An explanation for voter turnout

You reference that voters have "no compelling reason to vote" and therefore do not participate in the process.  The reason they have no reason to vote, however, is because there is limited distinction between the parties.  Republicans have become very similar to Democrats in their habits and voting that there is often little distinction between the two. 

We have a one party system in New Jersey, most in Trenton are self interested big government spenders (they just sometimes disagree on what to spend on and how to spend).  Hence the voters don't vote because it doesn't matter who gets elected from either party because they will act the same after being elected. 

For to long in this state the people have been subjected to the arrogance of the very representatives who claim to serve them.  This recent election offers a perfect example of this.  The bonding for stem-cell research was defeated, clear and simple.  But instead of honoring the feelings of the citizens of this state, Corzine is still committed to spending this money. 

This example it just one of the numerous examples that can be cited.  Two years ago we elected folks to go to Trenton and cut spending, pay down the debt that threatens to bankrupt New Jersey, and finally control corruption.  Instead, we get more spending, more debt, and national headlines as the US attorney indicts a slew of these people who are suppose to be the best the state of New Jersey has to offer. 

Now what will happen, the voter will just become apathetic to another election.  It is simple, they don't listen to me, so why should I waste my time. 

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
                --Theodore Roosevelt--

How many states do have a "statewide" paper?  With the Star-Ledger and the Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, the state is covered.

We still have good regional papers in the Record (Bergen), The Times (Trenton) and Asbury Park Press.  If you wish, Easton, PA's Express is good for western Jersey.

The low turnout may be seen in the gerrymandering that favors incumbents.  Also, I would like to see a study of the press and it's endorsement of incumbents.

Interesting note;  a claim of 31% turnout is different from the 25% that voted on the propositions. 

as a gray Toyota Camry with no options. To write for this site you gotta have some spice. These elections had some good moments, including a liberal elitist  state senator from posh posh Monmouth County pretending to be Farmer Betty in overalls, another State Senator with a massive rug on his head being summoned in the dark of the night to Boss Codey's house for a secret meeting where he was given the facts of life, a state Assemblyman thinking giving to an insane political cult was a great way to win over Jewish voters, a Reverend whose favorite words were "I Love Ya!" being carted away etc. I mean common Dr. Joe spare us the drab analysis, if people missed this show they'll never be tuned in and maybe they ought not to be.

Well-written, Dr. Marbach.

I agree that the absence among voters of feeling greatly-threatened can indeed be equated with a wet blanket on voters' motivation to turn out.

I would add what I believe is the most important factor: People feeling that their vote does not have a <i>positive, consequential impact</i> on what government ultimately does, and most importantly, on the <b>quality of their daily lives.</b>

Too often, elected officials indeed do <u>not</u> deliver on the promises they made as a candidate seeking votes.

And that serves as a serious disincentive for voters to invest in learning which candidate is best. Candidate "Full of sh*t" or Candidate "Full of More Sh*t" is what many voters consider elections to be about. And while I have been committed -- and still am -- to <i>engaging</i> citizens to participate meaningfully in the civic life in their community, I don't blame voters for not showing up.

Pay-to-play, in particular, has an incredibly-pernicious effect on the health of our democracy. When some mega-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars infrastructure project is proposed -- and the motivation is truthfully more based on the economic self-interest of some construction firm with their ties to firms providing PR, architectural, engineering, and financial bond house services and their <i>political influence</i> as big donors, and the thing is built, and it winds up not serving the "public interest" when Judgement Day finally arrives, citizens get pi*ssed off.

I believe -- generally -- citizens haven't been well-served in our political system for years, and that after the combined events of the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Vietnam, the gas lines, Watergate and, up to the Hostage Crisis in Iran, from 1963 all the way up through 1980, citizens' belief in the power of their voice had sustained a collective sucker punch so potent (much like the proverbial frog in water that gradually turns up to a boiling level), their motivate to participate in civic life just plummeted and has been there at that low level ever since.

Or, call it, perhaps, "Bowling Alone."

I believe that the power of the Internet is changing this, to some degree, and does have great promise. But I am concerned that its potential seems to have been directed most successfully in single campaigns for presidential candidates -- as opposed to re-establishing a sustainable, local civic culture.

For it is through such a local ethos of civic consciousness that we can rebuild the civic health of our democracy across this country.

I cannot help but cite the adage, "all politics is local."