If You Didn't Vote, Quit Complaining (Joe Rothstein's Commentary)

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.com

During the debate over a balanced budget amendment, Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor argued that Republicans were holding firm on their hell-no debt ceiling position because "that's what voters sent us here to do." That's certainly a common view among right wing House freshmen and the organizations and media that back them.

Too bad it's not true. It would be a great relief to everyone if Congress was doing what the American people want them to do. But they're not.

By overwhelming majorities, polls show voters want their leaders to bring fairness to the tax burden, to preserve Social Security and Medicare, to rein in too-big-to-fail banks---and mostly to figure out how to get the country back on track to make things, mostly with good paying jobs.

There's a disconnect between what the American people want and what the current Congress, and to some extent, the current President, are trying to deliver. Why should that be, if the people have the right to guide government policy by choosing representatives in open and free elections?

The answer is that those in Congress, particularly the House, are there because only a small fraction of eligible voters actually participate in the selection process.

Case in point. One of the most vocal tea party-centric freshmen is Joe Walsh, who represents the eighth district of Illinois. Walsh has been in the news lately for calling President Obama a liar when he says the government won't be able to pay its bills after August 3 without a debt ceiling increase. In that, Walsh is speaking for most House GOP freshmen who are also debt-ceiling deniers.

But is this really what the majority of Walsh's constituents want him to do? Examine how Walsh got to Congress. First, he won a Republican primary with only 16,000 votes. It was a crowded field of candidates, meaning that Walsh's 34% plurality in a low turnout primary was enough to make him the party nominee. Then, Walsh defeated incumbent Democrat Melissa Bean 48.5% to 48.3% in a general election where only 42% of those who were eligible voted.

There are about 470,000 eligible voters in Walsh's district. He became the Republican nominee by winning the support of 3.5% of them. In November's general election he punched his ticket to Congress by winning 20% of the vote of all voting age residents of the eighth district.

I'm not picking on Joe Walsh here. He won the race fair and square following all the rules of the game. But it's a real stretch for him, or Eric Cantor, or anyone else now to say that when he calls the President a liar or denies that there's a debt ceiling crisis, or votes against money to extend unemployment insurance or opposes grants that would keep teachers in the classroom that he is "doing what the majority of those he represents" wants him to do.

You can draw this picture in nearly every congressional district in the U.S.

A few weeks ago, voters in California's 36th district elected a new Democratic congresswoman in a special election. She's in Congress now because 13.5% of those eligible in her district voted for her. A few months ago there was a high profile special election in upstate New York where a Democrat won a seat Republicans had held for 100 years. It sent a shudder through the national political nervous system. Only 12% of those eligible voted for him.

It gets worse. We're about to embark on another presidential election cycle where Americans will either reelect President Obama or choose someone else to be the leader of the free world. That process will involve only 4.5% of eligible voters in caucus states and no more than 20% in party primaries.

If only 16,000 friends and like-minded right wing supporters can send Joe Walsh and others like him to play a key role in the potential default of U.S. securities, who's to blame for that? Joe Walsh and his supporters, or the hundreds of thousands of eligible voters in his district who opted out of the decision?

If you aren't happy with President Obama, it might make you less happy to recall that he lost most high profile primary elections in populous states, and won the Democratic nomination among the 4.5% who turned out for party caucuses.

What's to be done?

We could have elections on weekends, when more people would find it easier to get to the polls. We could adopt mail-in voting, as Oregon and Washington State and others have. We could use ballots where voters select first and second choice in multi-candidate races to avoid low turnout run-offs. We could have more polling places and voting machines to cut down the long lines. It's not hard to think of ways to increase turnout, if we really want to.

But mostly, it seems, we need to be mad as hell. During the Great Depression, turnouts were enormous. Most voters not only knew that they had a stake in the outcome, but knew they had few shots---like voting---to protect their interests.

Back in the 19th century, voting percentages were routinely in the 70-80% range. That was when there were no unions, few worker protections, rampant greed by the powerful banks and business interests, and a lot of financial misery in the neighborhoods.

Sound familiar? A 70 or 80% turnout in 2012 could work wonders. It might even deliver to Washington legislators who really do what their constituents want them to do.

(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)