Candidate Who?
One more sign that people's lives are going pretty well: They don't care about presidential candidates.
From an AP account of a CBS poll:
Two-thirds of voters ? including two-thirds of Democrats ? were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president, said the CBS News poll out Sunday.
(Emphasis added).
As the presidential campaign season swings into full gear, get ready for a steady stream of "vanishing voter" stories, in which pundits and graybeards bewail the lack of interest in retail politics.
I wrote about the much-vilified "AWOL Electorate" before the 2000 presidential election and, even with 9/11 and the Iraq war, I think my main point still holds true:
We participate less in politics for the same reason we stopped going to drive-in movies the way we used to, getting married as teenagers, making dinner at home, and, for men at least, wearing blue suits with white shirts and red ties: not because we can?t, but because we don?t want to. Our flesh is not weak when it comes to voting; it?s just not willing.
The center of gravity in American life has shifted away from partisan politics and into other areas of activity in which individuals (and groups of individuals) have far greater hopes for gaining satisfaction. The big story in American life over the past few decades is not the decline in voter participation but the ever-increasing proliferation of options, of choices, and of identities in everyday life.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
?Scientific American? put out a small piece after the 2000 election on the increase in enfranchisement over our history and how each increase produced a proportional decrease in eligible voter turnout.
America is obviously growing but the class of educated, responsible citizens is not. The correlation between the prosperity of the ?masses? and voter turnout hinges on the common man?s perception of need-of-government. Essentially, when Joe is out of work, he?s going to vote for the schmuck that promises him a job. If enough Joes are out of work (or whatever the current malady) whomever promises the most wins.
Because of this very predictable quirk in our group-behavior, proportional representation (re: the 1st post) leads to disproportionately loud voices in government. Ideological zealots who may make up .003% of the population, are able to get some petitions signed and gain a seat of representation.
Thus proportional representation actually exploits the ignorance (indolence?) of the masses in the same fashion as the pandering politician; promising a chicken in every pot in order to get their agenda through.
The 1st poster didn?t mention any European countries in particular but France and Germany, in terms of economic freedom, are bone crushingly restrictive. See http://www.freetheworld.com.
Actually, I think the first person to promise "a chicken in every pot" was Henri of Navarre, which most people consider a Good Guy due to his pragmatism and religious toleration.
Am I the only one who looks at Buch and the Democratic field and thinks "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? Not that I like Bush, but the pack of Democratic candidates sound more like a load of yapping terriers than real candidates.
tzs, I think any field of candidates would look like dwarves, compared to an incumbant president with no primary challenge. Compared to, say, 1988 this Democratic field looks pretty deep.
Ray,
If you actually looked at the information provided, one would be hard pressed to find these countries "bone crushingly restrictive." 2001: USA = 8.3, Germany = 7.3, and France = 6.7. BTW, France and Germany do have malls (the malls are larger in France than the USA generally - hypermalls they are called) and the litany of other things listed.
Hypermarch?, actually. It's similar to a Super Wal-Mart here in the states. Imagine, those evil capitalist Wal-Mart bastards got a capitalist idea from France.
- Josh
jb,
Anything out of the top 10 is bone crushing.
It is very telling though of a peson's overall outlook when they want the US to be more like the middle of the list instead of more like the top of the list.
I've always thought of myself as pretty well informed, so when I saw that posting I thought I could come up with a name immediately.
I couldn't...I remembered reading several articles about some fairly popular senator, and could NOT get his name into my head. I figured Jesse Jackson would probably be running, but that was just a guess. And after stressing my brain for over 45 seconds, I finally switched courses and thought .... how about that minority leader...the union guy...heavens to Betsy, what is HIS name...that's right, Gephard!
I was going to look up the other one, but while typing this, "Kerry" came into my head (not sure of the spelling). While bringing up this comment list, I also spotted Lieberman's name, and I am pretty sure he has his hat in the ring.
Anyway, I think my results would have depended a LOT on the patience of the pollster...even though I have read quite a handful of articles on the candidates I could not have blamed a pollster for just tossing me into that rationally ignorant two-thirds.
Ray,
Well, that's a stupid way to look at it. What if every nation was in 9-10 range? In other words, the ranking is not nearly as important as the measure itself.
Ray-
I tried to look up data on http://www.freetheworld.com but the pdf file nearly crashed my computer. Where does Switzerland rank? The Swiss use proportional representation to elect one chamber of their bicameral parliament, and elect the other chamber in a manner similar to the US Senate. Even the chamber elected by PR is elected on a state-by-state basis. Each state (or canton as they call it) uses PR to elect a slate of representatives, the number of representatives depending on the state's population.
Overall, the Swiss are reputed to be a relatively free people. I don't see PR as being inherently unstable if tempered in the context of a strongly federal system.
jb,
Let me tilt this back to the objective side of the original point; the closer we come to enfranchising 100% of the population, the larger the non-participating bloc will be. The rest of the blather as to why people aren't voting is whitewash to cover up the fact that the average citizen's civic awarenss reaches only to their back yard. The implication is that people are basically stupid and that is hard to argue against.
