9:08am | This may come as a shock to about 205,000 registered voters in Long Beach, but, yee-haw, we done had us an election on Tuesday.
That’s right, just over 85-percent of registered Long Beach voters played voting booth hookey on Tuesday, despite the fact that there were contested races for Mayor, City Attorney, City Prosecutor, five City Council seats, three LBCC trustee positions and a seat on the LBUSD board.
According to the City Clerk, 14.7 percent of the roughly 240,000 total registered voters in Long Beach filled out a ballot.
In other words, just under 35,000 people determined who would hold roughly 70-percent of all City Hall elected positions, 60 percent of the Long Beach Community College trustee seats, and 20 percent of the seats on the LBUSD board.
This shouldn’t surprise us. The United States ranks 20th out of 21 in voter turnout among established democracies.
One well cited-reason for this is the early deadlines for voter registration. Most voters are required to register for an election just as the campaigns are beginning, when most people have barely begun to think about the election. Four of the seven U.S. states that allow voter registration on Election Day boast voter turnout rates above 70 percent, including the nation’s highest–Minnesota–at 77 percent.
However, in Long Beach, nearly 240,000 were eligible to vote on Tuesday. Why did 85 percent of them not submit a ballot?
The most common reason cited by political scientists is voter disinterest. Several reasons have been suggested for the growth of voter disinterest, including a lack of issue-focused candidates, a common belief that one vote does not matter, lack of information about the positions of candidates, a general feeling that the status quo will win out, and outright distrust in all candidates offered.
Despite the reasons, studies have proven that voter disinterest and low voter turnout both favor incumbents.
It appears that Tuesday’s results bear this out.
Out of 12 races with incumbents running, only one race was won outright by a challenger—Steve Neal in the 9th District Council race. Challenger James Johnson also garnered the majority of the votes in the 7th District Council race, forcing write-in incumbent Tonia Reyes-Uranga into a June run-off.
Except for these two races—and the City Prosecutor’s race, which was between two new office hopefuls–the entire election provided little more than a term extension for the majority of those running.
Keep in mind that with the possible exception of Council member Robert Garcia, whose tenure only began in mid-2009, each of these incumbents are the same people that were in charge while Long Beach plunged into the financial mess it is in right now.
Being at the helm during the worst financial crisis the city has faced in recent memory, coupled with what many political observers say is a growing national anti-incumbency sentiment, would seem to have painted a different picture of Tuesday’s results.
And yet, the status quo won out.
Why?
According to Cal State University, Long Beach Political Science professor Charles Noble, it’s called the “incumbency advantage” and there are several well-known reasons for it.
“One is the most obvious, which is name recognition,” said Noble. “When a voter goes into a voting booth and sees a bunch of names they don’t recognize, the one that is likely to ring a bell is the incumbent.”
This is because incumbents earn a great deal of visibility and media coverage through the normal functions of their office. Things such as ribbon-cuttings, funneling city funds to local projects, dealing one-on-one with constituent problems, and of course, appearances at public and community meetings, all raise the awareness of office holders among their constituents.
Studies have found, at least at the national level, that Congress members have 75-percent name recognition after their first term and 90-percent name recognition after their second term.
In addition, Noble also points to the fact that simply because a person is in office makes it more likely that they can and will attract the kind of support, both in the form of endorsements and contributions, that is needed to win re-election.
“If you were an interest group that wants political access, would you rather have access with the person already in office or with the person who hopes to be in the office someday,” said Noble. “Not only that, but if you back the challenger and the challenger loses, then you are faced with mending fences to retain that access with the incumbent.”
For example, in Tuesday’s races, nearly all the incumbents raised more money than the challengers.
Mayor Bob Foster, running against relative unknown Stevie Merino, raised over $300,000 compared to zero funds reported raised by Merino.
Incumbent City Attorney Robert Shannon raised 40 percent more than his losing challenger Tom Reeves.
In the 1st District Council race, winning incumbent Robert Garcia raised over six times as many campaign dollars as challenger Jana Shields.
Winning 3rd District Council incumbent Gary DeLong raised more than four times as many campaign dollars as his two challengers combined.
In the 5th District Council race winning incumbent Gerrie Schipske raised nearly seven times as much as her challenger Mike Hedges.
Even 9th District Council member Val Lerch, who lost outright to challenger Steve Neal, raised just over $51,000 compared to $29,500 by Neal.
However, this does not appear to be the case in at least one of the races Tuesday night. Tonia Reyes-Uranga, who was forced into a June run-off by challenger James Johnson, raised about $41,500 while Johnson raised $106,000.
Noble said that because incumbents have much of the deck stacked in their favor, it can actually discourage certain people from running for office as a challenger.
“Typically what we find is that in races where there are relatively secure incumbents, the pool of challengers is actually rather weak. The really talented challenger, in many cases, might look to a race elsewhere,” said Noble. “So incumbents, typically those that have shown a past ability to win easily, often wind up facing rather weak challengers, which only increases the incumbent’s chances of winning.”
Noble also pointed to the fact that voters tend to not have a great deal of information about their elected officials. This can lead to an advantage for an incumbent if they develop a since of identity, though certain areas of focus while in office.
Research has shown, said Noble, that simple identifying labels, such as a candidate being “the union person,” or the “small business person,” or the “the sidewalk fixer,” often tell the average voter enough to reach a comfortable conclusion about the candidate.
These labels can serve as further enhancement for the incumbent’s name recognition, which Noble points out is important for a major reason.
“Because beyond the incumbent’s name, or some notion that they are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, most voters are not likely to be able to tell you much about the incumbent’s voting record,” said Noble.
So for the typical voter, when they are standing in the voting booth, it comes down to a quick decision based on a small amount of information and in most cases not based on the complete track record of the incumbent. But the one thing they know is that they at least know something about the incumbent, even if it is in reality a very small something.
Noble also pointed to studies that indicate most people are very forgiving of their local elected officials, especially when counterpoised against the actual functionality of the government institution.
“It is interesting to note that although voters for the most part are rather cynical about government institutions, they are not all that cynical about their own government representatives,” said Noble. “Voters tend to think that their representative is doing a good job, while everyone else’s representative is messed up.”
So to the 35,000 voters that bothered to join in Tuesday’s election–here’s to you. You did your duty, even if the results were rather bland. And to the 205,000 that didn’t vote, I hope you enjoy four more years of the same boring vanilla ice cream leadership. You deserve it.
Click here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council.