Fname Lname
Miss Johnson
English Composition I
November 16, 2006
Voter Apathy: The Causes and Effects of Not Going to the Polls
Few can doubt the corruptness and hypocrisy of American politics. Scandals hit the news daily. Senator A takes a bribe. Congressman B serves only lobbyists. President C cheats on his wife. Voters take note of these transgressions and of others within the political environment. They scratch their heads and wonder how things could possibly ever change. After all, all politicians, even those with the best of intentions, seem to debase themselves once in office. Therefore, voters wonder why they should participate in the process. They ask themselves how they could possible make a difference. Sadly, voters cite many reasons for not going to the polls, and these reasons keep true reform from occurring within the political process.
Certainly, of the many causes of voter apathy, a sense of pointlessness keeps voters from the polls. Unfortunately, many apathetic voters sense that their vote does not count. Their sense of futility further increased over the last few presidential elections. Even with such a close vote count in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, many voters realize the insignificance of their vote. The feelings of many voters concerning the Electoral College provide a prime example of this perceived insignificance. The Electoral College process boils presidential elections down to individual state races. In most states, the candidate who wins the majority of the state’s votes receives all of that state’s electoral votes, which negates the votes of those who vote for another candidate. Indeed, according to the National Archives Electoral College FAQ website only two states with few electoral votes, Nebraska and Maine, divide their electoral votes based on the popular state vote. Since large states like California and New York have such a large pool of Electoral votes, presidential candidates choose to spend their time focusing on issues important to these large states and on visiting these few states. Regrettably, voters from small states poor in Electoral votes find their states, their issues, and their votes ignored. Because of this inequity, this system diminishes the importance of individual voters, and these voters no longer feel connected to the election process.
Furthermore, they believe that politicians make campaign promises they can have no intention of keeping. Time after time, apathetic voters recognize the disingenuousness of politicians who seemingly promise voters whatever necessary to ensure their election. Whether an assurance of new projects for a Congressional district or a promise to eliminate the federal deficit, voters realize that elected officials inevitably will renege on the very pledges that prompted voters to cast ballots in their favor. Undoubtedly, when potential voters listen to the campaign promises of the candidates running for office, they remember the false guarantees of the past and therefore choose to not reward such deceit with their votes.
Since few who truly desire political change believe they have the power to cause this change, incumbents continue to dominate politics. This domination by entrenched politicians creates more of an aristocracy than a representative republic. This political entrenchment clearly shows itself in well-know political family dynasties. After all, most voters have heard often of the Kennedy, the Gore, the Eisenhower, and the Bush families. Candidates possessing these family names reap the rewards of name recognition, and voters often vote for names they know rather that for the views held by such powerful families. Moreover, once voters elect politicians to office, they face difficulty in removing these