With the upcoming election coming closer and closer, this article seemed very appropriate and extremely interesting. It does not take a Harvard professor to note that voter participation has declined recently, but Thomas Patterson does a terrific job of presenting the true issues at hand, the origin of the voting challenges, as well as some very realistic methods to ammend the problem. Patterson describes the optamistic positions of politicians during the 1950's in terms of an increase in voter turnout. College attendance was increasing, women were becoming more involved, and most voting restrictions had been eliminated. However, the predictions have proved false. The turnout dropped 26% since 1960 and has not risen since. Patterson goes on to explain that during previous American elections, the political parties were divided so sharply on very important issues, like the economy, that citizens remained loyal to one party or another. Since the economy directly affected every citizen, men and women across America showed up on election day, hoping to make a difference. However, once the government took control of many major economic crisis, several smaller issues began to surface during campaigns. It was difficult for candidates to then define their positions and had problems clearly stating what their parties even represented. To describe political parties has became a difficult and very broad subject. The media has also played an important role. Despite the fact politicians are able to reach out to their audiences in so many different ways, critics are now capable of publicaly finding canditates personal faults. As society becomes more complex, electoral participation has decreased. Lastly, Patterson explains that the campaigns have simply grown too long and "depressing". Advertisements have become increasingly negative and rather than build support for your own campaign, it is easier to attack your opponent. Personal blunders have exploded on a national level, and become more important than foreign and domestic policies. Ever since the campaigns started to begin earlier in the year, citizens have complained that it "drags" along. By the time the election day actually comes, voters have forgotten or become indifferent to many of the issues at hand. Finally, Patterson attempts to offer some solutions to save the decreasing voting turnout. He believes that national broadcasters need to broadcast more debates and convetions, considering this is where most voters get their infomation. He things the campaigns should be shortened so as not to drag out the process. Polling hours should increase and voting day should be a national holiday as well. He also thinks that if registration at the polls became universally availble, voter turnout would increse signficantly. This way, young adults would be able to arrive on election day and put their vote to good use. He concludes with the importance of voting. If the US wants to remain a government of the people, its people have to participate whenever they are able. Voting is the most basic step that can be taken. I think this article is very well written. Patterson clearly states the problems and their roots as well as a few very rational solutions. It is interesting to hear about voter turnout for this upcoming election. Patterson states that voter turnout was highest when the economy was in turmoil, and in the 2008 election, there is not much of a hotter issue. As a result, many have predicted that lower class and working citizens will head to vote this November in hopes that finally their voice will be heard and they will benefit from the new candidates election. I think this was a very important part of the article. When the economy is being affected, that means that the pockets of everyday citizens are being affected. This is when people start to express their opinions. It is clear that our country needs change. We are beoming a pessimistic society, one that trusts less about our government each day. It is therfore up to the people of our nation to stand up for what they believe and cast their vote this November.
Thomas Patterson’s Where Have All the Voters Gone? addresses the lack of voter participation that has gripped the nation in the last half-decade. Patterson’s articles do a great job of identifying and offering solutions to the problems that have led to the decrease in voters. Patterson cites the downturn of voter participation with the rise of the television in the 1960s. As television coverage of the presidential campaigns rose, negative campaigning became the strategy of each of the parties. Instead of focusing on the issues, “candidates have discovered that it is easier in many situations to attract swing voters by tearing down one’s opponent.” This choice of tactics has actually turned off as many people to voting as it has turned on. Patterson also identifies the length of the campaigns as an issue. In theory a longer campaign would mean that a potential voter would have more time to understand the candidates, but this is not the case. The length of the campaign has led to more extensive political platforms, meaning that a lot of topics are covered briefly, with few being covered in-depth. Patterson accurately states that “most citizens are not psychologically prepared to pay close attention to a campaign when Election Day is months away.” The elections of old, where candidates did not campaign until after the summer conventions, meant that only the most vital topics were covered. The topics covered in today’s campaigns are also another reason for the drop in voter participation. Because many of the voters basic needs are secured few feel the urgency to go out and vote. Many of the major topics such as civil rights, women’s suffrage, and others have been addressed in previous elections. Without major topics of debate, candidates are able to target their messages toward specific interest groups or minorities, whose votes and money are more valuable to political parties than those of the average citizen. The isolation of a large chunk of voters has left many feeling that their vote doesn’t matter. Patterson also suggested various solutions to these problems. The point with which I agree the most is the proposal that Election Day be made a national holiday. Many people who work for a living are unable to get to the polls in time to vote. This means that a large part of America, the hard working middle class citizens, are not able to voice their opinions. By making Election Day a national holiday voter participation would undoubtedly increase just by allowing a major part of the population the opportunity to vote. Patterson also cited the need for schools and other institutions to urge the citizens to vote. Once the practice of voting has been instilled, it is more likely that the trend will continue. I agree with Laura in that this upcoming election will see a rise in voter turnout. The state of the economy has made for a political issue that is universal. If there is one thing that will bring people to the polls, it is their financial situation. I think that this article was extremely well written and accurately addressed the issues of voter participation. Although the prediction of a self-government without voters is a little extreme, I think that it is vital that people become more active in politics. People need to realize the opportunity that voting allows and take advantage of it. Steps need to be taken in order to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to vote if they are willing.
In the article, “Where Have All the Voters Gone,” Thomas Patterson analyzes the decreased voter turnout that has recently become apparent in the United States. He starts out the article by describing what exactly has happened. In the 1950s voter turnout was expected to increase, as college attendance and the participation of women voters were on the rise. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Electoral participation significantly declined between 1960 and 2000, as illustrated by the low number of citizens who voted and the low number of television sets that tuned in to the presidential debates. After establishing what has happened, Patterson goes on to explain why.
Part of the reason why voters are disappearing has to do with the weakening of political parties. Before and during the Great Depression, parties were based on broad economic issues, which were strong enough to divide the people according to their interests. After FDR and Lyndon Johnson stepped in and repaired the economy, however, economic issues were less of a concern. Parties thereafter weakened as more varied and seemingly less important issues appeared. Economic issues were easier for voters to identify with, but with newer issues like school prayer, education, and the environment, it became harder for political parties to create a following. Furthermore, people became unsure of what the parties represent, and many still are to this day.
Patterson cites “the rise of the unsavory campaign” as another reason for low voter turnout. To many Americans, nasty, mudslinging campaigns in which each candidate puts the other one down are simply not appealing. Campaigns are largely centered around personalities and the mistakes of the candidates. The campaigns of today also do not stand on solid party platforms but rather on multiple promises made to different interest groups. People have thus become distrusting of the candidates, believing that they can not deliver all of their promises. On top of this, the lengthiness of campaigns makes Americans lose interest quickly and easily forget what the candidates stand for.
Patterson has excellent ideas to fix all of these problems. One of these ideas is to extend media coverage of debates and conventions, as television is the source of most Americans’ political information. Another is to shorten campaigns so that the public does not tire of all of the commotion and decline to vote come November. Lastly, Patterson suggests that structural changes be made to voting itself. The extension of polling hours and declaration of Election Day as a national holiday would allow more Americans to vote without having to worry about fitting it in around their work hours. Same-day voting registration also presents itself as an opportunity to allow more people to become involved.
I think Patterson’s article is very useful and informative. I found it interesting that Republicans oppose same-day registration yet they are ultimately not at a disadvantage when it comes to casting ballots on Election Day. I agree with Laura and Kaz that since a major issue in the 2008 election is the economy, there are bound to be more voters just as there have been when the economy was the issue in the past. In addition, this election is very controversial, as there is a black presidential candidate and a female vice presidential candidate. I think this will grab voters’ attention. I also feel that it is important for people to step up and vote so that we can continue the democratic tradition.
After the 1950’s marks the longest decline in voting history. In 1960 65% of the adult population voted at the presidential election. Where as in 2000 51% of them voted. It is strange to say that as technology increased that in 1960 60% of the nations televisions were tunes to the October presidential debates. In 2000, fewer than 30% were tuned in.
Why has this happened? Negative campaigning is greatly influenced by communication and the media. Candidates have never had so many communication weapons at their disposal, which can sometimes be a very bad thing. This negativity has many viewers discussed disliking nearly everything about the modern campaigning. Since candidates discovered it’s easier to attract swing voters by tearing down their opponent than talking about their own platform that takes up so much of the media. These ads account for well over half the ads featured in most races. In many cases policy has taken a back seat to personal controversies. Through the 1972 election this personal controversy did not receive nearly half the news coverage as policy. This takes away from the actually truth behind a campaign and voters may choose a candidate for personal reasons than political truth. This ties in with our next conflict which is viewers knowledge. In 1948 the platforms were less than 3,000 words in length, and they are not exceeding 20,000 words! A long time ago the parties would divide the public based on the simple issue of economics. Now the parties have large set of less comprehensive issues and these issues will usually differ from election to election. This makes it so confusing for the everyday American to even pick a party to support. Americans who are loyal to a party are twice as likely to vote than an independent. This is mostly because single values do not change from election to election and if you are a republican or democrat it is for the solid views that hardly change. Like republican views on abortion. So, if the independent viewed does not pay attention then they cannot form a conclusion if they did not take the time it educate themselves to figure out what they will generally always stand for. We are better educated now than in the 1950s though people have a harder time saying what the parties represent in present day. The length of the modern day campaign also discourages voters to follow the election and vote because so many policies can discourage them. Another reason Americans have lost interest is because many people believe politicians will say anything to get themselves elected. They feel politicians are full of empty promises. This is a major reason why 30% of low income people were more likely than middle to top income groups in saying the election would have little or no impact on their lives.
I do believe there are things that can be done to increase voter turnout. First off, the broadcast network could help by cutting down election coverage so as to be less overwhelming and more likely to be watched in smaller doses. Also, none of the 22 televised debates in the 200 election were broadcasted on prime time. I feel if that were done than more viewers would have conveniently watched it and had been better educated. I also believe that shorter campaigns would help American interest stay throughout the election season. In the early 1900’s campaigning did not start until after the summer convections. It is true that most citizens are not psychologically prepared to pay close attention o a campaign if the Election Day is months away. Changes in voting laws are also a necessity to increase voting. First off, hours should b extended for the average worker. Turnout would also increase if the Election Day was a holiday. I also agree with the registration requirement being looser. We should place eligible citizens on the registration roll instead of making the responsibility rest with the individual. If not that, all states should allow unregistered citizens to register at their local poll on Election Day. I also believe that schools can help influence 18 year olds and help educate them on how to vote. If many of these actions take place the problem can definitely gradually be fixed.
This article was very interesting and I thought all of his points were valid. It is a great topic to read during election time. I hope it encourages America to take the necessary steps in increasing voters for the upcoming election. I agree with Laura, and Kaz that like in the elections in the early 1990s the significance of economics in the election will definitely encourage voters to come out.
In his article, "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" Thomas Patterson does a great job of outlining the causes of the decline of voter participation and what our country can do to prevent it from continuing. In the 1950s, voter participation seemed to have a bright future, especially due to new and easier ways to get political information such as television, and eventually the internet, and also due to an increase in college-attendance and therefore the chance for voters to become more educated. However, the opposite of what was expected occurred, and instead of voter participation remaining steady or increasing, from 1960 to 2000 our country has witnessed the longest period of participation decline in US history.
Patterson does an excellent job explaining some causes of this decline. First, there are the changes that have taken place in the political parties. With Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, the US has been able to enjoy a much more stable economy, and therefore citizens have not felt as much need to vote in order to ensure their own economic stability. Also, with the emergence of new issues such as abortion, the environment, energy plans, education, and global trade, it is more difficult for citizens to be loyal to either party, since the issues are both too numerous and too crosscutting between parties. Patterson's second observation of change is of campaign politics. Voters are a lot less likely to vote for a candidate simply based on his party, which has placed campaign control in the hands of the candidates themselves. Another very important point that Patterson makes is the poor effects that negative advertising has had on voter participation, especially since campaign attacks have more than tripled since the 1960s. Candidates loose track of the issues because they are too busy putting each other down. A third point is the endless promises candidates make, which many citizens feel they can no longer trust. This causes voters to feel betrayed by their president and discourages them from voting each election. Along with promises, citizens also have to witness endless attention to candidates' personal controversies, which the media now spends about as much time on as the issues. For example, during this election many citizens are more likely to have known how many houses John McCain has or what goes on in the Palin household than to know where McCain stands on tax cuts or where Palin stands on gun control.
After making such valid points, Patterson also gives us a great list of ideas that the country could do to increase participation, if not in this election then at least in the next. The first is that broadcast networks should televise more of the campaign. For people who don't read the newspaper or access the internet, television can be a great way to educate voters. If networks were able to provide citizens with frequent and unbiased information on the presidential candidates, there could be a huge increase in participation. Also, Patterson suggests shortening the time period of the campaign. I strongly agree with this idea because it could condense the campaign to the important points, such as the debates, rather than the candidates' personal lives, and also keep the voters more focused and greatly anticipating the election. I think Patterson's best ideas are those regarding election day. If every state implemented same-day registration and extended its polling hours to convenience the working class - or better yet, declared Election Day a national holiday - the country would be likely to see a very great participation increase.
Although everyone has already said it, I have to say it myself that I agree that the lower class will be more likely to vote in this election. It is often thought that the middle and upper classes feel that the election affects them the most and therefore have a greater voter turnout, however this year with the economy being in the condition that it is, we are much more likely to see the lower and working class heading to the polls for change. I also agree with Kaz that it is very important for schools to urge citizens to vote. Just from taking this class for a few weeks, we are most likely more educated about the candidates and our government than many US citizens. If we don't teach our citizens about the issues and the candidates, they won't feel the need to voice their opinions on Election day. If we start educating citizens at a young age about the voting process, participation would be constantly increasing. The more educated the citizens are, the more opinionated they will be and the more passionate they will be about voting and therefore we can come closer to a true democracy. On one last note about democracy, although I am certainly not an expert on it, I feel that if our country was to rid itself of the electoral college, more people might be interested in voting. Even if a candidate has a majority vote, it is not guaranteed that they will win the election. That idea seems absurd to me, and I think that if citizens see that their candidate has a majority vote but still loses, it could greatly discourage them from voting in the next election, since it seems that their voices are not heard.
Before reading Patterson’s “Where Have All the Voters Gone?”, I was somewhat unaware of the serious decrease in voter participation since the 1950s, since I grew up in a house where I was always encouraged to follow the election and form my views on the candidates. I have always looked forward to the day where I could cast my vote and voice my opinion in The United States’ democracy, and I do not understand why many Americans do not take this opportunity on November 11th. However, by reading this article, I now recognize the changes in the party system, and campaigning that have caused the public’s interest and participation to wane. Patterson offers some realistic and attainable solutions to the mounting voter problem, that I believe if put to use could provide a solution.
In the 1950s, it seemed that voter participation had nowhere to go but up, as college attendance was rising, more women were voting, and literacy tests, and poll taxes were being removed. In spite of this, “the period from 1960 to 2000 marks the longest ebb in turnout in US history.” Patterson accounts for this lack of voting with the new behaviors and loyalty patterns of political parties, and the new trends in campaigning. Economic issues use to draw political party lines, and strictly defined the American public as part of one party or another. As the economy strengthened and people felt more secure, different social and moral issues, such as abortion, civil rights, the environment, and education became more important in elections. With the great amount of new issues, party lines were not as defined and people found it hard to commit themselves to one party, as they may hold a Democratic view on abortion, but a Republican view on the economy. This gave rise to independents. Parties are also having a hard time finding a message that inspires people to vote. Inspiring speeches like Franklin Roosevelt’s “the forgotten man” are very rarely heard today. Campaigning has caused a lack of participation as well. In recent years campaigns have become very negative. Political opponents run smear campaigns, trying to gain support, instead of promoting and educating the public on their policies. Candidates’ personal lives have also become a focus of smear campaigning, and scandals and controversial situations have become large parts of certain elections, instead of the views and ideas of the candidates, which I find incredibly wrong. Campaigns are also very lengthy, and voters tend to lose interest as the campaign drags on and on, and are not more educated or familiar with candidates’ policies. Finally, Candidates seem to promise anything and everything in order to gain support, and win the election. They fill their campaign with empty promises, which remain unfulfilled when they enter office. This has increased voter mistrust in government and the election process, and lead America to become a pessimistic, skeptical society.
To fix these problems, Patterson proposes that first elections should receive more coverage on television, especially during prime time, in order to spark more interest in the race. He also suggests that certain polling practices should be altered. Polling hours should be extended. Election Day should be declared a national holiday, and the US should adopt universal same-day registration. These simple alterations, could greatly assist in getting people into the voter booths, especially those of the lower and middle class, who may find it hard to find time to vote on an election day if they have a job. Finally, Patterson insists that schools and other institutions should be helping increase voter participation by assisting in registration and providing the proper education. Like Kaz, I think that schools are key in educating future generations of voters and promoting participation. I believe Tantasqua fulfills this role as it helps students register for voting, educates them on the issues and encourages them to vote. I also think that promotions to vote, seen on MTV and in magazines, aid in increasing young voters.
Patterson’s article is both interesting and informative. I think he does an incredible job identifying the problems with parties and campaigning that result in the dwindling public participation and interest in elections. His solutions are legitimate and attainable, and I believe they may assist The United States in rejuvenating citizens’ desire to vote. I agree with Laura, Kaz, and Jenna that in the current election, the importance of the economic issues may draw more voters to the polls, as they did before Johnson’s term. I also think that Emma made a very good point in saying that the potential election of Barak Obama, or Sarah Palin may attract voters. There has been much hype around these two candidates and many people are voting for a certain candidate solely due to their race or gender (which I find very unintelligent). To conclude, I believe Patterson made a very powerful statement in saying, “the nation will face the far greater challenge of how to maintain self-government when people don’t vote.” If current voting problems are not fixed they may worsen, and like Patterson stated the system will not be able to function without the input of the people. I believe that the United States should begin to focus on solving voter turnout problems and reduce certain political practices that have come into use, such as mudslinging campaigns, that take away from the real issues.
Tom Patterson’s Where Have all the Voters Gone analyzed the general public’s apathy on Presidential elections. Basically, since the 1950, there has been a steady decline in voters despite rising literacy and college attendance, removal of poll taxes and other legal barriers. When asked, many people frankly don’t care who is elected and chose not to know anything about the candidates. Patterson digs deeper to find the reasons why. Since post World War II, the issues of campaigns are not life changing. The economy was solely the matter of elections because it was also unsteady and needed guidance. After it had been stabilized and no longer needed government assistance, elections were forced to turn to other less predominant issues. With less economic resentment, candidates discussed civil rights, welfare, abortion, the environment, and education. Many candidates struggled to find a stance on these issues and many people were on the edge with some and could not find a single political party to stick by. Voters grew tired of the changing issues which made no serious impact on their lives and therefore saw little need to go out and vote because either way they felt secure. The “growing complexity of American society threatened the parties ability” to mobilize the public. Like previously said by Kaz, this election may bring together more voters because the campaigns are focusing on the economy once again. Many people feel as if one candidate or the other may “make or break” the economy so people of all social classes will cast their vote to change their lives. Campaigns are also becoming long and corrupt. This new style of politics includes a shift from political parties to candidates. Candidates are full of deception and concentrate on bashing the opponent instead of ones opponent. This develops a negative view of politics which I completely agree about. When the public hears nothing but bad things about candidates they don’t find one they like. They find themselves choosing the “lesser between two evils.” When many voters are found in that situation, they may decide not to bother voting at all. Campaigns are very lengthy, to the point where people can’t stand to listen to the same issues being dragged on again and again. If campaigns were to be saved until only a month or two prior, national debates and election coverage would be exciting to watch on broadcast networks. These “special” events would create a lasting memory and leave an impact when the voters go to the polls. In addition to shorter campaigns, voting must be encouraged for the public to come. As the article suggests, extending voting hours, or creating a national holiday in honor of the election, it would stir more of awareness for the election. Registration should also be automatically completed for the public. A registration, especially those in which must be done by a deadline, creates a sense hassle. Many find that voting is not worth it, but if all the voter must do is cast a single vote at any point during the day, voting would sure to rise. Like Emma, I also found it interesting that Republicans disagree with the “registering at the polls” idea. I believe this is because many inexperienced voters would be more inclined to do so. Inexperienced voters would be voting on whim, and may listen to what Hollywood tells them to do, in which many movie stars tend to be Democratic. Despite this belief, the result is contradicting. I found this article very interesting and I agreed with most of it. I was surprised to find that Patterson left out how to public often thinks that “their vote doesn’t even make a difference.” Jenna brought up the Electoral College versus popular vote. I disagree with her that it should be changed, but I would understand a voters apathy if they were a Republican in such a liberal state such as Massachusetts. The author doesn’t touch upon the issue of the potential voter who thinks their voice won’t be heard of everyone else’s.
The decreasing voter partcipation rate in the U.S. has been under great speculation in the past two decades or so due to a number of factors. Most of which Thomas E. Patterson's article "Where have All the Voters Gone?" discussed and explored post 1950 (the projected decade where voter turnout would increase but in reality decreased). Through a research program Patterson was involved in, Harvard University's Vanishing Voter Project, he was able to use the results of a number of public polls to make certain inferances and projections concerning the reasons for the lack of voters and possible methods of correcting the issue.
In the article,Patterson attributes the sharp decline in voter turnout to a number of factors. Most of which he gathered from interview results polled from different people. The begining on the article however, does not begin with any of these preliminary reasons, but by sharing the ironic twist in voter participation after the 1950's. In spite of the surge of college bound students, the closing gap between women voters and racial change that prevented some african americans to vote were begining to clear, voter turnout decreased nearly 14% when comparing voter turnout from 1960 to that of 2000. This could only mean one thing, that voter turnout was no longer a matter of eligibility, but a matter of conveniance, investment in the government and "a sign of the public's waning interest in the political campaigns".
One of the first "reasons" behind decreasing voter participation that Patterson adress in his article is the weakening of economic issues and the emergance of less comprehensive issues. Issues that were all important in elections, but were not "top of the agenda" material such as civil rights, street crime, school prayer, welfare dependency, abortion, the environment, education and global trade suddenly began to rise in caliber depending on that particualr election. The voters began choosing which social, economic or political issue was to be the highlight of the campaign, which in turn ovewhelmed political parties. Another point Patterson adressed in the article was the public's inability to identifing party positions despite the fact that americans were "better educated than they had been in the 1950's.." This lack of political understanding amongst the American people is one of the direct causes of lack of voter participation since it has been proven that Americans who have party loyalty lines are twice as likely to vote than those who are independants.
The article also addresses the relationship between socio-economic status and voter participation (or political activism for that matter. In fact, low-income respondants are 30% more likely than middle-top income geenrating groups to say that the election's outcome would have little to no impact on their lives, which in turn not only effects voter participation amongt lower income indivisuals but also contributes to lack of investment in the government. This leads to another point Patterson makes in the next few paragraphs, or rather what James Bryce said. James Bryce feared that "the growing complexity of American society threatened the parties' ability to forge and mobilize cohesive majorities". This is an immediate cause of the decrease in electoral participation and public participation in the voting process.
One of the main reasons that Patterson addresses in both his list of problems as well as possible solutions involves the mass media. As Laura mentioned in her response, media has taken a colosall part in nit-picking the faults in potential candidates and various political statements. Mass media not only has made politics readily available on some level to the general public, but it also serves as a critiquing platform for political analysts and the public. Not only that, but the media has begun focusing on the personal lives of political candidates rather than policies or party platforms. Television, despite having the ability to serve as a liason between the white house, capitol hill and Washington, have actually reduced election coverage over the past couple of years and television has limited coverage of various debates and conventions to the hours of broadcast coverage, which cuts the amount of viewers by a third. Patterson also mentions the lack of trust that the general population has in the promises of various candidates. More and more people have begun to feel that politicians will promise anything to get into office, which in turn decreases the amount of genuine support for that particular politician or party. Similarily, "unsavory campagin also leave a sour taste even with those who do vote" due to the excessive amounts of negative advertisements, statements, and commercials that modern politicians make in hopes of dimminishing the image of their opponent. Even the length of modern political campaigns have turned off voters. Compared to the approximate length of campaigns before 1972, modern political campaigns have begun at least 4 months or so before they traditionally had. This exstended amount of political coverage has the general voting population bored and apathtic by election time which might contribute to the lack of participation. And finally, Patterson adresses the faults that lie within voting laws and regualtions. Limited poll hours, registration deadlines and the lack of a national "election day" holiday are all factors in the decline of voter participation.
In the final pages of the article, Patterson presents an array of possible solutions that may spark more voter participation in the future. Suggestions such as more exstensive convention and debate covergae on television, longer poll hours, on the spot voter registration, an election day holiday are based off of the common complaints of the polled indivisduals and by replicating the models of other democratic nations that DO have higher voter participation. As many of my peers have mentioned in their responses, if these basic amendments are taken into account such as longer polling hours to accomidate lower income indivisuals, an election day holiday to encourage students and the working class to vote and on the spot registration may indeed salvage our dwindiling number of voters. These simple suggestions are not unreasonable and can be taken into consideration by the government if they too are similarily concerned with our country's decreasing voter population.
