Voter Dissuasion

The trouble with dissatisfied voters is they never vote. If they never vote, there is an element of effective representation lost on the part of the people. The main argument expressed by opponents to voting is that the system in which they participate will never change regardless of how much their vote truly counts. To make this kind of justification for not voting is absurd, and it is the equivalent of saying the best way to heal the wound is to let it fester and become infected.

Young voters, especially, are those so opposed to voting, as if it was their own unique form of snubbing the establishment, but in their lack of presence at the polls, the establishment could wish for nothing better than to have a larger number of voters against it to simply not show up. Consider the 2008 presidential election, where a record number of minorities and youth turned out to vote, and the result was creating a significant lead for the Democratic candidate, a gap so large between the winner and loser, that was seen in neither of the two preceding elections, that elected a Republican president. One could argue that it was simply the people being utterly dissatisfied with what the former administration had done to the economy and how it handled conflicts overseas, but there was a significant increase in voters that created a voting lead so large, there was no need for a recount (Blacks, Young Voters Not Poised for High Turnout on Nov. 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/142877/blacks-young-voters-not-poised-high-turnout-nov.aspx). In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the turnouts were significantly lower, and the election results were difficult to decipher, because the balance of the votes were almost even. Fast forward 8 years, add in the factor of a large turnout, and it was apparent that in former elections, there was a closeted majority not utilizing their votes. If these voters were not dissuaded from voting in the past, it is quite possible previous elections would have created a different historical course. In other words, the second-guessing that occurred in 2000 and 2004, and in one election, where the Supreme Court overrode the votes of the people, could have been avoided altogether, and a true majority would have selected the president in a way that was constitutionally correct.

Money and steep financial funding of political figures is another factor. Political endorsements create or foster a false majority. When so much money is concentrated on a particular political faction mostly by way of media, and the most effective form being television, because that is the best way to facilitate political information to the general public, who needs something simple to digest, in order to understand who they are voting for, or which political platforms to which they can relate. In a complete irony of how the media currently plays out in relating political viewpoints upon the general public is that of comedian Jon Stewart, who is by all means a comedian, and not what most suppose an authoritative news source. The irony stems from the fact that most serious news and media gurus look to his satirical news show as respectable form of news dissemination, while Stewart consistently emphasizes that it is anything but that, and that his show is meant to point out the facade that most media giants (as well as politicians and pundits) construct, in order to cater to some element of the establishment. Stewart was even so far as questioned by genuine news reporters, seeking some form of empathy from Stewart, by stating, "Boy, I wish I could say what you're saying." And Stewart's response to that is why can't they ask the question they want to ask? What could possibly prevent a professional newscaster from breaking from the script, and generating thought provoking or objective questions or statements...? Wait! That's the problem. The mere evidence that something as amendable as a new story or policy expression is not authorized by the main people responsible for asking the question, but instead some external as well as partial element. (1)

This external element is the point at which media begins to deteriorate the foundation of Constitutional representation of U.S. voters, because this element exists, disabling journalists and newscasters from approaching policy making and legislation with a investigative mindset that is not inhibited by whatever mysterious interests are out there heavily influencing or reshaping the content by which most U.S. voters get their information. What is it that reporters, journalists, or newscasters cannot say? Who or what is placing restrictive measures upon the free flow of news information? Some may perceive this as a product of strict editing, and that most effective sources of news are watered-down, in order to meet the certain formats, but that is a naive concept. Most editors of news may only answer to the owners of the news agency, and that alone is a private interest, that is generating a diversion of information for the purpose of gaining capital or favor from related interests. In other words, the general public is immediately receiving a biased viewpoint from self-interested parties, and that is why reporters or journalists cannot talk about the politics they genuinely wish to talk about.

So, the voter is constantly misinformed, or is receiving information about candidates that is manipulated by partisan forces, and quite possibly private interests. Through mediums like television and internet news feeds, presented by media conglomerates, the information is very easy to digest, and a much larger percentage of the population will accept the less complicated presentation of voter information, that is simply too filtered. More intellectual sources will be less appealing to the general public, and leads to disinterest. In Jon Stewart's case, the news and opinions may be simple, yet thought provoking, and offer the public an intimate perspective of political realities, but one must consider that this can be viewed by the intellectual elite as simply satire, and therefore not accepted as an authoritative source.

