banner
@NCCapitol

NC voter turnout so low some polling places went unused

Posted July 18, 2012

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Voter turnout for North Carolina's runoff elections Tuesday didn't set a record low, but it wasn't far off.

Despite including five statewide races and three congressional races – elections officials said it was the longest runoff ballot in modern North Carolina history – only about 221,000 people went to the polls statewide, which is less than 3.6 percent of the state's registered voters. The lowest turnout ever for a North Carolina election was 2.5 percent.

"It was painful," Gary Bartlett, executive director of the State Board of Elections, said Wednesday.

At four polling places in the state – one each in Guilford, Currituck and Tyrell counties and at Washington GT Magnet Elementary School near downtown Raleigh – no one even showed up to cast a ballot.

"During my 20-year period, the voters have basically not participated in second primaries," Bartlett said, noting the highest turnout he's seen in a runoff was 8 percent of registered voters.

North Carolina is one of just a handful of states that even have runoffs. In most states, the candidate who gets the most votes in the primary wins, but North Carolina candidates need to get more than 40 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff.

"I hate to say this because I love elections and my job is running elections, but if the voters are not going to participate, there's got to be a better way," Bartlett said.

Lawmakers need to consider changing the state's runoff law, he said, a sentiment echoed by Steven Greene, an associate professor of political science at North Carolina State University.

"Any election where you're having just 3.5 percent of the voters show up, that's not what democracy is supposed to be about," said Greene, who was the 45th and last voter Tuesday at his Cary precinct.

"There's six (workers) at my precinct, (and) to have 45 voters come through – I mean, three people an hour? – what a waste of people and resources and everything (that is)," he said. "It's just stupid."

Lonely poll worker What if they held an election and no one showed up?

The state and counties spent $7.5 million on the runoff to rent polling locations, hire and train workers – not all are volunteers – print ballots and other materials and maintain vote-counting machines.

Bartlett noted that the expense couldn't have come at a worse time. Most counties already have less election money than usual because of budget cuts, and they need what money they have for the November election.

Greene is a fan of instant-runoff voting, where primary voters pick a first, second and third choice. If a candidate doesn't receive 40 percent of the first votes, people's second- and third-place selections are considered.

The system allows more people to choose the final candidates, Greene said. Bartlett said the state could get set up voting machines for instant-runoff voting for about $2.5 million – a third of the cost of Tuesday's runoff.

State lawmakers have debated that idea before, but they're in no hurry to adopt it. Some said Wednesday that they aren't sure whether they'll look at runoff reforms when they come back into session next year.

Greene calls the legislative inertia a "status quo bias."

"Every single politician in that legislature was elected with the current electoral system, and they feel that got them in there," he said. "They're not interested in monkeying around with something that they feel may change their probability of getting elected.

42 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Sherlock Jul 19, 6:21 p.m.

    And how much money did this cost the taxpayer, you know the people that have an endless supply of money to give out...

  • jgriffith3792 Jul 19, 3:42 p.m.

    At our polling location in North Chatham, I cast the the 65th ballot at 6:30 pm. Pretty sad, folks.

  • FlySwater Jul 19, 2:43 p.m.

    "I quit voting years ago. It does not change nothing and is a waste of time. They have you fooled."

    Just give me your full name and address, and I'll vote for both of us!

  • barownerx2 Jul 19, 2:20 p.m.

    I quit voting years ago. It does not change nothing and is a waste of time. They have you fooled.

  • cjtelesca Jul 19, 2:09 p.m.

    Why have statewide elections doubled in cost since 2008?

    In 2008, IRV supporters claimed that a statewide election runoff cost $3 million

    In 2010, IRV supporters claimed that a statewide election runoff cost $5 million - an increase of $2 million over 2008 (66%)!

    In 2012, IRV supporters claimed that a statewide election runoff cost $7 million - an increase of $2 million over 2010!

    Why has the cost of a statewide election more than doubled (a 230% increase) in cost from 2008 to 2012?

    The number of precincts is roughly the same - 6 extra precincts in Wake County from 2008. We have the machines already paid for. Ballot prices have gone down not up as more counties find their own certified printers. Poll workers salaries are roughly the same. State and county BOE employee salaries haven't really gone up that much. Gas prices are even down from 2008. We even have fewer days for Early Voting in 2012 than from 2008 and 2010.

    So why a 230% increase in cost - can we see the actual numbers

  • Tricky Dick is Not A Crook Jul 19, 12:54 p.m.

    If the media would have covered, or advertised the run-off election, maybe more would have voted? -z28omero

    Let's see, it was on the WRAL homepage Don't Miss It Section smack dab in the middle for weeks: Run Off Elections. If you watched TV, how could you miss Tony Gurley's commercials every 10 minutes? It was on the local news community political shows, on the radio, do I need to go on?

  • me2you Jul 19, 12:41 p.m.

    I didn't even know there was an election until I was the polling place open. didn't know what it was about.

  • trutarblu Jul 19, 11:49 a.m.

    The people have spoken, we dont care.

  • sillywabbitthepatriot Jul 19, 11:36 a.m.

    No one knew about the run-off elections because???

  • z28omero Jul 19, 11:12 a.m.

    If the media would have covered, or advertised the run-off election, maybe more would have voted?

More...