I found the article interesing over all and realzied after completing it that the information that the research group conducted and the points Patterson made were not entirely shocking, but basic common sense. Many of the responses that were gathered in the poll conducted by the research group were reasons i had heard from many voting eligible people around me including friends and family. The solutions that were presented were also fairly simple concepts to grasp that are pretty simplistic concepts to conclude. The article was well written and formatted nicely, and does a fair job in plotting the various faults that plague American campaigning and voting tendancies.
In every election from 1950 to the year 2000 voting has declined. Mr. Patterson does an interesting job on explaining why American voters refuse to vote. He uses two main examples for explanations why Americans are not in the polls on election day. Patterson also makes vague descriptions on how elections can be fixed and brought back to the golden years of elections. It is an interesting time to explore, what causes americans to not voice their choice.
Patterson outlines two major problems in the modern elections. One of which focuses on the fact of the numerous policies that differ between the two parties. Before Franklin Roosevelt's new deal the elections were simply based on major economic issues. Due to Roosevelt's New Deal the ecnomic issues that once fueled elections were drowned out. Through this "a large set of less comprehensive issues emrged." These new issues involved Civil Rights, school prayer,and welfare. From these even more new issues stemmed creating a very complex set of policies for each party to decide upon. This quantitative leap in the number of policies confused the American public and made voting much more difficult and in effect caused a decrease in voter turn out. The other issue facing modern elections is "The Unsavory Campaign". Elections are for a political candidates to voice their political views and to get you to vote for them. Candidates have now taken a different approach and now insulta and attack there opponents through mass media. These attacks combined paint a picture that neither candidate is good enough to be the next president. The public then becomes undecided and does not vote, agian causing the low voter turn out.
Patterson attempts to solve these problems by making voting and understanding candidates more accesible. Patterson's first proposition is to have the major broadcasting corporations televise the presidential debates in prime time so viewers are more likely to watch and develop their own opinions about the issues in the up coming election. The second idea he had was to shorten the election "season" because while citizens may understand a candidates view in February they forget that view by October. A third idea that Patterson had was to extend voting and registration hours. This would allow the working class man to get out of work and have enough time to vote because in some states voting is closed by seven pm. It would also be helpful to make election day a national holiday allowing more people the time to vote. The only problem is some would be voters are not registered. The next step would be to allow for registration the day of eleciton day. If this were to happen a predicted 5 percent increase in voter turn out would occur. Patterson does a very systematic job of laying out what should happen to increase the number of active voters in America.
I believe that Patterson did a great job of showing the major issues of voting in America. I found his "solutions" to be understandable and helpful but also a little optomistic. I don't agree with Haley, Laura, Kaz, and Jenna, haha I know once again. It's hard to believe that the trend in voting will suddenly turn around. Both candidates have many policies and have many cons to them. The common American will see two good candidates with flaws and good points. We will once again be faced with a low voter turn out and a confused American. Despite the lacking economy and a historical campaign on both sides. An increase in "votership" will not occur. Patterson said "The developments have diminished Americans' interest in election politics are deep rooted and unlikely to be reversed easily or soon." Here Patterson explicitely states it will take time for voters to come to the boothes. Overall I enjoyed this article and hopefully one day all of the American public will voice their choice.
The years following 1950 are marked by a sharp decline in voter participation. A number of factors can be attributed to this lack of voter participation, namely changes in media coverage, candidate behavior, political competition, as well as election law.
Patterson cites the importance of the economy in pre-1950 elections. The economy affects each and every citizen, regardless of class. The economic issue was a powerful one in elections prior and up to the 1950s. Political parties, therefore, based their platforms on the economic issue. The economic issue is such a universal one, as Kaz mentioned, that voters are drawn to the polls. However, as the economy has proved to be less of an issue in recent decades, presidential candidates focus on a number of other issues, such as the crime rate, abortion, environment, education, and global trade. As Emma stated, these issues are less comprehensive and they are not as unifying as the economic issue.
Furthermore, political parties are finding it increasingly difficult to clearly state their goals and ideas (in the face of the issues mentioned above). As political parties continue their struggle to appeal to prospective voters, these very same voters are struggling to form an opinion about the parties. According to the article, political parties are "relatively weak objects of loyalty and thought, which has diminished Americans' concern with election politics."
However, aside from weakly defined stances, many find that political campaigns are nothing but a battle of the negative. Policies no longer receive nearly as much attention as the personal blunders that one makes. Candidates no longer place importance on appealing to voters by highlighting the positive in their policies, instead they make a show of the flaws of another. Campaigns are no longer the informative processes they once used to be, and this change for the worse has, ironically, formed a negative opinion for many people. People simply find it exhausting to listen to the smear campaigns, as Haley mentioned.
The negative aside, Patterson also identifies a number of things that can increase voter participation, including an increase in campaign coverage, a decidely shortened campaign (as many voters cannot retain what they have learned about the candidates earlier in the year), and changes in election law. Patterson cites that an extension in polling hours and same day registration would be especially beneficial.
Virtually everyone is in agreement that the 2008 election is one in which we can expect a higher voter turnout. Laura made a point to mention that there is no "hotter" topic in this election than the economy. As in the pre-1950 elections, the economic issue was one which drew voters to the polls. Hopefully we can say the same for this one.
This article was very informative, and like Haley, I was unaware of the ever declining rate of voter participation. Mr. Pratt has mentioned several times that the United States has a high interest in politics, but ironically so, a low turnout of voters on election day. After reading this article I now have a better understanding of why this is so and the importance of voter participation. How can the people expect change when they do not effect change?
Over the past 50 years, the decline in voter turnout in elections has been obviously apparent. People just don’t seem to care anymore about politics. Fewer and fewer people pay attention to candidates or their positions, fewer are registering to vote, and even fewer registered voters are even voting! Patterson describes the downward trend in voter turnout; in 1960, turnout was nearly 65 percent. By 2000 it had dropped to nearly 51 percent, and by 2002 it was 39 percent.
One of the reasons for the decline in voter turnout is the failure of today’s political parties to create a stance that clearly separates them from other parties. Today, political issues that become part of elections are far more complicated than in the past, and because of this, it is difficult to compile a standard response to issues and say, “This is the platform of the Democrat/Republican party.” Voters often agree with the party “standard” on one issue, but then may disagree on another. Many people today can’t even classify themselves as one party or the other, but have to vote independent because voting on a candidate isn’t as simple as it once was. The complexity of today’s issues has turned many voters away because they don’t know or completely agree with a candidate’s policy.
Another issue that is reducing voter participation is modern America’s hatred of politics. Today, campaigns focus less on what makes their candidate a better choice than the other, and more on what makes the other candidate worse than theirs. Mudslinging, which was once a dirty campaign trick that candidates would resort to only if they were desperate, has now become common practice. Scandals and controversies have become nearly as important in voting as the candidate’s platform. Many potential voters are also turned off by a candidate’s failure to make a promise and stick to it. Paterson says it perfectly when he says “Today’s candidates build their followings by pledges of support to nearly every conceivable voting group.” Candidates make promises left, right, and center, and how many of them actually come true? Most people believe that a candidate will say anything to get elected (including my parents when I asked them), and as a result, trust in candidates is at an all time low.
In order to increase voter participation, certain changes must be made. Electoral hours should be extended. Patterson believes that voting hours should be extended past 8 P.M., but I disagree. I think that voting hours should be extended to a full twenty-four hours so that no one has any reason to say they didn’t have to time to vote on Election Day. Also, Election Day should be made a national holiday, to allow everyone time to vote. I think that voting is far more important than Columbus Day, but yet we get that day off. Voter registration should be extended until Election Day, and if it was made a national holiday, voters could register and then vote, and have plenty of time to do it. Also, in order to teach the importance of voting to young adults, high schools and colleges should assist students with voter registration, as well as set up voting stations in the school to allow those who are eligible to vote to do so during their school day.
Today’s lack of voter turnout is a major problem that must be fixed. America can hardly call itself a democracy if nearly two-thirds of its citizens don’t even bother to vote. Calling it an oligarchy would be more appropriate. I agree with David that voter participation is not going to change immediately, especially in this election, but changes must still be made, even if improvements only come slowly. Unfortunately, I think that this election is going to have one of the lowest voter turnouts because there is no candidate that has risen as the obvious choice. Both Obama and McCain have their good qualities, and both have their bad qualities. Each of the candidate’s platforms overlap and are similar in some ways, and then very different in others. Experience and political party affiliation are two major issues as well. Many like Obama because he is Democratic, and opposes many of Bush’s policies, but don’t like his lack of experience, and people think dislike McCain because he is Republican, but like his experience. For many Americans this election is going to become a decision between the better of two evils, and I predict that an even larger number of voters than in 2002 will just won’t bother to vote.
Thomas Patterson's article "Where Have all the Voters Gone?" discusses the changes in US elections and campaigns since the 1950s and the ways they have negatively affected voter turnout. Though more US citizens are college educated since the '50s and the gap between voting rates of men and women has shrunk, the percentage of voters in the 2000 presidential election was 14% less than in 1960, and only 18% of Americans voted in the 2002 congressional primaries. Clearly, something is keeping US citizens away from the polls.
Though voting requirements orginally created to keep African Americans, former slaves, from the polls no longer exist, there is still something keeping lower-income, less educated Americans from voting. The fact that polls only stay open until 7 AM in states, such as Florida, combined with elections scheduled on weekdays keeps many working-class Americans from excercising their right to vote. Only people who have time before or after work, or have a job that is flexible enough for them to take time off during the day to vote, are able to go to the polls. One of the most interesting points in the article is that some countries make their election day a National Holiday so everyone gets the chance to vote. I believe this is something the US should consider.
Another reason some Americans are not able to vote is because of restrictions in voter registration. In all but six states, deadlines for voter registration a week or two before elections are held. However, less than 20 perfect of citizens are aware of these deadlines, and many think they can register up to election day. This means that many possible voters, including young, well-educatted voters, do not get a chance to voice their opinion due to a useless, technical rule.
Aside from the voters who are physically unable to vote due to polling times and voter registrations deadlines, many Americans choose not to vote for varying reasons. The first that Patteron mentions is the change in campaign issues and how this affects political parties. Before the election of Fraklin Roosevelt, the focus of elections was on the economy, something that affected all Americans, and that they could easily understand. However, once the economy had stabalized, a multitude of overlapping, less comprehensive issues emerged. These include civil rights, education, the environment, abortion, and many others. These indiviudal issues do not affect the daily lives of all Americans, and they often do not follow party lines. Therefore, Americans do not feel as confident identifying with a certain political party, which leads to lower voter turnout.
Another thing keeping eligible voters away from the polls is the style in which modern campaigns are conducted. Negative campaigning and excessively long campaigns have led to Americans finding Presidential elections "depressing". It is terrible to think that excercising such a valuable right, which many people in the world are never able to do due to opressive governments, is thought of so negatively by Americans. Candidates and parties need to reform the way they promote themselves and perhaps start campaigning later in order to create the positive, optomistic atmosphere that should rightfully surround a Presidential election.
I think Patterson did a good job with the resaerch for this article, finding important statistics and asking questions that one might not necessarily think of when researching this topic. The results were also presented interestingly and explained clearly. Though I hope that Laura, Kaz, and everyone else who has posted are correct in their prediction that voter turn out will be up this election due to the economy, I worry that voters may stay away from the polls due to the clearly negative views many have on the election. Personal attacks against Sarah Palin and others against the experience of Barrack Obama already have Americans feeling bitter. Some may feel that the state of the economy is out of their hands at this point, and that their vote will not change anything. Others state that they do not like either candidate and therefore don't care who wins, rather than trying to find the lesser of two evils. All we can do is wait until November, and see if Americans live up to their responsibilies as voters.
