Apathy

                For all the grandiose talk about democracy and freedom in America, a great many people do not bother to vote on the day of an election. The problem is more acute in regards to congressional elections, although turnout for presidential elections hardly compares well to other liberal democracies throughout the world. There are several reasons for voter apathy within the states, but arguably the most significant is the lack of adequate choice between the two parties (Ventura and Russell, 2012). Choice is effectively limited to one of the two main parties, and in certain parts of the country; the two main candidates hardly differ at all in terms of their policy outlook. For instance, in parts of the south a Democrat candidate is highly likely to adopt a conservative platform along with their Republican opponent. Moreover, both parties could be said to share a cross-party consensus over many key issues. For vast swathes of the electorate, the heat generated by partisan rhetoric masks the true reality of the situation. This criticism derives from both the left and right of the political spectrum. Those on the left (such as the Occupy movement) claim that both parties place the interests of the wealthy elite above those of ordinary people. Similarly, those on the libertarian-right (such as the Tea Party) claim that both parties have raised government borrowing in an irresponsible manner. They use taxpayers’ money to keep their clients happy and thereby maintain their hold on power.

                Another reason for low turnout is the general sense of disillusionment with the political process. An election is widely seen as an expensive sideshow that offers voters a choice between the lesser of two evils. To use an analogy; all voters can do is change the leaves, the roots stay exactly the same. The third factor to consider is common to all those countries with a majoritarian voting system; that of wasted votes. The aim of a proportional voting system is to ensure that no vote is wasted. However, that is not the case under a majoritarian system such as FPTP and virtually all elections in the states are held under the FPTP system. Moreover, there is very little chance of meaningful reform when the two main parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The issue of wasted votes is obviously much more pressing in safe seats. Not surprisingly, turnout in swing states is traditionally higher than the average. In terms of congressional constituencies for the House, the issue of safe seats is exacerbated by the phenomenon of gerrymandering. The number of safe districts in the House is usually well over 90%. As such, there is very little incentive for people to go out and vote. Moreover, almost two-thirds of House seats are won by a margin of over 20%. Indeed, in some parts of the country the only meaningful competition occurs in a primary.

                Another problem to consider is sheer boredom with the political process (Thompson, 1994). America is a country which suffers from a palpable sense of democratic overload. There are so many opportunities to vote that the very act of voting has surely lost some of its resonance. It is also difficult to maintain the public’s interest in such a protracted electoral campaign. Indeed, for many people the whole campaign seems little more of a popularity contest rather than any genuine clash of political philosophies and ideas. The entire process can seem somewhat divorced from the reality of people’s everyday lives; spouting forth a sea of boredom punctuated by a verbal gaffe or an October surprise (such as the revelation in 2000 of Bush’s DUI, or Osama bin Laden’s terrorist threat in 2004). In addition, there is a widespread feeling that politicians do not listen to the concerns of ordinary people. The political process may have been captured by powerful plutocrats and multi-national companies. Politicians must keep their paymasters happy when they should be putting forward the needs and interests of everyday voters. Revealingly, this argument is voiced by those on both sides of the political spectrum.

There is a considerable gap in the states between ordinary people and the political elite. Politicians from both main parties find it problematic to reach out towards the everyday Joe. However, it could be argued that the message put forward by the Republicans (such as distrust of government) seems more likely to discourage people from voting, whereas the Democrat message is more positive about the role of government and the prospect of a more progressive society. This observation is worth noting because the GOP can effectively get its candidates elected by driving down the number of voters. Their demographic is older than the Democrats; and older people are much more likely to vote than younger people. In terms of voter turnout, it is indeed worrying that the next generation feels so little attachment towards voting.

                From an entirely different angle, it could be claimed that voters are reasonably content with the status quo. This is known by the term hapathy. In mature democracies such as the US, voter turnout tends to be lower than is the case within emerging democracies or those societies riven by political conflict. Voting is somewhat taken for granted in a stable democracy in which the political process is broadly reflective of the needs and concerns of the population. When content with the status quo, there may be little reason to go out and actually register to vote in the first place.

                There are various proposals one might consider to make voting both easier and more meaningful. For example, voting could be made easier by a form of e-voting. The technology is certainly there, and other countries have utilized technology in order to make voting more straight-forward. Moreover, the electoral system could be reformed in some manner in order to make every vote count. Given the extent of the duopoly within the states, any lasting change is unlikely to occur unless there is a very clear demand for change. Politicians rarely implement change that threatens their own interests unless there is significant pressure from the public.