Sample Post ch. 1 “Is everyone really created equal?”

Within the first chapter of the reading Greenberg and Page layout three main benchmarks by which to grade a representative democracy: popular sovereignty, political equality, and political liberty. Popular sovereignty is defined varying degrees of the following:

Free and fair competitive elections to select government leaders
The people’s participation in the political process
Availability of high quality information
Majority rule
Government policy reflecting people’s wishes
Effective government policies

The book does well to highlight potential issues of majority rule, but does little else to provide specified examples of potential shortcomings of the American representative democracy. This post’s intent is to point out reasons that America could be considered a poor example of a representative democracy, specifically concerned with free and fair competitive elections and the people’s participation in the political process through the examination of voting trends. Two key points in the text worth noting in this discussion are listed below.

“…virtually all citizens are able to run for office and vote in elections” (Greenberg, 8).
“… the less political participation there is in a society, the weaker the democracy” (Greenberg, 8).

By these standards, America is weaker than we would like to think. Let me explain before you go up in arms. Able and capable have two very different meanings. To be able to vote, the Constitution offers that all persons of voting age are eligible to vote regardless of race, gender, or age (if over 18+) unless they’re otherwise incapable due to criminal activity (criminal activity will be revisited late). Capability is however a clear and extreme understanding of the ability. Example: I am able to write, but it is unknown if I am capable of writing a “5” blog post.

Beyond what the text already presents, there are three issues I have with agreeing that truly free elections exist: relatively low voter participation rates and non-violent incarcerated criminals lack voting eligibility. Feel free to fact check my stats, numbers, calculations, and information. There are periodic hyperlinks throughout my post to support what I present.

Low voter participation

Based on statistical evidence compiled on presidential elections, of the past 16 presidential elections the average eligible voter participation rate is 63.27%. This is even a lenient average, considering eligible voter participation has not been above 62% since 1976. To simplify the math and accept the reality of America’s two-party system, exclude write in and third party candidates (those that are not Republican or Democratic parties). “Majority rule” is then simply 1/2 of the percent of participating voters (on average 31.63%), plus whatever minute amount would give them more than the other party. This means that in reality, on average, we could expect that approximately 32% of the eligible voters are responsible for electing presidents. This is quite interesting considering a greater percentage, on average, 36.73% are not voting. By this standard, the United States has issues with the people participating. My question is why is this the case? These questions I have further bring into question why people are not voting as well. Are low paid workers incapable of voting because they cannot afford or are allowed to take time from work to vote? Are people incapable of accessing transportation to voting locations? Is it intentional or not? Are they turned-off by the politicians offerings? Do people simply not care?

2. Non-violent incarcerated persons lack voting eligibility

Previous stats provided on voter participation don’t take incarcerated people into consideration. Under John Locke’s notion of a “social contract” those persons having been arrested have broken the social contract, and by the Constitution have often forfeit their right to vote. There are many understandable reasons as to why this is acceptable: Would you really want a sadistic serial killer weighing in on who the senators will be? Probably not, which is why I do consider the Constitution and state laws prohibiting incarcerated persons from voting partially necessary. However, non-violent criminals I believe should have as much say, especially considering the direction of present political action. Drug legalization, both in sales and use has been under scrutiny as of late and heavily affect those persons incarcerated. Based on statistics from 2012 sentenced in 2012, drug-related offenders prisons total ~308,584 people and total non-violent criminals in both state and federal prison total ~214,100. That means approximately 522,684 non-violent people are ineligible to vote, a number greater than 2014’s eligible voting populations (individually) of Alaska, D.C, Vermont, and Wyoming. These numbers make me further question our notion of “free” elections.

These two aspects of popular sovereignty are not the only reasons I question America’s strength as a representative democracy, but they do make a decent case for reform in my opinion. Personally, I believe more should be done to encourage voter participation, perhaps by pushing for mandatory voting like 22 other democracies, even if your vote is “I do not like the candidates I have been offered,” “I don’t care,” or “By my personal standard, I am not informed enough to vote.” It may create a clearer picture of what American people truly expect of their government. Other pressing issues to popular sovereignty of potentially modern versions of Jim Crow present in public policy decisions like the closing of DMVs in Alabama’s predominantly black districts or the fact the majority of incarcerated are black.

I could easily go on, but I’m sure I have provided quite a bit to consider at this point. I look forward to your comments.