The first thing I should say is I have
been brought up in Australia. Australia is second nation (after New
Zealand) to implement universal suffrage in 1894. However, in
addition Australia has compulsory suffrage. Basically, every citizen
of the state must vote. Failure to vote attracts a fine. On
average, there is a 95%
voter turnout for an election.
I'd like to move away from how the
electoral college system works, Diebold voting machines, supreme
court rulings and suggestion of voter intimidation on the effects
they have on having a functioning democratic system, but simply how
apathy in the voting bloc could be considered a form of
disenfranchisement.
This isn't a
critique or a nationalist rant, but a perspective from an outsider.
It is no secret
that US elections have only averaged just above the 50% mark of
citizens voting. In hotly contested elections (such as Kerry vs Bush)
a larger percentage (67%) have turned out. On average that still
means more than 125 million Americans do not vote. To put in into
perspective, that is nearly five times the entire population
of Iraq, in which the US allegedly went to war for their democratic
rights.
It is argueable
that only ½ of the voting age population actually voting does
not constitute a fully functional democracy.
Why do people not
vote in Presidential elections? For many, the simple answer is 'Why
bother?'
The demographics
of voters tend to be 25-64 years of age and, basically white.
Under 25s, hispanics, asians and those with lower levels of education
tend to be the least likely (percentage of population). In theory,
the optimal would be the entire cross-section of the community. As a
result, political parties generally chase the lowest-hanging fruits.
It is more beneficial to appeal & sway the vote of a deomographic
that, historically, is likely to vote than to appeal & convert a
demographic that generally doesn't have a good turnout.
The low-hanging
fruit is predominately middle class, middle-aged whites.
There are two
effects of this. The first is that politicians (obviously) implement
that voting deomgraphic's will. Policy is skewed, not towards the
majority, but the majority voting demographic. Policies that appeal
to only 51% of 50% of the population could leave the other 75% of the
population worse off. I think we could all look Bush-ward for
ample evidence of such.
The
second effect is more cumulative & entropic. If this form of
democracy persists long enough, significant voter apathy sets in. The
'Why bother?' factor. In a system that perpetually ignores a section
of the community, then that section most likely does not perceive
value in voting, perpetuating the problem. Of course, in the real
world, Diebold, voting irregularities, voter initmidation and supreme
court rulings do nothing but exacerbate voter apathy.
So the question
is, does institutional voter apathy constitute a form of
disenfranchisement?
Personally, I
believe the answer is a strong 'Yes'. It is in my opinion, an less
cut & dried form of disenfranchisement and one that is not easily
overcome.
How does the
system correct itself without fundamental upheavals?
Resources:
http://www.eac.gov/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://www.census.gov/...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/...
http://elections.gmu.edu/