The Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy had a twist of an ending — Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat (and current State Attorney General) Martha Coakley.

In moves reminiscent of a call to “round up the usual suspects,” Democrats are pointing fingers and conjuring conspiracies while Republicans cite the one-state result as evidence that the nation has rejected the policies of President Obama.

Sadly, it is not important which, if either, has a leg to stand on.  What matters is that politics, the way it is practiced in the United States, has again played its trump card over policy.

The status quo may need to change, but change is unsettling to the special interests who benefit from holding it at bay.  Worse, it may be that those who need the status quo changed the most had a hand in maintaining it.

Newly minted Senator Brown won the election with about 1.17 million votes.  Combined with the 1.06 million cast for Ms. Coakley, the total represents just 54 percent of Massachusetts’ registered voters (and only about 45 percent of people in the state eligible to vote).  Where the heck was everyone?

In November ‘08, 72 percent of registered voters went to the polls to elect President Barack Obama.  The 18 percent difference in registered voter turnout between then and now represents 750,000 votes.  Brown beat Coakley by 110,000 votes.

The Presidential and special Senate elections suggest there is a positive relationship between the number of people who vote and the responsiveness of our politics.

As more people vote, the contributions of special interests hold less sway.  As more people vote, politicians are caused to listen more closely to constituents so as to keep elected office.  As more people vote, there is a premium put on leadership. These seem like good outcomes.

So, why don’t we vote?  Where were the good people of Massachusetts who turned out at the end of 2008, but stayed home in early 2010?  Maybe they did not think they had a reason to vote. This is not a political problem but a communications challenge.

Perhaps they felt the race was over days in advance as media reports persisted in reporting on the race, not its reasons.  Perhaps they thought their cause was lost, having learned of the U.S. Senate’s new math where 41 is a majority.  Perhaps they resented the way each candidate was foisted on them, wishing a pox on both their houses.

Here is a thought.  Presidential advisor Rahm Emanuel has said “change requires a crisis.”  If he is right, when it comes to elections the best kind of change might be the anarchy that would arise if everyone voted.

If all 4.2 million registered Massachusetts voters had gone to the polls, it would have created havoc for those who benefit from the status quo.  If all 5 million who could vote, did vote, it would instigate just the kind of uncertainty that leads to anarchy.  And if that became the norm, well, now we’re talking real change.

Share