What we lose when voters act more like consumers

By JANE EISNER   Philadelphia Inquirer    05 August 2005

Should voting in America be super-sized?

That's the provocative suggestion offered by a national task force of state and local election officials charged with reforming the voting process.

Unfortunately, it's not clear if this proposed cure will strengthen civic participation, or - as Wal-Mart did to the five-and-dime store - drive it into bankruptcy.

Here's the situation: Running a clean and efficient election is ever more difficult. Weak political parties and citizen apathy have made it harder to recruit poll workers and election officials.

Ensuring that polling places and voting machines are accessible to the disabled places an added burden. And then there's lifestyle: Americans accustomed to iPods and TIVO don't take kindly to being told to vote at a specific place, on a specific day, often at polls that close earlier than some banks.

A task force of the Election Center, a national organization of election administrators, poses a radical solution: Replace voting precincts and Election Day with fewer, customer-oriented "vote centers," where people can cast ballots over a period of weeks.

If Americans drive to shop at Wal-Mart and Home Depot instead of walking to clothing and hardware stores a few blocks away, why shouldn't they drive to vote in large, well-equipped, accessible centers that apply big-box scale to the ballot box?

It's an appealing idea, especially if it's your job to run elections - far easier to do under one well-situated roof than in church basements, school cafeterias and the lobbies of apartment buildings scattered through a sprawling territory.

"We're recognizing that we have many, many places in America that do not identify with precincts," says R. Doug Lewis, the Election Center's executive director. "Election Day is not quite the process it used to be."

True, but while super-sizing may make elections easier to administer, there's no evidence it will draw more voters, and some reason to believe the impersonal, big-box approach will have the opposite effect.

Voting is all about community connections. You are more likely to vote if family members vote, if the people you respect in your community vote, if you are asked to do so by a peer.

Before there's a wholesale dismantling of neighborhood, voting, let's try reforms that are known to work. One example: Allowing voters to register on Election Day boosts turnout, especially among the young. Yet only a handful of states do so.

Daniel Shea, head of the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College and a member of Pennsylvania's task force, is torn about the super-sizing proposal. He knows that community connections are most powerful, but...

"People don't shop in the downtowns anymore. They do shop at the malls," he says. "That is where the community meets. We need to think of alternative ways of getting people to the polls."

He may be right, but the risks of imposing a consumer model on civic participation could outweigh the benefits. Choosing leaders and shaping the direction of the nation are decisions that involve a duty to more than self-interest. Voting isn't like shopping for bargain blue jeans.

The common good must figure into those choices, or the beauty and balance of democracy are lost. We don't vote only for ourselves, but to keep faith with those who preceded us and to help secure those who will follow. Let Wal-Mart rule the marketplace, if it must. I prefer to vote where I live.