Categories
culture politics State

Addressing Abysmal Voter Turnout

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 for 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 and 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).

Categories
culture National politics

The Case for Telling the Truth

Perhaps it would be better to say that this is the case for tellling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” After months and months of watching the various arguments for and against Proposition 8 in California – which would define marriage as being between a man and a woman – I finally spoke up. I could no longer sit silent while people on both sides of the debate obscured the truth of what was to be decided.

The way this is the case for telling the truth is that one side received all the benefit as both sides argued about related obscurities that were all false to one degree or another. Those opposing Prop. 8 claim that the measure was designed to institutionalize discrimination. They benefit from this because of the emotional reaction that good people have to the idea of discrimination. When the proponents of Prop. 8 focus their arguments on the secondary effects of legalizing gay marriage, using fear as their tool in place of truth the opponents can easily counter with the idea that the repurcussions of this action will not have a ripple effect citing the fact that gay marriage has already been legal for months (and naturally within those few months we would already be seeing the side effects of such a monumental social change as redefining the primary unit of society).

If the advocates for Prop. 8 would stick to publishing the truth of their position and defending themselves accurately against the false claims of discrimination their opponents would not be able to obscure the real issue as effectively as they have been able to do. The voters would be left to decide on the issue of whether marriage is a construct of man or something more eternal in nature. If the issue were decided based on the real argument then it would almost not matter the outcome of the vote – the people would be declaring where they stand on the issue and the debate would serve as an opportunity to teach the truth.

As it stands, the debate has circled around the central issue and been hijacked by half-truths and high emotions. The people of California will decide the issues based on viceral reactions rather than honest or clear belief. Many will make a choice that they honestly do not understand and cannot be fully held accountable for that choice which means the issue will undoubtedly be revisited without the benefit of so many people already understanding what it being decided.

Categories
culture National politics

Why We Vote “No”

Two weeks ago I suggested that our tendency as voters is to vote against the subject of any given election. This morning my brain supplied me with a possible explanation as to why that might be. Scott Hinrichs has written on various occasions about the fact that we expect more from our president than could ever be met by one person. When my brain connected those two ideas I began to wonder if the reason we tend to vote against whoever is in our focus is because the more we focus on someone the easier it is to see that they could never do all that we expect of them as President.

Thoughts?

Categories
politics

Incentives to Get Off Welfare

Another spinoff from the discussion about Equality Under the Law clicked a switch in my brain. Nothing that Anti-PC Infidel says in his post should surprise anyone who has seen the discussion already, but for some reason the following statement made a connection to another issue that I have struggled to resolve for a long time:

This is often combined with the sin of destroying the recipients of {welfare} by encouraging them to be lazy and unproductive, irresponsible and greedy, by putting them on the dole.

I have long wished for some way to make it more difficult to vote for those who do not care to take the time to become informed. The thought struck me that we could make the right to vote contingent on paying at least as much in taxes as we receive in government handouts. This does not directly solve my original conundrum, but it would give incentive to those receiving welfare to find a way to become independent from government handouts if they desire to vote. Essentially, in addition to current requirements for voting, the payment of taxes equal to or in excess of any money received as welfare, food stamps, social security, unemployment benefits, rental assistance, etc. would give each person the right – like a shareholder – to vote in elections. This same rule should probably apply to board members of corporations that receive subsidies from the federal government as well.

I recognize that some will complain that such a plan would favor Republicans since poor people are statistically more likely to vote Democratic, but I would appreciate it if arguments for and against were framed in a way that was independent of party politics.

Categories
culture politics

American Citizenship

I really liked this Deseret News profile of a naturalized citizen.

Airman 1st Class Elena Dulger’s face lights up the room when she talks about her first chance to participate in a democratic election.

Dulger, 21, is taking her oath of citizenship today, seven years and one day after meeting her father at JFK International Airport in New York. After becoming an official U.S. citizen, Dulger will get her passport, and she plans on registering to vote.

“A lot of people don’t realize how important (voting) is,” she said. “It is a privilege.”

This is how every American citizen should feel about voting. (I’m not delusional enough to actually believe that we will ever have a time when every citizen actually does feel that way.) I seriously wish we could find a way to limit the right to vote to those people who do recognize the importance of that privilege.

Categories
National politics

The Best Day to Vote

As a perpetual proponent of incresing voter turnout, I enjoyed considering the story on NPR about Rethinking The Tuesday Vote. I’m not sure when voters would be noticable less busy than Tuesday – especially considering that we would not want the vote to be on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday as each of those days is sacred to one major religion or another. If we ever find an easy way to increase voter turnout that would not cost lots of money we should do it. (I thinkthat changing the day of the week would be easy to implement so long as there is advanced warning.)

Categories
culture politics

Federalist No. 17

Prior to Federalist No. 17 I had never completely disagreed with any of the federalist papers. Unfortunately , in discussing the possibility of a national government becoming stronger than would be desirable, Alexander Hamilton completely missed on his guess that:

It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities.

Hamilton admits his lack of vision by saying:

I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted (sic.) with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the {authority which should belong to them.}

My own assessment of where Hamilton went wrong was that he imagined an electorate that was perpetually working to stay informed. Instead today we have an electorate that has been diluted from the original – adult males who own property – to include any citizen, male or female, over the age of 18. I don’t mean to suggest that we should raise the voting age again, or make property ownership a requirement again, but I think it is fair to note that anyone who happens to be 18 does not necessarily have the same interest or inclination to become informed in their vote as someone who has property ownership which is directly affected by the actions of their representatives. Maybe we should adopt some requirement of tax payment – thus excluding those who have reached the age of 18 but who are simply living with their parents and not taking any adult responsibilities.

In truth, I think the biggest culprit is not the change in voting requirements as the rise of a society that is constantly lulled into complacency by a media culture that is predominantly experienced through passive reception. That seems to create a feeling of disconnectedness where people don’t have any real connection to government except to hear whatever the media covers – and the media naturally focuses on the larger national government more than more local government.

This disconnection would explain why the following assertion by Hamilton does not hold true today:

. . . the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union; unless the force of that principle should be destroyed by a much better administration of the latter.

In Utah today we have a state government that is acclaimed to be among the most wisely managed and yet many of our citizens think of little beyond presidential elections and the elections of our state representatives at the federal level.

Categories
National politics

The Irony of Supressing Votes

I find it rather funny that we have such a fuss being raised about laws requiring voters to show ID at the polls that a case has to be heard by the Supreme Court on the issue. What strikes me is that:

  1. if we had more voters voting, whatever fraud the voter ID laws are meant to combat would have less effect in a larger pool of ballots
  2. the plantiffs have not demonstrated that this law has prevented anyone from voting
  3. voting fraud is more rare at the polling place than it is in absentee voting where no ID is required

This seems like another case of the law being used to address minutia

Categories
life politics

Exercise Your Voting Muscles

I discovered Bob’s straw poll on the presidential candidates yesterday. Bob made the poll to serve two purposes but I am linking to it for one purpose – I like the fact that all 18 candidates who are registered for the Utah primaries are included in the poll and I would love to see the results of as large a sample of voters as possible.

Just before I went to post this I was reminded that the voting is closing today to elect an advisory board for the Utah Bloghive (I’m one of the candidates there). So go get some practice for February 5th by making some judgment calls among two groups of candidates today.