As for the economic freedom rankings, I'm not too happy with the trends here in the US and we're ranked #3. So anything worse than this is not to be emulated.
This might be a bit to logic based for you but try going back and chewing on some of those numbers. The size of govt is first for a reason as they clearly state; essentially the more of a presence the govt has in the economy, the less of a choice the individual citizen has.
France scores in the 2.5 range on this, Hong Kong scores a 9.1. I think we should shoot for 9.1 and you, by your own words, think that the 2.5 range is tolerable.
Obviously we have differing levels of tolerance for how much our individual freedoms can be tampered with.
thoreau,
Switzerland is #7.
The strong federal federal system will catch you plenty of gruff around here.
PR would work marginally in a country with a fairly static population but not with one like ours. This being for the reasons I've already noted; that the smallest but most vocal fringes of society wind up with a seat in congress or parliament. The non-participating masses are still the majority but these fringe groups wind up with a proportional seat of say 2% when in actuality they may only represent .005% or whatever.
Ray-
I should clarify "strong federal system" because some people might think it means "strong federal government." I mean it as "strict separation of powers between federal and state governments." Some countries only pay lip service to that separation, others at least try to maintain it (I'd say we at least try) and still others succeed at it (I'd say the Swiss do better than us on it).
I should have phrased it better as "strongly federal". I think "strongly federal" as in strong separation of powers would be endorsed by most people here.
As for PR in the US, if we used it to elect the House, in most states the threshold for getting a seat in the US House would be 10% or more of the electorate. In larger states it might make sense to have a handful of large districts to keep that 10% or so threshold. So California would be divided into 5 districts, each electing 10 or 11 Representatives.
Any system that breaks the duopoly power of the Republicrats and lets other parties compete is fine by me. If competition is desirable in the marketplace of goods and services, surely it's desirable in the marketplace of ideas. In our current system you only get one vote and there's only one legislator elected. This inevitably winnows it down real fast to just 2 contenders. If we elected our Representatives in blocs of 5 to 10, say, more than just 2 factions would be represented, and the number of seats given to each party would depend on how well that party performed.
Of course, the Senate should remain as it is. The structure of the Senate serves an important purpose in federalism. But the House could stand some tweaking.
I just thought of a good economic analogy for proportional representation:
Say there were only two chains of restaurants in the country. They'd probably try to cater to a wide audience as they compete with each other, but smaller demographics would be neglected. Now, you might say "Well, it's still a good marketplace because there's competition" but there sure isn't very much competition, and anybody with unusual taste buds would be neglected.
What if it turned out that more restaurants would spring up if a law was changed, and the change would be to remove legal barriers that restrict an individual's freedom of choice? I think we'd all applaud it. And soon many more restaurants would spring up to cater to all sorts of tastes. And we'd all say "Look what happens when we remove laws that restrict consumer choice!"
Our voting system is like that. It's impossible for more than 2 parties to compete for very long in a system where there's only one winner and each person has only one vote. But if you elect multiple representatives, you could still have the big 2 for those who like the big 2, but you'd have other types of parties (e.g. Libertarians, Greens, the various manifestations of the Reform Party, etc.) to represent those who don't like the big 2. By opening up the system to more competition you give more people seats at the table, but by keeping some reasonable limits (e.g. elect no more than 10 to 12 at once, so that the threshold of support remains reasonable) you also contain extremism.
I'm willing to bet that if we elected the House, and also one chamber of the state legislature, by proportional representation we'd get some Libertarians in office. Closet Libertarians who currently vote for the lesser of 2 evils would come out of the woodwork. Even people who don't agree with the entire party platform but respect the basic principles might vote Libertarian, to make sure that the Libertarians are heard in the legislature.
What on earth could be wrong with that?
Ray,
Well, first of all, you never "chewed on the numbers" to begin with. You simply implied that the ordinal ranking was all that mattered. Now you are backpedalling trying to paint my statements as ignoring the numbers, when in fact it is you who are guilty of such not I.
BTW, where did I say what was tolerable? I stated that the differences between the US and Western European countries are not nearly as pronounced as you maintain. Are you sure you aren't a politician? By all indications you are: (a) you improperly use statistics and economic data and (b) you attribute to others statements made out of whole cloth.
Yes, maybe Americans really are thrilled by the kaleidoscope of choices they have in the supermarket cereal aisle and the tongue-stud rack at Piercing Pagoda, and are so darned happy that they're rejecting the drab products offered by government (air, water, emergency medical services) as stale and passe.
Or maybe, in a political marketplace in which the DLC has spent years pushing hard for a Democratic Party indistinguishable from the GOP circa 1984 (see Joe Lieberman), and a mainstream "liberal" press that ridicules and marginalizes candidates who would have been in the Democratic mainstream from 1933 to 1988, there just isn't a product on offer worth getting interested in if like a majority of Americans you think NAFTA, Social Security "reform" and the current health care regime are bad ideas. The US has a political system designed to support two political parties at a time, in which it takes a cataclysm to bring a new one into play. Our friends in the EU--who have malls and supermarkets and Piercing Pagodas too--have proportional representation and a healthy majority in favor of a strong government welfare system even as they embrace their myriad choices of breakfast cereals and flavored coffees.
