A Low Turnout Is Expected, Though Voters Aren\'t to Blame

The Day September 13, 2012, 9:09 am

By CLYDE HABERMAN

Let's have a show of hands: How many of you are aware that Thursday is yet another Primary Day in New York, the third this year?

The Day

Clyde Haberman offers his take on the news.

That's what we thought. We see only a few arms up.

Now, how many of you plan to vote in these primaries, which are mainly for some state legislative offices and judgeships?

Yeah, we figured that, too. You with raised arms are going to be a lonely bunch on Thursday.

New Yorkers rarely need an excuse to skip going to the polls. If not voting were an Olympic sport, th ey'd be gold medal contenders. But the political powers (read: Albany) outdid themselves this year in making sure that the turnout will barely climb beyond single digits, if that.

They scheduled a presidential primary for April, then Congressional primaries for June and finally state primaries for mid-September. It isn't just voter fatigue that was bound to set in. It's more like voter narcolepsy.

Beyond three not being a charm, the politicians made matters worse by moving this latest round of balloting from its customary perch, Tuesday. Instead, it is being held on Thursday, a day when most New Yorkers are more focused on their weekend plans. Why did this happen? Because Tuesday happened to be, uh-oh, Sept. 11.

As we have observed here more than a few times, the prevailing wisdom in Albany - unswerving - is that the one thing New Yorkers must not be allowed to do on the anniversary of 9/11 is engage in the most fundamental exercise of democracy. They must not vote, or perform any other democratic act (also known as politics). That'll show the terrorists.

In near-unanimity, under the guidance of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, lawmakers voted to shift the legislative primaries to Thursday the 13th.

It is worth noting that on Tuesday, after attending 9/11 remembrance ceremonies, Mr. Silver went on to preside over a luncheon to raise campaign cash for an Assembly colleague, Grace Meng, who is running for Congress from a district in Queens.

There is nothing wrong with that - except for Albany's own fixation on the sanctity of Sept. 11 and how it forbids normal democratic functions. Some might reasonably wonder why Mr. Silver believes it is O.K. for him to organize a political event on that day, but not for New Yorkers to vote.

“There's nothing inappropriate,” the speaker told The Daily News. “I think it's about the future.”

That's what voting is, t oo. But why look for consistency?

Setting aside 9/11 pieties, shifting an election to a date certain to yield a low turnout amounts to an incumbent-protection plan. Office holders and party organizations almost always have an advantage when it comes to getting their preferred voters to the polls. Low turnouts accentuate their positives.

Even without political manipulation, voters in a particular district do not necessarily reflect the people who live there. This reality is underscored by new figures compiled by the mapping service of the Center for Urban Research, part of the City University of New York. The numbers show that State Senate and Assembly districts in New York City have appreciably smaller pools of eligible voters than districts elsewhere in the state.

This comes as no shock, given the city's vast pools of immigrants. Many are not citizens. By definition, they cannot vote. But “it's still surprising,” said Steven Romalewski, director of the mapping service, to see the gap that exists between those who live in some neighborhoods and those there who may vote.

For example, Senate District 16 in Queens, which includes parts of Flushing, Queensboro Hill and points east, was created essentially as “the Asian district,” he said. Indeed, 53 percent of the people living there are of Asian origin. But only 40 percent of eligible voters are. Whites, 24 percent of the district's population, account for 36 percent of eligible voters.

In a perfect universe, such ethnic discrepancies should matter little. In the real world, though, you never know. In some parts of the city, the interests of eligible voters may not always be in sync with those of the ineligible, Mr. Romalewski said.

As in life, the ones who decide elections are the ones who show up. Oh, and maybe also who count the ballots. That would be the city's oft-pummeled Board of Elections. It promises to do better this time than it has i n the past.

That's one good thing about low turnout. It should make all that head-scratching arithmetic less of a burden for the board. That's the theory, anyway.