Vote Anyway; an Essay on Voting & the Electoral Process
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2007
by Spadecaller
Spadecaller's Corner
Most government officials throughout the world like to boast about their nations elections. It makes good press and besides, its patriotic. Nonetheless, in the last seven years the U.S. has relinquished its legendary role as the guardians of democracy and free elections. Today, the peoples of struggling democracies around the world are looking elsewhere for trustworthy allies in their quest for freedom. One must wonder if voters in America have lost hope with the two party system.
With the Presidential Election of 2008 approaching, some Americans are seduced by a false sense of power. Politicians are polishing their shoes, mingling with the commoners, revising their rsums, and pretending that the needs of their constituents are foremost in their minds. Once again, the season is upon on us. Many of us find their maneuvering and hypocrisy intolerable; and I am one of them.
Choosing individuals to fill the offices of government in the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches briefly imbues the electorate with a sense of power. From servants to masters we, the governed, can at last appear to become the legitimate source of power, though fleeting and impotent as it may be. The act of voting ascribes a righteous image to both the ruling class and its subjects. Despite all the pomp and circumstance, as subjects of the state we can at least pretend to be the employers of those who fail to represent us. This is our time. We become the great deciders.
Since the 1960s, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout. In recent decades, voting has declined to about 50% of the voting age population in presidential elections and less for midterm elections. Barring poor weather, lack of transportation, epidemic obesity, and other health restrictions, poor turnout can only be the result of disenchantment, indifference, or contentment. Most civic-minded people, however, consider low turnout undesirable. Unfortunately, some prefer fostering indifference, disenchantment, and division among the electorate. For these sycophants and scrooges, awareness and education are their greatest enemies.
The big question remains: Why vote? After they are elected, they will just go on with business as usual. All their campaign promises will swiftly fade away, as always. Is this not the sentiment of most Americans?
Our state always votes the Republican ticket; so what good is my vote? My 19-year-old son uttered those words just the other day. Regardless of party affliction -- or affiliation, who hasnt thought that also?
Special interest groups own the politicians anyway. He added after informing me that he would not be voting. While his remarks are logically sound, do they justify forfeiting his right to vote altogether?
One can certainly make a good argument either way. With the Electoral College in the United States, the chance of any one vote influencing the outcome is extremely low. The looming question remains; why would any rational person waste time voting in America?
Applying game theory studies, the ability for voters to interact with the final outcome of an election is highly unlikely. Here is a basic formula for predicting voter turnout: CA + M > S.
C is the chance that a persons vote will affect an outcome, and A is the perceived advantage of that person's preferred candidate or political party winning. M is the moral obligation; the civic duty one contributes to their society. Though in recent years, this moral obligation has been supplanted by personal gratification. S is the sacrifice; the time, effort, and frustration involved. In most elections, since C (chance) is virtually zero, CA is also near zero. M is thus the most significant variable in motivating people to vote. For a person to cast their ballot, these factors ( CA+M ) must outweigh S .
Political Scientists, Riker and Retook, developed a detailed explanation of M. They identified five major sources of gratification that people receive for voting. Conforming to the social obligation to vote is the first. The second is asserting one's allegiance to the political system. Affirming a partisan preference or voting for a candidate to reflect their support, but not to achieve any outcome is the third. The fourth is about hope; wanting to believe one's relevance and importance in the political system actually matters. Lastly, the fifth group is a mixture of hardcore gamblers and compulsive shoppers; those who find the process of making an informed decision stimulating.
Though some political scientists contest Riker and Ordeshook's conclusions, to discover exactly why people choose to vote is a perplexing challenge and their theories seem plausible to me.
Choosing a candidate that evolves from our dysfunctional two-party system is not a promising prospect for most of us, yet the penalties of not voting may prove to be even more egregious. One stiff look at history should provide enough consternation to anyone, who is planning to abstain from voting.
The prospect of restoring democracy depends on the people who believe that their personal influence, however small, needs to be asserted. This is the M in the equation, as I see it. Do we not have an obligation to others and to the future of our childrens children? Do we care enough about the society of our fellow Americans to show up at the polls on election day?
Altruism is the last hope of a failing democracy. Without it, there is no reason to cast a vote, especially when the choice is between the lesser of two evils. With this in mind, I have come to my own conclusion; one that I hope the majority of Americans will adopt before next November. Vote anyway!
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
(Martin Luther King, Jr.)
This Article has been viewed 93 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)My father is a hardcore Dem who was severely traumitized by the Bush experience. He ranted and raved on a daily basis, for the entire eight years. But he didn't vote!Since I agree with Robert Ringer ("Looking Out For Number One") that everyone acts selfishly, whether rationally or irrationally, consciously or not, I made a unique appeal to my father's sense of self-preservation. Firstly, according to the unwritten rules of how we play this game in America, you give up your right to complain when you don't vote. But that argument didn't phase old Dad. Secondly, I tried to sell him the hippie philosophy of "Do what you can, then quit worrying about it, let it go and be happy. " I was starting to get his interest. Finally, he was convinced that if he wanted to keep his sanity and any level of peace, he had to vote. "Dad, if the status quo is maintained for another term or two, and the country (which you love) stays the course of certain destruction (as you perceive it) can you live with yourself, not having lifted a finger to change it? Whether you believe your vote is futile or not, wouldn't it be some comfort to know that you at least tried to make a change? Even if you believe that your vote is only symbolic, don't you think it's in your best interest to make that statement, for your own peace of mind? In the end, Dad not only voted, but campaigned vigorously for his chosen candidate, walking door-to-door in the rain.Unfortunately, a sense of altruism doesn't always penetrate the level of hopelessness and powerlessness that has become epidemic in this society. It should, but it doesn't.In summary, my argument is this: If you feel impotent to affect change, and you no longer have the heart to even try, do it for the sake of reclaiming your own personal power.Good article, Mr. Spadecaller. I'll read it again and again. So much food for thought, and perpetually relevant.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.