There are Reasons for Low Voter Turnout...Apathy is the Least of Them

In recent decades, barely half the country votes in the Presidential election.   This is largely due to apathy, a widespread disgust with our national political leadership, and a feeling that regardless of who wins, not much is going to change. It’s also attributable to the fact that the election is held on just one day, and that both parties – although for different reasons – have resisted efforts to make voting more accessible to more voters, such as easier – or even automatic when you turn 18 – registration, polling booths in more places (such as one on every major college campus), and allowing for voting over several days, or putting the election on a weekend. But there’s another reason as well. Many voters simply don’t like the choices they have before them.

Basically, there are two viable options for President (and for most Congressional seats as well.   These are the Republican and the Democratic nominees. In the modern era there are only two exceptions – John Anderson in the 70s and Ross Perot in the 90s.   Given that these nominees are largely the choices of the two parties, and that the nominating process is biased, flawed, and not very democratic, voters are typically getting two choices, neither of which often reflects their actual desires.   If you feel this way -- and I guarantee you that many in this coming election fall exactly into that camp -- then why should you cast your vote at all?   Simply supporting the current limited choices will only ensure that the mainstream political parties and the entrenched political establishment will just keep offering us more of the same.

In the old USSR voting turnouts (yes, they voted for their national leadership) were an astounding 90-plus percent -- even though the choice was for just one candidate. That hardly means the Soviet people liked or chose their leaders. They merely were affirming – without an alternative option – the choices of the political establishment and the Communist Party.

While it’s nothing close to the Communist Party of the former USSR , both of the two major American political parties are part of an entrenched system that rewards those who are there the longest.   Despite all their rhetoric and protests to the contrary, the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties are arguably less than what they have in common.   That might explain why after her historic win as the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi immediately took impeachment off the table and suddenly appeared like a new friend to President Bush – all smiles and waves as they lunched at the White House. Yes, politics makes for strange bedfellows, but the underlying truth is that the leadership of both political parities is more interested in keeping the system as is, and ensuring their share of power -- even if that means gridlock and ineffective government – than in truly revitalizing our government.   Is it any wonder that Congress’s approval ratings are lower even than President Bush’s?

So yes, technically, every vote counts. But that doesn’t mean it really makes a difference. Might it however be even more powerful if instead of cast obligatorily toward a party backed candidate that you only marginally support, it was directed at a candidate that you truly believed in, regardless of their viability, or even withheld all together?