In the article, “Where have all the Voters gone?” Patterson analysis why nearly half of Americans are ignoring their responsibility to vote for a national leader. The article begins with Patterson showing earlier statics in American elections. In 1950, voter participation was on the rise and political observers were optimistic about the future. However, the exact opposite happened. In 1960, 65% of the adult population voted, in 2000, 51%, and in 2002, 39%. The first major issue that drew away these voters was the economic issue. After “A safety net for the economically vulnerable was in place” by FDR and Lyndon Johnson, other issues that people didn’t seem to care about rose between the “weak” political parties. Election after election, these different issues included abortion, the environment, education, and global trade. People didn’t know exactly what a political party was, and still today, is an essential reason for lower voter participation. A second reason for fewer voters is the media. In the 50’s and 60’s, Americans were thrilled to see candidates and campaigns. Televisions were very popular also at that time. But today, these campaigns are negatively using media and are decepting the people meaning that people will do or say anything to be elected. Also, candidates speak much longer than they did in the past, which means that they continue to ramble on about several issues that they probably aren’t going to address except for one or two if they are elected. Furthermore, the candidates continue to attack the other party’s platform instead of worrying about their own stance on issues. But Patterson address several key concepts can be used to increase voter participation. One- debates should be broadcasted in prime time by a major company so more people with less cable can watch. Many people get their information about candidates from these debates and conventions. Second- As I mentioned, campaign length must shorten for people to be interested and straight to the point. Third- voting laws would also help this problem of the lack of voter participation. Polling hours can be extended and a registration requirement shouldn’t have to be fulfilled. The government should assume the responsibility of this. I thought this article was very useful in essentially answering the question, where have the voters gone. Patterson brings up great issues that should be addressed and gives several actions that should and must be taken for a better voter turnout. Honestly from this article I now know why people chose not to vote. In today’s election, I think we will see a tremendous rise in voters. Laura and Kaz bring up the great point about the economy and the recession we are going through. This is the number one issue that should be taken care of. But Emma also bring up an excellent point, race and gender will also play a significant role in this election because millions of Americans continue to see this as a problem still.
Thomas Patterson's "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" outlines the the reasons why the voting turnout for the presidential elections has declined so much since the 1950s. This decline is seen, not only in the voter turnout, but also in the waning interest in political campaigns. The decline in voter participation has been caused by changes in the political parties and media, candidate behavior, political competition, and election laws. The political parties are changing because of the issues that are springing up throughout society. Issues like abortion, the environment, and education has added moral perspectives that the parties must take a stance on. This has made it more difficult for political parties to appeal to the public, and therefore their campaign messages often have contradicting elements to them. Because of this, political parties' have weakened as the objects of loyalty. The media has also affected the elections. The length of the modern campaigns are often a turn off to the public, because they tax people's attention to the candidates. Also, the media is using the campaigns as a profitable business, not as a public service obligation. The candidate behavior during the campaigns is also a turn off to the public. The media has brought out the ambition, manipulation, and deception that has been prominent in modern campaigns. Candidates now think that it is easier to gain voters by tearing down their opponents, rather than focusing on their platforms. The politicians also make endless promises inorder to obtain pledges of support, and it is viewed that candidates will do anything to get themselves elected. Also, personal failings and gossip about the candidates are taking headlines in the media, instead of their policies about certain issues. Election laws are also a source of voter decline. Polling hours are very short. In some states, polls close at 7pm, and in others 8pm or later. The states that close earlier have a much lower percentage points that the states that close later. It is also said that turnout would increase if Election Day was a national holiday. The major obstacle in election laws is the registration requirement. "Government assumes the responsibility for placing eligible citizens on the registration rolls. In the United States, the responsibility rests with the individual." Although this is democratic, allowing people to make their own decision whether they want to vote or not, its sad that the government doesnt give people insentive to vote. In order to vote, they must take that many more steps before hand. In some states, it is allowed to register at their local polling place on election day. The percentage of turnout was noticably higher in these states. Young adults, who are more in tune to modern "political moods," are more likely to vote with the use of election day registration offered. In order to fix the problem of decline in voter participation, Patterson offers a few ideas. I agree with Laura and Chris that they were great solutions, that would be easy to put in place. The extension of campaign coverage over other areas of media would be beneficial to the viewers. Shorter campaigns, prefferably starting in the summer, rather than the spring of the election year, would have immediate effects on the public's attention to the campaigns. With a shorter campaign, the mudslinging of candidates and the unsavory campaigns may decline also. Polling should be extended to 8 pm or later on Election Day, or even better, Election Day should be a National Holiday. The registration requirements should be changed so that voters can register on Election Day, making the voting process less complicated. I believe that this article was very well written, and it clearly states the problems with our modern elections and gives obtainable solutions. I agree with basically everyone that says that the lower class will have a large turnout this year. The economic problems that the country is facing is taking its toll more on the lower and middle class then the upper class, and the war is taking away the lives of the lower and middle class' family and friends. I feel like these two problems will affect the public's interest in changing the policies in our country. Because the issues are so vital to our national security, I believe that it is really really important for citizens to vote this November, and I think that voter turn out will be higher than in the past.
In Thomas E. Patteron's "Where Have All The Voters Gone?" readers explore the decline of voting in America as a trend coordinating with a rise in increasingly personal, various issues, and a decrease in issues that once united political parties.
Since the middle of the 20th century, voter turnout has decreased immensely. Why? Patterson's time spent researching this issue has brought up a few good points as to why so many Americans are not exercising their right to vote. First, there is the issue of class separation; during the time of FDR and Johnson, most Americans - regardless of class - supported The New Deal and the Great Society. After the Great Depression and the Second World War, society and the economy were in absolute turmoil. Americans voted then because they were concerned for their well-being as a nation. However, with the aforementioned programs put forth by FDR and Johnson, economic and societal problems lessend each day. With safety nets in place and a stable economy, politics began to focus on other issues. What divided Democrats and Republicans in the first half of the century - the nation's economic well-being - took a back seat to smaller, more personal issues, such as education, abortion, and global trade. It became virtually impossible for each party to form a stable platform that would please a majority of its constituients due to the fact that many of these issues were a question of morality. Since that change in party focus occured half a century ago, party affiliation and prominence has decreased greatly. And with this change came another; that of the voting class. Lower income people voted in the early 20th century because the politics of that era were focused on their economic well-being. However, politicians have lost these voters because issues that vary from person to person - often times regardless of political affiliaton - are most important today, and have been for several decades. Therefore politicians aim at the class with the largest number of potential votes: the middle class. Despite the magnitude of the American middle class, voter turnout is still waning. Patterson expresses the ideas that political campaigns are done in such a manner that simply turns people off; excessively long campaigns, poor campaign messages, and unsettling promises have hurt politicians more than helped. Long campaigns simply leave voters worn out, and with a combination of all-too-specific campaign messages and too much "mudslinging," people simply become sick of it all.
According to Patterson, little can be done to repair this voter deficit in the near future. He does propose some ideas that could potentially stop its increase and, with high hopes, possibly restore at least some of it over a period of time. One point he seems to stress is shortening campaigns. He argues that even educated citizens become sick of the back and forth between overly ambitious candidates, almost forgetting the reason (platforms) they were there in the first place. His second argument is that if Election Day were more akin to that of other democratic societies,' then more people would be encouraged to vote. That is, if voting hours were extended for the sake of those who work, if Election Day was made into a national holiday, and/or if voters were allowed to register on Election Day. Patterson claims that any or all of these would encourage voters because they would not feel as pressured for time to vote, or feel helpless that they had missed a deadline.
Although I agree that this article has many good points and suggestions for the future, I agree with Carolyn and David: I don't think that the current issues will stimulate a significant increase in voter turnout. I believe that Patterson has found a legitimate pattern. However, I feel that if there is a spike in voting participation, the fact that this will be a historic election is going to be the main reason. I feel as though voter apathy runs too deeply within our society, as unfortunate a case as it is, and therefore I do not think the current issues our country faces, beyond whether our next president will be a Black man, or our next vice president a woman, matter enough.
In the article, Thomas Patterson observes that since the 1950's, voter participation has decreased, when the prospect for increased turnout at the polls seemed very good. What happened to the predicted increase in turnout?
According to Patterson, there are about a dozen reasons for this decline. One, issues don't have the power of previous years. There are many smaller issues of lesser importance that cannot win over voters totally. Two, parties have more intricate platforms than of previous years, and it is not easy to discern what they actually represent. Three, the working class does not feel involved or affected in the election. Four, parties cannot come up with a message to really compel and influence voters. Five, american society has become more complex, so appealing to large groups of people has become a more daunting task. Six, campaigns are very negative. Since it is more effective to tear down the opponent than to promote one's own campaign, there has been an increase in the negativity and mudslinging, and it is not appealing to voters. Instead of hyping how well the country will do if one is elected they tell how it will be negative if the other is elected. If both do this, it makes either option look bad, and the future of the country look bleak. Seven, Candidates are making promises to too many people and groups that it reduces the integrity of each promise that they make. Eight, campaigns are more like shows than an important government process. Nine, campaigning goes on for too long. People see the beginning of it too early, but tire of hearing about it when they should begin to pay attention.
There are some things that can be dont to remedy this. First, campaigns could be shortened. Second, broadcast networks could cover the election debates more. Also voting hours could be extended and registration could be made easier. Making the day of the vote a national holiday would increase the turnout because people would not have to worry about voting around work schedules.
In response to other posts, I disagree with the idea that this election more voters from the working class will participate because of the economic worry. I have not heard many convincing plans to fix the economy from either candidate. The most prominant issue is the war. Plus, even though it may be an issue for them, if they feel that the candidates plans will not affect them, then they will not vote either. Considering that legislation has concentrated on the middle class and the upper class more, the working/lower class will not feel that their vote will help THEIR situation much. Here is a general question for debate; Why not make the vote in America mandatory? if it is made a holiday, then everyone is required to cast their vote just like every child must go to school. it would ensure participation in government. If one really does not have a preference in the candidate then they can choose to write someone in, just pick one, or go with a minority party. Would it be a bad thing to enforce this?
The article "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" by Thomas E. Patterson brings up a topic that, as the election day of 2008 draws near, is on the minds of political figures. They want to know if they are going to get your vote or not. In the 1950s, political parties were strong in that they had clear outlines as to what they did or did not believe in. Many people were divided to either the Republican or Democrat side of things because their division was fueled by an important issue, the economy. After the issue with the economy was solved to a point where Americans were satisfied with it, the focus of elections changed. The focus changed to smaller issues that did not necessarily have clear cut party lines, and thus, many people became independent, or did not cast their vote. The political parties lost their strength and became weaker entities as their platform became more complex and vague. Since the 1950s, the election process has becoming much longer and much more public. People now see that the candidates running for office disgust them. The candidates have a more complex platform to run on which makes it so that a certain candidate doesn't fit everyone. People now feel as if they have to pick the candidate that agrees the most with that he or she believes. It is like picking the lesser of two evils. I agree with Emma in that the campaigns are now nasty battle fields where the candidates fight to see who can make the other look worse in front of the American public. This makes many people feel that the politicians are not completely honest about what they say. The campaigns are now drawn out for a long time, and the media cannot keep focusing on the same issues over and over, so they attack the personal lives of the candidates and we see less of what the candidates plan to do in office, and more about with whom they are sleeping. This is a disgrace to the electoral process, in my opinion. Patterson offers some ways in which voter turnout can be increased. First, we must look at the limitations in place on voting, such as time limitations, election day being on a work day, and polls closing early at night. This makes it more difficult for people to get to the polls and actually vote. Also, universal suffrage is not necessarily universal, in most European countries you are automatically registered to vote, where as here in the United States you must sign up. This leaves it to the people to sign up, and they do not know when the deadline to register is. Many of these issues have simple fixes, with automatic registration for all being the most difficult, but it is a start in the right direction to get more voters to the polls on election day.
After reading this article by Mr. Patterson, I was pleasantly surprised that he presented historical references and put forth possible remedies to the decline in voters. The 1950s were marked by national growth in terms of college enrollment, an increase in female voters, and the destruction of barriers to enter the political landscape. The 1960s however, began a downward trend in voter participation and knowledge of the political party platforms began to decline. One statistic offered by Patterson describes that in 1960, 60% of television households watched the october presidential debates, while 30% watched in 2000. Personally, I do not think that this comparison is particularly reliable, as tv was still a relatively new good carrying a limited number of channels and drawing in a limited audience. Since then, technology has evolved considerably, giving the average person more viewing opportunities than Hogan's Heroes and politics.
One interesting point made by Patterson is the idea that since the 1950's, political parties began to adopt more of a platform on various issues. The state of the economy no longer became the principle issue. Social issues(abortion, civil rights, etc) soon became topics of discussion, and as Amanda correctly pointed out, gave the people reason not to be avid supporters of either party. In this way, there could be a fiscal conservative with pro-choice sympathies.(Rudy Giuliani) If McCain were judged by 1950s standards, he might have even qualified as a conservative, whereas now, that is not the case.
Patterson also points out that the size and scope of political campaigns have turned largely negative. Ads criticizing a candidates stance on a particular subject are commonplace, yet I think Patterson is giving the campaign too much credit. The growth of technology has allowed people a larger role in the political landscape. With the internet, people can find information about a candidate's personal life and exploit it, which really liberates the campaign from becoming too unsavory. Even when the Clinton Campaign leaked information about Reverend Wright to the large media outlets, the mudslinging became the role of those outlets and the people who watched them, essentially allowing the Clinton Campaign to wash her hands of any involvement. Therefore, the media and public are more heavily invested in the unsavory side of politics than the actual campaign.
