I had originally promised myself that I wouldn’t get too preoccupied with the 2016 election as subject matter for some of these first posts. But hey, with just two weeks to go until election day I might as well take advantage of the political season. Besides, I’m not familiar enough with either the Cubs or Indians organizations to comment on tomorrow night’s World Series Game 1, the other hot topic of the week.
With polling results favoring the Democratic nominee for president and shifting in support for down ballot Democratic candidates for national and state legislatures, both presidential campaigns have been turning their focus toward voter turnout. For the Clinton campaign there is a concern that complacency stemming from double digit polling leads will diminish support on election day. Meanwhile the Trump campaign, and the Republican Party as a whole, fear that the ever increasing realization among GOP faithful that their nominee is a train wreck will yield the same result.
For the Clinton campaign, higher turnout will help achieve the kind of landslide presidential victory that implies voter mandate, easing Congressional political resistance against the Executive agenda. Furthermore it could dramatically improve Democratic chances to regain valuable Senate and House seats, possibly even reclaiming a Senate majority. For the Trump campaign, which is largely in damage control mode, higher turnout will hopefully leave these same down ballot seats less vulnerable.
Political rallies are a seemingly endless display of scripted political theater with an occasional mention of actual policy. They are an exhaustive partisan scramble of ballyhoo and blather, hoopla and hullabaloo, with music, cheering, campaign signs, and the random act of violence against protesters. Naturally, the candidates typical approach for galvanizing support on election day is to appeal to voters’ loyalty to both candidate and party. Of course, as the electorate becomes more and more biased and divided, such as we see in this year’s election, the more logical this strategy becomes.
In a perfect democracy things would not work quite this way. Candidates and parties would be committed to public service in sheer pursuit of the common good, impervious to the influence of money and special interests. Voters would not only be educated to the proper role and limitations of government in democratized society, but also astute and knowledgeable about the suitability of candidates seeking office. Participation in the elective process would be the product of a strong sense of civic pride and duty. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as perfect democracy.
That’s not to suggest that imperfect democracy is the same thing as bad democracy. Democracy itself is a social construct, and imperfection is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, and as such the notion of imperfection is intrinsically implied in the idea of democracy. Plus, there are degrees of imperfection, and although there are plenty of things that are wrong with our nation’s democracy there are plenty more that are right with it. Still, it is helpful to keep and hold the vision of perfection as the gold standard that we can and should strive for.
Anyway, back to 2016. With two of the most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history vying for the nation’s highest office, there certainly must be something more than loyalty driving voters (especially early voters) to the polls. If nothing else then, it’s worth exploring this question as a wholesome diversion from the sloppiness of the past 18 months.
I came across an interesting formula for determining whether an individual will vote which was attributed to two researchers named William H. Riker and Peter Ordeshook, developed and introduced in their essay “A Theory Of The Calculus Of Voting” published in the American Political Science Review in 1968. The formula is as follows:
PB + D > C
where
P = probability that the individual’s vote will affect the outcome of the election
B = perceived benefit if the voter’s favored party or candidate were elected
D = the aforementioned civic duty
C = the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting
It was explained that because P is essentially zero, the product of PB is also near zero and effectively negligible in explaining why individuals vote. This leaves D as the primary motivation for voting which must exceed the cost and effort involved. The concept of D is developed further to include a) the social obligation to vote b) the desire to affirm one’s importance to the political system c) the desire to affirm the political system itself d) the desire to affirm a partisan preference e) a general interest and enjoyment in the political process(voters in this last group are generally referred to as “nerds”).
Based on this breakdown, the essential takeaway is that people do not vote because they foresee or expect personal tangible benefit from the effort. Rather, they decide to vote based on principle. While the details or nuance of the principle may differ slightly from individual to individual, the notion that the motivation to vote serves a higher, more honorable self interest remains consistent.
I see this as a powerful truth and a signal of hope for our electoral process and our democracy in general. While it is undeniable that the 2016 electoral cycle has been mostly messy and unattractive, particularly in the media coverage, it is equally undeniable that the country will emerge from it intact. It would be ironic if somehow we could achieve high turnout in spite of the political chaos. It would also be a source of encouragement if voters turn out not because the candidates are asking us to, but because we collectively understand the importance.
BP
Leave a Reply