How to Increase The Vote? Depends Upon Your Theory

In the United States, we hear a litany of slogans and platitudes about the importance of voting.  "You can't complain if you don't vote!" and "Voting is a right, a duty, and an obligation" are oft used expressions, and there is a general sense that voting matters and that there is a moral responsibility to participate in elections. Despite this sentiment, we routinely see low voting rates, even in Presidential elections. 

Why does this happen?  It depends, I suppose, upon your theory of voting behavior, which probably to some extent reflects your political views.  Progressives tend to think that not voting is a result of structural barriers such as inconvenient and limited voting times, voter ID laws, transportation difficulties, or laws excluding those with felonies.

Conservatives, on the other hand, don't spend a great deal of time worrying about low voter turnout. Indeed, low voter turnout tends to favor conservative candidates; a recent study by Asolabehere and Schaffner indicates that frequent voters tend to be more conservative.  In recent years, many (not all) conservatives have tried to dismantle the Voting Rights Act, and have pushed for voter ID laws and other mechanisms that actually reduce voter turnout.  This is based upon the argument that in fact the real issue is voter fraud, which Republicans generally suggest is committed by partisans of the Democratic Party.  However, Lorraine Minnite of Rutgers University concludes after 10 years of study that voting fraud is quite rare.

More radical thinkers believe that the two party system has alienated voters, and contend that there are no major differences between the parties, which reduces voter interest.  These thinkers suggest that the electorate doesn't feel it is worth their time to vote because policy outcomes under the two major parties aren't substantially different.   Commentator Chris Hayes has referred to this as "policy nihilism",  a sense that rising income inequality across successive administrations has led voters to assume that neither Democrats nor Republicans can provide them with help. 

This view finds some support in data that reveals the high levels of distrust that US citizens have for major institutions, particularly the United States Congress.  Left thinkers tend to believe that voters are alienated from the political process because of the power of the wealthy to game the system through campaign contributions, Political Action Committees, and corporate donations.  Blogger Pajoly at the Huffington Post provides us with an example of a more radical view of why people don't vote.

Each of these views, of course, would take us in different directions, policy-wise.  While conservative efforts are focused on making voting more difficult, progressives favor solutions such as making Election Day a national holiday, extending voting hours, allowing more early and absentee voting, fighting voter ID laws, allowing online and same day voter registration, and other similar solutions.

Leaving aside the issue of campaign finance reform (which we will take up later), more left leaning activists suggest solutions to make it easier for third party candidates to run for office.  They promote ideas such as fusion voting, ranked preference voting, open primaries and other solutions that would allow third parties to participate in elections without being completely marginalized in the winner takes all model of US politics.  In fact, some have even suggested that the US consider moving to a parliamentary system of government so that minority party voters aren't completely disenfranchised by the two party system.  If one is a Democrat in Kansas, for example, it is almost certain that they will have almost no political voice because the legislature is overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans.  The same is true, in reverse, for a Republican in Vermont.  Parliamentary systems award seats based upon a proportion of the total number of votes cast, which would increase minority party representation in such states, and even allow room for the election of third party candidates.  Richie and Hill, while not arguing for a parliament, do argue for proportional representation in the Boston Review, and their essay is very compelling.

Empirical data on voting has been gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau on why voters don't vote.  Respondents indicated a variety of reasons, but the top four were: 1) too busy (19%), 2) out of town (9%), 3) not interested (16%), and 4) didn't like the candidates (13%).   These answers suggest that progressives are right--people don't have time to cast ballots or the window for voting (13 hours, typically) is too limited.  But further left thinkers are even more right--about 30% don't find the candidates or the issues compelling, and thus aren't engaged in the process. Combined, available time and the lack of diverse and compelling choices seem to be the strongest explanations for our embarrassing voter turnout rates.

There are a number of organizations dedicated to promoting greater involvement in the political process.  I will be presenting some links to some of those organizations in the next week or so for those of you who might want to work on the issue of increasing the participation of non-voters in the electoral process.  Am I off base here?  What am I missing?  Feel free to post your thoughts about why voters don't show up to the polls, and what, if anything, we should do about it.

