The Non-Voting Way of Life

The Non-Voting Way of Life
by Josh London

Hmm? I find it odd that the pre-convention phase of campaign 2000 is almost over and yet I -- a confirmed political junkie -- feel completely unstirred by any of it. This is, of course, why I am not at all surprised that, as in Iowa, most of the American citizenry remains unmoved.

Indeed, it seems very likely that this year, as in 1996, most Americans who can vote will not vote. This usually raises the quadrennial barrage of the "failings of democracy" blather. I always find this most unfortunate.

Non-voting is a well established practice. The 17th century voting records for American towns, villages and the like indicate that, on average, voter turnout was only about 75 percent. I know what you're thinking, that's not too shabby, right?

But consider that in any given township there were probably no more than 60 or 70 men who might have been eligible to attend the town meeting and to have a hand in the collective decision making. Consider also that the topics under discussion generally involved making decisions that would be vital to the continued existence of the town. What's more, generally everyone in town lived within one mile of the meeting place, and absenteeism from the meeting was almost always met with a fine. Yet participation was not 100 percent -- in spite of the fact that the town crier personally visited the house of every latecomer half an hour after the meeting started.

Eighteenth century participation rates were even lower: 15 percent to 25 percent of adult male Bostonians, 10 percent to 25 percent in New England generally, 20% to 40% in New York and Pennsylvania, generally under 50 percent in Connecticut, etc. As sociologist Michael Schudson pointed out, "even in the Concord where Ralph Waldo Emerson boasted of 'the whole population of the town having a voice'", town meeting participation averaged at around 42 percent.

In the 19th century, little importance was attached to voting for candidates for federal offices. After all the federal government didn't do very much that was considered terribly important -- outside of the postal service.

Now, however, the federal government has its hands in virtually everything we do. Unfortunately, the governmental growth industry has left a bad taste in the mouths of many. Not to mention that so much of what directly affects our lives is determined and administered by those who are untouchable from the ballot box: judges and bureaucrats It is no wonder the citizenry remains un-enraptured by the arrival of each new election.

Many are convinced, however, that this is not only a problem, but that this requires a solution.

Why?

Ambrose Bierce pointed out that voting was little more than "the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country." Of course, the same might be said of running for, and holding, elected office.

Still, many point to the voter turnouts of other democratic nations, which are often considerably higher than ours, and insist that we ought to increase voter turn out across the board. Considering, however, that ours is the greatest nation on the planet, and that we have had low voter turnout through most of our national greatness, why do we feel compelled to mimic the civic patterns of other nations?

As it stands, voting in this country can't be much easier. As George Will recently pointed out that "among institutional impediments to voting, poll taxes are long gone, and nowhere is registration burdensome." I know people with all the intelligence and civic understanding of a violated parking meter who have trouble tying their shoelaces yet still manage to vote come every election.

Indeed, one might think that nothing could be done to render voting less taxing. Yet there is a growing movement to allow voting to take place via the internet. As if that will dramatically change voter participation. With all the other distractions and diversions that the internet provides, I think it highly unlikely that voter turnout will "rock the vote." Still, the sentiment is strong and, frankly, disturbing.

Our democratic way of life has worked in this country, in large measure, because few give a damn about voting for damnable politicians or damnable propositions. What, I ask, is so wrong with that?

Do we really wish to encourage the weak-minded, lazy, shiftless, addled and daft to contribute to our election outcomes? Just imagine all those Jerry Springer, Oprah Winfrey and pro-wrestling fans rushing to the ballot box. I'd rather give birth to a flaming porcupine, on the bottom of an igloo, while having a hemorrhoid attack than face such a nightmare.

As long as those who agree with me on matters of policy and politics wish to vote, the nation is, as far as I'm concerned, in good hands. I encourage all who disagree with me to stay home on election day and surf the net.