Valley Perspective : This Tuesday, No Excuses : Why do so few of us make all of the electoral decisions?

Imagine the hue and cry that would result if a government body passed a law that restricted the number of eligible voters in Los Angeles to about 5% of the population.

That’s right, a law that would establish an elite class of 185,000 people who would monopolize the right to make electoral decisions affecting Los Angeles’ 3.5 million residents.

Absurd? Many would think so. And anyone who regarded such a possibility as a serious matter would no doubt rail against the attempt as the end of democracy as we know it.

Couldn’t happen in a million years, right?

Wrong. It’s been a shameful political reality in this city for years.

Take the city’s June 6, 1995, general municipal election, for example. At the time, the city’s voting-age population was over 2.6 million. Of those, more than 1.3 million were registered voters. Yet just 185,000 residents bothered to take part. Our 5% figure originates there. An unfair percentage, you say? All right, let’s consider a few numbers that are more relevant.

The turnout represented just 7% of the city’s voting-age population, and 14% of the city’s registered voters. In other words, only 14 out of every 100 potential voters actually entered a voting booth.

The Valley’s participation rate was equally pathetic, and sometimes worse. In all, only 14.4% of registered voters went to the polls in City Council District 2, 12.9% went in District 3, 12.1% went in District 11 and 14.5% went in District 12. And even in City Council District 5, where there had been a spirited and expensive campaign to fill the seat vacated by Zev Yaroslavsky, only 22 out of every 100 registered voters took part in the selection process.

Unfair again, you say? Not a very interesting ballot that day? Ridiculous. Every Election Day is important.

Moreover, a five-year study of Los Angeles voter turnout shows that the numbers are never commensurate with what folks might expect from the second-largest city in the world’s leading democracy.

In the April 1995 primary nominating election, less than 17 out of every 100 registered voters took part.

Even in the general municipal election of June 8, 1993, which represents something of a watershed in recent voter participation, it took less than 325,000 votes to easily elect Richard Riordan as mayor of Los Angeles.

Now there’s a mandate for you: a mayor actively supported by less than one out of every four of the city’s registered voters.

There are no excuses for this. There weren’t any earthquakes or firestorms or widespread flooding on those days. And at a time when people in less developed nations are willing to stand in line for hours to cast their votes, there are darned few Angelenos who can legitimately claim that voting just doesn’t fit into their busy schedules.

The electoral apathy is even more appalling given the fact that so many folks complain about almost every aspect of life in Los Angeles, from the condition of its schools to the capabilities of its police force.

Such complaints are a hollow waste of time unless they’re backed up with the kind of voter participation that might spur substantive action.

When will we see that kind of participation?

The next opportunity comes on Tuesday, on a well-rounded ballot that includes judges, the state Legislature, the Congress and the usual laundry list of important voter propositions.

Get out there and vote. It’s more than a right; it’s a responsibility.