The US political train has gone off the rails, and it seems farther than ever from getting back on track. There has been a lot of finger pointing, with commentators blaming issues like gerrymandering, rising economic inequality, the campaign finance system and unbalanced journalism. However, the public cannot address these genuine flaws in the system directly. What they can do is tackle another fundamental problem: low voter turnout.
The beauty of democracy is that, if people vote, they can effect change. It might not happen as quickly as they would like, and the candidates might not always be ideal, but voters can still help shape their nation’s future.
Nowadays, many are politically disillusioned. With the rich and powerful pulling the strings, ordinary people feel that they have no influence on electoral outcomes. So, they conclude, they might as well not register or show up to vote. This behavior is most prominent among young people and some ethnic groups, particularly Latinos and Asian-Americans.
To be sure, complaints about US politics are not unfounded. Income inequality is on the rise, with the top 1 percent holding a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth, while middle and lower-class incomes remain largely stagnant. Moreover, there is too much money in politics, exemplified by the influence of interest groups like the National Rifle Association.
It is worth noting that in US politics, the money overwhelmingly goes into advertising and other campaign activities, not the pockets of corrupt officials. However, there is still an urgent need to address the outsize role of large donors. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for political contributions by corporations, should be reversed, and concerted steps must be taken to achieve greater income equality.
However, there is a way for the public to address both inequality and campaign finance: vote.
A citizen who stays home, rather than voting for the candidate they prefer, is merely reinforcing the impact of the fat cat who donates to the opposing candidate’s campaign. If people want any say over their nation’s direction, they must do their part to elect the most appropriate candidate.
As usual, in next month’s US presidential election, it is the Democratic candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose platform includes policies that will promote greater economic equality, including a more progressive tax system, higher wages and universal health insurance. With enough support in the US Congress, Clinton would enact these policies. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, favors the opposite policies: cutting taxes for the rich, keeping wages low and rolling back healthcare reforms.
Likewise, the Democrats want Citizens United reversed, whereas the Republicans want it upheld. Because the next US president will have the opportunity to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice (and potentially up to four), a vote for Clinton might well be a vote for overturning a decision that has contributed to voter disillusionment. While that outcome is not guaranteed, one thing is: An angry blog post about how the system is rigged, or a vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning, will have no effect — or worse.
In fact, a “protest” vote for an impossible third-party candidate can produce an outcome that is much farther from one’s own values than a vote for a candidate who has a platform more closely resembling that of the “ideal” choice. In 2000, the 2.9 million votes that were cast for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader cost Democratic candidate Al Gore the election.
While not all Nader voters would have preferred Gore to his Republican opponent, George W. Bush, evidence suggests that they favored him by almost 2:1. Had Nader supporters cast their vote for a major party candidate, they would have delivered Gore more than enough votes to secure his victory — he lost Florida by only 537 votes — and ended up with a president whose values were much more closely aligned with their own.
In the upcoming election, another Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, threatens to draw votes from Clinton, in favor of Trump. While Clinton might not be the ideal candidate for many of those voting for Stein, her platform is surely much more “green” than Trump’s. Yet protest votes, together with protest non-votes, could produce a decidedly brown outcome.
This risk should be starkly apparent, given the UK’s experience in its June referendum on EU membership. When it emerged that 52 percent of the votes were for “Leave,” many young people were furious; almost 75 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds wanted to remain part of the EU — but only one-third of them had actually voted. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of voters aged 65 and older cast their ballots, largely for Brexit. If young people had turned out at just half the rate of the old, the margin probably would have been reversed.
Some countries have found a way to boost voter participation. Australia, for example, has made voting mandatory, with a small fine for noncompliance; as a result, it achieves 94 percent voter turnout, on average, compared with 57 percent in the 2012 US presidential election. A less drastic step that the US might take would be to move Election Day from Tuesday, when some people cannot leave work, to the weekend. One might argue that voting should require motivation and effort to weed out those who are uninformed or uninterested in politics. However, this argument applies to only some of those who do not show up to vote. Many others, particularly in the US, follow the news and care about national politics, but stay home on Election Day because they believe their votes do not matter. However, the truth is that their votes will determine the outcome of the election.
US President Barack Obama said it best at the Democratic National Convention in July, when a few delegates booed the mention of Trump’s name: “Don’t boo. Vote.”
That is a message that must be repeated, like a mantra, until the election next month.
Jeffrey Frankel is a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and served as a member of former US president Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs