An interesting dialogue between Jordan and Jan has kicked up and hope they both continue, with help from some of you. Jordan states the following:
The other day in class Mr. Jefferies stated, "You all don't vote do you?" Considering the circumstances, I understand why we don't vote. Our knowledge of historical and current government issues comes primarily from the Internet. Which we all know can contain sources which are not reputable. There are no personal links to government for the everyday citizen. Government is complicated, and it is made complicated so only rich egocentric will take part. I'll tell you the truth, I don't vote because how much difference am I really going to make. For example, if the majority of society votes for a presidential candidate, and he wins the popular vote. Shouldn't he be president? The government thinks otherwise. They appoint the Electoral College to make decisions for us. Why do we need the Electoral College? Money is the navigator of government, and guess what, I don't have much and neither does a large percentage of Americans. The middle class, of Americans, pay the largest percentage of taxes, but aren't being represented. People investing in special interest groups have become the focal point of government interest. I'm tired of being just a percentage of the popular vote. Give us back our true representative democracy. Then I'll vote.
There's alot to this comment, but at root it sounds like a "consent" problem, and he speaks for many others--perhaps many of you. Clearly he feels detached (alienated) from the process, the actions of government feel remote, and he feels that people in power do not care about people like him. Government is not legitimate (which violates the intent of democracy) so why consent to the laws unless forced to? The wide open internet compounds the problem because in addition to not trusting elected leaders to represent your interests you can't trust the validity of the information you receive. Jordan, feel free to correct me if I'm getting something wrong.
Political scientists have developed two terms to describe this process: internal political efficacy (the belief that one can understand and influence policy) and external political efficacy (the belief that the government will respond to one's demands). Clearly Jordan lacks the latter, but the reason that you are required to take these classes is to increase the former which could increase your ability to ensure that government will respond to your demands, or gain a greater understanding of why it might not. Remember that the American political system is designed to make it difficult to pass laws and alter public policy.
Jan responds by stating: Jordan, to dispute your decision for voting, you need to vote, because each vote from a U.S. citizen makes a difference, whether it be you, me, or the john doe waiting in line behind you. But you are right, most young adults get their information from the internet, which sometimes, may not be a valid source, but nonetheless, it should not stop a person from voting at all, its simple, people vote for the candidate that fits the NEED that the voter wants.
Underlying Jan's comment, it seems to me, is the idea that the very act of voting begins a process that creates good citizens. But this doesn't satisfy Jordan: Jan, you say that every vote as a US citizen makes a difference. How? If you, John Doe, 60% of US Citizens and I all vote for the same candidate. That doesn't mean that candidate is going to win. And even if he does win, am I really being represented?
So let's unpack all this. Maybe we can begin by discussing the factual points Jordan makes.
- Does the internet make people more remote from politics? (Surprisingly this study suggests that it might)
- Is government made complicated in order to restrict participation by non-elites?
- Does the fact that a popular vote winner for the presidency might lose the electoral vote alienate people from politics?
- Do the middle class really feel alienated from the political system?
- What is a "true representative democracy" anyway and how would we know one if we had one? What is our proof that we don't have one now? Is it enough to say that "I" am not getting what I want or do we have to look at society as a whole?
There's more, but these are all hypothesis that can be tested. Reliable polls exist that make data available for interested parties. (see the American National Election Study).
Finally, is this attitude a cop out? Should one wait for "true representative democracy" to be established before one decides to vote or does the act of voting necessarily precede the establishment of a "true representative democracy?"
This is good stuff. I feel better about the classes now, slightly better anyway. I want to know what the rest of you think? Do you feel the same way as Jordan?
