Bloviating aside, the election will be decided by who votes

THE story line for this year's elections among the national commentariat is that anger-fueled resurrection is afoot. Torches are being lit, pitchforks hoisted. Many bums are about to be thrown out of office — mostly Democrats.

It is true that there is anxiety in the land. It is also true that the party in power almost always loses congressional and legislative seats in midterm elections. The tea-party adds passion — not to mention colorful quotes and pictures for reporters and pundits — to support the prophecy of upheaval. This time, we are told, we are in store for more than the typical midterm "rebalancing" of party power.

Maybe, maybe not.

For one thing, Congress' approval rating is below President Obama's and the Republicans' ratings are lower than the Democrats'. Republicans may not benefit as much as they hope from voter unrest.

Second, the anti-incumbent sentiment has not been tested in a general election. Both parties have faced insurgencies from within their own ranks this primary season, which may serve to weaken their prospects in the general election despite party leaders' brave talk about how unified they are.

Third, elections are decided by individual voters making dozens of individual decisions. Voting comes down to choosing between Candidate A or Candidate B for specific positions in federal, state and local government. Despite overheated campaign rhetoric, the choice is not between Good and Evil. Each choice will be between two human beings, running for a specific office, each with strengths and flaws, issue positions, and some philosophy of government she or he may or may not be able to articulate.

This is why campaigns and candidates matter. Campaigns are where individual, human candidates present themselves and human voters make individual choices, one office at a time. In the case of initiatives, the voters' choice is a stark yes or no on one specific proposal at a time. Global and national conditions factor into a voters' decision-making calculus, but so do local and individual considerations.

Here in Washington state, there is little evidence of widespread anti-incumbent fervor. This is not to say that Washington voters are not restless. Nor that incumbents won't be replaced. But so far, the signs here do not point to a voter uprising.

We have had those before. Washington led the way for the last "Republican Revolution." In 1994, we swung further than any state in the country, replacing a congressional delegation of eight Democrats and one Republican with a delegation that was 7-2 Republican. We even tossed out a sitting speaker of the House — Tom Foley — the only time that has happened since the Civil War. Republicans also gained 27 seats to take control of the state House of Representatives.

On the surface, Washington politics today look much as they did in 1994. Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, six of eight partisan statewide offices, and six of nine congressional seats. Unlike 1994, however, Republicans are heading into this midterm election with a decided disadvantage in numbers.

In June, more Washington voters identified as Democrats than as Republicans by a margin of 40 percent to 29 percent in The Elway Poll. Over the last three months, the average has been 41 percent Democrats to 28 percent Republicans. In the comparable three months in 1994, Republicans had a 31 percent to 28 percent advantage.

The much-discussed tea party has not been tested here in any election. Washington does have a history of passing tax-limitation initiatives, bolstering the reputation of the anti-tax movement. However, not one of those initiatives received a majority of the total electorate. They received majorities of the votes cast in each particular election, but only 50-60 percent of eligible voters actually voted.

As a proportion of the total state electorate, the core anti-tax constituency is 25-28 percent. (It may be just a coincidence that the proportion of voters in The Elway Poll who would vote for a tea-party candidate was 24 percent.) Our surveys indicate that for every three Washington voters who would vote for a tea-party candidate, five would vote against that candidate.

Which leads to another factor that will determine the outcome of these elections — voter turnout. The smaller the turnout, the more impact a relatively small group can have. When only half of the voters cast ballots, a dedicated 25 percent minority becomes a 50 percent majority.

We won't know until November whether this is some kind of watershed year, or a typical midterm election. Trends are much easier to spot after an election than before one. The world is going to turn a few times before we vote. Campaigns are going to be conducted, cable-TV pundits will be lighting their hair on fire, and voters will pay varying degrees of attention to it all.

In the end, as Thomas Jefferson said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."