First of all, a shout out to the Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Associated Press for this one.
An article in the Sun-Sentinel last week highlighted a disappointing trend in American politics: nobody votes. As the article points out, residents in an unincorporated community just outside Tamarac, Florida, were faced with an annexation referendum, but apparently nobody there feels any sort of civic duty, and the outcome was 0 for, and 0 against. One voter (out of the 68 registered in the neighborhood) could have decided for all 200 residents whether their community would become part of the city of Tamarac. In all, $2500 were spent in keeping the precinct open for twelve hours, and now the city is considering whether to attempt a mail-in election instead.
Countless American soldiers have fought - and died - in the name of our democratic republic. And if you could, I would tell you to ask any of the old school women suffragists or even the Civil Rights Era leaders - the right to vote is a hard won privilege, and not one to be regarded lightly. It is especially not a right to be disregarded at all.
Beyond the fight for the ballot in the US, though, the fight against autocracy and tyranny has taken a huge toll across the globe, as well. Iraqis line up for hours to stain their fingers with a purple dye, showing they've voted, for instance, and the Great War was even fought to "make the world safe for democracy." Take into consideration the developments in China over the last twenty years, beginning with the student protests in 1989 (although one could easily include movements before then), as well as the recent atrocities in Tibet. It's clear. The allure of a vote is far too tempting for victims of tyranny, and quite rightly so. However, as soon as the vote is won, it becomes old hat. For those Floridians, and for every other citizen of the world's democracies who decides not to participate, I say this: you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
And what are the solutions to this problem? The answers are elusive. It's a terrible paradox, then, that enacting legislation or some rule of law that makes voting required is antithetical to democracy. After all, how could a system be free and independent if its most basic and inherent institution were compulsory? Furthermore, if this were the case, the logical outcomes would be two-fold. First of all, the number of uninformed voters would increase exponentially, and secondly, many more votes would simply be bought by the powers that be. But what we have now is the option to vote, not the right, and apparently not the responsibility, to do so.
Perhaps our democratic foundations were flawed, and I hope no one will label me a heretic for saying so. But for anyone who has studied American government in the slightest, it's a well-known (and embarrassingly well-founded) truth that our Founders and Framers had little or no faith in the common citizen's ability to govern him- or herself. Hence, they established a republican government, leaving decisions in the hands of elected representatives. The greatest degree of involvement for the citizenry, for the most part, has thus been reduced to electing representatives, save for the occasional referendum.
But does the republican system perpetuate low voter turnout? Is it because the real decision-making power does not lie with the public that voters feel they can make no difference? I for one feel this is definitely the case when the only choices we have in the way of political candidates are stuffed shirts and talking heads, who happen to be fighting mostly for reelection. Of course, there is also the assumption that one vote cannot make a difference; however, this is clearly not true, as shown by the apathetic residents outside of Tamarac, Florida. However, when the thought that a single vote will not make a difference discourages a substantial portion of the voters, the fewer resulting votes are worth far more individually.
Whatever the cause for our apathy, shame on us. Who are we to fight a war in foreign lands, espousing democracy, when we apparently feel no affinity for it at home?
6 comments:
Add on top of this the fact that the greatest influence a third-party candidate can have is to steal away votes from a Democrat or a Republican. And if you like thinking about our founders, George Washington in particular was opposed to a two-party system. As if there are only two legitimate points of view on a topic...
"Who are we to fight a war in foreign lands, espousing democracy, when we apparently feel no affinity for it at home?" (Gasps.)
"Perhaps our democratic foundations were flawed, and I hope no one will label me a heretic for saying so."
You're not a heretic. Part of democracy is the idea of being equal under the law, and we are equal because of our ability to reason. That you can identify that the government is flawed is an exercise of your democratic right.
I know in Australia it's mandatory to vote, but that is clearly not the solution (as you argued). Maybe if we had incentives to vote (what sort, I don't know) that might improve turnout.
First, “Who are we to fight a war in foreign lands, espousing democracy, when we apparently feel no affinity for it at home?” Wow, Right-Wing Leftie, WE AGREE!!!
