Editorial: The unsatisfying faith in probability at the polls

Within the science of probability, there is the notion that highly reliable conclusions can be drawn from very small sample sizes. Perhaps it is within that notion that we can find some consolation that our elections actually mean something.

We know of course that elections do something. They determine leaders who will determine what our children study at school, whether our roads will be fixed and if so which ones, how much we will pay in what kind of taxes, what kinds of businesses we will have in our towns, the quality of our water, the safety of our homes and families and the comfort of our neighborhoods.

There is no question that all of these circumstances are directly affected by our elections. But when you study the numbers, only probability theory can give you any sign that our elections are getting us what we want. For, without that strained connection, the signals suggest that very small contingents of our communities are making our decisions.

And aside from being strained, the probability connection is also flawed. Too often, elections hang on only a small number of votes. Witness Pingree Grove today where just two votes separate the candidates for mayor and three votes decided a village board seat, or Geneva, where a city council seat was decided by seven votes, or Burlington, Geneva and Kaneland, where races were settled by no more than eight votes and as few as three. Moreover, we know well how various groups take advantage of expected low voter turnouts to storm the polls and thus destroy any validity in the idea that a small voter sample can represent the population as a whole.

Reflecting on his last-place finish in the race for a seat on the Batavia Unit District 101 school board, candidate Christopher Lowe bemoaned the 18 percent voter turnout - actually a veritable stampede by most suburban standards Tuesday - and wondered how to "get in contact with the other 82 percent" to see what they wanted in the board.

That's a reasonable enough proposition, but even without contacting them, we can surmise some possible attitudes of that 82 percent. Either they're comfortable enough with how things are going that they don't feel a need to influence it, or they think that whatever the outcome, it will not substantially detract from or improve on the current quality of decision making in local schools and government - that, in short, their vote doesn't matter.

At this point in the state of our democracy, there is no use in contradicting these perceptions or scolding the disinterested masses for their apathy. The perceptions have been discredited too thoroughly and the masses have been shamed and scolded too many times to suggest hope for any improvement. But, if we're to perfect our democracy, we still must look for hope. In Illinois, a concrete dialogue can start with a serious look at consolidating government functions, which in addition to improving efficient operations, would reduce the mind-numbing assortment of arcane offices on the ballot. We must begin somewhere. With such advances as on-site registration and early voting, proposed solutions so far have focused on making voting incredibly convenient and easy. What we need to be asking now is how to make it attractive.

Or, of course, we can trust in probability theory. Somehow that doesn't seem very satisfying to us. Surely it's not satisfying for you, either.