Dawidziak: Voters angry before '11 election

The mood of voters has indeed turned ugly. They are upset at what they see as government's failure to properly address the country's economic woes. Political pundits are scrambling to figure out what effect this autumn of our discontent will have on next month's elections.

The problem is that voters, while clearly angry, don't know where to vent their frustrations. They've become equal-opportunity haters. They see both the Democrats and Republicans as being ineffective. It's hard to see either party as gaining an advantage in the polls. In a recent poll by my company, Strategic Planning, President Barack Obama's job approval rating had dropped to 36 percent among Long Islanders -- a staggeringly low figure. Except in a case of suspected malfeasance, like Watergate, sitting presidents always hold their base, which should account for about a third of the electorate; Obama is only a few points higher than the normal low of the low. But the Republicans had better hold off popping Champagne corks; In the same poll, House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican congressional leadership's approval rating was 22 percent.

How much will all this fury affect local elections? The first effect experts would expect from these national conditions is an increase in voter turnout. An angry voter is a motivated voter. But turnout in local odd-year elections is typically low, and voters this year have no clear local target to focus that rage on. So the normal motivating response will probably be muted. With less than three weeks to go before Election Day, most experts are not predicting a huge surge in voter turnout.

The second effect that should result from voter anger is an anti-incumbent mood. When polling shows this much disappointment and wrath, incumbents should be quaking in their boots. Most aren't. Why not? Because the electoral advantages of incumbency far outweigh the stigma of being the incumbent.

This is the core argument in favor of term limits. The lively battle over term limits in this country has been going on since the early 1990s, but the issue is, in fact, far older. During the debate over the Constitution's ratification, many of our country's founders felt that the lack of mandatory tenure limits was a serious omission. Opponents of term limits point out that they deny voters their choice: If an incumbent is doing a spectacular job, why shouldn't the voters be able to keep that person in office? While that may be the case, it's become too difficult to defeat incumbents who aren't getting the job done. In essence, term limits are the voters saying, "We're too lazy to vote you out of office, so give us a law that forces you out."

The fact is that term limits are immensely popular with the voters and there are very good reasons for that. The deck is overwhelmingly stacked against challengers. Money pours into incumbents' campaign coffers from special-interest groups. Incumbents get to send out mailings at taxpayer expense through legislative reports that look more and more like slick campaign pieces.

Except for president, term limits are nonexistent on the federal level. Locally, it's a mishmash. Some towns have term limits for supervisor, others don't. Nassau doesn't have term limits for its county officials; Suffolk does. This year, two of Suffolk's Democratic legislators are being term-limited out, helping put control of that body up for grabs.

But if the voters truly want change they can believe in, they're going to have to do it themselves with the power of the ballot. While most experts are betting on the incumbents to win, this pollster believes there are going to be some surprises on Nov. 8. Voters may not kick all the rascals out, but the anger of Long Islanders will be felt at the polls.

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.