Anti-Climacus

LINK: I was amused by this Slate piece on why voting turnout is so low. Let's just say the gloves came off with this:

"Usually, the outcome of a presidential election "depends on the turnout of the Democrats." So says Nelson Polsby of the University of California-Berkeley. For once, I agree with a political scientist."

Good to hear. Mr. Geoghegan then proceeds to define Democrats ("people with hourly jobs, high-school dropouts, high-school grads, single moms, single dads—anyone at or below the median household income.") in a way I'm pretty sure is not an accurate reflection of their demographics, though I'm not an Americanist, so I could be wrong about that.

This was amusing:

"I know that the country's turned to the right. But we'd still have the New Deal if voters were turning out at New Deal-type rates. (Between 1936 and 1968, voter turnout in presidential elections fell below 56 percent just once. Since 1968, it has never exceeded 56 percent.)"

Mr. Geoghegan's sop to changing demogaphics aside, this looks like a weak argument. What does the alignment of voters in 1936 tell us about the alignment of voters today? Considering most everyone who voted in 1936 is dead, not very much. Since democrats have been getting their clocks cleaned regularly in presidential elections since 1968, and since voter turnout has declined since then, the only possible explanation is that democrats aren't turning out anymore. Alternate hypotheses that explain the same data: Roosevelt and Truman (and Johnson and Kennedy) were dynamos that everyone just naturally liked, which provided Democrats with a surplus of votes over what their normal support level would be. Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and McGovern weren't especially likeable. Other alternate hypothesis: many people were okay with the way Republicans were running things, and didn't feel the need to register disapproval by voting against the Rs (note this would also mesh well with a thesis that Americans have become more conservative over the last few decades).

Then there are the suggestions. Oy:

"First, offer two ballots, a long one and a short one. Let's call the short one Fast Ballot. President. Congress. Governor if there's a race on. That's all. You're done. Someone else will vote the long ballot."

Nothing like encouraging civic responsbility by making people not have to worry about those boring local races! And I'm pretty sure this is a good institutionalization of a violation of one-man, one-vote.

"One free drink. Let's take the 10 biggest population centers. In each one, set up a business-type council, full of media types and celebrities, to push voting. In September and October, have them sign up bars and restaurants to put up a red-white-and-blue logo on Election Night. What does the logo mean? With your ballot stub, first drink is on the house. Soon everybody will want to have a logo, the way in the New Deal, businesses showcased the Blue Eagle. Put the word out on college campuses. Get them to compete to throw the biggest party. Pump it up, the way we've done with Halloween."

I never quite grasped why it's a good thing to have people vote if they don't actually care about the outcome. Why not just go in, not vote for anyone, hand in your ballot, and get your drink? Or, better still, just randomly vote for candidates? I'd like to minimize the appeal of voting to people who don't know much about what's going on, but that's probably just my authoritarian tendencies poking their head through again.

"In October, in every public school, call the kids into assembly. Bring in the PTA. Bring in speakers. Tell the kids: "You have to vote. It's what America is about." Set the kids up with voting-related projects for the next month, and write letters to parents urging them to take the kids with them to the polls."

Yes, because we all know kids listen to speakers at assemblies and harbor great love for outside projects they're required to do.

"Ask college presidents to send a letter to every student telling them to register. Why? "Student funding. Financial aid." They'll get the message."

I'd wager that if you polled the average college student, they'd be aware of the fact that their financial aid is determined by the people they could vote for, and they probably don't care. It's an amusing fallacy to me that people think that if only people understood the importance of voting, everyone would do it. Makes about as much sense as Socrates' insistence that anyone who knew the good would always do it.