©
Too many Virginians are either satisfied with the way their legislature operates, or they simply don't care.
Those aren't the only conclusions to draw from the terrible turnout last week in Republican and Democratic primary elections. Or from the terrible turnout of candidates for the fall's general elections.
But satisfaction or indifference are perhaps charitable.
The problem is unlikely to improve in the coming months. In fact, the November ballot seems specifically designed to guarantee voters go elsewhere on Election Day.
As The Pilot's Julian Walker reported, just 50 of the 140 General Assembly seats up for grabs in November will actually feature candidates from both major political parties.
In the Senate, where Democrats hold a 22-18 majority and Republicans are convinced they can take control, just 23 of the 40 seats are contested by both major parties.
Turnout during primaries and off-year legislative and municipal elections generally don't compare to presidential or gubernatorial balloting, despite that state and local officeholders have a direct impact on voters' day-to-day lives.
Last week's primaries were no different.
Just four Democratic nominations were contested, and only one drew more than 10 percent of registered voters. Republican primary voters were slightly more dedicated, with four of 12 races posting turnout of 10 percent or greater. A few hundred votes determined the winner in most.
Based on such results, it would be virtually impossible to determine what Virginians think about state lawmakers' inability to fix our failing transportation system. Or where they'd like their tax dollars spent.
Perhaps that's by design, given that members of the General Assembly redrew district lines earlier this year in a way that largely protected incumbents and paved the way for the cycle of apathy to continue.
The lack of public opposition to such naked manipulation of the electoral process gave politicians all the permission they needed.
While citizen apathy might be useful for partisans hoping for legislative advantage, it does no service to democracy or to the well-being of the commonwealth.
The point of elections is not elevating politicians. It is to ensure that voters' voices will be heard.
In a state long hailed as the cradle of the American republic, the failures of Virginia's politicians and its citizens have seldom - if ever - been so complete.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Your lamentations
about Democracy’s Failures in VA suggest that the editor does not think the Virginian Pilot has any responsibility. Since the Pilot frequently reports that Virginia Beach is overwhelmingly Republican, many Democrats and independents feel that it is hopeless and not worth voting. Has the Pilot ever commissioned a third party poll or contacted the DPVA to determine if what they say is true?
Also, while the Pilot’s editors talk about the “decade of failure” of the General Assembly failing to solve the state’s transportation problems, the Pilot is minimizing that it has endorsed many of the elected representatives that have been responsible for this decade of failure. This further exacerbates this feeling of hopelessness among Democrats and independents. Last year the Pilot endorsed someone who was in charge of a company when it reportedly denied health care to thousands of pregnant women in Illinois, that consequently put the lives of thousands of fetuses at risk, that was found guilty of what the Illinois Attorney General reportedly described as the largest fraud of its kind in the state, and that was reportedly sued by the stockholders of that company. If the media thinks that someone who has done things like this should be a in the General Assembly, why would the editor think a person or that person’s family would feel there is any point to trying to run for an elected office or vote?
So, be part of the solution,not part of the problem
Having run for office as a third party candidate, I can attest that the cost of running a campaign has become prohibitive. Even a single post card mailing to likely voters in a State Senate race will cost $15to$20 thousand dollars. What does a newspaper ad cost?
To run a successful campaign for a House of Delegate seat against in incumbent would easily cost $60,000. A Senate campaign close to $100,000. Yet we know that large donors and PACS give 95%+ to incumbents.
The cost of campaigning makes challenging an incumbent almost pointless, and you can't raise that kind of money without incurring some unhealthy obligations.
But it was not always this way. Newspapers used to cover campaign speeches as news. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates were covered by every paper in Illinois and in many papers around the country as news, not paid advertisements. Everyone knew the candidates positions without the candidates having so spend a dime.
If news media did their jobs and covered campaign speeches and debates as news, challengers would have a chance, but so long as newspapers and other media maintain a wall of disinterest so candidates have to buy an ad to get their message out, challenging an incumbent is just a way to throw away a year of your life for nothing, unless you are willing to corrupt yourself to raise the necessary money.
Political campaigns are "pay to play" because the news media has chosen to make it that way. For your villain here, look in your mirror.
Thank you
I remember in the last election, the Pilot provided no coverage on the challenger to Bobby's Scotts seat. In fact, I was amazed to find out from the Richmond newspaper that there was challenger. It seems that the local media has forgotten that their job is to report the news, not be the news. It is their job to provide a fair, unbiased report on each of the candidates in every election. Put the informaiton out there and let us decided whom we would like to vote for.
Translation?
The 100% Republican Party-free staff at the Pilot's Editorial Board don't like the reality that in VA, if incumbants are protected then the Republican Party will call the shots instead of the Progressive, Socialist Democratic Party.
If the Democratic Party was in power and redrew the voting districts to protect the Democratic Party incumbants, would we be reading this same editorial today?
Let's be "Fair and Balanced" here ...
(Progressive have a such blind hate when you invoke Fox News don't they? Fun to watch their irrational rage bubble up and boil over, isn't it? : )
"Fair and Balanced" - I'll ask the question. YOU decide the answer.
What could be more democratic than that?
Yes, the same progressive,
Yes, the same progressive, socialist editorial board that endorsed diehard, borderline theocratic Republican Randy Forbes for Congress?
Now go get a rag and clean the egg off of your face.
While you're at it, you might want to give up the baseless conspiracy theories.
Glen, nice try ... no cigar
Glen, you really think your weak counter point convinces anyone that the Pilot editotial Board is not a group of 6 people, none of whom are Republicans?
Would a VP editorial board
Would a VP editorial board made entirely of non-Republicans recommend--as a group--a conservative Republican candidate?
What is your evidence--since YOU originally made the claim--that there are no Republicans (or no independents who tend to support Republicans)--on the VP editorial board?
I say you still need a rag.
How Shameless
Of course, Reid Greenmun isn't even a Republican. He's the former Chairman of The Laughingstock Party-er, Tidewater Libertarian Party (TLP). He shamelessly hides behind a Republican Party that he doesn't even belong to in order to attack The V-P Editorial Board. Pathetic.
HRT = lies
Lies apparently come natural to the HRT Freeloader mob. I haven't stated I am a Republican. I commented on the bias of the Pilot editorial board - none of whom are Republicans. How my being a Libertarian has any bearing on the lack of Republicans on the Pilot editorial board is obvious to anyone that reads HRT Henry's vitriol and lies; he simply is enraged at anyone that dare stand in the path of his quest for massive taxpayer subsidies transit.
It is a FACT that none of the Pilot Editoral Board are Republicans.
It is a FACT that the Republican Party was in control of the General Assembly and Governor's office when redistricting was due to be conducted.
It is understood that the outcome of redistricting is a strategy for the political party in power to use redistricting to improve their own political party's ability to retain future political power.
No Republicans on the Pilot Editorial Board? Presto! Redistricting conducted by Republicans merits editorial scorn and rebuke.
"I commented on the bias of
"I commented on the bias of the Pilot editorial board."
What bias?
How can you POSSIBLY claim that the VP Editorial Board is "biased" if the board endorsed a Republican whom, according to the National Journal, is more conservative than 5 out of 6 Republicans?
I guess in your world, a editorial board that endorses conservative Republicans does so because it is biased against Republicans.
How absurd.