Adam Brown had an interesting post about possible causes for low voter turnout in Utah. Adam suggests three possible causes for low voter turnout but essentially dismisses the relative youth of our state as being a cause not supported by the data (and he knows data analysis). That leaves us with two possibilities (according to his post):

Second, maybe it’s because general elections have become much less competitive over the years. … If people believe that their votes are less likely to sway the outcome (either way), then they might not bother to show up.

Third, maybe it’s because Utah strengthened its caucus-convention system in the 1990s, making it harder to force a primary and easier to win in convention.

I won’t pretend to have any insights into which of those two options might be a driving factor. What I thought was interesting was that in suggesting potential solutions to the three possible causes he listed non-partisan runoffs as a potential way to address each of the two plausible causes of the problem.

This was interesting to me four a couple of reasons. First, back when I was doing a lot more political writing than I have been recently, the issue of increasing participation in the political process was one that I was vocal about addressing. I suggested that increasing levels of citizen participation would be akin to our nation experiencing a new birth of freedom. Second, because in lamenting the voter turnout in 2008 – where we actually had fewer people voting than in 2004 despite a larger population of eligible voters – I suggested an idea that was very much like non-partisan runoffs (a term I had not heard before today). My suggestion was that in voting districts where one party received more than 60% of the votes that party would be required to field two candidates on the ballot. That idea really would work best in a runoff system where the top two candidates, regardless of party (assuming neither got over 50% initially), then had a runoff (I would suggest the Saturday after the election). In areas where the dominant party managed to get both of their candidates in the top two it would be the equivalent of an open primary between those two candidates (after the party delegates had weighed in on which two candidates should carry the banner at their conventions).

A chart from an earlier post by Adam shows that prior to me becoming old enough to vote, Utah always had at least 60% participation or more in presidential election years and 40% participation or more  in non-presidential election years. Since that time we have never hit either of those benchmarks and our participation has gone from above average to below average (measured against the rest of the nation). That leaves me with two questions:

1. Is this a generational issue?
   • Did people starting about my age an younger lower our participation levels by not stepping up to the plate when they came of age?
2. What effect would an idea like non-partisan runoffs have?
   • What would it take to implement such a systemic change?
   • How could we make such a system work in conjunction with the rest of the nation where federal elections are concerned?

I would love to hear what others think about those questions because if I really thought it would make a difference and that it was possible to make such a change I would start finding ways to get the issue on our legislative agenda (not this year of course – that would be impossible).

It’s not exactly the message you would expect to hear on election day. For those who know me it’s not a message they would ever expect to hear from me. As I drove to work this morning after casting my vote I got thinking about how destructive an uninformed vote can be. I won’t claim that there is a definable standard of what constitutes being informed. I think that is a decision that must be left to each potential voter, but for those who know they are not informed (those that can’t even see past the party label enough to recognize the party platform for example) not voting just might be your patriotic duty.

To the Voter

First, if you do not feel informed your task should be to get informed. Even if today is the election day you might be able to get informed enough to vote if you are have time to cram for the election. If you have no understanding of what the issues are it might be pretty hard but if you generally know the issues you should be able to get a feel for the candidates enough to decide if anyone deserves your support.

Second, if you do not get informed you cannot complain about what is happening – even if you voted. If you do get informed you can lobby for what you see as right but you can’t complain about who is actually making the decisions if you did not vote when they were elected.

Third, do not be afraid of a blank ballot. In other words, if none of the candidates merit your support for a particular office don’t feel that your time was wasted. In the case of municipal elections where you have the chance to vote for multiple candidates it is okay to not vote for a full suite. For example, in my area today I had the opportunity to vote for three candidates. If I had felt that there were only two candidates who had earned my support I could cast a ballot for only those two. Worst case scenario, write someone in for the final slot.

To the Activist

First, encouraging people to vote is wonderful but do not be satisfied with telling them to vote or worse, with telling them who to vote for. It’s fine to advocate for candidates that you support but always give some reason why you support them. (“Because they belong to my favored party” does not count as a reason!) Whenever you encourage people to vote always encourage them to become informed. Feel free to offer information but don’t stop encouraging them to vote if they disagree with you.

Second, encourage people to be informed before there is voting to do. Better yet, encourage them to participate. Promote attendance at caucus meetings and candidate events, not just the ballot box.

