Choice?

Hey! We got another comment! Sweet. I responded to it in the comment section, but this post may offer a better understanding of why we were having a discussion about the possibility of a third party. (Hopefully, fingers crossed)

The discussion last week got me thinking about the two-party system we have here in America. I find it a bit odd that a country of roughly 300 million people can leave itself with just two options in elections. Certainly there are a handful of rogue parties that occasionally get someone onto a ballot, and every now and again an independent gets on a ballot (And there is always Ross Perot to remember), but for the majority of elections, be it a presidential election or a lesser election, there are only two choices: red or blue.

There are many problems I have with this system. However, my main concern is the effect that a current system has on voter turnout. The two-party system (especially in the age of instant media) stymies political activism. Voter turnout has never been great in the US, this much we know, but why?
So let's look at some data:

Check out this list.

Our highest voter turnout was 81.8, and it was in 1876. From about 1840 until 1900 we were doing pretty decently, averaging in the 70's for voter turnout. Then something happened. Between 1840-1900 we had a voter turnout in the 60's one time, and it was 69.6 in 1862. In 1904 and 08 we were at 65%. 1912: 58.8. 1916: 61.6. 1920: 49.2. 1924: 48.9. So what was happening when this decline began? I mean we had a real good run there for 60 years, and then something happened. There are two things to note, the right to vote was extended to women and we really started reaping the benefits of industrialization. We have not cracked the 64% mark since 1908. Even with Obama this year we only turned out 56%.

I am sure that the sheer increase in potential voters added to the drop in 1920, but it still seems very strange to me that we have not rebounded back into the 70's for voter turnout rates since the turn of the century. I think you can place blame on a lot of the new inventions and culture trends that came about after 1900, like the radio and television, the car, the steel industry, etc. However, in our current culture it is very easy to access information and form a political consciousness. There are myriad ways that one can come to understand his or her government better. So if it is easier to get at, and we assume that most people want to know what they are talking about when it comes to political issues, why are we entrenched in these absurdly low turnout rates? Even in the last election turnout was not great. And in that election we had a failing economy and an incredibly inspiring candidate (Well, I guess voter turnout was only a little higher during the great depression, even when the system is sucking people's money up they can't get out there and vote). These numbers are also only applicable to presidential elections, the numbers for Senate and Congressional elections is even lower, and those government seats are much closer in proximity to the people in terms of effective representation than most presidential candidates (that's not really as knock on presidents, they have an entire country to try and represent).

I believe you can attribute some of the lack in political activism and acumen for the average american to the two-party system we have here. Perhaps the model of the two-party system isn't awful, but when used to govern over 300 million people at the same time it stifles the drive for the average citizen to give a shit about their political beliefs. It does this in three ways: 1) The adversarial two party american system promotes and rewards (socially) loyalty instead of open-mindedness, 2) the system tacitly fosters the idea that "winning" is more important than doing what is right (this is created partly by the onus on loyalty and partly by the competitive nature of our culture at large), and 3) the system leads people to be mildly aware of political issues they vote for, but doesn't require them to understand their point of view, or their vote, beyond the party label.

1. Because we are such a culturally competitive country I feel as if it is very hard to properly form a viable political point of view. For example, if someone is reaised in NY or in Alabama they are most likely going to be raised as a Democrat and a Republican, respectively. By the time they can vote there political "views" are inextricably linked up with there geography. Changing their mind, or giving the other side of the debate a charitable voice, would mean that they were doing a diservice to their political team. These are extremely general terms, but with 300 million people I think it is safe to say that most of them "decide" where they are politically aligned quite early, and loyalty to the party is rarely questioned. A manifestation of this (loyalty replacing political awareness) comes in the voting booth. Many people go into the voting booth knowing that they are going to vote for their top dog (whoever that is) and then they vote down the party lines for the rest of the people on the ballot. Many of these people they have not even heard of, and they know nothing about their politics. But they vote for them blindly. This is a wild phenomenom.

more on 2 and 3 later, the grind of work calls.