Power Voting on the Rise

A political science professor whose specialty includes studying Cincinnati City Council elections says incumbents shouldn't take too much solace in the fact that all nine sitting members were re-elected last week.

Gene Beaupre, an Xavier University political science instructor who's been analyzing local politics for years, says the number of under-votes in the council election is telling.

Although 59,246 ballots were cast in the council race, not every voter voted for nine candidates as they are allowed. In fact, the number of people who voted for fewer than nine candidates — called under-voting — was substantial. The total under-vote was about 22 percent in the race.

While some of the under-voting might be unintentional, most is likely an example of a tactic called “power voting” or “bullet voting.” The strategy is used by some voters in a field race to make the votes actually cast have more influence by not diluting their impact through withholding support from some candidates that they feel less strongly about or they know are assured of election regardless.

“It could be an accident but it may also be that people are really thinking about who they voted for and are voting fewer times,” Beaupre says. “I’d like to think that voters are that educated on the candidates and the issues, but there are a lot of variables, so it’s hard to be sure.”

This year’s council election was odd, Beaupre says, in that besides nine incumbents seeking re-election, there also were three former council members running. That means any challengers had to combat the established name recognition of 12 people. When combined with a weak voter turnout of just 28 percent, the hurdle for newer candidates becomes almost insurmountable.

“It really tended to put a pall over the other candidates,” Beaupre says. “It made it more difficult to raise money and, if possible, put an even higher premium on name recognition. It was harder than ever for non-incumbents to break through this time.”

Still, the election results probably show there is neither overwhelming voter outrage nor enthusiasm with the council crowd.

“(The results) certainly acknowledge that these are the people we know and we’re not unhappy with them,” Beaupre says. “Being not unhappy is not the same thing as a ringing endorsement.”

In fact, an analysis of election results conducted by the Hamilton County Democratic Party reveals that voters might have become wary of City Hall over the years. The analysis, from 1993 to the present, indicates an overall lack of interest that voters show in the race now.

“In 1993 while registration was lower than it is today, 98,262 people voted in the council race,” says Caleb Faux, the Democratic Party’s executive director. “Last Tuesday only 59,246 did, (or) 60 percent of the ‘93 number. But registration today is 13 percent higher than it was in ‘93.”

This week’s issue of CityBeat, which hits newsstands Wednesday, includes a more detailed look at the council results and other interpretations of the numbers.

Election officials noted that there still are about 2,000 provisional ballots yet to be tallied, as well as some damaged ballots and absentee ballots arriving from overseas. The votes probably will be totaled and certified by the Board of Elections later this month, but they’re not expected to radically alter the outcome of the council race, officials said.

— Kevin Osborne

Comments

[Not the Mamma Cass!]

The average number of votes cast was 7- not sure what the median number was but also not sure that equates to "power voting".

[Political Junkie]

The #'s from the Dems are very interesting. I think it's an indictment of all the candidates endorsed by the Dems and Repubs in recent years.

[danny cross]

I totally under-voted, although I didn't know that there was a term for it or that it is a common practice. I only voted for five people because I didn't want four other votes to compete with the five I actually cared about.

I hope that makes Gene Beaupre happy!

[David E. Gallaher]

"When combined with a weak voter turnout of just 28 percent, the hurdle for newer candidates becomes almost insurmountable."

Three questions: As voter turnout gets weaker and weaker, do incumbent candidates have an interest in making voter turnout weaker still? And what about the will of the 72 percent who don't vote (which includes me)? Are we just a bunch of assholes whose opinions should count for squat?

[JFD]

I voted for the six I was enthused about; and then I voted for three lesser evils out of the rest of the pack.

[Josh Krekeler]

Many of the people who voted voted for some "lesser evil" candidates without a thought for how their WILLINGNESS to vote for them could thwart their INTENTION to elect the candidates they really supported. Those who were aware of that problem cast "power votes" for a limited number.

We wouldn't have to play these games at all if we used Proportional Representation (PR). Under PR, you rank the candidates you support in order (1, 2, 3 ...), and that order determines how your ballot is counted. If your first-choice candidate has enough support on other ballots to get elected, your ballot counts for your second choice, and so on. You still get to choose up to nine candidates, but thanks to the rankings, your ballot will never help your ninth choice get elected ahead of your first choice.

David, the only way for you and your fellow non-voters to express your opinions in an electon context is to go vote. I know you have your reasons for not doing so, but most of the others think it's not important or that it won't affect them, if they think about it at all. If even half of that 72% had voted, we'd have a much more accurate idea of how people feel (even if the results were the same).

What would help increase turnout? More equal media coverage of candidates (both paid and "earned")? More government and less politics in the news? More emphasis on civics in school and public life? A different voting system? I don't have the answer, but I think all of these ideas are worth considering if you care.

[David E. Gallaher]

Josh Krekeler,

If I and my fellow non-voters voted, then we'd be __________?

Democracy is called "tyranny of the majority." But now it's tyranny of the minority, right? That's worse, isn't it?
I don't want tyranny. I don't want government. I don't need it.

Faith in government's "love." Faith in God's "love." Faith that leaders will lead us in a good direction.

What many of us assume or take for granted just might not be so.

[JFD]

Well I must say that those six that I wanted were elected and those who I was voting against didn't get in.