10/15/15: End Byrd voting legacy

This op-ed appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on the date shown.

HARRY F. Byrd Sr. would be proud. Recent polling shows more than twice as many Virginia voters are closely following news about the presidential candidates than news about candidates in next month’s General Assembly elections.

One of the legacies of the late senator is Virginia’s off-year elections for the legislature.

An electoral process, solidified by a man dead nearly 50 years, remains in place simply because voters aren’t paying attention. The less voters pay attention, the more likely it is that the Gen eral Assembly perpetuates a process that benefits only its members.

There is a reason why much of the Hampton Roads General Assembly delegation — four of nine senators and 12 of 20 delegates — face no opposition next month. Why bother paying attention when the ballot contains no choices?

Even those who live in a district where there is more than one name on the ballot find it hard to pay attention.

During the heyday of the Byrd Organization — approximately 1922 to the late 1960s — campaigns were a lot different than they are today. Local newspapers were numerous and, given the competition among them, the primary source of information on the candidates. Radio and TV were far behind.

That certainly isn’t the case today, which creates several problems. First, the lack of free media coverage means the races end up being about raising money. You might not realize that we actually have three contested Senate races on the Southside and two on the Peninsula  — not just one. And eight — four each on the Southside and Peninsula — contested House races.

Second, as we no longer have a primary source for candidate information, we have to seek it out. That is actually much harder than it sounds — at least when it comes to finding spin-free information.

Yes, we can visit the candidates’ websites, but they are hardly unbiased. Tracking down when and where candidates will appear at forums — generally these are not debates — is itself a full-time job.

The sophistication of a campaign’s voter contact is another issue. There is less of a need to cast a wide net to try to get voters to come to the polls; instead, campaigns use modeling to identify characteristics of likely voters and voter files to identify the voters themselves. It is what allows them to call my house and ask for me, but knock on my door and ask for my wife. And save money by not mailing glossy fliers to either of us.

So we end up with a paltry 34 percent of voters who are following the news very or somewhat closely about General Assembly candidates, while 84 percent are doing the same for presidential candidates. It makes sense: More readily accessible information which, at least superficially, affects a wider group of people.

Except that’s not true. The decisions made in Richmond generally affect us more than those in Washington, even if we don’t always realize it. You can blame some of the gridlock in Washington on the decisions made in Richmond and other state capitols about redistricting. Even if you’re OK with the gridlock, are you OK with spending our tax dollars to defend our legislature’s drawings of our districts?

Or how about the way the General Assembly imposes its will on our cities and counties? Happy with having the real estate tax being localities’ primary revenue source?

The closer government is to us, the more we should be participating in who those representatives are — the exact opposite of what we currently see. We should be having conversations about issues — for example, should we hold state and local elections at the same time as federal ones? — regularly.

That is going to happen only if we make those who represent us responsible to us. And that happens only if we pay attention — and vote, even when the politicians have ensured there is no choice.

It’s long past time to end the Byrd legacy in Virginia.