The Importance and Misunderstanding of Voting

Over 120 million people voted last Tuesday as President Barack Obama won his second term.  I have had a great deal of fun speaking with my students on the election and from time to time, my status as a government teacher has also elicited questions from my friends.  Of all the questions and all the remarks I hear from others, two are brought up most often and need to be addressed. 

Remark one – I don’t understand the need for this “electoral college”; we need to get rid of it.  The Electoral College was initially devised as a check on an unpredictable and emotional electorate.  As a way of preventing the people from electing someone horribly unqualified or unsuitable for the position, the Electoral College was created by our Founding Fathers.  Today, it is has developed to serve another purpose.  If the election was strictly one based on population, candidates would focus their efforts in the major population centers only.  Places like Wyoming, Alaska or Nevada, states with low population and/or low population densities, would be ignored.  However, with a race to 270, the three to five electoral votes of some of the smaller states have a greater percentage of voice and influence on an upcoming election. 

Remark two – My single vote does not count/I live in a predominantly blue/red state and I’m of an opposite opinion....There are many types of comments like this that downplays the individual relevance of one’s vote.  This is the completely wrong way to look at voting.  The importance of voting is not based on whether you get what you want or whether your guy wins or not.  It is about having your voice heard.  In a world that increasingly frames things based on the individual, people have developed the wrong idea about the power of voting.  The importance of voting is that you have the right and responsibility to cast your ballot.  Governor Romney lost the election but by voting, I let the Obama administration know that one more person does not agree with his policies and must be considered when setting new policy.  Assuming he truly believes that he is president of “all Americans.” 

The United States and other democracies around the world share the responsibility to vote in a world where this right and duty largely does not exist.  Throughout the world, people struggle to have their voice heard and taken under consideration and increasingly, insecure dictators or quasi-leaders suppress or pervert the will of the people.  At the core of the power to vote is the people’s power to control their government.  That is why some “leaders” subvert the power to vote because they do not recognize the power of the people.  People who refuse to vote or don’t because they feel it does not count must keep this in mind.

 

Queuing Up For Community

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life.

            Aristotle, Politics  

For those above the age of forty, there might be memories of a community feel to your neighborhood where children played with one another, parents chatted and shared the dispensing of discipline and a general protectiveness of the neighborhood.  Strangers in the neighborhood were welcomed but asked their business.  New neighbors were greeted and made to feel a part of the communal esprit de corps.  In a great many neighborhoods today, that feeling no longer exists.  People are sequestered in their air conditioned homes and only come out and communicate with neighbors when the lawn needs mowing or watered.  However, I have experienced another example of community – the queue. 

About ten years ago, I was attending a baseball game and parked in the lot of a closed K-Mart, one I’d used before and one where about fifty others were using as well.  We made the long but manageable trek to the ballpark, enjoyed the game and returned to the lot only to find nearly seventy cars had been towed.  As the various fans gathered, we began to fan out, looking for a sign and sure enough, behind a tree, was a sign warning of towing.  In a society increasingly known for looking out for oneself, we gathered together and made a plan.  One person called the towing company to find out the cost of getting our cars out ($150) and another sought out the nearest ATM machine.

Together, we walked about two miles to the towing company and approached the window together.  In the midst of this line, I discovered that we were together, bounded as one in the face of injustice.  Injustice might be a bit overwrought but we did develop a camaraderie that night as we helped one another with answers to questions.  People before us told us the procedure upon stepping up to the company’s representative, jokes were shared that mocked the officiousness of the company and a general affinity for one another who shared the same predicament was evident. 

Yet, these types of instances need not be all bad.  Eight years ago, I queued up to vote in the presidential election.  People were excited and represented those willing and desirous of doing their civic duty.  Early on in my wait, it was discovered that a young man near the front was voting for the first time.  The citizens clapped and congratulated him and upon his exit, he was congratulated once more, this time with high-five slaps and handshakes.  I’ve always felt this congeniality when voting before and since but that day, it brought home for me the nature of Americans and their sense of community.

In the face of recent technological breakthroughs and cultural changes, there is much to bemoan about the loss of community.  I also honestly believe the future of our community is dependent upon the revival of physical, actual (non-virtual) communities.  Yet, there are moments where people break from their own lives and work and commiserate with one another in a genuine togetherness.  I wonder if this phenomenon is common in other countries.  Perhaps, other countries have not seen their sense of community erode the way it has here in the States.  I know that the U.S. is not devoid of this attitude and there are plenty of examples of it but it is not as strong as it once was.  Perhaps, we can take a lesson from the queue.  There is still something within us that craves this feeling. 