Second, “for anyone who has studied American government in the slightest, it's a well-known (and embarrassingly well-founded) truth that our Founders and Framers had little or no faith in the common citizen's ability to govern him- or herself. Hence, they established a republican government, leaving decisions in the hands of elected representatives.” While you are right in saying that the founders and framers believed that men were not perfect, the reason that the Federalists established republicanism was as a means of combating majority faction and then enacted the system of checks and balances to prevent majority tyranny (remember 201, Fredeaux?). Some Federalist Paper quotes for ya (I have to validate my earning of my nickname somehow, right?):
“By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 10 (72) He goes on to explain that minority faction can be outvoted but that majority faction must be stopped through "expanding the republic" in order to get enough diverse ideas that it would be impossible for a majority to form.
And the quote I think you're referencing in your post: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 51 (319)
And Fredeaux, a mandatory vote is the shiz (a superb thing). Other European countries that have a mandatory vote are more democratic in that their citizens actually participate in democracy. Those same countries also have higher taxes but a correspondingly higher standard of living so all in all, not necessarily a bad thing.
I know, I know, I know. It's a long comment.
Moral of the story: The founders didn't trust politicians, so they created a system where everyone was supposed to fight to limit others' powers. But I'm not sure how one can argue that the founders trusted the people when U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, and we still elect Presidents through the Electoral College.
And compulsory voting is definitely not the shiz. As RWL has pointed out, that would increase the number of uninformed voters. Besides, there may be a case where I might not care how a particular election turns out, and I would have a legitimate reason to abstain.
As for what I'd like to see, even though I have no idea how these would happen: (1) more accessibility for third-party and independent candidates, (2) information listed on the ballot about candidates and referenda, and (3) the end of the Electoral College.
First of all J-Mad, why do you make such a big deal out of it any time we agree? Your partisanship and your pigeon-holing me into an inaccurate conception of my philosophy is incredibly close-minded for a self-described liberal. But there I'm wrong in assuming that you, as a liberal, do claim to be open-minded. Perhaps you also break a mold by choosing to avoid such a claim. Perhaps we should both avoid ideological stereotypes and generalizations.
As for mandatory voting, don't you see how farcical that would be? To begin with, it's a paradox - if one is forced to make a choice, they have no choice, expecially if they would have chosen not to vote. How can a government claim they have a free and independent process if they force everyone to participate?
Furthermore, we don't want everyone to participate! Uninformed voters are far more dangerous than those who do not vote, in my opinion. How do you combat this problem? By mandating everyone be informed? By whose deifinition of "informed?" As soon as the government can make a decision like that, the government can also decide what is appropriate for people to know. Is that the society any of us would like to live in?
Instances in which we agree just go to show a commonality among Americans, not a bad thing, and since we agree so rarely, on a purely individual level, it is pretty nifty thing that we can compromise and find common ground (also very American things). And no one is pigeon-holing you or I into anything. I am simply pointing out a commonality between two individuals who often disagree on social and political issues.
Anyway, I get what you're saying about mandatory voting. Although I still think that in some instances, it wouldn't be an entirely bad thing, if you really wanted voluntary voting to improve and keep citizens informed, just reinstate the draft. Younger voters (18-24 range who have traditionally never voted except during the Vietnam War when the USA had a draft) would flock to polls in droves, motivated by self-preservation, if nothing else. But also, this direct democracy and increasing numbers of people who vote seems to imply that it is desirable for everyone to vote. Therefore, it could seem undemocratic to want some voters not to vote because "they are dangerous." That's why the Federalists set up the system that they did - so that everyone can express their desires for and participate in their country's government and it would still work, no matter what, for the permanent and aggregate interests of the community (see Federalist 10).
However, having information about a thing listed on the ballot would be really contentious because you would have to be sure that no one thought it biased one side over the other or influenced an individual's decision. An end to the electoral college is a good thing.
Also, the news media and the government already do enough to decide what we know or don't know based off of their own power-hungry bullshit reasons. Having everyone in society participating in democracy in a much more direct fashion could actually help to stem this undesirable and harmful trend of our country.
Post a Comment