Perspective from Will Rasky: Of all the reasons why voter participation is steadily declining in elections across the country, one of the most commonly suggested theories in Massachusetts politics strikes me as a bit paradoxical: we have too many elections. One would think that more chances to vote would lead to more voters, but this isn’t the case and some say we’re just at critical mass. We simply have too many opportunities to keep track of! I don’t buy that.

Of all the reasons why voter participation is steadily declining in elections across the country, one of the most commonly suggested theories in Massachusetts politics strikes me as a bit paradoxical: we have too many elections. One would think that more chances to vote would lead to more voters, but this isn’t the case and some say we’re just at critical mass. We simply have too many opportunities to keep track of! I don’t buy that.

This issue, commonly referred to as “election fatigue,” is wrapped up in another sentiment, which I see as the larger problem: skepticism about any public servant’s ability to positively impact the day-to-day lives of a prospective voter. This skepticism is rooted in a lack of information. Regardless of the office, those outside the political handicapping class don’t hear from their elected officials at any time other than during a campaign.

Voters, or those who choose not to vote, are not overwhelmed by the number to times they need to go to the polls. They are underwhelmed, or — even worse — confused, by the options under consideration in a given election.

On the ground level, with voters, there is very little to differentiate one campaign from another. The issues are woven together into broader narratives, with campaigns and media outlets working as willing dance partners, and the elections seem to blend together. Social media utilization has only lengthened the dance.

Going back to 2012, Massachusetts voters needed to choose a President, two U.S. Senators, and now, in 2014, a Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, a state Attorney General and a Treasurer (without even considering uncontested or poorly contested races, as well as any office for a subset of state voters — such as Congressmen, Mayors, or State legislators). Through all of these, voters are fed a steady diet of the same discussions, the same promises and declarations, with only slight deviations based on the office sought.

What does all of this lead to? Well, for most people, that can get confusing. We need not look further than recent polling to get a glimpse of this. For the 2014 gubernatorial election, conceivably the most important race going on, a recent UMass poll found that 44% of registered Democrats were not sure who they would vote for yet.

Candidates need to cut through this steady, seemingly unrelenting stream. This is not a suggestion of changing course on policy; this is a plea for candidates to identify what they would do with their specific offices if elected. The broader promises are getting to be hackneyed.

Hearing what a candidate stands for is important, but we need to hear how a candidate will deliver. The candidates who do this, who directly confront voter confusion rather than expecting imaginary voter fatigue, will find themselves victorious come election day.

Voters seem unwell, and symptoms resembling fatigue are prevalent. I would argue that the cure is more coherent information.