Third, for those who believe that a caucus system is subject to being overrun by fringe elements, dismantling the caucus system is not the solution to that problem. Caucuses favor those who show up. People who show up tend to be informed already or else they get informed quickly (sometimes by adopting the view of those who were already informed and sometimes by gathering information to counter the prevailing view of attendees). Primaries tend to favor those with money. That money is as likely to come from fringe elements as it is to come from mainstream voters – actually, it is more likely to come from fringe elements.

The solution to caucuses being dominated by fringe elements is to increase participation in the caucuses. There may be other tweaks worth considering, but the point is that ending the caucus system does not fix the problem.

Conclusion

Voting is our opportunity as citizens but simply casting a vote is not enough. We must take the time to become informed and to be involved. And we should encourage others to do the same – even if they disagree with us.

photo credit: Camera Slayer

Regardless of how much some people may talk about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States during their celebrations on the fourth day of July each year, and despite reports suggesting that participation in such celebrations makes children more likely to identify politically as Republicans, it seems obvious to me, based on the situations that we currently face as a nation and the fact that they have been steadily building under the leadership of both major parties, that what is really being celebrated on this day is fireworks.

Certainly some are celebrating as much as fireworks, parades, and traditional American cuisine all at once, but none of this constitutes a celebration of American independence, of our nation, or of our system of government. True celebrations of these things may only take place in the most insignificant of ways on this national holiday. Some may argue that a real celebration of our nation’s independence and of our system of government takes place at the polls each November. I would agree that voting is a real form of such a celebration, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Only those who do as the generation of Americans who actually won our independence and established the foundation of our government can truly be said to celebrate our independence. That requires days, weeks, and even months over the course of each year. It means getting informed about the issues of the day. It requires participating in civil, if spirited, debates about the proper solutions to the challenges that are most pressing. It means helping family, friends, and neighbors to also understand the issues and participate in the debates. Of course it includes carefully choosing the people who will represent us in the various offices of government for which we are able to vote. It also means raising the next generation with an understanding of what we have been given and the continual effort it takes to keep our citizen-driven government operating.

The only place fireworks factors into any of those things is in possibly capturing the imagination of our children with the opportunity to connect that excitement with the type of government we have now. While there is apparently some evidence to suggest that these displays of pyrotechnics tend to coax children toward the conservative regions of the political landscape there is no evidence to suggest that they help the children to understand and appreciate the realities of government and what it takes to preserve the liberty that our nation was built to preserve.

In short, the true celebration of our independence is in the perpetuation of that independence.

I’ve been thinking about the massive disconnect between the abysmal ratings that Congress enjoys (8% approval I recently read) and the virtual invincibility of Congressional incumbents (incumbents consistently win 90% of the elections where they seek reelection).

I realized that the apparent disconnect was not as stark as it first appeared (11 out of 12 disapproving of Congress while 9 of 10 chose to reelect their Congressional representatives). The reality is that eleven out of twelve people people disapprove of Congress but only five out of twelve vote for someone new when given their current member of Congress as an option.

The fact that six out of twelve voters disapprove of Congress and yet they consistently vote the same people back to represent them over and over again is evidence of a colossal failure on the part of the voters of this nation. They fail to recognize that Congress is working exactly as designed given the input they provide at the polls in November of each even year.

An incident that took place yesterday got me thinking about a topic that is probably very appropriate at election season (in some ways more applicable after an election than before). That is, how and why we identify and associate within groups.

The reason I say this seems appropriate around elections is that part of the political process, at least for those who wish to make things happen rather than being content to simply express their views, is for groups to form from previously unconnected people in support or opposition of a candidate or proposed law or policy.

What happened yesterday reminded me of the psychological effect of identifying ourselves with a group.

I was driving to work when someone ahead of me began driving uncertainly as if the driver was trying to choose a route while driving. The driver was hovering near the lane line deciding whether to get in the turn lane or whether to go straight through the light ahead. As I was entering the turn lane the driver made the decision to do the same – right in front of me. That wasn’t a huge problem but it was mildly frustrating until I looked in the top right corner of the back window of their SUV where I spotted a sticker like the one pictured at the top of the post.