Patterson has some interesting ideas to increase voter participation. Listening to candidates announce their intentions nearly two years before the general election was overdoing it in my opinion. On one side, it would have been pleasant to shorten the unpleasant eight-month question: Who is Senator Obama? However, shortening the election cycle might lead to compiling negative attacks at a greater rate than people can digest.
The idea that registration should be automatic seems to be somewhat flawed in my view. If a person is well versed in political matters, that should be enough incentive to register. Those who would be automatically registered would not necessarily have any knowledge of the candidates. I imagine that an automatic system would only increase voter fraud as opposed to the desired goal.
I would also have to disagree with Patterson in which he said Cable does "not have the audience delivery capacity of the broadcast networks." If that were the case, people would not be so adamant in their dislike of Fox News or MSNBC.
"Where have all the voters gone?", its a question many of us do not think about these days. Its almost as though people not voting has just merged into our everyday lives and we just except it. Thomas Patterson refused to except this and decided to get to the bottom of the "vanishing voter".
The "vanishing voter" is not based on one simple problem driving voters away it is caused by many problems all together. The first problem is that the parties are not as strong as they had once been. Today very few people could tell you how each party felt about each issue. The parties have few issues that they can be hard core against or for. Yes, some issues such as abortion they can be but the major issues in this election ,such as Iraq, have flexibility. With the issue of Iraq there are so many ways of going about it that some may like a piece of McCain's plan and a piece of Obama's. With a mixture of issues and confusion of parties most people are declaring themselves "self-described independents". The parties grow even weaker by spreading themselves out in an attempt to reach everyone in our diverse country.
The next three problems that are causing the "vanishing voter" are triple whammies. The first is the never ending promises given out by each candidate to the American people. After 43 presidents the American people know by now that a lot of those promises are empty and eventually the candidates sound like broken records. The second problem is the negative campaigns. The candidates try to bash one another until, in the candidates mind, the voters see one candidate better than another. However, just like yelling fights in school you just want to scream "ENOUGH ALREADY YOU KEEP CALLING EACH OTHER THE SAME NAMES OVER AND OVER AGAIN". It may seem interesting at first but like the empty promises the negative campaigns get old really fast. The last problem Patterson found is just the cherry on top of the when does this end sundae. The final problem is the length of the campaigns. In the early part of the 20th century the campaigns didn't begin until the summer convention. Today the campaigns begin in the winter months. That amount of time for campaigning is ridiculous. The average brain can remember 7 numbers when learned in a short period of time, could you imagine trying to absorb everything brought to the campaign floor in the flash of a television screen from winter to election day? It would be almost impossible. Most citizens don't even watching the campaigns from start to finish because of this.
Instead of just telling the American people why they are abandoning the polls Patterson also decided to provide solutions to both the citizens and the government. The first suggestion is that the broadcast networks pick up the campaign slack and air more of the election coverage so it is easily seen throughout the population. The second suggestion is that the voting laws be changed so that the polls are opened longer and registration to vote is easy and can be performed on the election day. Patterson also plays with the concept of possibly making the election day a holiday so people wouldn't have to choose between voting and work. Voting should work for the people not the other way around.
The article provided great insight into the world of the voter. It provided statistical evidence to support each theory and it was easy to understand. I agree with Patterson's findings of the the "vanishing voter" and I also believe that his solutions sound possible. Very few of these solutions can be seen today such as media advertising to vote. Many television shows have created episodes especially to reach out and get people to vote. Even commercials like the MAYTAG REPAIR MAN are subtle hints to get out and vote.However, larger steps must be taken if our nation wants to end this epidemic of the "vanishing voter".
Thomas Patterson's "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" addresses the extreme decline in voter participation from the 1950's. In his articles, he discusses the issues that have led to decrease in voters, due to the public's loss of interest in political campaigns. Patterson also suggests viable solutions to the voter participation problem. For many years, elections were based on economic issues that greatly affected every American and developed strong interest in the presidential campaign, as well as loyalty to a political party. Once many of these economic issues were solved by the government, many less distinct issues were at hand(i.e. civil rights, welfare, environment, education); none of which were as general as the economic issue. Political parties could not build a solid campaign around any of these issues, because they were too "crosscutting" and neither party could address all these issues in a way that would create a following of voters. Because of this, there is no party prominence and awareness. When people are not made aware of distinct differences in parties, they will not recognize the options that either party could make available to them. The statistics show that people with strong party loyalty have a higher tendency to vote than people who call themselves independents. Next, Patterson notes that the decline in voter participation has been most noticeable among the lower-income Americans. People at the bottom half on the income ladder will vote half as much as people at the top half. He explains that during time of economic harship, the issues highlighted in political campaigns greatly affected the working-class Americans. In 2000, lower-class Americans were 30% more likely to say that the election had no impact on their lives, which would obviously discourage them from voting. Candidates struggle to find a message that can relate to a majority of voters. "A century ago, James Bryce worried that the growing complexity of American society threatened the parties' ability to forge and mobilize cohesive majorities". I think that this quote is very appropriate to the drop in drop in voters. Candidates cannot develop a common message to satisfy the complex needs of American society, because that message does not exist. Americans are starting to see a lot of negativity in presidential campaigns. Much of what Americans see during a campaign is manipulation, deception, and ambition. Candidates exploit the fact that it is easier to attract undecided voters by attacking their opponents, than by discussing their political stance. Negative advertising has tripled since the 1960's, and account for over half of the ads in political races. Research indicates that Americans who think that candidates base their campaigns on negative messages were less likely to pay attention to news about it, and therefore less likely to cast an educated vote, or any vote at all. Lastly, Patterson says that the campaigns have grown much too long, and people get bored and lose interest by the time election day arrives. They may in fact know more about their political party 6 months prior to the election, than they do on election day. Patterson suggests solutions to stop the decrease in voter turnout. He believes that broadcasting companies should increase coverage of events such as debates, and national conventions and also put them in prime time. In 2000, fewer than 2 million voters watched the average debate, where 10 million watched a debate in prime time broadcast. This is frightening because this is where most voters get their information. Also, Patterson suggests a shorter campaign. He says, " Most citizens are not psychologically prepared to pay close attention to a campaign when Election Day is months away." Also, because they have been paying attention for so long, they are not highly attentive to the campaigns as they are coming to a close before election day. Patterson believes that restrictions on polling hours are the reason for alot of the decline in voters. Many states only keep polls open till 7 or 8 pm, which discourages the votes of low-income workers who are stuck at their jobs. One strong point that Patterson makes is that election day registration should be a national practice. Studies show that in 2000, states who have election day registration had a turnout 15 percentage points higher than elsewhere. Lastly, Patterson makes the point that schools and universities need to do a better job of educating students and helping them register to create a lifelong tradition of participation in elections. I think that Patterson makes many valid points in his articles that I fully agree with. It is very obvious that our country needs change. Our government is by definition,"rule by the people" and if people don't vote, then what will our government become? If less and less Americans participate in elections, and the vote becomes more concentrated among high income citizens, than aren't we heading towards an Aristocracy?
Thomas Patterson's "Where Have All The Voters Gone?" is a shocking view at the unintended reasons for recent voter apathy. He cites the specific pitfalls of the interest of politics in society. Many are inadvertent effects of the modernization of political campaigns. He offers solutions to these problems and notes that unless something be changed in the near future, the prevailing downward spiral of voter participation will continue. The multiple reasons for this pattern are vast. Patterson gives most of the blame to the media. He believes that the economic issue that clearly defined two parties decades ago is gone, and an economic safety net was put in place by Lyndon Johnson. For this reason, politics are less likely to have a life-altering effect on the majority of the voting public. In modern elections, the issues and stances taken by the candidates are not clear cut whatsoever, and many issues overlap and contradict each other, making it more difficult to remember a candidate's views as well as endorse one. People often do not vote because they do not support either candidate. It is difficult because many times there are some policies voters agree with, and others that they do not. The one defining issue of an election is no longer a norm. This has decreased partisanship throughout the years. Most recently, candidates have begun to target the middle-class voters and create initiatives based on their wants and needs. For this reason, low income voters do not participate because they are not the concern or focus of politics and their lives will remain seemingly unchanged no matter which candidate prevails. Due to the vast number of electoral concerns, campaign messages have become increasingly difficult to spread. There are too many positions to take on too many issues for a single message to suffice. In addition, through the course of the campaign process, these views grow and change and contradict each other. The trend of mudslinging introduced in the mid 20th century has also had a negative effect on voter turnout. People have begun to dislike and distrust the mean spiritedness of campaigns and feel that ambition has overtaken morals. Currently, a candidate’s personal past is magnified for all of the public to see, increasing the probability of a reason for distrust among voters. Ironically, negative advertising currently accounts for over half of the ads featured in most campaigns. In a time when voter turnout is low, candidates want to persuade people to flock to the polls and thus they make impossible guarantees. These promises, many believe, are a lie that will be told simply to win the election and indeed not an actually pledge. Candidates promises encompass a variety of groups making up the voting public and it is impossible to keep all of these without contradicting some. This has created an even greater sense of distrust towards politicians. Finally, one of the largest reasons for concern among voters is the campaign is too long. After hearing about candidates for a year or more, people become immune to the messages and frankly forget about the issues. All is not lost with the trend of voter apathy. Patterson suggests a multitude of solutions. He believes that major broadcast networks are not fulfilling their obligations and they should put debates on primetime so they can be viewed by all. He also argues that a shorter campaign would be more effective and well endorsed by the public. By extending the polling hours, lower income workers would have an easier time voting and the registration process should be simplified to include same-day registration. He also believes that agents of political socialization can help encourage voter participation. These include schools, churches, the media, universities, non-profit organizations, unions, and corporations. By instilling a solid political background and inspiring an interest in politics, voter participation will rise. What I enjoyed most about this article was its consolidation of such a variety of problems and solutions and the fact that is was very easy to comprehend. Patterson did a great job of laying out the issues in such a way as to inform the reader while suggesting fixes. I do agree with these fixes and think that a great deal can, and should be done to increase voter participation in the United States. In addition I also believe that until a campaign issue is found that will effect everyone’s lives, or the problems are fixed, voter apathy will continue. I disagree with Kaz in that the economy will draw people towards the election. I think that people who usually do not vote, will not because they are not well educated about the economy and have faith that it will rebound. I do think that the diversity of 2008’s candidates is a reason for larger voter turnout in the African American community as well as among feminists. However, those who are biased against either group in any way may feel dissuaded from participating. It is not the variety of the candidates or the severity of a few, select issues that will draw the voters in. It is the willingness of the government and society to take the initiative and take steps towards increasing voter participation.
24 comments:
With the upcoming election coming closer and closer, this article seemed very appropriate and extremely interesting. It does not take a Harvard professor to note that voter participation has declined recently, but Thomas Patterson does a terrific job of presenting the true issues at hand, the origin of the voting challenges, as well as some very realistic methods to ammend the problem.
Patterson describes the optamistic positions of politicians during the 1950's in terms of an increase in voter turnout. College attendance was increasing, women were becoming more involved, and most voting restrictions had been eliminated. However, the predictions have proved false. The turnout dropped 26% since 1960 and has not risen since. Patterson goes on to explain that during previous American elections, the political parties were divided so sharply on very important issues, like the economy, that citizens remained loyal to one party or another. Since the economy directly affected every citizen, men and women across America showed up on election day, hoping to make a difference. However, once the government took control of many major economic crisis, several smaller issues began to surface during campaigns. It was difficult for candidates to then define their positions and had problems clearly stating what their parties even represented. To describe political parties has became a difficult and very broad subject. The media has also played an important role. Despite the fact politicians are able to reach out to their audiences in so many different ways, critics are now capable of publicaly finding canditates personal faults. As society becomes more complex, electoral participation has decreased. Lastly, Patterson explains that the campaigns have simply grown too long and "depressing". Advertisements have become increasingly negative and rather than build support for your own campaign, it is easier to attack your opponent. Personal blunders have exploded on a national level, and become more important than foreign and domestic policies. Ever since the campaigns started to begin earlier in the year, citizens have complained that it "drags" along. By the time the election day actually comes, voters have forgotten or become indifferent to many of the issues at hand.
Finally, Patterson attempts to offer some solutions to save the decreasing voting turnout. He believes that national broadcasters need to broadcast more debates and convetions, considering this is where most voters get their infomation. He things the campaigns should be shortened so as not to drag out the process. Polling hours should increase and voting day should be a national holiday as well. He also thinks that if registration at the polls became universally availble, voter turnout would increse signficantly. This way, young adults would be able to arrive on election day and put their vote to good use. He concludes with the importance of voting. If the US wants to remain a government of the people, its people have to participate whenever they are able. Voting is the most basic step that can be taken.
