One can always link the importance of emotions over reason to modern day cynicism. This has been a constant theme as the transition from logical fidelity to narrative fidelity
requires a shift from analyzing arguments logically to evaluating
stories emotionally. If the story of American politics conjures up
feelings of regret, shame, disgust, and anger, one is more likely not
to participate in that story or that it is not faithful to their
picture of themselves or the country. In light of decreased political
participation across all groups, perhaps there is less voter
participation at the polls, but that the venting of frustrating has
moved elsewhere. As more and more people turn to the Internet to express frustrations, remix images for humor, and participate in online interactions, voter participation has dipped over nearly all age groups and educational levels (Hollihan, 2008, Uncivil Wars, chapter 12).
I do
not feel that the skepticism in society can be controlled or
diminished until politicians change their methods of garnering
support, reaching out to voters, and campaigning. Considering that
the money and the votes are found more prevalently today in public
opinion polls, name recognition, and negative advertising and
debating, I do not have confidence that this will change in the
future, but perhaps there is hope in some new legislation that can
influence these decisions.
One
important way I feel that people can be more empowered is by
eliminating the electoral college. Although this has been a
proposition for a long time and many efforts have been thwarted, I
feel that this is one of the most important ways that people can feel
reinvigorated by the power of their vote. If a direct popular vote is
enacted, then candidates could no longer (or at least to a lesser
extent) preference certain states for advertising and visiting. More
of the public would have greater access to political information and
engagement opportunities. In addition, I believe that voting numbers
would increase as Republicans in “blue” states and Democrats in
“red” states could still attend the polls and be confident that
their vote was going to the candidate of their choosing instead of being lost in the electoral votes.
Many voters were undervalued in the elections in 2000 and 2004, when the popular vote gave the opposing candidate the win, but the electoral college (and the US Supreme Court) gave George W. Bush the presidency. How supportive of the governmental system can the public be expected to be when the direct voting will of the public is denied? When people in safe states can go an entire political campaign without hearing much at all from candidates but when swing states are inundated with information, advertising, and messages, how politically knowledgeable and active can we expect our nation to be? I believe that by removing the electoral college from presidential elections, more people will feel empowered to vote for candidates, much of the attention from candidates will be dispersed to all states, and people will not feel left out or cheated by the system.
Although there are many more steps that can and should be taken to make politics more engaging and equal for the public, the suggestion above is obviously an overly optimistic account of how easily politics can change. Part of the issue, of course, is that those in the system are the ones with the power and that make the decision to change the system. So, any type of legislation that will disadvantage incumbents is likely to fail. Fortunately, there has been legislation in the past and a current movement that has been ratified by 9 states with bills still moving through state legislatures, so perhaps this change is on the horizon.
What other changes would you be interested in seeing? Changes to campaign finance reform? Easy of access to voter registration? Increased civics requirements in public schools? There are many ways that the political system can be changed for the better, and I hope that more gain traction in the years to come.
Many voters were undervalued in the elections in 2000 and 2004, when the popular vote gave the opposing candidate the win, but the electoral college (and the US Supreme Court) gave George W. Bush the presidency. How supportive of the governmental system can the public be expected to be when the direct voting will of the public is denied? When people in safe states can go an entire political campaign without hearing much at all from candidates but when swing states are inundated with information, advertising, and messages, how politically knowledgeable and active can we expect our nation to be? I believe that by removing the electoral college from presidential elections, more people will feel empowered to vote for candidates, much of the attention from candidates will be dispersed to all states, and people will not feel left out or cheated by the system.
Although there are many more steps that can and should be taken to make politics more engaging and equal for the public, the suggestion above is obviously an overly optimistic account of how easily politics can change. Part of the issue, of course, is that those in the system are the ones with the power and that make the decision to change the system. So, any type of legislation that will disadvantage incumbents is likely to fail. Fortunately, there has been legislation in the past and a current movement that has been ratified by 9 states with bills still moving through state legislatures, so perhaps this change is on the horizon.
What other changes would you be interested in seeing? Changes to campaign finance reform? Easy of access to voter registration? Increased civics requirements in public schools? There are many ways that the political system can be changed for the better, and I hope that more gain traction in the years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment