Tuesday’s California Election: One Is Real and One Is Not : Voters have a challenge--and a responsibility--as never before

In effect, there are two elections on Tuesday. One is a phony election; one a real election. Let us explain:

The phony election involves the many incumbent politicians who have virtually no chance of losing. They run in districts that were gerrymandered in such a partisan way that even a dead incumbent might have a hard time finishing second. (It’s not exactly what they used to do in the Soviet Union, but it’s close.) So, if you’re angry with the performance of the state executive or your representatives in Congress or the Legislature, you can vote against him or her if you want--but it’s the rare district where it’ll do any good, and you know it.

For this reason, many voters will vote for one (or both) of the two term-limitation initiatives on the ballot, Propositions 131 and 140. This is called a protest vote against the system.

Then there is the real election.

This election offers choices on the ballot propositions, like the term-limit measures, and on the governorship. There are 28 such ballot measures facing all the state’s voters, and locally, anywhere from one or two to a dozen more. And they offer voters real choices in a real election.

Unfortunately, they offer voters too many choices, too many decisions, too much technical detail. Almost all of these questions should have been dealt with by the state Legislature, but weren’t.

The result is that many voters will vote for one (or both) of the two term-limitation propositions in frustration over the length and complexity of the ballot.

This also is called a protest vote against the system.

California’s governor--the chief executive of the most important state in the union--is a position of national prominence and influence. Under these circumstances, it’s surprising that this race has sparked so little special enthusiasm. The ability to provide leadership is often tested in the crucible of a campaign. It is then that a candidate catches fire, engages the electorate, sets the table for governing with a campaign that has helped build a consensus of support. The campaign for governor this year hasn’t been a total disappointment--that would be a considerable overstatement--but it has failed to rise to precisely the grand occasion warranted in a race in which so much is at stake. Too bad.

No doubt the many questions raised about the two candidates’ financing have cooled people’s ardor. Perhaps even the two candidates’ relentless search for a safe middle ground on many issues is a factor. Then, too, the simplistic TV ads might have turned many people off. No doubt the plethora of ballot propositions has deflected attention from the race. Perhaps the failure of either candidate to come up with a single striking new policy departure or bold new position has contributed to the malaise.

Even so, the California election has attracted national attention. The raft of controversial ballot propositions could go a long way to determine how this most populous of American states will be governed for years to come. That determination is bound to affect the shape and tenor of national politics.

It’s certainly beyond dispute that the ballot on Tuesday is far too lengthy and complicated and that this excessive reliance on the initiative process is no way to run a state. But it’s also true that the election is going to be held, like it or not, and the people who show up to vote are the people who are going to have the say about how this state is to be run and who is to run it.

Thus, Tuesday’s actual voters--whatever their party affiliation, income, level of education, gender, race, religion--are California’s real political leaders. As the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote declines with each election (it is under 50% now), those who do vote have proportionately more and more sway.

In effect, active voters are in the process of more and more becoming the state’s new power elite. You could be one of them.