I think this article is very well written. Patterson clearly states the problems and their roots as well as a few very rational solutions. It is interesting to hear about voter turnout for this upcoming election. Patterson states that voter turnout was highest when the economy was in turmoil, and in the 2008 election, there is not much of a hotter issue. As a result, many have predicted that lower class and working citizens will head to vote this November in hopes that finally their voice will be heard and they will benefit from the new candidates election. I think this was a very important part of the article. When the economy is being affected, that means that the pockets of everyday citizens are being affected. This is when people start to express their opinions. It is clear that our country needs change. We are beoming a pessimistic society, one that trusts less about our government each day. It is therfore up to the people of our nation to stand up for what they believe and cast their vote this November.
Thomas Patterson’s Where Have All the Voters Gone? addresses the lack of voter participation that has gripped the nation in the last half-decade. Patterson’s articles do a great job of identifying and offering solutions to the problems that have led to the decrease in voters. Patterson cites the downturn of voter participation with the rise of the television in the 1960s. As television coverage of the presidential campaigns rose, negative campaigning became the strategy of each of the parties. Instead of focusing on the issues, “candidates have discovered that it is easier in many situations to attract swing voters by tearing down one’s opponent.” This choice of tactics has actually turned off as many people to voting as it has turned on. Patterson also identifies the length of the campaigns as an issue. In theory a longer campaign would mean that a potential voter would have more time to understand the candidates, but this is not the case. The length of the campaign has led to more extensive political platforms, meaning that a lot of topics are covered briefly, with few being covered in-depth. Patterson accurately states that “most citizens are not psychologically prepared to pay close attention to a campaign when Election Day is months away.” The elections of old, where candidates did not campaign until after the summer conventions, meant that only the most vital topics were covered.
The topics covered in today’s campaigns are also another reason for the drop in voter participation. Because many of the voters basic needs are secured few feel the urgency to go out and vote. Many of the major topics such as civil rights, women’s suffrage, and others have been addressed in previous elections. Without major topics of debate, candidates are able to target their messages toward specific interest groups or minorities, whose votes and money are more valuable to political parties than those of the average citizen. The isolation of a large chunk of voters has left many feeling that their vote doesn’t matter.
Patterson also suggested various solutions to these problems. The point with which I agree the most is the proposal that Election Day be made a national holiday. Many people who work for a living are unable to get to the polls in time to vote. This means that a large part of America, the hard working middle class citizens, are not able to voice their opinions. By making Election Day a national holiday voter participation would undoubtedly increase just by allowing a major part of the population the opportunity to vote. Patterson also cited the need for schools and other institutions to urge the citizens to vote. Once the practice of voting has been instilled, it is more likely that the trend will continue.
I agree with Laura in that this upcoming election will see a rise in voter turnout. The state of the economy has made for a political issue that is universal. If there is one thing that will bring people to the polls, it is their financial situation. I think that this article was extremely well written and accurately addressed the issues of voter participation. Although the prediction of a self-government without voters is a little extreme, I think that it is vital that people become more active in politics. People need to realize the opportunity that voting allows and take advantage of it. Steps need to be taken in order to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to vote if they are willing.
In the article, “Where Have All the Voters Gone,” Thomas Patterson analyzes the decreased voter turnout that has recently become apparent in the United States. He starts out the article by describing what exactly has happened. In the 1950s voter turnout was expected to increase, as college attendance and the participation of women voters were on the rise. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Electoral participation significantly declined between 1960 and 2000, as illustrated by the low number of citizens who voted and the low number of television sets that tuned in to the presidential debates. After establishing what has happened, Patterson goes on to explain why.
Part of the reason why voters are disappearing has to do with the weakening of political parties. Before and during the Great Depression, parties were based on broad economic issues, which were strong enough to divide the people according to their interests. After FDR and Lyndon Johnson stepped in and repaired the economy, however, economic issues were less of a concern. Parties thereafter weakened as more varied and seemingly less important issues appeared. Economic issues were easier for voters to identify with, but with newer issues like school prayer, education, and the environment, it became harder for political parties to create a following. Furthermore, people became unsure of what the parties represent, and many still are to this day.
Patterson cites “the rise of the unsavory campaign” as another reason for low voter turnout. To many Americans, nasty, mudslinging campaigns in which each candidate puts the other one down are simply not appealing. Campaigns are largely centered around personalities and the mistakes of the candidates. The campaigns of today also do not stand on solid party platforms but rather on multiple promises made to different interest groups. People have thus become distrusting of the candidates, believing that they can not deliver all of their promises. On top of this, the lengthiness of campaigns makes Americans lose interest quickly and easily forget what the candidates stand for.
Patterson has excellent ideas to fix all of these problems. One of these ideas is to extend media coverage of debates and conventions, as television is the source of most Americans’ political information. Another is to shorten campaigns so that the public does not tire of all of the commotion and decline to vote come November. Lastly, Patterson suggests that structural changes be made to voting itself. The extension of polling hours and declaration of Election Day as a national holiday would allow more Americans to vote without having to worry about fitting it in around their work hours. Same-day voting registration also presents itself as an opportunity to allow more people to become involved.
I think Patterson’s article is very useful and informative. I found it interesting that Republicans oppose same-day registration yet they are ultimately not at a disadvantage when it comes to casting ballots on Election Day. I agree with Laura and Kaz that since a major issue in the 2008 election is the economy, there are bound to be more voters just as there have been when the economy was the issue in the past. In addition, this election is very controversial, as there is a black presidential candidate and a female vice presidential candidate. I think this will grab voters’ attention. I also feel that it is important for people to step up and vote so that we can continue the democratic tradition.
After the 1950’s marks the longest decline in voting history. In 1960 65% of the adult population voted at the presidential election. Where as in 2000 51% of them voted. It is strange to say that as technology increased that in 1960 60% of the nations televisions were tunes to the October presidential debates. In 2000, fewer than 30% were tuned in.
Why has this happened? Negative campaigning is greatly influenced by communication and the media. Candidates have never had so many communication weapons at their disposal, which can sometimes be a very bad thing. This negativity has many viewers discussed disliking nearly everything about the modern campaigning. Since candidates discovered it’s easier to attract swing voters by tearing down their opponent than talking about their own platform that takes up so much of the media. These ads account for well over half the ads featured in most races. In many cases policy has taken a back seat to personal controversies. Through the 1972 election this personal controversy did not receive nearly half the news coverage as policy. This takes away from the actually truth behind a campaign and voters may choose a candidate for personal reasons than political truth. This ties in with our next conflict which is viewers knowledge. In 1948 the platforms were less than 3,000 words in length, and they are not exceeding 20,000 words! A long time ago the parties would divide the public based on the simple issue of economics. Now the parties have large set of less comprehensive issues and these issues will usually differ from election to election. This makes it so confusing for the everyday American to even pick a party to support. Americans who are loyal to a party are twice as likely to vote than an independent. This is mostly because single values do not change from election to election and if you are a republican or democrat it is for the solid views that hardly change. Like republican views on abortion. So, if the independent viewed does not pay attention then they cannot form a conclusion if they did not take the time it educate themselves to figure out what they will generally always stand for. We are better educated now than in the 1950s though people have a harder time saying what the parties represent in present day. The length of the modern day campaign also discourages voters to follow the election and vote because so many policies can discourage them. Another reason Americans have lost interest is because many people believe politicians will say anything to get themselves elected. They feel politicians are full of empty promises. This is a major reason why 30% of low income people were more likely than middle to top income groups in saying the election would have little or no impact on their lives.
I do believe there are things that can be done to increase voter turnout. First off, the broadcast network could help by cutting down election coverage so as to be less overwhelming and more likely to be watched in smaller doses. Also, none of the 22 televised debates in the 200 election were broadcasted on prime time. I feel if that were done than more viewers would have conveniently watched it and had been better educated. I also believe that shorter campaigns would help American interest stay throughout the election season. In the early 1900’s campaigning did not start until after the summer convections. It is true that most citizens are not psychologically prepared to pay close attention o a campaign if the Election Day is months away. Changes in voting laws are also a necessity to increase voting. First off, hours should b extended for the average worker. Turnout would also increase if the Election Day was a holiday. I also agree with the registration requirement being looser. We should place eligible citizens on the registration roll instead of making the responsibility rest with the individual. If not that, all states should allow unregistered citizens to register at their local poll on Election Day. I also believe that schools can help influence 18 year olds and help educate them on how to vote. If many of these actions take place the problem can definitely gradually be fixed.
This article was very interesting and I thought all of his points were valid. It is a great topic to read during election time. I hope it encourages America to take the necessary steps in increasing voters for the upcoming election. I agree with Laura, and Kaz that like in the elections in the early 1990s the significance of economics in the election will definitely encourage voters to come out.
In his article, "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" Thomas Patterson does a great job of outlining the causes of the decline of voter participation and what our country can do to prevent it from continuing.
In the 1950s, voter participation seemed to have a bright future, especially due to new and easier ways to get political information such as television, and eventually the internet, and also due to an increase in college-attendance and therefore the chance for voters to become more educated. However, the opposite of what was expected occurred, and instead of voter participation remaining steady or increasing, from 1960 to 2000 our country has witnessed the longest period of participation decline in US history.
Patterson does an excellent job explaining some causes of this decline. First, there are the changes that have taken place in the political parties. With Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, the US has been able to enjoy a much more stable economy, and therefore citizens have not felt as much need to vote in order to ensure their own economic stability. Also, with the emergence of new issues such as abortion, the environment, energy plans, education, and global trade, it is more difficult for citizens to be loyal to either party, since the issues are both too numerous and too crosscutting between parties.
Patterson's second observation of change is of campaign politics. Voters are a lot less likely to vote for a candidate simply based on his party, which has placed campaign control in the hands of the candidates themselves. Another very important point that Patterson makes is the poor effects that negative advertising has had on voter participation, especially since campaign attacks have more than tripled since the 1960s. Candidates loose track of the issues because they are too busy putting each other down. A third point is the endless promises candidates make, which many citizens feel they can no longer trust. This causes voters to feel betrayed by their president and discourages them from voting each election. Along with promises, citizens also have to witness endless attention to candidates' personal controversies, which the media now spends about as much time on as the issues. For example, during this election many citizens are more likely to have known how many houses John McCain has or what goes on in the Palin household than to know where McCain stands on tax cuts or where Palin stands on gun control.
After making such valid points, Patterson also gives us a great list of ideas that the country could do to increase participation, if not in this election then at least in the next. The first is that broadcast networks should televise more of the campaign. For people who don't read the newspaper or access the internet, television can be a great way to educate voters. If networks were able to provide citizens with frequent and unbiased information on the presidential candidates, there could be a huge increase in participation. Also, Patterson suggests shortening the time period of the campaign. I strongly agree with this idea because it could condense the campaign to the important points, such as the debates, rather than the candidates' personal lives, and also keep the voters more focused and greatly anticipating the election.
I think Patterson's best ideas are those regarding election day. If every state implemented same-day registration and extended its polling hours to convenience the working class - or better yet, declared Election Day a national holiday - the country would be likely to see a very great participation increase.
Although everyone has already said it, I have to say it myself that I agree that the lower class will be more likely to vote in this election. It is often thought that the middle and upper classes feel that the election affects them the most and therefore have a greater voter turnout, however this year with the economy being in the condition that it is, we are much more likely to see the lower and working class heading to the polls for change. I also agree with Kaz that it is very important for schools to urge citizens to vote. Just from taking this class for a few weeks, we are most likely more educated about the candidates and our government than many US citizens. If we don't teach our citizens about the issues and the candidates, they won't feel the need to voice their opinions on Election day. If we start educating citizens at a young age about the voting process, participation would be constantly increasing. The more educated the citizens are, the more opinionated they will be and the more passionate they will be about voting and therefore we can come closer to a true democracy.
On one last note about democracy, although I am certainly not an expert on it, I feel that if our country was to rid itself of the electoral college, more people might be interested in voting. Even if a candidate has a majority vote, it is not guaranteed that they will win the election. That idea seems absurd to me, and I think that if citizens see that their candidate has a majority vote but still loses, it could greatly discourage them from voting in the next election, since it seems that their voices are not heard.
Before reading Patterson’s “Where Have All the Voters Gone?”, I was somewhat unaware of the serious decrease in voter participation since the 1950s, since I grew up in a house where I was always encouraged to follow the election and form my views on the candidates. I have always looked forward to the day where I could cast my vote and voice my opinion in The United States’ democracy, and I do not understand why many Americans do not take this opportunity on November 11th. However, by reading this article, I now recognize the changes in the party system, and campaigning that have caused the public’s interest and participation to wane. Patterson offers some realistic and attainable solutions to the mounting voter problem, that I believe if put to use could provide a solution.
