It is not, in this country, a matter simply of being committed or uncommitted to democracy. There are real participatory democrats remaining, but they exist at the activist fringe, unwilling to institutionalize an essentially spontaneous impulse. In contrast, a few folks could do without the whole gushy enterprise — but not nearly enough to worry about a fascist takeover. Yet in the middle, countless individuals retain only a tepid or abstract commitment to democracy. You can usually detect them by asking a simple question: Should people who are relatively uninformed even vote?

State Rep. Gary Sherman, D-Port Wing, recently proposed moving nonpartisan April elections to November to coincide with partisan elections. The move is designed principally to increase voter turnout. But opponents of the measure include the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, concerned that local races will be recast in partisan terms — and voters will not know what to do with the influx of decisions. In discussions I’ve had about the proposal, the main objection has been similar: Voters should not be encouraged to cast uninformed votes, unlike the poorly attended April elections during which only the true believers show up.

Yet the right to vote (barring extenuating circumstances) is deliberately unconditional. It does not discriminate based on intelligence or information levels. My right to vote after researching candidates for hours is equal to my friend’s right to vote for the candidate whose name happens to be listed first on the ballot. It is one thing to argue voters deserve more access to candidate positions. It is another to behave as if that right depends upon them knowing as much about the issues as you do.

So yes, all elections in Wisconsin should be moved to November. (The lone exception here may be elections to the State Supreme Court, which should be eliminated; the law is defined by resistance to majority decisions.) In almost all cases, it is always better for more people to vote. Period. It’s not always unambiguously better: Majorities err. But there is something transcendent about stepping into that booth and filling in that arrow. Inside the voting booth, the ghost of Jefferson whispers to us, impresses upon us the enormity of the act. Not unlike great religious traditions, the ritual matters as much as the context. Perhaps you thought voting was a cold, pragmatic act. If so, you mistake the truly holy for the merely intellectual.

But back to the Sherman proposal. There is, of course, a degree of civic responsibility that should be expected of voters: a baseline knowledge of candidates, for one, but also an ability to distinguish a partisan from a nonpartisan race. And here opponents of the date change need to be more optimistic: Isn’t there a chance that holding nonpartisan elections in November will increase publicity for previously-ignored races and increase the number of informed voters? Many more voters may ascend the learning curve under the proposed calendar because local races held in conjunction with “bigger” races will be better-publicized.

The worry that non-partisan races will suddenly “become” partisan if included on the November ballot is equally strange. Most “non-partisan” races in this state have been at least slightly partisan for some time. It’s the worst kept secret in town. Does anyone think this spring’s Dane County Executive race between Kathleen Falk and Nancy Mistele is non-partisan? Did Gov. Doyle just happen to endorse Falk? Does Mistele just happen to be the favorite daughter of the Dane County Republicans? Am I the only one who would prefer these individuals to be honest about their partisan affiliations?

If candidates for local office insist on being partisan, voters should not be faulted for casting partisan votes. If the election schedule change occurs, local elections will still be barely veiled partisan races. And maybe the logical next step really is to identify “non-partisan” candidates by party on the ballot (with a disclaimer). Instead of compromising the nature of these offices, this would encourage a healthy, professional, unambiguous partisanship. It would also alleviate fears about the uninformed masses having no points of reference to guide their voting decisions.

But something else is going on here besides misplaced worries about voter ignorance. There are countless local officials in Wisconsin who, no doubt, owe their perpetual re-election to low voter turnout. Under the Sherman proposal, no re-election effort could be taken completely for granted. Currently, these officials can just count on their friends in the community rallying the troops. They don’t need to make their case for re-election to anyone who wouldn’t already stand by them no matter what. They barely need to have accomplishments as a result. They are the ones sweating over the Sherman legislation and undoubtedly rallying the interest-group troops behind their opposition. This self-preservation impulse is to be expected. But the least they can do is not slander the average voter or blaspheme the act of voting.

Eric Schmidt ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in legal studies and political science.