Among industrial nations, United States citizens have a perfectly reprehensible record for participating in elections.
With freedom from fear of being shot, with ample choices of issues and candidates and convenient polling places, local elections in non-presidential years result in turnouts that can be as low as less than 10 percent of registered voters.
One possible explanation could be election fatigue—too many days set aside for regular candidate ballots and special elections with narrow questions involving tax districts and school boards.
The Idaho Legislature wisely is making another attempt—its 12th since 2000, to be precise—to consolidate all Idaho elections into two days a year, the fourth Tuesday in May and the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
This surely will cut down costs of the election process for localities as well as the state, a constant source of complaints of budget setters. But more important, special interests seeking approval or disapproval of issues would no longer be able to game the system by scheduling local elections at times that historically draw scant turnouts of voters.
Whether a limit on election days statewide will increase turnout is to be seen when fully implemented—if the Idaho House legislation is approved by the less receptive Idaho Senate.
In view of all the hand wringing about excessive costs of special elections and the lackluster interest of voters, any change that tends to end confusion and concentrate attention is bound to have some positive effect on the machinery of democracy.
