"It's all about turnout!"  So say the pundits of the imminent American and Israeli elections and so they said about this year's elections in Greece, Papua New Guinea, Angola, Mexico, Venezuela, France, Senegal, Myanmar, The Netherlands, Russia, and others. The turnout at the 6 May 2012 Greece general election was at an all time low (65%), while the French Presidential Election drew the largest French electoral  turnout ever (80%). The U.S. election is expected to have less than 60% of all eligible voters participate and the Israeli election is expected to have a percentage a bit larger. Clearly, the norms and expectations regarding who votes, why they vote, when, and how varies greatly across nations and election cycles.
 
We at ICA have just completed our election cycle and there are several observations about the election that I would like to share in the spirit of our continuing efforts for transparency and to encourage more of our members to vote, to run for office, and to get involved. But first let me take time to offer congratulations to all our new division officers, as well as our three association-wide new members of the board: Peter Vorderer, President-Elect-Select (U of Mannheim), Sonia Moreira, Board Member at Large for the Americas (State U of Rio de Janerio), and Anne Kaun, Student Board Member (Sodertorn U). I also want to thank all the nominees who were willing to make the commitment to stand for positions on the ICA board and in their own divisions. ICA’s success is based on the dedication, innovative ideas, and service of our members. For example, candidate statements of now President-Elect-Select Peter Vorderer and candidate Michael Slater as well as the statements by Boris Brummans and Sonia Moreira, Sada Reed and Anne Kaun provided innovative and exciting initiatives for ICA to consider as we move forward. I am confident that, as in years past, many of the ideas from these candidates and those at the division level as well will become part of ICA. I am also hopeful that we will have more opportunities to tap into the expertise, energy, and ideas of all those who were willing to run for office. ICA greatly appreciates and relies upon your vision, your commitment to service, and your contributions to the public good. 

Ken Livingstone, a recent mayor of London, has been quoted as saying, “If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it.” My goal here is to explain why Mr. Livingstone is incorrect and encourage much greater ICA electoral participation in the future.

So first the facts: 

TURNOUT: Most academic associations do not report the percentage of their members who vote, but those who do suggest great variability in turnout. The largest psychological association in the world, the APA with over 137,000 members, reports that about 20% of their members voted in their last election. The largest sociological association (ASA) indicates that of their 9,459 members eligible to vote in 2012 there was a 48.4% participation rate. This year our turnout, very consistent with the past 10 years, was 27%. With some variation in our membership, we consistently have between 1,050 and 1,200 members voting. ICA sends out frequent email reminders to the membership to vote during the six weeks the election is open.  In order to not overwhelm email boxes, once an ICA member votes, the email system removes them from the reminder emails.  Once you vote, you no longer receive the emails about the election until the final results are known. 

The regional breakdown of votes was as follows:

RESULTS: Across the 25 ICA-wide and divisional elections in 2012, 12 positions were filled by candidates from Europe (7), Non-U.S. America (3), Oceana (1), and West Asia (1). The other 13 winning candidates were from the US (in 4 cases the US member ran unopposed).

Election results were very close. In three divisions the difference was 2 votes, in one division 4 votes, and in two divisions the vote differential was 6 votes. This pattern replicates past results. Two years ago, I won the Presidential election by the closest of margins. And as typically happens, this year more people voted in their division elections than cast votes in the association wide elections.  

MY OBSERVATIONS:

1. Our association officers represent our membership in terms of national breakdown to a greater extent than ever before. As ICA continues to strive to be a truly international organization this is an important representative step (although clearly only a small but necessary part of what we must do to assure the voice of all our present and future members).


2. Overall, we have a lower-than-desired participation rate in voting. Moreover, there are large differences in voting patterns. The European region has the largest percentage of their membership voting, both East and West Asia have the smallest. There are many possible reasons for this and at our January midyear board meeting we will address this issue, its consequences, and how we can encourage greater involvement and participation by all our members. Suggestions by all are welcomed.


3. This year, as in years past, people who won elections include many who ran unsuccessfully in the past. This is significant and heartening. First, it continues an ICA tradition in which people that are committed to ICA will not be easily deterred. In the last 10 years, on the executive board alone, we have had members who initially lost association- wide elections and then won the second time they ran. These officers have been very successful in expanding the vision and enhancing the accomplishments of ICA. Second, these results show we are not losing our most dynamic members because of an election loss, rather running for an office is the beginning of involvement, not the end. ICA embraces new ideas wherever they come from, and people’s willingness to run for office and share their ideas is one of our greatest strengths.


4. In keeping with the past, there are divisions who only have one nominee for an office. This is unfortunate for many reasons. To begin, it minimizes the energy and involvement of members in the electoral process and having a say in ICA’s agenda. Second, it constrains the number of new ideas divisions have to consider in any given year. Third, as suggested above, people who run one time are likely to run again later.  We need as many people engaged in ICA governance as possible, both formally and informally, and I encourage divisions to seek out more than one candidate for their election slates.

In contrast to Mayor Livingstone’s observations about voting, voting does matter. Each member’s vote literally makes a difference in the election outcomes and in the policies of ICA.    Whether we are talking about the publishing venues ICA supports, the ways in which we present papers at conferences, the rules of submission, the types of awards and activities we recognize and celebrate, the support we give to new members and graduate students, our balance among support for research, outreach, engagement, career development, pedagogy, or the development of regional conferences, it is the ICA Board who brings new ideas and initiatives to the table and who decides our future directions. These are decisions important to all our careers, and ICA, as a truly international organization wants to represent our members in the fullest way possible. Given the closeness of our elections, your vote truly can make a difference. Yes, it really is about turnout, but not just turning out to vote, but turning out to engage, to share your ideas, and to be part of the ICA governance structure. With your support we can continue to meet the global challenges of being the most important and dynamic voice and association for our discipline.