Perhaps the most underreported story of the past election is that nationally, only slightly more than a third of eligible voters bothered to vote at all.

As is often the case, Maine citizens made a somewhat better showing, with about 46 percent of our citizens going to the polls. Nonetheless, the Maine figure still raises obvious questions about our political process. Those few journalists and political scientists who mentioned turnout were content to observe that low voter turnout is “normal” in off year elections. They were pleased that the Clinton scandal did not depress participation further.

I share the view of a friend and former colleague, Tom DeLuca, chairman of the political science program at Fordham University-Lincoln Center and author of “The Two Faces of Political Apathy.” In a post election day op ed for the Boston Globe, DeLuca commented: “The low turnout in Tuesday’s election wasn’t caused by scandal. It is the scandal.”

DeLuca’s views represent a minority within the political science profession, but they deserve further scrutiny. DeLuca forces us to examine closely our assumptions and frames of reference when we comfort ourselves that low turnout is “normal.”

Normal is one of those words that always deserve closer attention. Normal often implies that a phenomenon fits within a pattern and that the phenomenon is therefore proper. We thus infer the propriety of a phenomenon from its current regularity without asking how long the pattern has endured or what needs are served by the pattern.

Midterm elections have always had lower rates of participation than presidential years. But as recently as thirty two years ago, nearly half of us voted in midterm elections. Today, fifty percent is about what we get in Presidential elections. That half of us stay home with presidential candidates on the ballot is even more scandalous.

Low voter turnout is neither a law of democratic politics nor even a fact of our history. In the United States of 1840 to 1900, turnout in presidential elections averaged nearly 78 percent. Today, the United States ranks near last in turnout — 35th among the world’s 37 major democracies. DeLuca points out that: “From 1960-95, 54 percent of American voters cast ballots in presidential elections. In comparable elections during this period, 90 percent of Italians, 86 percent of Germans, 76 percent of Canadians and French, 75 percent of British, and 71 percent of Japanese voted.”

These numbers often elicit two familiar replies. Voters here are satisfied with their lot or they are apathetic. In either case commentators find no reason for concern. Indeed, a “realist” school in political science often argues that democracy benefits from the lack of participation by those who don’t vote. They are characterized as ill informed or overly impressionable anyway.

To argue that those who don’t vote are happy with their lives is quite a stretch. Nonvoting is disproportionately concentrated among our less well off citizens. In 1966 a person in the bottom income quintile was only 63 percent as likely to vote as someone in the top quintile. By 1994 the odds had dropped to 47 percent. During that time period, those at the bottom of our society saw their relative economic circumstances decline considerably.

Are the poor nonvoters apathetic dullards who are getting what they deserve? Blaming national problems on the personal moral failings of the poor is a favorite American pastime. In the thirties, conservative commentators attributed vast unemployment to a sudden surge of laziness on the part of workers. Despite evidence of discriminatory real estate and lending practices, many suburban leaders in the fifties and sixties blamed inner city slums on the life styles and habits of African Americans.

Orthodox analysis has this phenomenon backward. Desertion of the political process by lazy or ill informed citizens isn’t the primary cause of political and economic deterioration. Many potential voters no longer vote because their options are limited. Inadequate political leadership, undemocratic party structures, biases in our media and polling processes, and deficiencies in our electoral arrangements all converge to raise the costs and lessen the attractiveness of voting. Citizens at all levels of our political economy can and should collaborate to address these institutional and ideological inadequacies. These themes will be subjects of future columns.

I have no doubt that some citizens from all walks of life are angry and ill informed about politics. In many instances, however, their frustrations are not without some cause. Nonetheless, enduring democracies can and must handle deep discontent. They become more than a forum for venting gripes. By giving equal political opportunity to all, the best democracies enhance self-esteem and foster a greater willingness to engage the needs of others.

They thereby breed respect for difference, for law, and for the political process. Our current politics fails miserably in these responsibilities. This is the scandal deserving far more attention.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail comments to jbuell@acadia.net.