The November 27 elections for governors, mayors, and regents experienced an unexpectedly low voter turnout. In the Jakarta gubernatorial election, just over half of registered voters cast their ballots, marking the lowest turnout in the city’s history. In Banjarbaru, the number of spoiled ballots exceeded valid votes, while in Medan, voter turnout hovered around a mere 30 percent.

Several branches of the General Election Commission (KPU) noted that turnout in regional elections has historically been lower than in presidential elections. Meanwhile, members of the House of Representatives attributed the low turnout to severe weather conditions in some areas.

Former Vice President Jusuf Kalla suggested that the low participation may be due to a "golput" (abstention) movement, as voters expressed disappointment by either invalidating their ballots or abstaining altogether. A gubernatorial candidate argued that administrative errors and inadequate information dissemination played a role, while another believed that voters were eager to see the election process end.

As simultaneous elections for governors, regents, and mayors move into the dispute resolution phase at the Constitutional Court, it is crucial to reflect on the sharp decline in voter participation. To better understand this issue, we must revisit the original design of simultaneous elections.

The Origins of Simultaneous Elections
In its 2013 ruling (No. 14/PUU-XI/2013), the Constitutional Court proposed six models for organizing simultaneous elections:

1. National Simultaneous Elections: Combining the presidential, House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representative Council (DPD), Provincial Legislature (DPRD I), and Municipal Legislature (DPRD II) elections into a single event (five ballots).
2. Comprehensive Simultaneous Elections: Including the president, DPR, DPD, governors, and regents/mayors (five ballots).
3. All-in-One Elections: Covering the president, DPR, DPD, DPRD I, DPRD II, governors, and regents/mayors (seven ballots).
4. Staggered Elections: Holding national elections for the president, DPR, and DPD (three ballots), followed by regional elections for DPRD I, DPRD II, governors, and regents/mayors (four ballots).
5. Phased Elections: Starting with national elections, followed by provincial elections, and concluding with municipal elections.
6. Other Variants: Maintaining simultaneous elections for the president, DPR, and DPD while experimenting with other regional election formats.

The Court emphasized the need for legislators to consider the technical implications of these options to uphold election integrity and ensure voter accessibility.

Concerns About Voter Fatigue
In 2019, the Association for Election and Democracy (Perludem) petitioned for a judicial review of Law No. 7/2017, arguing that simultaneous national and regional elections could overwhelm voters, reduce participation, and undermine the democratic process. However, the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition, reasoning that simultaneous elections enhance efficiency and reduce the frequency of voting, which could otherwise discourage participation.

Despite these intentions, the November 27 elections demonstrated a significant drop in turnout compared to previous presidential and legislative elections.

Jakarta, often seen as a microcosm of Indonesia, recorded its lowest voter turnout in history. As a city with a high Human Development Index and nearly universal literacy, Jakarta’s low participation is an anomaly.

Scholars have provided several explanations for low voter turnout. Garman (2017) argued that frequent elections can lead to voter fatigue, while Rallings et al. (2003) suggested that a high number of candidates can confuse or dissuade voters. Lijphart (1997) added that voters might feel they’ve fulfilled their civic duty in one election and disengage from subsequent ones. Limited media coverage and inadequate political information can also contribute to voter apathy.

Furthermore, many voters may distrust the candidates or believe that election outcomes will have little impact on their lives, leading to disinterest in the electoral process.

Lessons Learned
The low turnout in the 2024 regional elections serves as a lesson for election organizers, candidates, and political parties. In elections, voters should be seen as a dependent variable influenced by the actions of election organizers and contestants.

While the KPU has fulfilled its responsibilities by implementing the rules, political parties must bear some responsibility for the low turnout. Poor candidate selection that fails to align with voter preferences can result in low engagement. Additionally, public trust in both candidates and the KPU appears to be declining.

To restore voter confidence, political parties must prioritize good governance and rigorous candidate recruitment processes to field leaders who resonate with the electorate.

On the other hand, the KPU should evaluate its voter education and information dissemination strategies. Identifying voter demographics and tailoring outreach methods accordingly can help ensure greater participation in future elections.

The November 27 elections underscore the challenges of maintaining robust voter engagement in a complex democratic process. By addressing the root causes of voter apathy, enhancing candidate quality, and refining election management, Indonesia can strengthen its democracy and ensure that every citizen’s voice is heard.

---
Nona Evita is an expert staff at the General Election Commission (KPU) and a lecturer in communication science at Multimedia Nusantara University.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.