Most of the current news sources are seeking ratings through sensationalist stories. These are stories that play off of people's emotions. Stories that evoke emotion, a lot of political figures embrace, in order to gain more votes through those elements of an incumbent's background that may either be questionable or lacking in performance in the bureaucratic realm. Sensational news is also non-authoritative, because it places too much emphasis on characterization of a topic, and covers less of the intrinsic content, like the ethical, moral, historical or philosophical aspects of the content. Granted, the latter type of coverage may be boring and unacceptable to the average user, but how hard would it be to present the facts in a simple form, rather than have to listen to endless and repetitive stories based on slander, failure, complaining, and simply uninformative context? Emotional dialogue lends voters to turn away from voting because it fails to provide firm answers, and aids in avoiding the facts behind a certain platform or politician.

In this case, voter dissuasion is a product of discontent with how politicians and current leaders are portrayed on all sides as baseless, incongruous, and failing to meet society's needs. A society of voters needs to embrace political leaders, and by being provided a public image through the disintegrated lens of popular mass media, it is fair to say, that this relationship never comes to its fruition. It may be possible that by portraying political leaders in a sensational light, that presents negativity and apathy towards public servants, the voter feels, in a sense, betrayed, and instinctively turns away from participating in realm of politics, especially voting. It's like being a bystander in a room full of arguing people. Who would want to participate in something of that nature? If individuals weigh in the current political sphere, it is a horrendous two-party system in which one side is constantly criticizing the other, and policies take a back seat to sensationalized bickering, puritanical morality hunts, and self-fulfilling character jostling. Voters grow weary of this inane behavior, especially when the source of it is supposed to be leading by example, and not distracting the public with irrelevant communications. The voters are seeking solutions to social problems, not elaboration on faults.

Take for instance Robert Reich's recent article (http://robertreich.org/post/1285369087) on the Democrats building up blame upon China concerning the reasons for economic fallout in the U.S. and its assumed cause of high unemployment domestically. What the politicians are beginning to do is tout a platform of fear and anger against China, as a means to grasping more votes come this November, conveniently only a month away. Mr. Reich states that in no way are the Chinese responsible for the high rate of unemployment in the U.S., and that the politicians that are using this type of rhetoric, are simply utilizing an external component of politics to place the blame outside the realm of American society.  He goes on to state that the real cause of recession was that the middle class was no longer able to support the economy, after experiencing an inability to borrow. So, the true cause of the recession is internal, and closely linked to the failures of domestic financial institutions, and not foreign entities. This is geographically isolating the voting public from information about the true causes of the economic downturn, and it fosters emotions, in order to get the vote out against those politicians that support Chinese foreign policies in any form or manner. If the voters cannot assess the causes of their economic problems, because the information exists beyond the capacities of international citizens' rights, and therefore the focus of inequality, like Reich notes as being domestic, has now been placed out of the control of the voting citizen base, and placed upon a global insignificance.

American voters live within a democracy, but fail to vote like citizens of one. It is not a democracy if the larger number of voters are not turning out, due to varying forms of dissuasion (whether it be intentional or not). If the people of a democracy are not voting in large numbers, then reaching the identity of the majority is never grasped, and it would lead voters to question whether it is ever possible to have their greater voices heard in Washington D.C.. This factor in itself is a form of dissuasion, and shows that there is a tremendous underlying psychology at work against the American voters, where it is acceptable to have a smaller number of people voting, and therefore, successfully disguising the minority within a smaller collection of votes.

References:

1) Smith, C. (Sept 20, 2010). America Is a Joke; The worst of times for politics and media has been the best of times for The Daily Show's host--and unfortunately things are getting even funnier. New York, p.NA. Retrieved October 08, 2010, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=orange_main

Just Shut Up, and Vote

You know, when I people tell me, "Why should I vote? It won't matter.", I consistently tell people they should, because if you don't it really wouldn't matter. Especially when we are having so many critical things to consider, like whether we should continue being at war, what we should do about our corrupt and dysfunctional economy, and placing people in leadership who will fix the broken system we call democracy.

Whether your candidate wins or not, it is not just about who the next president is going to be, but a number of leaders lower on the rung, like your state senator, representative, circuit court judges, mayors, supervisors, councilmen, or propositions on bills that will closely effect your life. If you don't believe me, go to http://www.smartvoter.org/, and search by your zip code. I would be more than willing to bet that you would find a large amount of things to vote on, and you would end up spending well over an hour in a voting booth deciding over what to vote on, because there is so much to vote on. So there is no excuse not to vote. By saying that your vote doesn't matter is just as ignorant as saying that there's no sound coming out of your mouth when you're speaking.

