Posted
by Joel Mathis
November 6, 2006 at 9:22 a.m.
Voting
The first election I remember was 1980, when Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and (did you forget?) John Anderson faced off, with Reagan the ultimate winner.I followed things as best as my 7-year-old brain allowed. All of news and politics were muddled - I thought the Iran hostage situation and the Three Mile Island nuclear incident were about the same thing. And, at the time, I conceived of the president as being something like the preacher at my family's church, only for the whole country.My parents encouraged this interest. On Election Night, my father came to my room and woke me up."Ronald Reagan won," he told me."Does that mean Jimmy Carter isn't going to be president anymore?" I asked.Dad told me I would be 11 when the next election came around. And he helped me do the calculations; I would be 19 in 1992, the first time I would get to vote in an election.I spent much of my youth looking forward to that date; as a high school sophomore in 1988, I was excited - the last time I would have to sit out. This, I guess, made me unusual: I never needed MTV's "Rock the Vote" campaign to get me interested in politics.Voting, of course, has changed in the last decade. Advance voting has made it possible to participate in democracy with a minimum of fuss. And that has occasionally been tempting - as a journalist, after all, Election Day is one of the busiest times of my professional life.But I always wait for the day itself to cast the vote. I'm no sunny optimist in the Frank Capra mode; I know that democracy is hard work. Still, there's something thrilling about Election Day to me - a chance to help make choices, to help decide the future. This is important stuff: It's why women fought so hard to get the vote; it's why the Civil Rights movement happened. Perhaps I'm preaching to the converted. If there's such a thing as voter apathy anymore, it's hard to find. The last half-decade has felt like an endless political campaign - none of the downtime or "honeymoons" we used to have after elections; instead, the partisans take a quick nap on the day following the election, then plunge straight back into the fray.It is, admittedly, tiresome at times.The alternative, though, is giving up - letting somebody else make our choices for us. And we've seen how well that works out.See you at the polls.The best booksY'all are going to have to put up with my continued bragging about Joe. His book, Cross-X, has been named [one of the 100 best books of the year by Publishers Weekly][1] [1]: http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6388182.html?display=current
and 9 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"If there's such a thing as voter apathy anymore, it's hard to find. The last half-decade has felt like an endless political campaign..."
So long as one is watching TV, yes. But measurements of the number of people actually voting tells a different story.
In 1960, 63% of the voting-age population voted.In 1964, it was 62%. Following presidential elections polled 61%, 54%, 53%, and by 1996 fewer than half of the voting age population voted in the Presidential election. Off years were even worse, as 1970 was the last off election year where even 40% of the voting-age population cast ballots. http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm (These numbers end in 1996, but I have not seen that they have become measurably better in the past decade).
So what does it mean? Perhaps it means that one sees no voter apathy because apathy is not a thing that can be seen. Most people who don't vote don't talk about not voting, they don't put up yard signs that say, "None of the Above," they just don't vote, and it's difficult to measure what doesn't happen.
It's perhaps ironic that this ubiquity of politics is coinciding with a greater percentage of people turning off and tuning out. Maybe politics itself has something to do with that - negative campaigns disgust more than they inspire - or maybe the smarter half has realized that the choice between Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi or between George Bush and John Kerry is not a choice but an echo.
I don't consider myself part of the smarter half, though. I already voted.
On a paper ballot.
lazz (anonymous) says…
"I'm no sunny optimist in the Frank Capra mode; I know that democracy is hard work."
Frank Capra was no sunny optimist in the Frank Capra mode, either. It wasn't sunny optimism filling Capra's visions of democracy and Americana, it was honesty and decency -- both of which often endure only with hard work.
Capra's whole point was that the hard work required of democracy and citizenship and service--and even family, friends, faith, and self--was ultimately worth the effort.
But he never made his arguments with feeble-minded yellow smiley face balloons and American-flag lapel pins and eagles soaring against the Rocky Mountain blue sky ... He might have shaped his movies around simple, basic notions, but they weren't simple minded.
NotMrRight (anonymous) says…
"And, at the time, I conceived of the president as being something like the preacher at my family's church, only for the whole country"
Well, Joel, I think your childhood conception of the presidency has come true . . . and given recent news stories and the revealed exploits of certain well-known preachers/evangelists in the past, we know how "good" that could be for the country.
Interesting comment, Bill, about voter apathy. I'm working on an article tentatively titled "What if everyone voted?" -- a look at how the results of national elections (and hence federal laws and policies) would change if we not only had 100% registration, but also 100% voting.
