Politics of voting for the apathetic intellectual

Paul Garcia / Staff Writer / The USD Vista

Youth are generally accused of being apathetic and therefore not politically viable. However, political apathy is not constrained to only one demographic.

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported that more than 122 million people voted in the 2004 election. In 2004, over 60 percent of the electorate, meaning eligible voters, turned out, the highest percentage since 1968. Still, tens of millions of voters do not show up to the polls even in the biggest election.
The conscious objectors, pessimists and apathetic people have legitimate questions during election time: Does the politician care about my concerns? Are we really democratic? Does my vote even matter?

My response might surprise you. The answer to those questions is often “no,” when it comes to federal elections. Why would I, someone who studies and covers politics, make such a claim?

Yale political science professor Robert Dahl can help explain. Dahl’s book, “How Democratic is the American Constitution?” challenges our “sacred text.” For those who thought this country was the model of democracy in action, there are some facts you should know.

First, the United States is a democratic republic, not a true democracy. This means that we elect officials to represent us.

Second, there is unequal representation in the Senate. The Connecticut Compromise of 1778 created bicameral legislation in each state; meaning, regardless of how many people live in a state, each has two Senators. Dahl explains this is an intentional “barrier to majority rule at the national level.”

If you move from California, population 36.5 million, to Nevada, population 2.5 million, your vote for Senate is worth nearly 18 times more. If you move from California to Alaska, population 680,000, your vote is worth nearly 54 times more. This could be disconcerting to residents of large states. Dahl concludes, “the inequality in representation it reveals is a profound violation of the democratic idea of political equality among all citizens.”
Third, there is unequal representation in the Electoral College. Dahl explains, “the vote of a Wyoming resident…is worth almost four times the vote of a California resident in the Electoral College.” In Wyoming there is roughly one electoral vote for every 170,000 residents. Conversely, if you live in California there is one electoral vote for every 628,000 residents.

The Electoral College indisputably promotes inequality of representation in the national election. People from the 10 smallest states in the U.S. have two to three times as much say in choosing electors as they would if state electors were strictly in proportion to the population.

Fourth, representative inequality and the Electoral College systemically impact the resources and attention given to each state. Resource discrepancy can be seen in federal fund expenditures per capita. After the last presidential election, CNN?reported federal expenditures in Alaska equated to $12,885 of federal funding per capita. Conversely California receives $6,474 of federal funding per capita.

The attention given to each state can be seen during the current presidential race where money spent on advertising and visits are predicated by how competitive a state is.

Realclearpolitics.com shows Obama clearly ahead in California 53 to 38. In California, Democrats have spent $5.5 million and Republicans $1.7 million on advertising. Obama or Biden have visited California eight times, McCain or Palin have visited four.

Conversely, Ohio is within the margin of error in the polls, meaning the state is statistically split between the two candidates. Democrats have spent $19 million and Republicans $12.5 million in Ohio. Obama or Biden have visited Ohio 14 times, McCain or Palin 19 times.

Finally, the Electoral College makes large states that have overwhelming support towards one party marginalize the opposition party. In 2004, 5.5 million Republicans from California voted for George W. Bush. However they did not receive one of the 55 electoral votes. Conversely, nearly three million people voted for John Kerry in Texas, however they did not receive any of the states 34 electoral votes. Their votes, quite frankly mean less.

The critical apathetic and conscious dissident are right, there are flaws embedded within the system. However, Plato cautioned these cunning non-voters some 2,400 years ago: “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” If that is the case, we should be relieved that the flaws in our federal elections are not prevalent in local elections. Locally, representatives are often determined by hundreds of votes, not millions, and every vote can be consequential.