Low Turnouts Provide Political Leverage for a Few

What happened in November of 2011? Many expected changes that did not occur. Those in stayed in. Those out stayed out. An analysis of the election results show three distinct political communities within Barnegat. I designed three charts to illustrate this.

Chart 1: shows Barnegat voting districts from highest turnout to lowest.  5 of 14 districts had turnout over 50%. 2 of 14 districts had turnout in the 30% plus range a bit over the town average of around 30%. The lowest 7 districts in terms of percent had between 23% and 16.5% turnout.

Chart 2: shows the same information as chart one but averages the groups.  The five districts with the highest voter turnout averaged about 55% (mail in and absentee were applied based on voter turnout.)  The lowest seven districts average about 19%.  

Chart 3: shows the effect turnout had on the election.  Group 1 has just 27% of the registered voters but almost 49% of those who actually voted.  Group 2 slightly increased its effective vote having about 9.4% of registered voters and almost 11% of those who actually voted.  Group 1 and group 2 are over represented in the actual vote total and gave republicans a 329 vote plurality.  Group 3 has almost 64% of the registered voters and only about 40% of the actual vote.  This group gave Democrats a 460 vote plurality.

PDF FILES: define the geography of the voting districts

What does all this mean?  The low turn out was not throughout the township.  It appears republicans were more eager to vote than democrats.  The areas of town that gave the democrats their votes did not turn out.  Group 3 has almost 2 of every 3 voters in town.  This group gave the town only 40% of the votes cast. This group also gave the democrats their votes.  

The turnouts have more ramification than just votes.   Think of how it may effect policy.  Assume there is a choice between providing a service to areas in group 1 vs. a service in an area from group 3. There is every incentive for the work to be done in group one. 1 in 2 of those people may show their appreciation at the ballot box where it is closer to 1 in 5 in group 3. I do not suggest there is a purposeful diversion of resources needed in one area to another for political reasons.  I have no knowledge of this.  My sole point is the significant difference in turn out provides a political incentive.  

The bigger issue is the people of Barnegat do not see real differences between the two major parties.  The low turnout especially in democrat strongholds show this. There are alternate explanations and political insiders will come up with them.  Only detailed polling would tell us who is correct. I see the low turn out as indicative of a populace seeing no options. The average voter sees no difference between the parties and is staying home. No one may deny the frustration with taxes.  Political leaders of both parties do not deal with it. There are legitimate reasons beyond the control of local government for our tax levels. Neither party explains it or shows leadership in dealing with it. They do not want to be criticized by their opposition. Real change comes with cost. Leaders understand this and deal with it. Neither party provices this leadership. Real change may come only from outside the two parties or outside the establishment wings of them. Time will tell if we get it.