Why state voter guides are stupid, awful, and bad for an informed electorate
A response to a state-paid journalist's question in a social media post
Logan Finney, a journalist at Idaho’s government-run television station (yes, the state of Idaho owns a TV station and pays a journalist to work there), posed an interesting question on the social media platform X the other day that deserves a little discussion. Finney wrote, “Why do Idaho lawmakers not want you to be able to read about them in the official state voter guide?”
(If you’re not into Idaho public policy matters, skip ahead to the reason why I’m writing on this topic).
Finney is likely referring to a bill in the 2024 legislative session from Phil McGrane, the new Idaho Secretary of State. McGrane proposed mailing a voter guide featuring all federal, state, and county candidates. He wanted this mailing to reach the roughly 800,000 registered voters in the state. The candidate info would have been added to the state’s voter pamphlet the secretary of state’s office already mails out whenever there is an initiative or constitutional amendment on the ballot.
The bill passed the Senate but didn’t get a hearing the House.
There are a number of reasonable arguments to not want the state to expand its existing voter pamphlet, and Finney knows this. The Idaho Freedom Foundation made several of these points in its analysis of the bill, which is not hard to find. (I’m adding only one additional argument here later in this commentary).
The most popular reason for objecting is that snail mailing Idahoans information on candidates from all of Idaho’s 44 counties, 35 legislative districts, and two congressional districts would cost taxpayers another $350,000 annually, according to McGrane’s figures, which is likely a typical government underestimation of cost; they’re always wrong. I don’t know what expenses the voter guide will ultimately amass, but I can assure you that $350,000 is guaranteed a fraction of the real number.
Another objection is that this isn’t 1979, when lawmakers put the existing voter pamphlet in statute. (Even 45-ish years ago, I would have argued that it was pretty easy to find out information about a ballot measure). Today, the same magical device you’re using to read this column can also be used to find out the names of the candidates who will appear on your ballot in November. You can go to candidate webpages, social media profiles, find articles, and even look up business and court records about the people on the ballot, if you’re so willing. Arguably, there’s a lot more information out there than ever before, and your access to information isn’t limited to what the legacy media and the politicians want you to consider.
There are also plenty of political action committees, news sites, and other groups who have their own voter guides. One would wonder why the state government needs to compete against the resources that already exist.
But here’s the biggest thing that bugs me about McGrane’s idea: Under his legislation, each candidate on the ballot could summit a statement of up to 200 words for inclusion in the voter guide.
McGrane will probably argue that the state has to limit each candidate’s word count because more space equals more money. And that’s a reasonable explanation, except for this: If a voter guide is so critical to Idaho voters’ ability to judge the worthiness of a candidate, why wouldn’t the secretary of state propose spending double or triple the amount needed to get the word out?
Because ultimately, it’s not about educating the electorate. It’s about exercising control over how the electorate gets its information regarding the people running for office.
You see, since about the 1930s, government has gotten larger and more complicated. Over the same time period, traditional news outlets have gone from reporting on public policy in long form to condensing things down to mere sounds bites. This has been the case for radio, TV, and newspapers over the span of decades.
This bastardized approach to journalism basically provided an avenue for new agencies, programs, and laws to sprout up with little accountability, oversight, or even public awareness of what’s happening. Journalistic bias in favor of expanding government keeps the programs in place, but it was journalistic dereliction of duty to report the news that played a large part in getting us where we are today. Government got larger and more powerful as the media spent less time and space talking about government with any real depth.
Fortunately, today there are plenty of new options for people wanting to find out what’s really going on in the halls of power of their communities, their states, or at the federal level. Citizen journalists and ordinary people with a renewed interest in truth-seeking are changing everything. Ordinary civilians with their own social media followings and government accountability projects are the ones interviewing and writing about candidates for office as well as monitoring the actions being taken by elected officials.
And so McGrane’s effort, intentionally or not, would be a step backward. It would condense a candidate’s arguments for being elected to office to a mere two hundred words. It would attempt to take power of out of the hands of intrepid citizen journalists and non-legacy media outlets and give it to the state, making it harder to counter the status quo of big and intrusive government.
Government officials don’t want you to be more informed. There is no particular upside for government to have a better educated electorate.
If government was really interested in informing you of how your elected officials are acting, you’d be able to go to a single government website and track vote record information easily.
In Idaho, you can’t go to the Legislature’s website and quickly see the voting record of the two representatives and senators who represent you. You have to instead click on each bill, one at a time, and review the votes for each piece of legislation. Each year, roughly 400 bills are introduced and voted on. You can use the Legislature’s website to do a voting record analysis, if you’re willing to commit hours to the task.
The Idaho Freedom Foundation’s Freedom Index takes the data from the Legislature’s website and allows the user to look at voting records in one place. In other words, the technology exists to make votes for each legislator available on the state government’s own website; it just isn’t something lawmakers have been keen to implement. They don’t want you to easily look at a legislator’s voting history.
So, let’s turn Finney’s question around on him: “Why do Idaho lawmakers not want you to be able to read about their actions on state’s official legislative website?”
Legislators voted for McGrane’s voter guide to keep you from foraging for facts. They’d want you to depend on the state for information, instead of on the growing number of uncontrolled news sources available.
Why? To keep you weak, docile, and dumb.
For some odd reason, Boise State University’s annual public opinion survey earlier this year asked a question about a voter guide, to which 73% of respondents said they favored having one.
The question was worded in such a way as to elicit a favorable response with the unsupported claim that Idaho’s voter guide would have “a description of each candidate’s experience and goals.” Even though McGrane’s legislation offered no such thing, the results were enough for the Mountain States Policy Center to crow about the findings.
“Providing a statewide voter guide is not only popular with Idahoans but it is also a best practice that all states should consider to help provide voters with the information they need to make informed decisions about those wishing to represent them,” MSPC said.
Putting aside the fact that it’s never been government’s job to help voters make informed decisions, can a 200-word entry in a voter guide make all the difference? It takes a little less than a minute for the average American to read 200 words. Does anyone truly believe this is the amount of time that voters should commit to making a decision on who represents them in public office?
Let me know! Leave your comments below. (Please let me know of any typos as well, as I have no editor).