In all reality, I would think that a person may be semi-correct in saying that when voting for president, let's say, the vote may not directly matter, even though it does, because of the complicated structure of our nation's government. There is a lot that goes on when a president makes a decision, but due to our system of checks and balances, technically your choice for president doesn't effectively mean that all your needs matter. But when you consider things like propositions and state offered bills that you can vote on every November (not just every 4 years). These items on the ballot directly effect you, because they are laws that will be put into place immediately based on the popular vote. For example, in my state, they have a legislative proposition concerning the fostering of the renewable energies sector. Whatever I choose to vote on this proposition, I know that it will go back to my state legislature with my direct opinion on how legislators should handle energy matters that are directly effecting me. If you consider this, if the presidential candidate you are choosing, leaned in favor of a legislative bill like the one I just mentioned, your vote would in fact not directly matter, because the president is an executor of the law, and can only make a decision on legislative propositions that are brought forth by Congress.

I suggest that if you don't think any of the presidential candidates matter to you, fill in the blank under the candidate's names with your name, and vote on the other matters that really effect you closer to home. Your vote does matter, so shut up, and fill out your absentee ballot, or get down to your local polling place. Go here first http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.html

Obamanated!

Yeah I know, another Obamanym, but I couldn't resist. Anyhow, I just got done watching the speech given by Obama at Mile High Stadium, and up until about 5 minutes into his 45 minute speech, I was convinced that he's going to be the greatest thing to happen to this country in a long while. Now I say this from a former Republican standpoint, because I come from a conservative background, and tend to not have a lot of tolerance for extreme liberalism. I am starting to see a swing to the right a bit more in the Democratic party with Obama getting the presidential nod. I like that he has called McCain, and the GOP out on the floor, and is demanding that they start getting in touch with the reality of governing the United States of America, instead of their political mumbo-jumbo, full of empty promises to the American people. He has made it clear that Republicans do not govern, but instead they let the country ride the dangerous wake of their disorganized, unplanned, and threatening foreign and domestic policies. All of which have left the American people out in the cold and harsh realities of economic despair, employment hardships, and a government toward whom they cannot turn. I think my decision has been made based on Obama telling us, that we have come the crossroad, "a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more."
Obama has brought in both parties and even an awakening third, the Independents, by not only making note of them in his speech, but recognizing that McCain was a true war hero, and a political hero for breaking away from his party when he felt that his beliefs and views were in contrast to those of his out of touch, and failing party. This is what I like about Obama, because unlike a "celebrity", he puts his political ego aside to recognize his opponents strengths as a non-partisan player. Unlike the GOP, that constantly bashes Obama and the Democrats, nit-picking at every last detail of their platforms, moral fiber, and even their family members. If we consider how Bush in his 8 years of false "compassionate conservatism", we can see that the Republican party is not at all compassionate, and really has no sense of understanding the deep rooted suffering that Americans have faced during his presidency. Where's the compassion in that? Where is the compassion in their foreign policy, when they decided to go to war? Where was the compassion, in letting hurricane victims drown, and be permanently removed from their homes? Where is the compassion in even showing up to your own party's national convention? What is so compassionate about lying in order send our men and women into battle?
Anyhow, McCain is steeped also in that lack of compassion, because in Obama's words, he just "doesn't get it." The Republicans are out of touch, and when this is the case, they really can't comprehend the needs, and the hardships of the people they are supposed to serve. The Republicans don't get it simply because, when the Democratic National Convention occurred, 84,000 people packed into a football stadium to hear Obama accept his nomination. Obama had the full support of all his former Democratic contenders. The streets were filled with more protestors than there were police forces, and there was no need for showboating. The show came to Obama, and Denver was raising the roof.
In contrast to this, the Republican National Convention, was held in a much smaller venue, the current president, for the first time in the history of the RNC, didn't show up to support his party's candidate, and McCain scrambled for a female president absolutely incapable of running a state, let alone an entire country. The Democrats didn't need to desperately seek out an individual to leech off the Republican's female support. And what respectable presidential candidate of a conservative party selects a running mate without even a glance at their political background, which contains numerous discrepancies. On top of this have you seen the amount of police force used in St. Paul over the passed few days, in response to peaceful protests? It just goes to show, whether they were violent or not, there were a lot of people there who were not just angry, but absolutely fed up with the Republican party's failure to effectively govern.
Effective governing comes from the people, and not from its leadership. The masses know what is good for them, and what will provide them safety from the cold threatening world. We will not stand to be fearful of things that we cannot control. We will not let a small handful of powerful men control our thoughts, freedoms, and livelihood. We will decide the fate of our country, not the Republicans, not the Bush administration, not the rich, not the police, and we will decide who will make our country stronger, and a fruitful place to live. We have withstood way too much passive aggression from the current administration, and it's conservative supporters, and Obama hit it home for me when he said, "change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time."