The Renewed Battle for States’ Rights

Historically, South Carolina seldom misses a chance to rebel against federal intrusion. From the Tariff of 1828, to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln to the 1948 states’ rights showdown with the Truman administration that formed the Dixiecrats, South Carolina has a collective, engrained sense of obdurateness that has done much to characterize the state. This week, as Republican candidates vie for the nomination of their party, the state has passed a law requiring the showing of photo identification prior to voting. To most states and many countries around the world, this might not seem strange or unusual, but in the United States and to the Justice Department, this is a malevolent attempt to keep minorities from voting.

Critics of such legislation have suggested that the cry for states’ rights is code for racism and that the law demanding photo identification will unfairly impact minority groups. First, no one linked race with respect to the identification card, code or otherwise, until the law’s opponents and the Obama administration did. Second, their assertion that only minorities will be impacted smacks of real racism. Why would minorities be adversely affected more than anyone else? They claim the cost of photo identification is prohibitive but if that is the case, would not any poor person, minority or otherwise, be equally affected? So, are we talking about race or economics? According to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicle’s website, the cost of a simple photo identification card in South Carolina is $5. Would not many declare the assertion that minorities could not afford $5 as racist? As seen in many political scenarios, the quickest way to shut down a conversation is to throw race into the debate.

What if the government paid for the identification card? Would opponents to the law and the Justice Department acquiesce? Given the level of vociferous condemnation, it seems unlikely. Therefore, what is the argument about? Regardless of their true intent, I’m not sure how much traction the Justice Department and opponents to the law can garner. Most Americans do not see an issue with asking for a photo identification to vote. Considering that countries ranging from the most dysfunctional electoral processes to the most advanced democracies use identification cards, there seems little that opponents can legitimately say without seeming capricious and irrational.

I’ve always thought that claims that certain laws adversely impact only minorities were a bit racist on their accord. This seems blatantly so. What about the idea of pulling together $5 over seven months is inherently prejudicial towards minorities? What about the process of getting said card beyond the money is particularly injurious towards minorities? It would seem that people should be more offended by the attack on the law than the law itself. This is not a question of policy; it is a question of race politics. It diminishes those who engage in it and the real examples of racism.

The Specious Case of John Lewis

For those who do not know, Representative John Lewis (D-GA) is a walking history book. While most people talk about ideals, Representative Lewis threw his hat into the ring and suffered unimaginable abuse and repeated imprisonment. As a young man growing up in Alabama, he had a front row seat to segregation and terrorism and endured through personal moxie and courage. He joined the ranks of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, heading up the organization in the early 1960s. He stood toe to toe against the forces of hate and rose to the highest levels of American society as a U.S. congressman. There is much to respect about Mr. Lewis.

For those sensing a “but” coming, here it is. As much as I respect Mr. Lewis, I am mystified and saddened by his current behavior. Following in the footsteps of hyperbole and race baiting so treasured by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the congressman has thrown out the charge of racism on items he simply disagrees with politically as a cheap shot and in the process, cheapened his life’s work. In doing so, he has diminished the attention on real cases of racism.

A year ago, Representative Lewis and others levied the charge of racism at a Tea Party rally at the steps of the Capitol. He and others claimed the activists shouted the word “nigger” as well as other racial slurs. The problem was that, in all likelihood, no one said anything of the sort but the story was misrepresented or fabricated to marginalize and radicalize a group that represents, whether one likes it or not, the concerns of a significant portion of the country. With so many cameras and iPhones about, the fact that not one camera or microphone picked up such slurs makes the charge all the more unlikely. However, Mr. Lewis and his supporters have won because the charges of racism with regards to the Tea Party have been proliferated and repeated so often, the group and charge are synonymous. It is a shame because there are a great deal of decent Americans who want to affect change but they are labeled racists by people with more microphones and TV time. Mr. Lewis did a similar character assassination with the McCain/Palin ticket, declaring the two and their audiences similar to that of famed segregationist, Alabama Governor George Wallace.

Now, Mr. Lewis has targeted the Voter ID bill. Throughout the world and in most functioning democracies, it is common that some form of a national photo identification is required, among other reasons, for voting. With stories of voting fraud that Mr. Lewis attempted to dismiss as miniscule in a recent speech, there is a need for more secure voting procedures. And, as much as a photo identification is required on a daily basis, any complaints seem to teeter on the edge of contrarianism. Rep. Lewis took it one step further by suggesting that such a law would unfairly target African-Americans. This is where I feel the congressman drifts from reality. Why would he assume that any sizable portion of America’s black population would not have a photo id? Is it me or does that not sound a bit racist?

Representative Lewis is an American hero and I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments both in the fight for civil rights and his service in the House. However, I would implore him to not use race in the debate against political opponents. Not only does it cheapen the true cases of racism but it also suggests he has nothing to argue, indeed, nothing to say.