VietNamNet would like to introduce a series of articles about the presidential election in the US, by G. Calvin Mackenzie, the Goldfarb Family Distinguished Professor of Government at Colby College  and currently a Fulbright scholar in Vietnam.

On one thing nearly all political commentators agree: the 2012 American presidential election will be very close. All of the dozens of national opinion polls since Mitt Romney secured the Republican nomination have shown a gap between the two candidates of just a few percentage points.  As pollsters like to say, the difference between them is within the “margin of error.”  The race can go either way.

The outcome then will be determined by the campaign.  Which candidate does a better job of appealing to the live and television audiences for his speeches?  Who has the more effective television advertisements?  Who performs most effectively in the three debates scheduled between them in the fall?  What events, at home or abroad, might affect voter’s thinking about whom they want in the White House?

All of that will contribute to the voters’ ultimate choice.  But there is another powerful factor in this calculus, one that now consumes a lot of the attention—and money—of the two campaigns: who will vote?  

The barrage and counter-barrage of television advertising is often referred to as the “air war” in American politics.  It is the part of the campaign fought out over the television airwaves.  But of similar importance in shaping the outcome is the “ground war,” the ability of each campaign to get its supporters to the polls on election day.

Many foreign observers and no small number of Americans are surprised when they learn that such efforts are necessary.  Isn’t voting the sort of privilege that citizens of a democracy cherish and exercise with pride?  Aren’t Americans eager to participate personally in the selection of their leaders and through them in the determination of the public policies that will shape their lives?

The answer is that some are, but many aren’t. In the last few decades the voter turnout in presidential elections—that is the percentage of those of voting age who actually vote—has hovered around 50%.  In 2008 turnout was higher than it had been in the elections immediately preceding it.  Almost 133 million Americans voted, slightly more than 57% of the voting age population.  

But that means that 100 million Americans over the age of 18 did not vote.  If we subtract from that total those who were ineligible to vote for any reason, the number of non-voters who could have voted is approximately 90 million, nearly 40% of those eligible to vote.

Why those 90 million stayed home on election day is one of the great questions in American politics, but the answers are elusive.  Some claim that the voting laws make it too difficult or confusing for people to vote.  By ancient law national elections are held on the “first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.” But election day is not a national holiday and Tuesday is a work day for many Americans.  In most places the polls are only open for 12 hours.  So a worker only has a few hours to vote, often at the busiest time of day when the polls are crowded.

  Every state requires its citizens to register as voters before they can vote.  They have to prove that they actually live in the community where they intend to vote.  This turns voting into two acts—registering and voting—rather than one and adds to the complications, especially in those states where one must register several weeks in advance of the elections.

America is also a place where elections are held frequently—for local, state, and national offices, for party primaries, and for referenda questions on policy issues.  Elections for other than national offices are scattered throughout the calendar.  Some potential voters suffer election fatigue and lose interest in participating in all these elections.

Then there is what may be the best explanation of all for non-voting.  For many citizens it is a conscious choice rooted in disaffection.  They do not believe there are real differences between the views of the candidates, or the candidate they prefer may have so little chance of winning—or so overwhelming a chance to win—that they don’t think their vote would affect the outcome. Or they may be disgusted with the negative tone of the campaign or unhappy with the current character of national politics.  For them, non-voting is a form of political protest.  They “vote with their feet” by staying away from the polls.

Whatever the explanation for these patterns of voter turnout in America, the question of who will vote is very much on the minds of the two presidential campaigns.  As they try to use the air war to win supporters for their candidate, they know they must work equally hard in the ground war to get those supporters to actually come to the polls on election day.  It is a much bigger challenge than one might expect in a country that has been holding presidential elections for more than two centuries.  

G. Calvin Mackenzie