CIRCLE folks were up late last night and early this morning crunching turnout figures for the 2004 primaries (and 2000, for comparison). We’ve posted a new fact sheet with all the information you could ask for. In short, turnout was relatively low yesterday for all age groups, probably because the last rounds of Kerry v Edwards just weren’t that exciting. Under-30 voters accounted for about 10 percent of the turnout in this primary season, the same as in 2000 (but much lower than their share of the population). Since overall turnout was down, fewer young people cast votes in Democratic primaries this year than in 2000. I don’t think this means anything about the state of youth politics–it has more to do with the contingencies and rhythms of this particular campaign season. We may still see a big increase in youth voting in November.

The most interesting reading on this blog today are the comments and the link that others have contributed in response to my post on Howard Dean. (See yesterday.)

On a similar topic: I spoke this morning to the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) conference. I talked about the importance of civic education and the main threats to it, hoping to recruit some Secretaries of State as allies. They are, after all, responsible for the election system in its broadest sense; and civic education makes people into voters. Then a bunch of colleagues and I held a conference call to discuss how we can fight to retain the NAEP civics assessment. (See February 6th’s post.) I’m quoted in a Gannet News Service story: “Young voter turnout did jump initially ? up fourfold in Iowa ? though it has leveled off as it appeared the Democratic nomination had been settled. ‘There?s no place where the turnout was down,’ said Peter Levine, deputy director of a Maryland center that studies young voters. ‘It probably bodes pretty well for the general election.'” And now I’m off to talk by speaker phone to a class of University of Wisconsin students about why youth don’t vote.

Jay Rosen is one of my very favorite media critics and theorists of democracy. Still, I’m slightly surprised by his retrospective enthusiasm for the Dean campaign. Those who were closely involved with the campaign feel they lived through something important and noble, and their feelings can be contagious. Nevertheless, I don’t buy that the “distributed” methods pioneered by Joe Trippi will do anything to improve our democracy.

Jay writes: “The miracle is that an alternative to campaigns-as-usual had finally become visible with the Internet’s semi-maturation as political tool. … This alternative had proven itself in the one way that counts on everyone’s scorecard: raising money. That Dean had raised it in small amounts, in distributed fashion, aided by a social movement which began to gather online and kept gathering, along with the blogs and the spirit of active participation– all of that motion meant something.”

Continue reading →

I’m very taken by the idea that the government should stop recognizing “marriage” at all. It should be up to religious denominations, families, and civil society to debate who can marry. Government should simply recognize certain contracts between pairs of adults that govern such matters as joint property, inheritance, adoption, and insurance. Those who oppose gay “marriage” can argue their position within their denominations and communities, and those in favor can develop appropriate rituals and ceremonies. But the government should not discriminate in recognizing contract rights, because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some critics are saying that this approach is a slippery slope. If discriminating against gay couples is unconstitutional, why may the government forbid bigamy and polygamy? My answer would be: people may live in polygamous families if they really want to (although I’m against it, morally). And they may say that they’re “married.” However, the government may legally create a type of contract that can only be signed by two consenting adults.

A Washington Post article suggests that perhaps Howard Dean’s former campaign manager, Joe Trippi, decided to spend huge amounts of money on television because he is a partner in the firm that places ads for Dean’s campaign, and it captures a percentage of every advertising dollar. In contrast, money spent on door-to-door canvassing, events, phone banks, and mass mail does not enrich Trippi personally.

Trippi denies a conflict of interest and emphasizes that all his decisions were vetted by others. I don’t much care whether he’s guilty or innocent as an individual. I’m more interested in the general problem of consultants’ conflict of interest . There is a lot of evidence that door-to-door campaigning wins votes, but hardly any evidence for the effectiveness of TV advertising. Canvassing is also more likely to increase overall turnout, which is good for democracy. Since candidates could win by putting money into canvassing, one would expect them to do so. But not if their consultants advise them to spend on broadcasting–which enriches them personally.

Consultants reply as follows (I quote from the Post): “Although some disreputable practitioners may pad bills, other forces work against such behavior. Because ad strategists tend to make more money the longer a candidate stays in a race, it is self-defeating to spend wildly early on, they say. Moreover, winning is the best calling card of all: A successful campaign tends to burnish a media consultant’s reputation and put the consultant in demand for the next election cycle.”

The pressure to win has some influence on consultants, but it is only one factor among many. Besides, the reelection rate in Congress is at least 83%, so most consultants work for candidates who are bound to stay in the race until the end, and then win. Yet they choose to spend their money on advertisements rather than campaign techniques that would strengthen democracy.