Is Voter Turnout a Communications Issue?

Yesterday,  someone commented on my March 21st post on local elections with this question:
"I am active politically at the local/state level. We have had declining voter turn-out over the years so that the last city council election garnered less than 10%. I used to think that those elections would have higher participation for exactly the reasons you mention - council & school boards being so close to home. any thoughts on this?"

After responding, I continued to think about this issue.  I suspect that low voter turnout, in part, is a communication issue.  Venturing a risky step into political blogging (just for today, I promise!) I wanted to expound on some of my thoughts.  Please join in on this discussion if you want to add to the discourse!

I suspect that there are several reasons for the decline in voter turnout.  

• I think that many "could be" voters stay away from the polls because they question whether or not their vote makes a difference.  I suspect we will see a significant drop in the percentage of people voting in the national election this fall (as most states saw during the primaries) because there has been a lot of attention paid to Citizen's United issues.  "I don't have millions to contribute so how can I change things" is how many individuals are viewing things this political season. 
• Related to that, many erstwhile voters question what impact, if any, one candidate will have over another.  If you view all politicians with the same suspicion-colored glasses, they all look the same and then why take the time to go to the polls?  
• While they were set up to make it easier for people to vote, I suspect that the preponderance of options like Early voting and Absentee voting can be intimidating and confusing for those not fully engaged in the process. It also has the impact of lessening the special aspect of Election Day. 
• When I was growing up, I remember hearing leaders of all shapes, sizes and political flavors talk about the importance of getting out to vote.  I grew up believing it was EVERYONE'S civic duty to vote.  I don't hear that from our leaders nearly as much.  Voting no longer is held out as a sacred duty of citizenship.  
• It is harder and harder for politicians and political parties to cut through the communications barrage we are all subjected to every day.  With an ever-increasing number of communications venues and an exponentially increasing number of message that most of us have to contend with every day, it is hard for your voice to be heard.  It is hard for McDonald's and Chevy, who can market 24/7/365.  Imagine competing with that with an uncertain source of funds and a limited time frame.  On top of that, try communicating complicated policy issues and positions in a 30 second ad or a two minute "news" story.  Perhaps that is why candidates and PACs turn toward negative ads.
• Negative ads.  Proponents say they work.  But they work not by bringing out your voters but by discouraging the voters of the other guy.  

More specifically on local elections, 

• I think it comes down to people not realizing the impact that local elected officials have on their day-to-day lives. There are fewer and fewer independent, local media sources to tell us the value of those local elected officials.  When all you have is national and regional media, who is covering the city council meeting?

As any good marketer knows, in order to get people to act, you have to move a prospect through certain steps of interest and affiliation before you get them to consider taking action.  I suspect that our political system, used to a bygone era when stronger party affiliations provided automatic interest and affiliation to a candidate.  They still have to adjust to a new political reality in which more and more voters identify themselves as being independent and even those who identify with a party are more willing to cross over to vote for a candidate or an issue that captures their imagination, their interest and their affiliation.

In the end, voter turnout is tied to interest in the candidate and the system.  For some of the reasons I suggested above and many others, eligible voters have lost, or never obtained, that interest.  From time to time an issue or a candidate will fan those flames and generate new interest, and new voters.  Ronald Reagan  in the 80s and Barack Obama in 2008 both come to mind.  And both of those candidates were touted as being Great Communicators.

The Missteps of Komen

There has been a lot written about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure decision to discontinue funding of programs with Planned Parenthood. If you somehow missed this story, here is an article from Reuters that seems as good a summary as any.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-usa-healthcare-komen-idUSTRE8111WA20120202

This story generated a lot of opinions.  Most of the marketing/PR based opinions I have read about this incident seem to feel that Komen did something wrong, but they vary widely in their analysis of the facts, or even what they feel the facts are.  One perspective that I haven't seen discussed much is the lack of openness and honesty that Komen used when they first unveiled their decision to no longer work with Planned Parenthood.

When Komen spokespeople announced the decision to no longer fund Planned Parenthood, they said it was because they "had a new strategy that barred money from going to groups that were under investigation by US authorities."  They said their decision "reflected a new strategy aimed at using donation money more effectively by eliminating duplicate grants and tightening eligibility rules."  Regardless of if this was a genuine reason or a canard designed to deflect criticism, the justification rang hollow.  That was in part because Planned Parenthood was the only organization that was impacted by their new criteria.

It is clear that the Komen organization spent a great deal of time discussing their decision to change their funding process.  There were reports of heated internal debates and at least one person quitting in protest.  I suspect that since this was a controversial decision internally, they were trying to avoid additional controversy when they went public.

One of the basic goals in crisis communications is to try to keep the story in as few news cycles as possible. The best way that you can accomplish this is to be honest and forthright with information.  Don't leave anything for a reporter to "discover."  Rather, tell the whole story, especially if it is a story that does not reflect well on your organization.  It is better to have one day of really bad news but with your organization being open and upfront than to have the story drag out over days or weeks, making headline after headline, as new facts emerge.  That  is what happened to Komen.

To make matters worse, as the issue became more and more controversial, the explanations kept changing at Komen.  This led to mistrust of their message, their messengers and their veracity.  It also kept them in the headlines for weeks.

I can't help but wonder if things would have gone smoother if Komen, an organization that had an excellent reputation and thousands and thousands of deeply dedicated supporters and volunteers, had simply told the truth.  If they had come out and said:

• "We share a mission of women's health with the Planned Parenthood organization.  Nevertheless, Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood each approach women's health issues from different directions.  Recently, given the media and political attention that certain aspects of Planned Parenthood's operation have been getting, we are uncomfortable continuing our relationship.  Fortunately, in most areas, there are other options for mammograms and other services we support.  We will be switching our funding to some of those other options."

or

•  "We are a women's health organization, not a political one.   Increasingly, an organizations we fund has become increasingly political.  While we don't fund anything related to abortions or family planning, Planned Parenthood does get involved in these things.  We have become increasingly uncomfortable with that and have decided to find other ways and venues through which we will continue to support women's health issues."  

What do you think?  Regardless of what you think about their decision, or the politics of this issue, do you think that Komen could have mitigated some of the damage they did to their reputation by presenting the decision differently?  Please share your thoughts in the comments.