-choice votes — or frankly, any ballots — should be tabulated sooner and with more transparency.

The most realistic fix for low turnout would be to consolidate election dates. Put local elections on the same ballot with presidential and midterms, and more people will participate.

Some warn that a long ballot will frustrate people, causing a lot to skip races near the end. More daunting, the very people who benefit from light turnout don’t want to see 40%-60% rates for school boards and local races.

Texas had a brief experiment with this in 2020, thanks to the pandemic. Many May races were shifted to November, and yes, some school bond-programs that might have easily passed were turned down.

That’s democracy in action. It’s too much for some interests but definite proof that when it comes to elections, less is more.

Do you have an opinion on this topic? Tell us!

We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section.

• Letters should be no more than 150 words.

• Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days.

• Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions.

You can submit a letter to the editor two ways:

• Email letters@star-telegram.com (preferred).

• Fill out this online form.

Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.