Democracy Needs Care

Andrew C. Thomas

Sometimes I wonder exactly how deserving we are of democracy. We comfort ourselves with the idea that we live in a self-determining society, where people enjoy freedoms only dreamed of by those of the past and those who live in agony in oppressive cultures. But the system is a lot like the human brain; marvelous as it is, we’re not using anything close to its full potential. We cannot continue to disrespect it in good conscience, or even in self-interest.

Elections themselves are not confined to democratic societies. Before his ousting, Saddam Hussein was “re-elected” by a 100 percent margin with a startlingly high voter turnout (also 100 percent). But of course, it wasn’t the elections that kept Saddam in power, nor did extremely high voter turnouts reflect the interests of the people of the Soviet Union. One’s life being on the line is a compelling reason enough to turn out to the voting booths.

Realize one thing: once again, it all comes down to money. Studies have shown that as annual income rises, so does voter turnout. Putting it another way: people who pay more taxes care more about their vote (money does indeed talk). This is also why, among other reasons, richer societies tend to be democratic; because fundamentally, people exercise political force because they want more bang for their buck.

In terms of our own little democracy, I can’t say I care about class council or Undergraduate Association elections, nor do most MIT students. Recently voter turnout has increased, suggesting more is at stake here; in this case, the ease of online voting has contributed to that rise. But when it comes down to it, there are only two things I want that the class councils and UA can deliver: below-market-cost Red Sox tickets and a halfway decent Senior Ball. I have a feeling much of the class of 2004 agrees with me on this one.

Over all else, any real interest I have in the undergraduate political process must extend beyond free food. There must be an issue I care about, like the protection of freedom of expression on campus, or leaving Johnson Ice Rink up year-round, before I’m going to pay attention.

Ultimately, it will be the overwhelming size of an indifferent body in which to do democracy. For any real change to happen, the buck must stop with a small group. After all, votes count more when the voter carries a bigger fraction of the total power. That’s why small communities should be the battleground for social change like gay marriage. The debate cannot be properly waged without evidence for its effects on society, which is truly lacking at this point. On the smaller scale, the debate becomes refocused on the rights of individuals, but also allows for a broader overview of the consequences. The upcoming legalization of gay marriage across Massachusetts is going to do this, but I’m concerned it’s a missed opportunity. The end result will lack credibility if we can’t look at the results on a smaller scale. It’s just about as valid as interpreting sociological data by saying that each American is 81 percent white and 51 percent female.

Supposing we could even spark any true interest in issues, our mechanisms for voting are defunct enough that any quick change would be far too painful. Smaller scale experiments with preferential and proportional voting schemes are a start, but in the end it won’t be enough to fix democracy. The end of the spoiler effect might make the Democrats less afraid of the Big Bad Nader, but it won’t do a thing to quell the fears of the public that the government exists only for its own purposes and not to serve the people.

Lasting solutions will only be found when the public demands accountability from the government. But that’s never going to happen when the biggest swings in poll numbers come with the release of gossip, like John Kerry’s French connection which was not even germane to the debate about his prospective job (and patently insulting). Dirty politics works because the system is built to accommodate it. We shouldn’t be voting for the candidate with the best hair; we should be voting for the principles we wish to be upheld, or the pragmatic plan we believe to be the one to save the country.

Youthful idealism might power my need for this change, but when it comes down to it, voting really is wasted on the uninformed. To paraphrase Robert Heinlein in his novel Starship Troopers, the right to vote is the will to use political force, and force is the expression of violence. Without responsibility for the use of this force, the right to vote can be as dangerous as a loaded gun. We cannot in good conscience continue to wield this weapon of change without a true understanding of how to make it work.