That picture was taken from the bottom left corner of my rear window and it identified the vehicle ahead of me as belonging to someone who lives somewhere near me. As soon as I saw the sticker all feeling of annoyance vanished with the thought that we were both on the same team (metaphorically speaking).

When we individually make a decision to be part of a group we should feel some affinity for members of the group at least in some general sense even if not always for each member individually.

I have noticed that most of the time when there is a large group for people to identify with there tend to be many smaller groups within the larger group with which we may choose to associate. Over recent years as I have tried to be more politically active I have been amazed at the wide array of caucuses that have been formed connected to various parties and political bodies. It seems to be that each member of the larger group has the opportunity to define themselves or display their identity through the smaller groups that they choose to associate with.

Those smaller groups gain prestige or notoriety based on who chooses to identify with them, therefore it is common for them to invite prominent members of the larger or parent group to join them but generally it is up to individuals to take the initiative and self identify with the groups of their choosing.

My experience has been that joining the smaller groups provides individuals with an opportunity to rub shoulders with people they otherwise would not have much chance to interact with. For those interested in gaining prominence within the larger group there is also the benefit of expanded opportunities to participate in leadership and otherwise demonstrate their commitment.

Interestingly I have also noticed that even within the types of groups where participation in subgroups is a matter of assignment (like committee assignments in a legislative body) it is what individuals choose to do and how they self identify within the larger group that determines the scope of their influence and acceptance within the group.

The thing I have learned at the times when I have wanted to accomplish things personally or politically is that I can’t be shy about seeking out the groups that I would associate with – for some reason they rarely find and invite me. If they ever do I suspect that I will be running the risk of having other people define me based on their invitations or lack thereof.

By now everybody in Utah at least has heard about the speech given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks at the BYU-Idaho devotional yesterday on the subject of freedom of religion. It will surprise nobody who knows anything about me to hear that I agree 100% with everything he said.

Considering that I could not hope to add insights beyond those of Elder Oaks some might question why I would bother to write anything about his speech. There are two reasons – first, this subject of our freedom of religion (for any atheists I could comfortably call it “freedom of conscience”) is important to every American who cares about preserving a viable nation where we enjoy any amount of liberty whatsoever and thus I could not pass up the chance to promote that message; and second, when I saw that some of what he said was being misunderstood (as shown in a poll where 2 in 3 respondents disagreed with his  assertion that the retaliation and intimidation against supporters of Prop. 8 was similar in nature to the voter-intimidation of blacks in the South) I knew that it was necessary for people who understood what he said to stand up and declare their understanding.

I would like to address those two reasons for writing in reverse order, first to address the apparent misunderstanding and then to talk about how we must treat the freedom of religion in order to preserve a free society.

The poll cited above asks if respondents agree with Elder Oaks that “the anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement.” With only that question to go on it is understandable that people would think to disagree. The blacks during the civil rights movement faced intimidation tactics for a much longer period of time and from more than just lay people, but from official quarters as well. The problem with the question is that it misrepresents what Elder Oaks actually said. Here are his words:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. . .

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation. (emphasis added)

Vandalism, harassment, firings, boycotts of member businesses, and retaliation against participants were all forms of intimidation faced by both blacks in the South and supporters of Proposition 8, yet that is not how he was trying to compare the two situations. Let me repeat his comparison with special emphasis:

. . . these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South . . .

If you don’t believe that this is how he meant his statement hear the explanation that Elder Oaks himself gave (h/t Matt Piccolo):

Now for the question of how we must treat the freedom of religion in order to preserve a free society. Elder Oaks quoted Richard John Neuhaus who said, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.” If we hope to preserve a free and robust society we must insist that we and those who disagree with us tolerate any expression of opinions whether it be religious, atheistic, psychoanalytic, Marxist, just plain dumb, or any other description. That starts with us before we can reasonably demand it of those who disagree with us. As Elder Oaks said:

“At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.”

Once again Elder Oaks has addressed this issue better than I could so I will summarize his conclusion.

1. We must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. . . Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled.
2. We must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. . . when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.
3. We must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. I will add here that the freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith does not translate into a freedom or right to compel others to participate in that faith. This is true whether the issue is a specifically religious participation or a more secular participation. In other words, it is wrong to punish someone for choosing not to participate in a public religious observance (a prayer in a public setting for example) just as it is wrong to prevent someone from choosing to engage in a religious activity in a public setting.
4. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.
5. Latter-day Saints (or anyone else) must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. . . Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. In case that was unclear to anyone let me emphasize his point which was that the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office should never be acted upon or even supported.