Yeah, that is an outrageous claim. What exactly is wrong with a blue suit, white shirt, and red tie?
. . . they're rejecting the drab products offered by government (air, water, emergency medical services) . . .
Air?!? I wasn't aware that the government produced air, or even regulated its production by plants and algae. Perhaps you mean clean air; even that's debatable, but at least it makes sense.
Nick, I see a movement away from political party identity to interest group identity. I may not be a republican, but perhaps a Ducks Unlimited or NRA or Sierra Club member instead. The result is the politization (if that's even a word [yet]) of what were basically membership organizations.
I agree with your premise about choice, but apply it to elections. I don't view lack of interest as voter apathy, I instead see choice apathy. If we could vote for "None of the Above" and cast aside for two years the selected nominees, I bet voters would turn out for their first real choice in years. Just look what is happening in California when the two major political parties can no longer narrow down our options.
When did men stop wearing blue suits, white shirts and red ties? I pride myself on being able to spot a Republican on the talking head shows, even with the sound turned off. Anytime I see a guy with a navy blue suit and power tie, who looks like he's got a stick up his ass, there's about an 80% chance he's from the GOP.
...or the DLC. They even dress like Republicans.
Or maybe, like everything else in these modern times, information can be gathered quickly and at the last mintue. We don't need to rely on newspapers and word-of-mouth alone to get our info on the candidates, we can get more information on every candidate in one day's focused internet research or even plopped down in front of CNN. Why in the hell should the average voter (not activist, not donor, not politics buff) clutter their mind with who's running, months before the primaries and more than a year before the actual election.
Bemoan it all you like, but the average voter knows he will be bombarded by news coverage of this from all angles for the coming months, culminating in a 24hr/day barage before any actual voting must take place. Why bother trying to remember any of it now when it will just come back at you over and over and over.
Note to the DNC. Good choice of nights to have your first "official" debate. I'm sure the average voter will pay attention to your exciting event instead of the opening of the NFL season (WAS v. NYJ). What genius picked this night and does he still have a job?
The recall here in California very well proves the point of the article. Voters don't care because politics doesn't affect them directly, most of the time. But now that CA is in the tank in a large number of respects (rising taxes, rising energy costs, rising worker's comp costs, etc) and directly affecting people here, they *are* taking notice and are tossing the bastard out.
Ray,
It doesn't necessarily prove that people are "basically stupid." People only have a limited amount of energy and attention, and it's quite natural to devote the biggest part of them to family, job, friends, neigborhood, and events in the community. Part of it is that we're genetically wired to be part of primary communities, hunter-gatherer groups, of a few dozen people.
But for the people who run the machinery of corporation and State, running that machinery is their job; besides being their bread and butter, it involves a majority of the people they interact with on a daily basis, outside their immediate family. So they have an advantage in interest and energy, as well as access to inside information and control over the agenda.
Those on the inside will always have the advantage over those they "represent," no matter how formally democratic the system.
The lesson: centralization is bad. The only way we can ever have real democratic control over the things that affect us is to devolve decision-making to the smallest possible unit.
But the people running the decision-making machinery have a vested interest in keeping the processes as complicated as possible--it's job security. So any "reform" designed and administered by the suits in the State and corporation, that reflects their institutional mindset, will involve little substantive change.
s.m. koppelman,
I'm glad Bismarck's heirs have convinced the voting public that the corporate state was designed in their interest.
If they looked a little more closely, they might figure out that the welfare/regulatory state was created to render state capitalism more palatable, to stabilize its problems, and guarantee profits to privileged corporations. Then they might decide to end the forms of state intervention that created privilege in the first place, and let the free market radically decentralize the economy and give the laborer back his full product. That would be REAL democracy. Can't have that.
Well, historically, Americans have not generally been rabid voters; so saying that there is a shift or bewailing the "vanishing voter" is creating something of a myth more than anything.
I have a beef with voter turnout statitics.
In the great State of New York, I have moved 3 times in the past 10 years. I am still on the rolls in those various locations! Even though I moved from my parents' house 12 years ago they are still getting yellow postcards every year that say I am eligible to vote.
"Air" has already been replied to. Lots of people get their water from wells, and the town I live in has emergency medical care handled by a private company.
The drab products and services offered by the government are just that. They aren't totally worthless, but they shouldn't be (and in many cases aren't) monopolized by the government. And where the government doesn't have a monopoly, people are doing just fine without them. I have no problem with these services offered by the government - as choices I don't have to pay for if I don't want them.
Oops--forgot to sign.
thoreau, good metaphor. Another example is cable teevee vs. the big three networks.
I'd love the see the Senate go PR, for the reasons you outlined, and the eliminate the gross gerrymander in favor of small and/or rural states.
What would you suggest instead of a pinstriped suit and tie? Bare feet and overalls?