My personal guess at this time is that things might change dramatically -- on the other hand, there is opinion out there that non-voters have the same "voting profile" as those who do vote -- and that nothing would change with 100% participation.
lazz (anonymous) says…
Bill, you're spot on, as always, but do keep in mind that percentage comparisons are skewed by the 26th Amendment of 1971 -- guaranteeing right to vote for 18-year-olds -- which kicked in with the 1972 elections.
And if you ask me, it was pretty irresponsible to guarantee all 18 year olds the right to vote before we had fully implemented the "Rock the Vote" ad campaign, because we all know that's the only way 18 year olds will shoulder their share of franchise responsibility -- if Richie Sambora tells them it's cool.
Oh, either that or we could stop with the teen-dream marketing and treat 18-year-old voters like adults ...
OtherJoel (anonymous) says…
Richie Sambora?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Lazz: do you know how many states had >18 voting ages prior to 1971? I've read that "most" were 21, but I don't know if that's 26 states or 49, and I think you're right - that would make a significant difference, at least on the trend.
NotMrRight: Yeah, I don't really have any knowledge upon which to base an opinion there...but my first impression is that while the result might be different I don't think it would be better. A nation full of informed voters would be one thing, but my suspicion is that the people who don't vote are also not interested enough to learn anything. If I belived in rain gods I'd do a little dance every election day as it is.
Ignorant inaction is to be preferred to ignorance in action, I think.
cvillehawk (anonymous) says…
Sorry to plug my own stuff, but I wrote a blog today about state ballot initiatives that I think some of you might like:
http://extrapolater.wordpress.com/200...
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Lazz: I'm doing a little fuzzy math here (bear with me) but let's just say that in 1971 every state lowered their voting age from 21 to 18. That would add 3 years' worth of voters to the rolls. Since the people on the rolls already represented 57 years' worth (life expectancy 77 - 21) that would mean that 18-21 would make up about 5% of eligible voters (60/3), which fits well with the increase from 140m to 146m voters from 70-72.
If that 5% never voted, that alone would account for a 3% reduction in voter turnout - halved because half would be expected not to vote anyway. But the reduction of actual voters is more like 5x that, or 14% over the 36 years measured.
Either way, I'm with you on treating them as adults. As America seems hellbent on extending adolescence into the early 30s, however, I'm not sure what (if anything) can be done about it.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
cvillehawk: as soon as Blogger stops puking (as it seems wont to do every lunchtime - I wonder what it eats?), I'm going to bookmark you on ElBorak.com. Hope you don't mind ;)
cvillehawk (anonymous) says…
Are you kidding? I'd love that. I can't look at blogger at all at my office-I'm guessing the firewall nails it. I'll have to check your site from home (and won't my boss be delighted at my consideration?)
lazz (anonymous) says…
hmmm, interesting math there, Bill, and I'd guess you're right.
however, consider the possibility that dropping the voting age to 18 might mean an apathy percentage, over time, larger than the actual 18-21 age block: 18 year olds get the right to vote, many aren't interested, and therefore might carry that impression with them their entire lives. So as every age group advances, there is increasing disinterest within the aging voting population as a whole.
An extreme variation: If nobody gets to vote until they are 77 years old, then by the time we hit 77, man, we're psyched, we're ready. Turnout would be 95 percent. So I'm saying the opposite might be in play -- now that all citizens have the franchise at 18, the franchise itself is never that cool, or interesting, or intriguing, or powerful. A driver's license is less-widely available ---- testing and fees required and all that, exactly what we don't want at the polling station ---- but let's be honest, a DL is much more coveted. Turnout is better at the Driver's License Gettin' Place than at the Polling Station, no?
So I guess that's the word I'm reaching for --- the right to vote is no longer "coveted." And now than 18-year-olds from 1972 are 52, it would seem logical that --- oh, just guessing --- more than half of our current eligible voters were first introduced to this wondrous thing called voting at an age when they might not have given a flip, and so therefore might NEVER be all that interested in it. (And please, I'm really not saying that to be critical -- I think it's perfectly understandable that an 18 year old doesn't care to read through Jim Ryun and Phill Kline and Kathleen Sebelius position papers and form opinions about elected representatives; I did, but I was a weird kid.)
Worthwhile consideration?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
lazz: "Worthwhile consideration?"
As always. Very perceptive, and it takes into account habit which is often underestimated by people who just count beans.
Might that argument be applied to other things as well? I saw a piece on CNN.com this am about binge drinking among 15-year-olds being more prevalent in England than elsewhere, and one of the Brits mentioned that the 5% underage drunken numbers in France are like a fifth of those in England because, ta-da, in France, everyone drinks all the time.
cville: You're there.
