The Irrational Side of Voting

[5829]

http://www.livescience.com/culture/0811 ... story.html


Off to the Polls: The Irrational Side of Voting

By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer

posted: 03 November 2008 08:53 am ET

As millions of Americans head to the polls Tuesday, new research sheds light on the winding history of voting in America and our motivations for doing it.

A stronger belief in government and, in some cases, a passion for a particular candidate have driven more and more voting-age citizens to the polls, currently and in the past four presidential elections, one sociologist says.

But when it comes to the underlying reason why citizens vote in general, little has changed philosophically. Our propensity to vote has always been a complex mix of feelings and strategy, writes sociologist Andrew Perrin of the University of North Carolina in the fall issue of Contexts magazine, published by the American Sociological Association.

Voting is both rational and emotional, Perrin says. "It is a ritual in which lone citizens express personal beliefs that reflect the core of who they are and what they want for their countrymen, balancing strategic behavior with the opportunity to express their inner selves to the world."

That's why reason alone can't explain say why a significant group of citizens voted for Ralph Nader, who ran as an independent candidate for U.S. president in 2004. "A significant, obviously small, group of people thought they were best able to express themselves by voting for Nader even though there was never any possibility he was actually going to win the presidency."

Community ballots

Voting hasn't always been the hush-hush process it is today. Rather than strutting into a closed-off booth, citizens in the late 1800s voted in the open where others could see their choices. And political parties had their ballots printed up to hand to voters, who would then likely vote a straight ticket before handing the ballot to some official in front of a community of voters.

The voting scene changed in the 20th century as the Progressive movement swept the nation, focusing on all things rational and scientific. One reform in the voting realm was the so-called Australian Ballot, the secret, government-provided ballots we see today. Elections became fairer as rules prohibited, among other practices, personal rewards from being handed out by elected officials.

"It made voting much less what we would call corrupt now. It made it more about individual opinion and preference," Perrin said. "By making it fair, it also made it a lot less exciting, a lot less important, a lot less community-oriented."

He added, "Neither I nor anyone else would argue we should go back to that [community voting], but in a certain sense we did lose a kind of communal aspect to the voting act."

Voting as an individual

Among eligible voters, turnout in the 1800s was much greater than it is today, Perrin said. (African Americans and women weren't allowed to vote until after 1870 and 1920, respectively, when Constitutional amendments for such rights passed.) Since the early 1900s, voter turnout has hovered around a low of 45 percent and a high of 65 percent, roughly, he added.

The drop-off in voting participation is partly due to a loss of the community aspects of casting your ballot, Perrin suggests. In addition, an overall distrust in government also keeps voters at home on Election Day.

"I think there's an increase in basic cynicism in the capacity of government to be helpful in people's lives," Perrin told LiveScience.

He attributes such cynicism to the Watergate era, when political scandals ultimately led to President Nixon's resignation in 1974, along with former President Reagan's anti-government agenda.

Things are looking up, though, as more individuals realize the importance of government and along with that voting, Perrin said, noting the past four presidential elections as cases in point.

In 1992, a modern-era record-high 68 percent of voting-age citizens cast their ballots for U.S. president, according to the Census Bureau. In 1996, the figure dipped to 58 percent. Then it bounced back to 60 percent in 2000 and 64 percent in 2004.

"I think more people understand certainly with the communal feeling we got after 9/11, the huge controversy over Bush's wars and then the obvious importance of government involvement in the financial crisis right now," Perrin said. "All of that together has really made Americans recognize the power and importance of government in their lives."

He added, "So my guess is that we're going to see more voting, more involvement, more engagement."

[AYHJA]

"So my guess is that we're going to see more voting, more involvement, more engagement."

Ultimately, this should lead to better government...

[raum]

"So my guess is that we're going to see more voting, more involvement, more engagement."

Ultimately, this should lead to better government...

Except this not always true. there was more voter turnout in 2004 than 2008.

What is really how we end up with good government, but HOW we end up with new voters.

By the hundreds, there were people who this year were registered to vote, and then given the chance to pick up clipboards and get other people to register to vote and were paid to do so (within days it spread like wildfire). in exchange for picking up that clipboard and registering people, which they got paid for, they had to be registered to vote... and they got 30 dollar prepaid credit cards for 3 hours of work.

here is the issue. They targeted entire neighborhoods that were not registered to vote. in essence and actuality, they bought the registrations. HOWEVER, that voter turn out was actually very small compared to what people thought it would be.

but the votes that came from that voter block were BOUGHT. and that is a felony.

The issue was this campaign cycle used every single loophole they could create. and our govt is weaker for that. Because those people know nothing of politics, and their expectations are unreasonable.

That was all I wanted simple, clear, budgeted reasonable expectations.

Bustah Rhymes and Q-Tip in New York calling for people to dance to "We getting ARAB money" (pronounced air-uh-bah i.e. 'everybodies") and telling them to not spend a dime, take all their money out of the system and basically let the "republican america" die was delusionsal. People who think Obama is giving some huge block of wealth to the diseffected is just not going to happen. He is proposing already moderation from his campaign. I do hope his term(s) are net positive for the country in a way that is more clear for citizens, and I am willing to give him a chance to acheive that.

About eight presidents' term(s) are not obviously net positive, but are in some respect that is so crucial, and yet so hard to see.... They usually have blaring probems out in the open. We usually get a pretty good one after, and then we realize what the guy before him did, and opinions soften as in a good america.