Why Vote?

The United States is a representative government. Meaning, the citizens have the ability, the right, to elect government officials who will represent their political leanings, the policies and legislation they prefer. But for a variety of reasons, the representative nature of the American government is corrupted: you don’t have to be a political scientist to see that the government is not representative of the American people. An overwhelming majority of government officials are white, male, and protestant. This underrepresentation is regularly attributed to a variety of factors—candidate dishonesty, untruthfulness, a lack of available pertinent information, and negative campaigning (Wayne 27). All of these factors cause a loss of faith and positive regard for the government, which in turn lead to low voter turn out. Thus, in theory, if people don’t come out to vote—to voice their political views and desires in the most productive way possible—they will not be represented. Those who vote, are represented. Right?

Perhaps, low voter turn out does not cause underrepresentation. Maybe, underrepresentation causes low voter turn out. 

It is true—there is a lack of faith in the American government.  But that lost faith stems from age-old democratic issues, not from an apathetic population. People choose not to vote because they think they will never have a say; they think that participating in the democratic process is futile. Citizens of low-income areas, as well as minorities and women, see an overwhelming quantity of government officials who do not look like them, see the world like them or think like them, and choose not to vote. Low voter turn out is not the cause of underrepresentation—it is simply a symptom of a greater problem.

The poor, minorities, and women, are all deliberately excluded from the democratic process so that government officials will not be held to value and work in the name of their opinions, needs, and goals. It is much easier to mobilize, and later satisfy, a uniform constituency. When you bring in the needs of women, as well as various races, and income levels, pleasing your constituency becomes a whole new ball game. Your job is no longer devoted to the needs of one person but of many people. The line between good policy and bad policy becomes irrevocably blurred. What might be good for one constituent will not be good for the next. Your job is no longer just black and white; it is black, white, brown, yellow, red, rich, poor, middle-class, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, male, female…

In the 2000 presidential election, a recount was necessary in Florida to decipher some unclear results. After the recount, it was found that nearly 55% of the disputed votes were that of African Americans; when, African Americans constitute only 11% of the population in that district. There was a disproportionate quantity of minority disqualifications in relation to the reality minority population. Similarly, in low income districts, on average 4% of all ballots cast are not counted. Of course, these uncounted votes can be attributed to a variety of factors, which do not involve deliberate discriminatory behavior by election officials, such as lower quality voting machines, longer lines, or simply mistakes made by a less educated electorate (Wayne 28). However, much like low voter turn out, those factors are not necessarily the cause of uncounted votes, but are symptoms of a greater issue. With effort, low income areas could be provided with nearly all the democratic opportunities as higher income districts. Better voting machines could be provided. Higher qualified, outside workers could man the polls and watch for potential mistakes. More voting locations could be offered to offset long lines. Voting could be held on a Sunday or made a national holiday, so that those who could not otherwise get off work, would have the opportunity to vote.

Those changes are not made. For, in reality, government officials don’t really want to mobilize a diverse electorate that they can’t always be sure of. Diversity positively correlates with uncertainty.

But the truth is, even if those changes were made, it might not really make a difference. Sure, minority and low income voting is currently more difficult and less effective. But the issue isn’t physical, technical or mechanical. The issue lies in a sentiment that is sweeping the nation: the government doesn’t represent ME—who I am, where I am from, how much money I make, what I believe is right, and what I believe is wrong, and it never will. So why vote? 

Wayne, Stephen J. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007.