Perhaps the reason only 38 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in the last general election was vividly pointed out in your June 20 editorial, “Piercing Flanagan’s porous armor.” Flanagan’s decision to change his vote to ingratiate himself with the National Rifle Association is only one example of what is done routinely, as a matter of course, each and every day our Congress is at work. It is also an excellent example of why arguments for or against term limits are specious.
Why should anyone in Congress fear his/her constituency if 62 percent of them are going to be “no-shows” on Election Day? Why alienate a powerful political action committee, lose financial support and have them work against your re-election, when it makes more sense to accept their money and political support, just for going along with their program?
A person serving in Congress must convince only 51 percent of the 38 percent of the voters who will even bother to cast a vote on Election Day. From a political standpoint, an elected official must be truly concerned with less than 20 percent of the people in his or her district. That is the reason people serving in Congress have little or no incentive to place principle above politics. It is also the reason so many eligible voters see no difference in either political party. The politicians do not fear their constituencies, nor do they faithfully represent their interests. What is the incentive to do so?
I am less dismayed with politicians than I am with the non-voter. The eligible voters who, for whatever reason, fail to cast a ballot, do not deserve, nor should they expect, nor will they receive competent representation.
