Democracy’s Greatest Asset has Become Its Weakness

Lauren Patetta ‘17, Non-School News Editor

For a country that prides itself on democracy, America’s voter turnout has been abysmally low in recent years. The 2016 election saw a pitiful 55% voter turnout rate, the lowest in 20 years. This begs the question: why does a country that staged a revolution for the right to vote experience such low voter turnout?

There are a variety of reasons people refuse to vote, ranging from being too busy, to being out of town, to forgetting, to simply being apathetic. Another prevalent reason is a genuine dislike of both major party candidates. This dislike of candidates tends to lead to one, very ruinous result: abstaining from voting, which undermines the democratic system and prevents any change from being made in a corrupt political system.

In a 2014 study by the US Election Project, run by Professor Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, 8% of eligible voters abstained from voting because they disliked the candidates and their stances on issues. Although the nation is still counting the results for the 2016 election, the common theme pervasive throughout much of the electorate was a passionate dislike of both candidates, leading to voter abstinence. In fact, the unfavorability rates for the candidates this election season were the highest they have ever been—Trump polling at 64% unfavorability, and Clinton at 54%. As a result, voter turnout was incredibly low, because no one wanted to vote for unfavorable candidates. However, this is perhaps the most ineffective way to enact change in a democratic society.

Democracy relies on voter participation; without it, nothing can function the way it was originally intended. It is simple: if no one votes, the public becomes largely unhappy with who is elected, and no progress is made towards amending the system. Of all eligible voters in America, the largest percentage that vote are older, have a higher income, and are more partisan than the rest of the public. This means that lower income workers and the younger generation effectively cannot elect a candidate that would benefit them into office. This is a major problem, especially for the younger generation. The youth of America will be the ones inheriting the country, the ones who must deal with any problems caused by the upcoming president, and therefore, the ones who should be more concerned about voting to assure the candidate they support gets elected.

Change cannot happen if no one votes. Relying on the rest of the public to vote instead of on oneself will not enable any change to occur; rather, it often inhibits change in the system. Look at Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. He garnered a lot of support from the public because he vowed to help fix a flawed system, and many people found this incredibly appealing. Millennials were some of his most outspoken supporters, since they generally want to see the most change, but he ended up losing the primaries in part because people did not vote. The US Election Project again discovered that the primary elections saw a tiny 28.5% voter turnout—and this is considered higher than usual.

Sophia Ravaioli ‘17 expresses her aggravation with low voter turnout: “Honestly, what’s the point of democracy if no one is going to vote? The only way anything good will ever happen is if people band together and decide to elect a candidate who has actually promised to promote change. [We] Millennials cannot just sit down and hope that other people will vote for us; we actually need to do it ourselves if we want to see change for the better in society.”

Only about half of all eligible Millennials actually voted in the 2016 election, according to an NPR report. This low voter turnout is not at all conducive to democracy—not voting to “protest” the candidates only seems to guarantee that the candidate least likely to enact change is elected. Unfortunately, it is very hard to convince everyone to vote, especially when people are so adverse to the candidates.

One of the most effective ways of increasing voter turnout is by making voting mandatory by law. As the Australian Electoral Commission explains, Australia decided to make voting mandatory over a century ago, and although many critics argue that the point of democracy is the right to choose if you want to vote or not, Australia did see a 95% voter turnout rate in its last election. Despite some protests against the law, New York Times reporter Lisa Hill found that the voting process in Australia has a 70% approval rating. Although implementing this system in America would be difficult and would likely garner significant disapproval, it would, based on precedent, increase voter turnout.

Another potential solution is to change the election system entirely and allow room for third party candidates to succeed. As mentioned earlier, many people abstain from voting because they dislike the candidates, so offering more candidates could encourage more people to vote. An alternative voting system essentially allows one to rank the candidates on the voting ballots, with one’s top choice as “number one” and so forth. If the top choice candidate clearly does not have enough votes to win, one’s vote will be put towards their second choice. This allows room for third party candidates without angering the majority of the public. If implemented, it could also encourage more voters; however, it is relatively unheard of and it would be difficult to amend an entire voting system.

Finally, education can curb the low voter turnout. Perhaps the most logical solution, schools can educate their students on the candidates and their beliefs, and people can educate themselves as well. This leads to a more well-informed electorate, one that hopefully will realize the importance of voting and find a candidate with whom indviduals at least somewhat agree. After all, abstaining from voting to protest a system or candidate is not the best form of protest, as Olivia Lemgruber ‘20 explains: “People who don’t vote need to realize that their actions affect the entire country and do not actually spur any change. I think so many people forget that it’s a privilege to vote, a privilege many people are still fighting for—now that we have it, we take it for granted and don’t vote.”

Change is vital to aid a system with which so many disagree, but this change cannot occur if no one votes. Although abstaining from voting may seem like a clever way to protest the American election system, it undermines the purpose of democracy, which is that the public votes for its leaders. If everyone were to stop voting for who they want to lead them, all change would stop in the nation, and everyone would be even more discontent than before. People across America—Ridge students included—must act to assure that people vote to secure a better future.