Poor turnout may not be a bad thing

Poor turnout may not be a bad thing

Your April 9 editorial lamented (again) about the latest election low turnout, using the fact that several races were decided by just a few votes as evidence that this is a bad thing.

It is true that a relative minority of interested and informed citizens end up making the decision as to who become our elected leaders. How can you possibly say this is a bad thing if the alternative is that uninformed and uninterested 'voters' make that decision?

Surely you have seen the Jay Leno 'Jaywalkers' interviews with on-the-street folks. Do you really want these people deciding who leads us? I say that given the current awareness and interest of the electorate, the election turnout is just fine. More votes will more likely lead to worse government.

Obviously, a better informed and more interested electorate would be a good thing that would probably lead to more actual voters. Also, reducing the 'mind-numbing arcane offices on the ballot' would help. However, the goal should be to inform and create interest in local elections, not just increase turnout.

Scott S. Marshall

Naperville