In the 1950s, it seemed that voter participation had nowhere to go but up, as college attendance was rising, more women were voting, and literacy tests, and poll taxes were being removed. In spite of this, “the period from 1960 to 2000 marks the longest ebb in turnout in US history.” Patterson accounts for this lack of voting with the new behaviors and loyalty patterns of political parties, and the new trends in campaigning. Economic issues use to draw political party lines, and strictly defined the American public as part of one party or another. As the economy strengthened and people felt more secure, different social and moral issues, such as abortion, civil rights, the environment, and education became more important in elections. With the great amount of new issues, party lines were not as defined and people found it hard to commit themselves to one party, as they may hold a Democratic view on abortion, but a Republican view on the economy. This gave rise to independents. Parties are also having a hard time finding a message that inspires people to vote. Inspiring speeches like Franklin Roosevelt’s “the forgotten man” are very rarely heard today. Campaigning has caused a lack of participation as well. In recent years campaigns have become very negative. Political opponents run smear campaigns, trying to gain support, instead of promoting and educating the public on their policies. Candidates’ personal lives have also become a focus of smear campaigning, and scandals and controversial situations have become large parts of certain elections, instead of the views and ideas of the candidates, which I find incredibly wrong. Campaigns are also very lengthy, and voters tend to lose interest as the campaign drags on and on, and are not more educated or familiar with candidates’ policies. Finally, Candidates seem to promise anything and everything in order to gain support, and win the election. They fill their campaign with empty promises, which remain unfulfilled when they enter office. This has increased voter mistrust in government and the election process, and lead America to become a pessimistic, skeptical society.
To fix these problems, Patterson proposes that first elections should receive more coverage on television, especially during prime time, in order to spark more interest in the race. He also suggests that certain polling practices should be altered. Polling hours should be extended. Election Day should be declared a national holiday, and the US should adopt universal same-day registration. These simple alterations, could greatly assist in getting people into the voter booths, especially those of the lower and middle class, who may find it hard to find time to vote on an election day if they have a job. Finally, Patterson insists that schools and other institutions should be helping increase voter participation by assisting in registration and providing the proper education. Like Kaz, I think that schools are key in educating future generations of voters and promoting participation. I believe Tantasqua fulfills this role as it helps students register for voting, educates them on the issues and encourages them to vote. I also think that promotions to vote, seen on MTV and in magazines, aid in increasing young voters.
Patterson’s article is both interesting and informative. I think he does an incredible job identifying the problems with parties and campaigning that result in the dwindling public participation and interest in elections. His solutions are legitimate and attainable, and I believe they may assist The United States in rejuvenating citizens’ desire to vote. I agree with Laura, Kaz, and Jenna that in the current election, the importance of the economic issues may draw more voters to the polls, as they did before Johnson’s term. I also think that Emma made a very good point in saying that the potential election of Barak Obama, or Sarah Palin may attract voters. There has been much hype around these two candidates and many people are voting for a certain candidate solely due to their race or gender (which I find very unintelligent). To conclude, I believe Patterson made a very powerful statement in saying, “the nation will face the far greater challenge of how to maintain self-government when people don’t vote.” If current voting problems are not fixed they may worsen, and like Patterson stated the system will not be able to function without the input of the people. I believe that the United States should begin to focus on solving voter turnout problems and reduce certain political practices that have come into use, such as mudslinging campaigns, that take away from the real issues.
Tom Patterson’s Where Have all the Voters Gone analyzed the general public’s apathy on Presidential elections. Basically, since the 1950, there has been a steady decline in voters despite rising literacy and college attendance, removal of poll taxes and other legal barriers. When asked, many people frankly don’t care who is elected and chose not to know anything about the candidates. Patterson digs deeper to find the reasons why.
Since post World War II, the issues of campaigns are not life changing. The economy was solely the matter of elections because it was also unsteady and needed guidance. After it had been stabilized and no longer needed government assistance, elections were forced to turn to other less predominant issues. With less economic resentment, candidates discussed civil rights, welfare, abortion, the environment, and education. Many candidates struggled to find a stance on these issues and many people were on the edge with some and could not find a single political party to stick by. Voters grew tired of the changing issues which made no serious impact on their lives and therefore saw little need to go out and vote because either way they felt secure. The “growing complexity of American society threatened the parties ability” to mobilize the public. Like previously said by Kaz, this election may bring together more voters because the campaigns are focusing on the economy once again. Many people feel as if one candidate or the other may “make or break” the economy so people of all social classes will cast their vote to change their lives.
Campaigns are also becoming long and corrupt. This new style of politics includes a shift from political parties to candidates. Candidates are full of deception and concentrate on bashing the opponent instead of ones opponent. This develops a negative view of politics which I completely agree about. When the public hears nothing but bad things about candidates they don’t find one they like. They find themselves choosing the “lesser between two evils.” When many voters are found in that situation, they may decide not to bother voting at all. Campaigns are very lengthy, to the point where people can’t stand to listen to the same issues being dragged on again and again. If campaigns were to be saved until only a month or two prior, national debates and election coverage would be exciting to watch on broadcast networks. These “special” events would create a lasting memory and leave an impact when the voters go to the polls.
In addition to shorter campaigns, voting must be encouraged for the public to come. As the article suggests, extending voting hours, or creating a national holiday in honor of the election, it would stir more of awareness for the election. Registration should also be automatically completed for the public. A registration, especially those in which must be done by a deadline, creates a sense hassle. Many find that voting is not worth it, but if all the voter must do is cast a single vote at any point during the day, voting would sure to rise. Like Emma, I also found it interesting that Republicans disagree with the “registering at the polls” idea. I believe this is because many inexperienced voters would be more inclined to do so. Inexperienced voters would be voting on whim, and may listen to what Hollywood tells them to do, in which many movie stars tend to be Democratic. Despite this belief, the result is contradicting.
I found this article very interesting and I agreed with most of it. I was surprised to find that Patterson left out how to public often thinks that “their vote doesn’t even make a difference.” Jenna brought up the Electoral College versus popular vote. I disagree with her that it should be changed, but I would understand a voters apathy if they were a Republican in such a liberal state such as Massachusetts. The author doesn’t touch upon the issue of the potential voter who thinks their voice won’t be heard of everyone else’s.
The decreasing voter partcipation rate in the U.S. has been under great speculation in the past two decades or so due to a number of factors. Most of which Thomas E. Patterson's article "Where have All the Voters Gone?" discussed and explored post 1950 (the projected decade where voter turnout would increase but in reality decreased). Through a research program Patterson was involved in, Harvard University's Vanishing Voter Project, he was able to use the results of a number of public polls to make certain inferances and projections concerning the reasons for the lack of voters and possible methods of correcting the issue.
In the article,Patterson attributes the sharp decline in voter turnout to a number of factors. Most of which he gathered from interview results polled from different people. The begining on the article however, does not begin with any of these preliminary reasons, but by sharing the ironic twist in voter participation after the 1950's. In spite of the surge of college bound students, the closing gap between women voters and racial change that prevented some african americans to vote were begining to clear, voter turnout decreased nearly 14% when comparing voter turnout from 1960 to that of 2000. This could only mean one thing, that voter turnout was no longer a matter of eligibility, but a matter of conveniance, investment in the government and "a sign of the public's waning interest in the political campaigns".
One of the first "reasons" behind decreasing voter participation that Patterson adress in his article is the weakening of economic issues and the emergance of less comprehensive issues. Issues that were all important in elections, but were not "top of the agenda" material such as civil rights, street crime, school prayer, welfare dependency, abortion, the environment, education and global trade suddenly began to rise in caliber depending on that particualr election. The voters began choosing which social, economic or political issue was to be the highlight of the campaign, which in turn ovewhelmed political parties. Another point Patterson adressed in the article was the public's inability to identifing party positions despite the fact that americans were "better educated than they had been in the 1950's.." This lack of political understanding amongst the American people is one of the direct causes of lack of voter participation since it has been proven that Americans who have party loyalty lines are twice as likely to vote than those who are independants.
The article also addresses the relationship between socio-economic status and voter participation (or political activism for that matter. In fact, low-income respondants are 30% more likely than middle-top income geenrating groups to say that the election's outcome would have little to no impact on their lives, which in turn not only effects voter participation amongt lower income indivisuals but also contributes to lack of investment in the government. This leads to another point Patterson makes in the next few paragraphs, or rather what James Bryce said. James Bryce feared that "the growing complexity of American society threatened the parties' ability to forge and mobilize cohesive majorities". This is an immediate cause of the decrease in electoral participation and public participation in the voting process.
One of the main reasons that Patterson addresses in both his list of problems as well as possible solutions involves the mass media. As Laura mentioned in her response, media has taken a colosall part in nit-picking the faults in potential candidates and various political statements. Mass media not only has made politics readily available on some level to the general public, but it also serves as a critiquing platform for political analysts and the public. Not only that, but the media has begun focusing on the personal lives of political candidates rather than policies or party platforms. Television, despite having the ability to serve as a liason between the white house, capitol hill and Washington, have actually reduced election coverage over the past couple of years and television has limited coverage of various debates and conventions to the hours of broadcast coverage, which cuts the amount of viewers by a third. Patterson also mentions the lack of trust that the general population has in the promises of various candidates. More and more people have begun to feel that politicians will promise anything to get into office, which in turn decreases the amount of genuine support for that particular politician or party. Similarily, "unsavory campagin also leave a sour taste even with those who do vote" due to the excessive amounts of negative advertisements, statements, and commercials that modern politicians make in hopes of dimminishing the image of their opponent. Even the length of modern political campaigns have turned off voters. Compared to the approximate length of campaigns before 1972, modern political campaigns have begun at least 4 months or so before they traditionally had. This exstended amount of political coverage has the general voting population bored and apathtic by election time which might contribute to the lack of participation. And finally, Patterson adresses the faults that lie within voting laws and regualtions. Limited poll hours, registration deadlines and the lack of a national "election day" holiday are all factors in the decline of voter participation.
In the final pages of the article, Patterson presents an array of possible solutions that may spark more voter participation in the future. Suggestions such as more exstensive convention and debate covergae on television, longer poll hours, on the spot voter registration, an election day holiday are based off of the common complaints of the polled indivisduals and by replicating the models of other democratic nations that DO have higher voter participation. As many of my peers have mentioned in their responses, if these basic amendments are taken into account such as longer polling hours to accomidate lower income indivisuals, an election day holiday to encourage students and the working class to vote and on the spot registration may indeed salvage our dwindiling number of voters. These simple suggestions are not unreasonable and can be taken into consideration by the government if they too are similarily concerned with our country's decreasing voter population.
I found the article interesing over all and realzied after completing it that the information that the research group conducted and the points Patterson made were not entirely shocking, but basic common sense. Many of the responses that were gathered in the poll conducted by the research group were reasons i had heard from many voting eligible people around me including friends and family. The solutions that were presented were also fairly simple concepts to grasp that are pretty simplistic concepts to conclude. The article was well written and formatted nicely, and does a fair job in plotting the various faults that plague American campaigning and voting tendancies.
In every election from 1950 to the year 2000 voting has declined. Mr. Patterson does an interesting job on explaining why American voters refuse to vote. He uses two main examples for explanations why Americans are not in the polls on election day. Patterson also makes vague descriptions on how elections can be fixed and brought back to the golden years of elections. It is an interesting time to explore, what causes americans to not voice their choice.
Patterson outlines two major problems in the modern elections. One of which focuses on the fact of the numerous policies that differ between the two parties. Before Franklin Roosevelt's new deal the elections were simply based on major economic issues. Due to Roosevelt's New Deal the ecnomic issues that once fueled elections were drowned out. Through this "a large set of less comprehensive issues emrged." These new issues involved Civil Rights, school prayer,and welfare. From these even more new issues stemmed creating a very complex set of policies for each party to decide upon. This quantitative leap in the number of policies confused the American public and made voting much more difficult and in effect caused a decrease in voter turn out. The other issue facing modern elections is "The Unsavory Campaign". Elections are for a political candidates to voice their political views and to get you to vote for them. Candidates have now taken a different approach and now insulta and attack there opponents through mass media. These attacks combined paint a picture that neither candidate is good enough to be the next president. The public then becomes undecided and does not vote, agian causing the low voter turn out.
