Spadecaller's Galleries

Most governments like to showcase their open elections. It makes good press and adds to their stature in the international community. This is no exception for the U.S. government. But with our recent elections, the Supreme Court’s appointment of George Bush Jr. to the Presidency, and the unreliable voting counts from Florida and Ohio, we are no longer a shining example of the democratic process. Notwithstanding these blemishes on the face of a failing republic, many of us prefer to deny reality.

With the Presidential Election of 2008 approaching, many Americans are seduced by a false sense of power. This is the time when most politicians polish their images, update their résumés, and acknowledge the needs of their constituents. Many of us find their maneuvering and scheming 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 to choose.

Since the 1960s, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout. In recent decades voter turnout 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 even contentment. Low turnout is often considered to be undesirable by most civic-minded people. Unfortunately, there are some who attempt to foster indifference, disenchantment, and division among the voters. Awareness and education are their greatest enemies to the corporate elitists, who now control American politics.

So the big question remains: “Why vote? After they are elected, they will just go on with business as usual. All their campaign promises will fade away, as always.” This sentiment seems to be prevalent among voters in both parties.

“Our state always votes the Republican ticket; so what good is my vote?” My 19 year old son uttered those words just recently. Regardless of party affiliation, who hasn’t thought that also? “Special interest groups own the politicians anyway.” While this appears to be a factual statement, does it justify forfeiting one’s 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. Why would any rational person waste their time voting? Applying game theory studies, the ability for voters to have any interaction with the results of an election is highly unlikely. Here is a basic formula for predicting voter turnout: CA+ M > S.

“C” is the “chance” that a person’s 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; it’s the civic duty one contributes to their society. Though in recent years, however, this moral obligation has been largely supplanted by personal gratification. “S” is the sacrifice; the time, effort, and financial cost involved. In most elections, since C 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: (1) meeting the social obligation to vote; (2) asserting one's allegiance to the political system; (3) affirming a partisan preference (voting for a candidate to reflect their support, but not to achieve any outcome); (4) hoping to acknowledge one's relevance and importance in the political system; and, (5) for those who find the process of making an informed decision stimulating. Though some political scientists challenge Riker and Ordeshook's conclusions, to discover exactly why people choose to vote is a perplexing challenge and their theories appear to ring true.

Constituents hoping to choose a candidate that evolves from our dysfunctional two-party system does not present an attractive invitation. But, are the penalties for not voting even more egregious?

One good look at history should provide enough of an answer to anyone. The future of a democratic society depends on the people who believe that their personal influence, however small, needs to be acknowledged. It is the “M” in the equation that obligates us to sacrifice for others. Altruism is the last hope of a failing democracy. Without it, there is no reason to cast a vote; even when the choice is between the lesser of two evils. So this is my only suggestion: 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.

Throw the bums out.

Spreadshirt Market Place Product