Polls, the Media, Competitive Races and Urban Voter Turnout

A few weeks ago, I received a voicemail at work from a constituent who had been forwarded my work number in her efforts to find out the winners of last month's primary in Boston's urban districts. While I was not able to provide her with this information, I offered her where she could obtain it from the Secretary of State's office and we had a conversation which led me to understand why she was seeking the information. She was a longtime community activist who had worked at the polls during the primary but had never heard who won the local primary contests, and felt that the local media had been negligent at best, and intentionally biased at worst, in not reporting the results of the urban contest, choosing instead to focus on the results in several (primarily white), affluent suburban districts. My initial response was that this was less malicious and more a reflection of the traditional media bias towards drama and a fight-- the media focused on the elections that were most close and contentious, the contests for which even those "in the know" weren't sure who would win. However, I did admit that this did leave voters in many districts in the dark, once again furthering the idea that media chooses only to report on negative and often violent events in urban neighborhoods, neglecting important activities like civic responsibility and local leadership that are reflected in primary election contests. What better incentive for a poll worker to never repeat their civic duty than a media that chooses not to report or focus on the results of the contest that they enabled.

Fast forward to this afternoon-- as I sat on my Airtran flight to the Community Food Security Coalition conference in NOLA, the political dork within me was fascinated to find, on the free in-flight radio's CSPAN station, a broadcast of a debate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies--the host institution of the wonderful Place Matters Initiative, in which I have participated, about current election issues relating to the African-American community.

During the debate, a fascinating point was made about the relationship between various elections and urban voter turnout. One of the debaters highlighted the fact that many of the strongest members of the Congressional Black Caucus lack any or significant opposition in the current election, making it harder to turn out (assumedly Democratic) voters in their districts for the uber-important Senate and Gubenatorial races, whose outcomes will most likely depend on the degree to which the Democratic base can be turned out in cities. If Bobby Rush, in their example, had a real opponent, then more black folks in his district would turnout, increasing the chances the statewide Democratic candidates have of winning.

We have several races and ballot questions in Massachusetts that rely on this very same phenomenon, and for the first time, it makes me sad that so many of our strongest urban state legislators are unopposed. For the entire election season, I have been counting our collective Boston blessings for every ally in the legislator who is unopposed, given the fleeting voter interest in incumbents in Massachusetts. However, this report made me rethink the entire scenario, and also brings into play the comments of the constituent activist in last week's phone call.

If more of the Boston urban legislators were opposed, according to the Joint Center's theory, they would be forced to mobilize voters in their districts, who by all past and current voter models, would be likely to vote for Democratic statewide candidates and against the regressive measures we'll find on our ballots next month.

Further, by choosing to ignore the primary contests that did exist in Boston's neighborhoods, the media distracted attention from the general election contests that will be taking place there, both doing a disservice to urban readers and viewers, and further serving the interests of the "disenchanted" suburban voters, whose interests have been dominating the political circuit and the TV for the past year or more. By reporting more about these suburban "upset" races, where highly conservative Republicans and tea partiers are given a platform from which to speak, the media is tacitly endorsing Republican candidates and neglecting to give even GOTV impact to urban Democratic districts.

Any ideas for possible solutions to this problem?