Meatwad (anonymous) says…
Hey - Joe Miller is going to be on KCUR tomorrow 89.3 FM.
He's on Up To Date from 11-12.
You can also listen online:
http://www.kcur.org/uptodate.html#Tue...
or www.kcur.org
Jo_s_mom (anonymous) says…
I was 19 in 1972 and I can tell you that most of my friends were excited to get to vote. I voted in that election and every presidential election since. So has my husband who was 20 in 1972. Our generation was the generation that protested that if 18 year old Americans were old enough to go die in Vietnam, we should be allowed to vote about who sent us there. Just FYI, we didn't have MTV to encourage us to vote. But we did remember JFK, RFK, and MLK. We were not apathetic.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
My first election was in 1984. I was living in Germany at the time, so I subscribed to Newsweek or Time (I can't remember), read a lot of newspapers and generally spent quite a bit of time getting as much information as I could. I was 18 at the time, so maybe I was a little weird - for American standards anyway. In Europe it was a whole different ball game at the time - people my age back then were very interested and involved in politics. You were weird if you weren't. They also have a much higher voter turn out than we do.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Now that I think about it, even before I first voted in 1984, I was interested in the process. I clearly remember watching the election results in 1980 and collapsing across my bean bag in despair when it became clear that Reagan had won. The memory is so vivid. I even remember the color of the bean bag. It must have been quite traumatic.
clayhill70 (anonymous) says…
Jo_s_ mom.......well put.
morganalefay........felt the same way after Bush "won" and "won" again.
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
We went and voted as soon as the polls opened this morning, at 7 a.m. My wife was sixth, I was seventh. The voting process -- where I vote, anyway -- wasn't really much different than it ever had been. I was given a paper ballot (with a pen instead of a pencil); when I was done, though, I fed the ballot into a machine instead of a big metal box.
Of course, when I was walking away, I heard the machine laugh to itself in an evil manner. So I'm not sure what to make of that.
lazz (anonymous) says…
Jo_s_mom --- indeed, well said.
As soon as I read your first sentence I saw the fallacy in my thought process -- in the early 1970s, with the Vietnam war raging and the 18YO voting amendment just ratified, of course you and your generation would have been stoked to participate, and likely carry that enthusiasm through your lifetimes.
And you used the word "apathy." I supposed I invited that denial, but I certainly wasn't intending to charge 18YOs who don't vote with being apathetic. I was trying, clumsily, to simply note that, well, they're 18 year olds, and they have a million things on their minds, and they just aren't in the habit (necessarily) of paying attention to elections and taking part. Gross generality, I know, and perhaps controversies of recent elections will change that. But I doubt it. Face it, kids are kids. My only point was, for good or ill, when we give 18-year-olds this right and civic responsibility, they see it as neither -- they might see it as something else they aren't going to have time for on a Tuesday, what with school and part time jobs and catching up with friends and all that. And perhaps that can become a habit. Perhaps if we held back the right to vote until age of eligibility to run for Congress -- is it 25, or 30? -- then that would help young Americans learn to yearn for that right to vote.
OK, I'm not arguing for that. I'm only trying to make a rhetorical point, to illustrate my thoughts on consequences of 18YO votes. I do think 18YO's should have the right, and I hope each and every one of them is helped to learn, right from the start, how important it is to fully participate.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
Interesting scenario, Lazz. I can picture the interest in democracy fueled by the injustice of restricted voting until eventually the restrictions are removed as someone gets elected on that plank. Heh, heh. Like water seeks its own level, we battle for the right to mediocrity. Just try taking it away from us.
I voted for Carter twice. Win some, lose some. I just don't know why this particular day is somehow worse than any other up to now. Maybe because - no matter what - a lot of us have begun to realize how right Snoop is.
Probably just me.
lazz (anonymous) says…
Hep me to the Snoop reference ...
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
http://politicalpartypoop.com/
Its just that I've been reading Snoops stuff since before he quit posting here. Not because I agreed, but more that I had respect for the consistency of his rhetoric if you know what I mean. Political discourse is laced with so much bullshit that Snoops blog is like an oasis, no matter how strenuously I disagree.
Whats happening now at the cusp of the family values revolution is that there is naught but vacuum to replace it. Which proves out 80% of what Snoop has been saying all along. Liberals are idiots.
Don't mind me, I'm in a bad mood.
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
On 18YOs voting: I was extremely interested in voting when after I turned 18 (first election was 1996, sorry not to fall into your numbers, Bill), and I felt really important and "grown up" when I got to cast that first ballot. Of course, I didn't realize then how much it takes to keep oneself informed of the process and the time it took to sort through the B.S. (which by my calculations is about 97% of the total, dotdot).