The Missing Voters in the 2016 Primary Election

In the primary election held on the first Tuesday of August, voter turnout was shockingly low.  2016 has been one of the most politically turbulent years in the last half-century, with both the Democratic and Republican Parties roiled by unexpected challengers to the "obvious" candidate. In the case of the Republican Party, of course, the erratic and unpredictable Donald Trump is the nominee, and the party finds itself torn by disagreements between those who are electrified by his candidacy, and those whose motto is "Never Trump."  The GOP may literally be facing a schism that could permanently alter the future of the party.  As of this writing, the party's leadership is in a dither and leaders are scrambling to project a sense of unity in the hope of salvaging the election in November.

That level of upheaval would, one might assume, lead voters to the polls in droves, anxious to shape the outcome of the elections.  But the primary in Missouri, where I live, brought out only 24.8% of registered voters.  About 1 million folks turned out to vote in this state of 6 million.  Perhaps equally troubling, about 30% of those who are eligible are not even registered to vote.  Research from the Pew Foundation indicates that those who are most likely to vote are older, married, white college graduates who own their homes.  So those who vote, in other words, are relatively more well off than those who don't.  There is a 36% voting disparity between those in the highest income quintile and those in the lowest.

So, how does this impact our political process?  Decisions made by elected officials tend to reflect the class interests of those who elected them.  Low income voters in the US do not fare well when policies are made because they have little impact on electoral outcomes. Progressive social policies that might improve the income, health, and well-being of the poorest voters are unlikely to be enacted, and campaign financing laws that benefit the privileged are even more likely to be passed.  Countries where the income disparity in voting is high are far less likely to redistribute revenue in a way that reduces poverty or inequality.  A vicious cycle ensues in which political alienation results in policies that promote greater income inequality, which in turn leads to greater alienation from the political process.  As Chelsea McKevitt of Demos noted in 2015 "Our legislatures are a reflection of our voters, but our voters are not a reflection of the electorate." 

To reverse the tide of economic inequality in the United States, our legislative bodies will need to become more responsive to citizens who inhabit the bottom three income quintiles (roughly $75,000 or less annually per household). This means increasing the voting rates for those lower earning households, but how do we get there?  My posts over the next several weeks will look at policies that increase voter turnout.  Do you have ideas about how to increase voting rates, particularly for those of low to moderate incomes?  I'd be interested in hearing them, particularly if they are offered in the spirit of making the United States a more responsive and egalitarian democracy.

ETS

Why Seeking Clarity?

Seeking Clarity is a blog devoted to helping to clarify the ways in which our social and political environment impacts the lives of everyday people.  In particular, Seeking Clarity is concerned with growing economic inequality and the loss of political and social power by ordinary citizens. 

We live in a time where information comes at us at record speed, and corporate media allows only a very limited range of acceptable political opinion.  Moreover, our economy, politics, and personal lives are being transformed by a variety of forces, many of which, on the surface, seem disconnected from one another.  This leaves us vulnerable to the manipulation of those who benefit from a citizenry that has trouble "connecting the dots" of the events of our time. 

This blog is about discussing and understanding the events that are currently shaping our lives, our world, and our future possibilities.  I hope to create conversations about contemporary events, how they are impacting us, and how we might begin to build an alternative future that is equitable, just, and sustainable.  Seeking Clarity is about, among other things, ideas that can help us create new kinds of social structures that include those who are left behind and excluded from participation in the economy, the culture, and our political decision making process. 

To this end, the blog will feature essays about current events through the lens of its author, a Midwestern democratic socialist who is concerned about the ways in which ordinary citizens are left out of political and social decision making.  I also hope to post links to relevant news stories and other forms of media which I think can bring a clearer sense of the forces which are shaping our lives.  I will also include practical suggestions, links to relevant social change organizations, and in general am looking for thoughtful and pragmatic ideas about how we can act on the issues facing us today.

Important Note: A core idea behind the blog is to increase our understanding of the world through conversation and disagreement.  I don't pretend to have the answers to the serious problems facing us today.  The blog's title, Seeking Clarity, was chosen as a reminder to myself that I don't have the answers, nor am I trying to dispense political wisdom or prescribe how others should act.  I don't fancy myself the provider of clarity--instead, I am hoping reading and discourse and suggestions from readers can help us think more clearly and act more effectively.

Blog submissions and critical responses are welcome, particularly those which maintain a civil tone even when registering disagreement.  Only through dialogue can we create the solidarity and critical consciousness needed to collectively construct institutions which can help all of us to be our happiest, best, and most fully realized selves.


ETS