Democracy without citizens

Just one in 10 voting-age adults cast ballots in the preliminary council election. Fight the apathy: register and vote.

Boston's September 21 preliminary election for city council was another slouching step toward what has been called "democracy without citizens." Turnout was a pathetic 19 percent, but the underlying numbers were even worse. This, after all, is a city in which not much more than half of voting-age adults have bothered to register to vote in the first place. Thus, what might be called the "real" turnout was less than 11 percent, an astoundingly low figure in the birthplace of American democracy.

But just because this depressing trend has come to be seen as inevitable doesn't mean that it can't be reversed. In particular, liberal and minority residents, who vote in lower proportions than those who live in the city's white conservative neighborhoods, have to take power into their own hands if city government is to be remade along progressive lines. College students, too, must realize that they can make a difference beyond the borders of their campuses. You have until October 13 to register for the November 2 general election for city council. The only prerequisites are that you be at least 18, an American citizen, and live in Boston, whether in a dorm or anywhere else. What are you waiting for?

Voter turnout has been falling for many years at every level -- national, state, and local. Still, the sorry state of Boston politics has been exacerbated by a well-intentioned reform: a charter change in the 1980s that transformed the council from an entirely at-large body to one comprising nine district representatives and four at-large members. The previous all-at-large council, dominated by colorfully inept characters though it may have been, had a spark and an energy that have been lost. Ray Flynn, and others before him, used it as a steppingstone to the mayor's office. Former members such as Larry DiCara and Michael McCormack used the council as a platform from which to generate ideas.

The council's at-large/district mix hasn't always stymied the creative urge. Former members such as Rosaria Salerno and David Scondras, and current member Peggy Davis-Mullen, have managed to be innovative. But the neighborhood focus of the council has made it more parochial and, ultimately, less important.

Then, too, it's easy to blame the system rather than look in the mirror. Under Boston's strong-mayor/weak-council form of government, both voters and councilors tend to take all their cues from the mayor, making the council little more than an occasionally cranky rubber stamp. Voters need to demand more from the council, and the councilors need to demand more from themselves.

A third player -- the press -- bears considerable blame as well. The city's two daily papers have bought completely into the mayorcentric view of City Hall. Both papers' coverage of the council races was thin and erratic. A few columnists -- the Globe's Brian Mooney and, especially, the Herald's Wayne Woodlief -- check in on the council from time to time, but there needs to be an ongoing commitment to help potential voters become well-informed citizens. And more media coverage would probably lure more and better candidates into the arena. The truth is that most suburban dailies and weeklies do a far better job covering selectmen's, aldermen's, and school-committee races than the city papers do covering the city council.

The council remains whiter and more conservative than Boston as a whole. A look at the district-by-district turnout figures shows why. In predominantly black District Seven, where 12 candidates battled it out for the right to succeed Gareth Saunders, just 20 percent voted. In District Eight, which covers the Fenway, Mission Hill, the Back Bay, and Beacon Hill, a heavily progressive and minority electorate managed to deliver just 17 percent of eligible voters to the polls, despite a hot race to replace Tom Keane. In District Four, a mostly minority district where incumbent Charles Yancey faced token opposition, turnout was a stunningly low eight percent. That's the kind of apathy that was responsible for the strong third-place finish of Dapper O'Neil, a throwback who's been erroneously recast as some sort of lovable, Last Hurrah-style rogue.

By contrast, Districts One (North End, East Boston, and Charlestown) and Two (South Boston and South End) had 20 percent turnouts even though incumbents Paul Scapicchio and Jim Kelly, respectively, were unopposed. And in District Six (Jamaica Plain and West Roxbury), where incumbent Maura Hennigan faced a tough challenge from John Tobin, turnout reached a citywide high of 26 percent -- a figure, it should be noted, that ought to be nothing to celebrate.

Boston is booming, which contributes to voter satisfaction or, at least, a diminution of disaffection. But Boston's enormous success exists alongside enormous problems and challenges: the ongoing tension between developers and neighborhoods, the improving but still miserable state of public education, a crisis-level shortage of affordable housing, and quiet angst about crime. The city council can play a role in solving those problems. And strong voter turnout could mean a more progressive and diverse council.

On November 2, voters will elect four at-large council members and nine district representatives. To register, you need to fill out a simple form available at public libraries, post offices, and City Hall, and drop it off or mail it in by October 13. For more information, call the city's election department at (617) 635-2400.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.