I'm still struggling ten years later to make this civic duty (and it *IS* duty, whether we like it or not) and educating myself about it a part of my life, and not just a slapdash effort to inform myself every other November. There have been elections (presidential, of course) where I felt there was no real choice on the ballot, and others where I felt my voice couldn't change anything (living in another state that is predominantly of one party).
I am personally disgusted by the vast majority of political statements, especially the ones that appeal to any strong emotion without any actual substance. "I would do a better job than my opponent because" is a phrase I'd like to hear completed with "I'm qualified in this area" instead of "he and his party are losers".
*sigh* Right there with ya, dotdot. At least when it comes to the American political system.
At least there's a paper trail here. The machines might cause some to worry, but I am comforted knowing I wrote on a piece of paper.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
Don't get me started on the machines. The chads will forever dangle in my heart.
Yuk yuk.
feeble (anonymous) says…
I wonder if there's any truth to the notion that increased convictions for felony offenses amoung certain demographics within the US have led to decreased voter participation due to Disenfranchisement?
I realize crime cuts across all racial and economic boundries, but I imagine those committing felony offenses on Monday aren't first in line at the polling station on Tuesday.
Also, does anyone have any opinions concerning compulsory voting? Whenever I see or hear citizen bemoan the lack of voter turnout, few seem keen on instituting this sort of measure. Seems to work ok in AUS.
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
That's an interesting thought, feeble, although I don't think compulsory voting would really resound with many Americans' concept of freedom. As with any proposal of compulsory military service, there would be much (be)moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Reminds me, though: the "I voted" sticker I got at the polls would have been a whole lot cooler/appropriate if it had said "I earned my right to bitch". *smirk*
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
And I'd almost forgotten about dangling chads, dotdot... *surpressed giggle*
feeble (anonymous) says…
From what I have read, as little as that may be, compulsory voting in the Australian model has much more in common with our concept of Jury Duty, than with a draft. The fines for non-paricipation are somewhat light ($20 AUS or $50 AUS +court costs if you fail to pay the original fine) and can be avoided entirely if you can produce documentation showing why you couldn't vote or attend the poll (for example, being an EMT on duty.)
I do agree however, such a suggestion would not go over well with most americans. Might help if election day was a federal holiday.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"sorry not to fall into your numbers, Bill"
No need to apologize, Jochan, it's hardly your fault that you're chronologically challenged. I promise not to hold it against you. Besides, voting or not it's unlikely your generation will perform the task any worse than mine has.
Although I don't think the right to bitch is contingent upon actually voting. Last time I checked, anyone has a right to bitch about anything.
On the other hand, no one is forced to listen, especially when the bitcher cares so little as to not even write that complaint down or punch it into a machine.
lazz (anonymous) says…
Freedom obviously isn't compulsory, so why should voting be compulsory?
Responsibility -- take it or leave it. I really mean that. If somebody doesn't want to vote, they shouldn't, and they should go on about their day entirely guilt free. (Unless, of course, they happen to run over a cat or something ...)
Being free is being free. Vote. Don't Vote. Just don't hold up any liquor stores and you're all good.
Now, should some two-bit dunce stumble along and win an important office and start whittling away at our silly little freedoms, then perhaps voting takes on a bit more importance. But hey, take it or leave it. Being free means being free to be a goof.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
I been scanned by a tabulator.
And all I got is this stinkin sticker.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Joel,
Did you happen to notice the number on the display? I was voter #51, but the number was 49 when my ballot went in and stayed at 49 after the machine ate it. If it was 49 when you voted, I'll consider it to be the number of the machine, but if it was a low number when you voted, I'll think that not everyone's ballot counted.
Jo_s_mom (anonymous) says…
We had a new computerized system with touch screen. I have to admit it was rather cool. A track on the side of the machine showed an image of my choices. Based on the final results nationwide, I think the voice of discontent was heard.
Regarding mandatory voting...I agree that it violates the idea of freedom and probably would not give better results. Those who are involved in the political process do get out and vote. Those who don't, I wouldn't want making decisions for me anyway. If a person doesn't care enough to vote, that person probably wouldn't care enough to know what the issues are anyway. An uninformed vote is not a good thing.
Regarding 18YOs, if we treat our children as people and talk to them about the world and the decisions we make, we will be preparing them to be productive citizens. I never talked to my children like babies and they both grew up to be amazing women...intelligent, articulate, and hopefully good citizens of this world. Many of our young people are clueless, but only from lack of exposure.