Turnouts in American elections are routinely under 50 percent of eligible voters, especially in non-presidential contests like this one. Even after the trauma of the last year, no increase in voters is expected at the polls in November. In fact, the numbers could get worse. People are anxious, even in fear for their lives, and they still won’t vote.

Why?

The blame is often leveled at the two principal actors in this ritual of democracy–the politicians and the voters. Neither is blameless but neither is the guiltiest party. After all, the politicians have been throwing mud at each other and uttering platitudes for more than 200 years and it hasn’t driven down turnout. If anything, today’s elected officials are more honest now than 50 or 100 years ago, when turnout was higher.

The voters, meanwhile, are better educated than ever before, and voting is easier nowadays. You can even vote early in nearly half the states without even swearing you’ll be out of town on Election Day. Polls are open late in many locales, and civic groups and other local institutions are active in encouraging people to vote.

Recall how on the night before an election even the anchors of your local evening news broadcast often remind you to get out there to the polls.

ABSENCE OF INFORMATION

But there’s something odd about that exhortation. These same local newscasts–now the principal source of news for the American public–have not covered the very election they are urging their viewers to participate in. They are telling people to pay attention to something they have not paid attention to themselves. It’s the ultimate in civic hypocrisy.

But the hypocrisy is just … hypocritical. What helps kill turnout is the simple absence of enough information to motivate people to vote.

The evidence is irrefutable. This fall, researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of Wisconsin analyzed 1,227 hours of local news programming between September 18 and October 4. More than half–on more than 1,000 stations–contained no campaign coverage at all. On the broadcasts that did occasionally carry a piece about politics, the average length was 90 seconds. “If you only watched your local television news, you’d be hard-pressed to know there’s an election coming up,” says Paul Taylor, president of the Alliance for Better Campaigns .

Of course they know about the election because they see the ads–close to $1 billion worth nationally. But viewers have grown cynical about political advertising on TV, and campaigns are saying that such ads are losing their effectiveness. Many candidates are moving more toward grassroots field organization, Internet mobilization and direct mail. This may help improve turnout, because it gives people a sense of being connected to the contest. When a neighbor knocks on your door, it’s much more persuasive than some stupid attack ad.

THE LOCAL LEVEL

But in the meantime, basic political reporting is a vanishing species at the local level. Coverage of state capitals, once a staple of news, is now rare. Political chatter is available nationally for people who want to search for it, but relatively few do. Sunday shows aren’t big ratings winners, and cable news is tiny. Print journalism is now mostly for elites.

So average voters are at the mercy of Kristin and Brent and the other local news talent for what little scraps they might glean about the elections in their area. Unless the candidate is embroiled in some scandal–or launching an absurd attack on his opponent–he or she is not likely to get covered.

The villain of the piece? Well, if you had to pick one it would be the local news consultant. These folks get paid to tell local station managers what the viewers want, but they usually botch the job. As Tom Rosenstiel and Dave Iverson of the Pew Charitable Trusts have shown, the question they usually ask survey respondents about political coverage–“How interested are you in news reports about issues and activities in government and politics?”–is much too general to get a strong positive answer. Indeed, only 29 percent answer “very interested.”

But when the question is asked: “What can government do to improve the performance of local schools?” the number who are “very interested” goes to 59 percent. And 69 percent are interested in what government can do about terrorism. That’s higher than most other categories. Only in politics do they keep the question broad and therefore useless.

In other words, stories about the politics of education, health care, terrorism and other issues can draw an audience. Those stories are best when connected to real lives, but that doesn’t mean the politicians’ views cannot also be expressed (though it’s hard to squeeze in the average person, the issue and the pols in 90 seconds).

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

This takes only some rudimentary commitment to the public interest–to the principles that these stations were commanded by law to uphold in exchange for their licenses to print money (Also known as FCC broadcasting licenses). This week, Sen. John McCain, Russell Feingold and Richard Durbin have introduced legislation to compel stations to provide two hours a week of political coverage in the weeks preceding an election. The broadcasting lobby shouldn’t have any trouble strangling that one in the crib.

But that doesn’t leave these craven stations as winners. Instead, they get the worst of both worlds. They have abdicated their public responsibility–and lost a chance to win an audience with compelling stories that connect to real public concerns.

And whoever wins at the polls, it’s lose-lose for the viewers. They get no coverage of what makes them anxious citizens–and are still subjected to all the silly and twisted ads. It’s no wonder they stay home.