It’s a common lament among political activists that voter turnout in this country is appallingly low. Modern voter turnout for presidential elections has long hovered barely above the 50 percent mark.Although it’s tempting to view the 2008 election — which had a turnout of approximately 60 percent — as evidence this voting malaise is beginning to self-amend, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  That historic election — set in dire financial times and with a candidate that stirred to action numerous demographics to unheard levels of participation — was set in historic circumstances that will not likely be duplicated in the foreseeable future.Whatever your outlook on national election turnout is, it’s impossible to avoid a more obvious, if less discussed trend in our electoral system — turnout for national elections is much greater than state or local elections.Evidence for this trend is overwhelming.  One need only look at the elections for the 16th Senatorial District, in Baton Rouge on March 7th. Only 16,780 voters showed up for the polls in that election, according the Secretary of State’s Web site.  With 89,523 eligible to vote, that’s a 19 percent turnout.That makes a 50 percent turnout look stellar.What could possibly induce voters to be so much more enthusiastic about their higher offices?The obvious reason is that national elections are perceived to be more important than local ones. The issues dealt with on the national stage are “bigger;” it’s on the national level that such seminal issues as abortion, national economy and war are managed.Although issues the state legislature deals with occur on a less grand ideological scale, they bear no less impact on voters’ daily lives.  State and local governments are responsible for mundane – but no less important — matters including road maintenance, law enforcement and all the other tedium that makes life civilized.Sure, national elections provide us with a way to vote our conscience on the great moral issues of our day. Also, national elections feature the most spectacular confrontations of divided ideologies, as opposed to the last election, which had only Republican candidates.And to be fair, sometimes the effects of national leaders do have larger and further-reaching effects than their “lesser” counterparts.But as much as we like to discuss the higher issues – as much more fun as it is to talk about abortion than it is to talk about garbage collection – citizens need to pay attention to local issues and races.A common complaint, especially in Louisiana, is that there are too many elections — national elections conveniently happen only once or twice a year and are made in bulk. There may be some validity to these claims, and it’s perfectly fair to ask that the system be streamlined. However, is it really too much to ask of the voting public that they be aware enough and care enough about their local community to stay informed and involved and participate in a few elections a year?Perhaps the argument is irrelevant. Our government is rooted largely in federalism; our democracy is not direct, but representative. Perhaps a system with such low turnout is a way of separating the interested and educated voters from those who aren’t, thus ensuring rational decision-making. Maybe a democracy with only 19 percent voter turnout isn’t a non-democracy, but rather a better democracy.Or maybe this argument is one made to rationalize a broken system.Matthew Albright is a 20-year old political science sophomore from  Baton Rouge.——Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]