(italic comments mine)

Cross-posted at Pursuit of Liberty

Anyone who has read here for any length of time knows how willing I am to talk about political issues (just look through the history if you’re new here – or visit Pursuit of Liberty where my political writing is now concentrated). Starting in the latter part of 2008 I decided it was time to do more than talk about political issues I have been working with my state representative and communicating with various officers of the Davis County Republican Party and have now decided to run for Davis County Republican Party Treasurer. I invite all readers who are Davis County Republicans to vote for me at the party organizing convention in 8 weeks. If you know any Davis County Republicans who do not read this blog (there should be at least 10,000 of them) please invite them to support me as well.

Anyone who wants more information about my candidacy is invited to visit my campaign website.

At Pursuit of Liberty I have issued an invitation to join with me in forming a new group to encourage wider political participation.

The group I will be forming will be open to, even encouraging of, participation by people of all political perspectives. The only requirement for participation is a commitment to avoid the playground politics of name calling and guilt by association . The aim of the group will be to draw people out of the silent majority until the silent become the minority by fostering civil dialog between people of differing perspectives. We will not aim to come to a consensus except the consensus that wider participation is better than narrower participation. I would like the group to seek to engage other group members in public discussion of issues so that people who have been silent will have a chance to be exposed to various positions on important issues without the likelyhood of being personally insulted by those who disagree with them. I also would like the group, individually and collectively, to engage in discussing issues with candidates for office and elected officials with an emphasis on local candidates and officials and a balance of local, state, and national issues. (emphasis original)

I note it hear in case there is anyone who reads here but not there who would be interested in this effort. If you are, please email me or comment on the original post.

Is there anyone who could not support the dream shared by Jess:

it’s my dream that the citizens of our country renew their interest in politics half as much as they love the olympic games. . .

to preserve the posterity of politics in our country, the greatest country in the world, we need to start caring about the leadership of our country like we care about the olympics. that surge of patriotism we feel when a united states athlete wins a medal in the olympics – i wish we’d experience some of that same feeling when we are in the process of selecting our next mayor, governor or president.

in turn, the leadership of our country must train like athletes – they need to be inspirational. they need to be focused. they need to be uniting. they must never give up. they must aspire for greatness . . . if they could accomplish those things, we would offer our support . . . because they are AMERICAN, not because they are a democrat or a republican. we’d stand with them because we’re proud of their accomplishment . . .

(spelling and punctuation original)

If anyone can’t get behind that kind of a dream they probably should not be a citizen of this country. Unfortunately, even if Michael Phelps has political interest he can’t run for President until 2020 – we can’t afford to wait that long.

Yesterday I helped my brother move into his new house (like me, he changed jobs and relocated over the summer). I am looking forward in the next couple of weeks to completing a home sale (this week) and a home purchase (next week) so that he can return the favor (actually, him returning the favor is not as important as me simply having my own space again). While I was there I got talking to my sister-in-law and she mentioned how different it felt moving into this house than it did when they moved into their previous house. They bought a brand-new house last time so they had spent about six months choosing options, colors, fixtures, etc. When they moved into the house it felt like their house already. This time they purchased an existing home and they closed in a relatively short period of time. When they moved in it still felt a little bit foreign to my sister-in-law.

As I have thought about that I have realized that it is universally true that we do not really take ownership of anything until we have invested ourselves in it – not just our money, but time and energy and commitment. The fact that my brother and his family have not done that already is no slight to them, it only illustrates a stage in the process of taking ownership that often gets overshadowed by the later stages when that investment has taken root. Often the period of time between choosing something and owning it is fast enough that we never get a snapshot of the intermediate condition of possession before ownership (actually it is possible to own something before it is in our possession).

I think that can be applied to our citizenship and civic responsibility. The statesman has taken ownership of his country by investing himself in the political process etc. On the other hand, many in our nation simply posess our citizenship without having taken ownership. Even among our politicians there are those who seem to posess their office without taking ownership of their responsibilities and position.