Rally crowds vs voter turnout

Dennie Quill, Columnist

Those possessed of political savvy say crowds at party rallies do not really matter and have little effect on the results. And perhaps there is some truth to that, because our major political parties have always managed to mobilise massive crowds during the campaign. But when it gets down to the meat of the matter, voter turnout does not reflect the levels of enthusiasm shown by supporters during the campaign period.

Our experience is that huge crowds have never translated into high voter turnout on polling day. In fact, parties have been known to misjudge their strength because of the attendance at mass meetings. Remember the famous declaration from the colourful and charismatic Michael Manley? "One hundred and fifty thousand strong can't be wrong!"

Let's look at the figures for the last four general elections held in Jamaica: In 1993, of those registered to vote, 67.68 per cent participated in that election; in 1997, the turnout was 65.42 per cent; in 2002, it was 59.06 per cent, and in 2007 it increased slightly to 60.40 per cent.

Unlike a country like Australia where voting is compulsory and the turnout is usually in the 90s, there has been a global decline in voter participation. According to data from the International Institute for Democracy and Election Assistance, France saw voter turnout rate for parliamentary elections fall from nearly 80 per cent in 1945 to 60 per cent in 2002.

Voter participation in the UK

Meantime, voter participation in parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom fell from above 70 per cent in 1945 to 59.4 per cent in 2001. And in the US presidential elections, voter turnout slumped from 79.9 per cent in 1972 to 67.4 per cent in 2000.

Voter apathy, especially among the youth, is often blamed for low levels of participation. However, in Jamaica, we see scores of young people flocking political mass-meeting venues dressed in their party paraphernalia and exuding enthusiasm. When it comes to this December 29 poll, there appears to be tremendous interest from all sectors of society.

Must we believe that the scores of young people we see at political rallies are there against their will? And are they not in the least interested in what the politicians are saying on the platform? Should we, therefore, believe the rumours that persons are being paid to attend these rallies? Could it be that the same people are available to be mobilised for both sides?

How else can we explain their fervour at party meetings and the seeming lack of interest in casting their votes on election day?

When it is all stripped down to the basics, the politicians know that it is the ballot that counts at the end of the day. And since the JLP and the PNP are more or less evenly poised in popular support, it is the 'uncommitted' voter who will make the difference - hence, the appeal from JLP leader Andrew Holness for the votes of those who are still undecided.

I submit that those 18 and over who are eligible to vote should select the person who, in their estimation, is best able to articulate their concerns and desires. It is rather foolhardy to sit back and assume that your best interest will be served without any effort from you.

It's time to get off the fence and make a choice - any choice!

Dennie Quill is a veteran media practitioner. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.