Should nonvoting in the United States be a source of concern?
... 1992, and that it heralded the resumption of a declining pattern of voter participation which hasn’t happened since between 1960 and 1968. Gans discusses the many reasons for this. These include shocks to our political system in events such as the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran-contra affair, the abuse of limited mandates by President Clinton in his first two years, and the Republican Congress of 1995. These scandals and events have produced cynicism among citizens discouraged from voting because they feel it won’t accomplish much since everyone is acting malevolent. Another reason for the decline in voting is the decline in education quality, particularly in urban public schools. There has been a lack of education in citizen responsibility and engagement, in favor of education totally for jobs, with a shift in values toward serving only one’s self. Gans argues that the fragmentation caused by television and computers is also a reason for a decrease in voting. Televisions encourage people to sit in their living room, being passive spectators and consumers of politics, rather than participants. He also argues that the world of computers barely has any information about politics that people want to read about, thus leaving society unengaged and civically illiterate. Finally, Gans explains three major problems as evident in the 1996 election. One is the savagery of attack ads for one to two hours every day from candidates against each other. These ads give the voters a choice between bad and awful, and give the whole political process a bad name, thus dampening the will to participate. Another problem was the misalignment of political parties. Since their views have changed so much over the past years, people aren’t sure what party to agree with anymore, and their vote is a result of distaste of a party. It also leaves certain groups out of the loop because their concerns aren’t looked at by either party. Finally, Gans says that the lack of a solid plan with steps to get America from here to there by both candidates made voters loose a sense of security of voting for a candidate who knew exactly what they would do in the next four years, thus discouraging voting and making a voter ask themselves “What’s the point?”. Arend Lijphart supports what Curtis Gans says, but in addition is more of an extremist. Lijphart explains that voting is a serious problem in the United States for two reasons. One is democratic legitimacy. The fact that a government has gained power in a low-turnout election can’t really claim to be a representative government. The other problem is that low voter turnout almost inevitably means that certain groups vote in greater numbers than other groups and hence gain disproportionate influence on the government and its policies. Lijpart says that the only way to solve these problems is to maximize voter turnout. He says realistically, 90 percent of the population should be voting and the most effective way to achieve this is to make voting mandatory, like many other countries do. In most countries with 90 percent of the registered electorate voting, compulsory voting exits. If a citizen doesn’t vote, they get a fine. However, the problem with that is that the US government can’t actually make a person to vote because a citizen has the right to not vote. However, the government can mandate for a citizen to show up at the polls, but whether they vote or not is the citizen’s decision. US courts may rule compulsory voting unconstitutional, but even if it was compulsory, it’s minor compared to the requirement of serving on a jury, military, and paying taxes. Austin Ranney offers a contrasting view on the issue of nonvoting. His argument is that voluntary nonvoting is not harmful. He explains that a common argument is that if the underrepresented don’t vote, their rights will be looked over. However, he points out that there are studies which show that the distributions of policy preferences among nonvoters are approximately the same as those among voters, and therefore the pressures on public officials by constituents for certain policies and against others are about the same as they would be if everyone, WASPS and minorities, voted at the same rate. He also points out the level of cynicism about the government’s honesty, competence, and responsiveness is about the same among nonvoters as among voters. Finally, Ranney argues that nonvoting is not a sickness in American society. There is no clear evidence that nonvoters work less hard, are significantly less patriotic, or poorer soldiers than voters are. And that other countries with higher voter turnouts are better at these things than Americans. Nonvoting should not be a source of co...