by Tom Koecke

Created on: November 08, 2007

Who cares about voter apathy? The answer, of course, is we all should. However, we need to consider what voter apathy is, and how it affects democracy in the United States. Most people likely regard voter apathy only as having the right to vote, and not casting it. There is, however, a second type of voter apathy that is likely more significant.

The right to vote is something many people have died for since the Revolutionary War. The right to vote is something many people have fought for, from the suffragettes to black civil rights leaders. To not cast one's vote in light of the sacrifices others have made to assure that right seems disrespectful. It has also changed the outcome of elections. Perhaps the most famous picture of Harry Truman is of him holding the paper with the erroneous headline declaring "Dewey Wins!" The upset was the result of a combination of rallying by Truman's supporters, and apathy of Dewey's supporters.

Those who think with lineal process will conclude that the problem is resolved by exercising our rights to vote. Those who understand things with conceptual thought realize that if the imbalance causes problems one way, paradoxically it will also cause problems if imbalanced the other way. In math terms, it is called equal opposite. It is an important element in determining truth.

I would suggest this paradoxical type of apathy has more negative effect upon American society, and that career politicians and special interest groups rely on this type of apathy for selfish purposes. They use marketing slogans to create subjects that appeal to us, and to hide the real issue from consideration. They take advantage of this secondary voter apathy: voting for ineffective concepts that sound good.

When popularity is pitted against responsibility, popularity will generally get the most surface votes, though responsibility will get the most informed votes. It comes with the turf. When popularity skims deeply enough to prevail, there often are unintended consequences. Getting tough on crime sounds good, and is difficult to argue against. However, legislation that results in overturned decisions and systems that trap people may later be deemed counter-productive for getting tough on crime.

It also creates parental laws with flawed logic that result mostly in revenue for the government. We might envision the requirement to provide insurance protection to drive will prevent uninsured drivers from hitting us. If we are unfortunate enough to be hit by an uninsured

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>