Patterson attempts to solve these problems by making voting and understanding candidates more accesible. Patterson's first proposition is to have the major broadcasting corporations televise the presidential debates in prime time so viewers are more likely to watch and develop their own opinions about the issues in the up coming election. The second idea he had was to shorten the election "season" because while citizens may understand a candidates view in February they forget that view by October. A third idea that Patterson had was to extend voting and registration hours. This would allow the working class man to get out of work and have enough time to vote because in some states voting is closed by seven pm. It would also be helpful to make election day a national holiday allowing more people the time to vote. The only problem is some would be voters are not registered. The next step would be to allow for registration the day of eleciton day. If this were to happen a predicted 5 percent increase in voter turn out would occur. Patterson does a very systematic job of laying out what should happen to increase the number of active voters in America.
I believe that Patterson did a great job of showing the major issues of voting in America. I found his "solutions" to be understandable and helpful but also a little optomistic. I don't agree with Haley, Laura, Kaz, and Jenna, haha I know once again. It's hard to believe that the trend in voting will suddenly turn around. Both candidates have many policies and have many cons to them. The common American will see two good candidates with flaws and good points. We will once again be faced with a low voter turn out and a confused American. Despite the lacking economy and a historical campaign on both sides. An increase in "votership" will not occur. Patterson said "The developments have diminished Americans' interest in election politics are deep rooted and unlikely to be reversed easily or soon." Here Patterson explicitely states it will take time for voters to come to the boothes. Overall I enjoyed this article and hopefully one day all of the American public will voice their choice.
The years following 1950 are marked by a sharp decline in voter participation. A number of factors can be attributed to this lack of voter participation, namely changes in media coverage, candidate behavior, political competition, as well as election law.
Patterson cites the importance of the economy in pre-1950 elections. The economy affects each and every citizen, regardless of class. The economic issue was a powerful one in elections prior and up to the 1950s. Political parties, therefore, based their platforms on the economic issue. The economic issue is such a universal one, as Kaz mentioned, that voters are drawn to the polls. However, as the economy has proved to be less of an issue in recent decades, presidential candidates focus on a number of other issues, such as the crime rate, abortion, environment, education, and global trade. As Emma stated, these issues are less comprehensive and they are not as unifying as the economic issue.
Furthermore, political parties are finding it increasingly difficult to clearly state their goals and ideas (in the face of the issues mentioned above). As political parties continue their struggle to appeal to prospective voters, these very same voters are struggling to form an opinion about the parties. According to the article, political parties are "relatively weak objects of loyalty and thought, which has diminished Americans' concern with election politics."
However, aside from weakly defined stances, many find that political campaigns are nothing but a battle of the negative. Policies no longer receive nearly as much attention as the personal blunders that one makes. Candidates no longer place importance on appealing to voters by highlighting the positive in their policies, instead they make a show of the flaws of another. Campaigns are no longer the informative processes they once used to be, and this change for the worse has, ironically, formed a negative opinion for many people. People simply find it exhausting to listen to the smear campaigns, as Haley mentioned.
The negative aside, Patterson also identifies a number of things that can increase voter participation, including an increase in campaign coverage, a decidely shortened campaign (as many voters cannot retain what they have learned about the candidates earlier in the year), and changes in election law. Patterson cites that an extension in polling hours and same day registration would be especially beneficial.
Virtually everyone is in agreement that the 2008 election is one in which we can expect a higher voter turnout. Laura made a point to mention that there is no "hotter" topic in this election than the economy. As in the pre-1950 elections, the economic issue was one which drew voters to the polls. Hopefully we can say the same for this one.
This article was very informative, and like Haley, I was unaware of the ever declining rate of voter participation. Mr. Pratt has mentioned several times that the United States has a high interest in politics, but ironically so, a low turnout of voters on election day. After reading this article I now have a better understanding of why this is so and the importance of voter participation. How can the people expect change when they do not effect change?
Over the past 50 years, the decline in voter turnout in elections has been obviously apparent. People just don’t seem to care anymore about politics. Fewer and fewer people pay attention to candidates or their positions, fewer are registering to vote, and even fewer registered voters are even voting! Patterson describes the downward trend in voter turnout; in 1960, turnout was nearly 65 percent. By 2000 it had dropped to nearly 51 percent, and by 2002 it was 39 percent.
One of the reasons for the decline in voter turnout is the failure of today’s political parties to create a stance that clearly separates them from other parties. Today, political issues that become part of elections are far more complicated than in the past, and because of this, it is difficult to compile a standard response to issues and say, “This is the platform of the Democrat/Republican party.” Voters often agree with the party “standard” on one issue, but then may disagree on another. Many people today can’t even classify themselves as one party or the other, but have to vote independent because voting on a candidate isn’t as simple as it once was. The complexity of today’s issues has turned many voters away because they don’t know or completely agree with a candidate’s policy.
Another issue that is reducing voter participation is modern America’s hatred of politics. Today, campaigns focus less on what makes their candidate a better choice than the other, and more on what makes the other candidate worse than theirs. Mudslinging, which was once a dirty campaign trick that candidates would resort to only if they were desperate, has now become common practice. Scandals and controversies have become nearly as important in voting as the candidate’s platform. Many potential voters are also turned off by a candidate’s failure to make a promise and stick to it. Paterson says it perfectly when he says “Today’s candidates build their followings by pledges of support to nearly every conceivable voting group.” Candidates make promises left, right, and center, and how many of them actually come true? Most people believe that a candidate will say anything to get elected (including my parents when I asked them), and as a result, trust in candidates is at an all time low.
In order to increase voter participation, certain changes must be made. Electoral hours should be extended. Patterson believes that voting hours should be extended past 8 P.M., but I disagree. I think that voting hours should be extended to a full twenty-four hours so that no one has any reason to say they didn’t have to time to vote on Election Day. Also, Election Day should be made a national holiday, to allow everyone time to vote. I think that voting is far more important than Columbus Day, but yet we get that day off. Voter registration should be extended until Election Day, and if it was made a national holiday, voters could register and then vote, and have plenty of time to do it. Also, in order to teach the importance of voting to young adults, high schools and colleges should assist students with voter registration, as well as set up voting stations in the school to allow those who are eligible to vote to do so during their school day.
Today’s lack of voter turnout is a major problem that must be fixed. America can hardly call itself a democracy if nearly two-thirds of its citizens don’t even bother to vote. Calling it an oligarchy would be more appropriate. I agree with David that voter participation is not going to change immediately, especially in this election, but changes must still be made, even if improvements only come slowly. Unfortunately, I think that this election is going to have one of the lowest voter turnouts because there is no candidate that has risen as the obvious choice. Both Obama and McCain have their good qualities, and both have their bad qualities. Each of the candidate’s platforms overlap and are similar in some ways, and then very different in others. Experience and political party affiliation are two major issues as well. Many like Obama because he is Democratic, and opposes many of Bush’s policies, but don’t like his lack of experience, and people think dislike McCain because he is Republican, but like his experience. For many Americans this election is going to become a decision between the better of two evils, and I predict that an even larger number of voters than in 2002 will just won’t bother to vote.
Thomas Patterson's article "Where Have all the Voters Gone?" discusses the changes in US elections and campaigns since the 1950s and the ways they have negatively affected voter turnout. Though more US citizens are college educated since the '50s and the gap between voting rates of men and women has shrunk, the percentage of voters in the 2000 presidential election was 14% less than in 1960, and only 18% of Americans voted in the 2002 congressional primaries. Clearly, something is keeping US citizens away from the polls.
Though voting requirements orginally created to keep African Americans, former slaves, from the polls no longer exist, there is still something keeping lower-income, less educated Americans from voting. The fact that polls only stay open until 7 AM in states, such as Florida, combined with elections scheduled on weekdays keeps many working-class Americans from excercising their right to vote. Only people who have time before or after work, or have a job that is flexible enough for them to take time off during the day to vote, are able to go to the polls. One of the most interesting points in the article is that some countries make their election day a National Holiday so everyone gets the chance to vote. I believe this is something the US should consider.
Another reason some Americans are not able to vote is because of restrictions in voter registration. In all but six states, deadlines for voter registration a week or two before elections are held. However, less than 20 perfect of citizens are aware of these deadlines, and many think they can register up to election day. This means that many possible voters, including young, well-educatted voters, do not get a chance to voice their opinion due to a useless, technical rule.
Aside from the voters who are physically unable to vote due to polling times and voter registrations deadlines, many Americans choose not to vote for varying reasons. The first that Patteron mentions is the change in campaign issues and how this affects political parties. Before the election of Fraklin Roosevelt, the focus of elections was on the economy, something that affected all Americans, and that they could easily understand. However, once the economy had stabalized, a multitude of overlapping, less comprehensive issues emerged. These include civil rights, education, the environment, abortion, and many others. These indiviudal issues do not affect the daily lives of all Americans, and they often do not follow party lines. Therefore, Americans do not feel as confident identifying with a certain political party, which leads to lower voter turnout.
Another thing keeping eligible voters away from the polls is the style in which modern campaigns are conducted. Negative campaigning and excessively long campaigns have led to Americans finding Presidential elections "depressing". It is terrible to think that excercising such a valuable right, which many people in the world are never able to do due to opressive governments, is thought of so negatively by Americans. Candidates and parties need to reform the way they promote themselves and perhaps start campaigning later in order to create the positive, optomistic atmosphere that should rightfully surround a Presidential election.
I think Patterson did a good job with the resaerch for this article, finding important statistics and asking questions that one might not necessarily think of when researching this topic. The results were also presented interestingly and explained clearly. Though I hope that Laura, Kaz, and everyone else who has posted are correct in their prediction that voter turn out will be up this election due to the economy, I worry that voters may stay away from the polls due to the clearly negative views many have on the election. Personal attacks against Sarah Palin and others against the experience of Barrack Obama already have Americans feeling bitter. Some may feel that the state of the economy is out of their hands at this point, and that their vote will not change anything. Others state that they do not like either candidate and therefore don't care who wins, rather than trying to find the lesser of two evils. All we can do is wait until November, and see if Americans live up to their responsibilies as voters.
In the article, “Where have all the Voters gone?” Patterson analysis why nearly half of Americans are ignoring their responsibility to vote for a national leader. The article begins with Patterson showing earlier statics in American elections. In 1950, voter participation was on the rise and political observers were optimistic about the future. However, the exact opposite happened. In 1960, 65% of the adult population voted, in 2000, 51%, and in 2002, 39%.
The first major issue that drew away these voters was the economic issue. After “A safety net for the economically vulnerable was in place” by FDR and Lyndon Johnson, other issues that people didn’t seem to care about rose between the “weak” political parties. Election after election, these different issues included abortion, the environment, education, and global trade. People didn’t know exactly what a political party was, and still today, is an essential reason for lower voter participation.
A second reason for fewer voters is the media. In the 50’s and 60’s, Americans were thrilled to see candidates and campaigns. Televisions were very popular also at that time. But today, these campaigns are negatively using media and are decepting the people meaning that people will do or say anything to be elected. Also, candidates speak much longer than they did in the past, which means that they continue to ramble on about several issues that they probably aren’t going to address except for one or two if they are elected. Furthermore, the candidates continue to attack the other party’s platform instead of worrying about their own stance on issues.
But Patterson address several key concepts can be used to increase voter participation. One- debates should be broadcasted in prime time by a major company so more people with less cable can watch. Many people get their information about candidates from these debates and conventions. Second- As I mentioned, campaign length must shorten for people to be interested and straight to the point. Third- voting laws would also help this problem of the lack of voter participation. Polling hours can be extended and a registration requirement shouldn’t have to be fulfilled. The government should assume the responsibility of this.
I thought this article was very useful in essentially answering the question, where have the voters gone. Patterson brings up great issues that should be addressed and gives several actions that should and must be taken for a better voter turnout. Honestly from this article I now know why people chose not to vote. In today’s election, I think we will see a tremendous rise in voters. Laura and Kaz bring up the great point about the economy and the recession we are going through. This is the number one issue that should be taken care of. But Emma also bring up an excellent point, race and gender will also play a significant role in this election because millions of Americans continue to see this as a problem still.
Thomas Patterson's "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" outlines the the reasons why the voting turnout for the presidential elections has declined so much since the 1950s. This decline is seen, not only in the voter turnout, but also in the waning interest in political campaigns. The decline in voter participation has been caused by changes in the political parties and media, candidate behavior, political competition, and election laws. The political parties are changing because of the issues that are springing up throughout society. Issues like abortion, the environment, and education has added moral perspectives that the parties must take a stance on. This has made it more difficult for political parties to appeal to the public, and therefore their campaign messages often have contradicting elements to them. Because of this, political parties' have weakened as the objects of loyalty. The media has also affected the elections. The length of the modern campaigns are often a turn off to the public, because they tax people's attention to the candidates. Also, the media is using the campaigns as a profitable business, not as a public service obligation. The candidate behavior during the campaigns is also a turn off to the public. The media has brought out the ambition, manipulation, and deception that has been prominent in modern campaigns. Candidates now think that it is easier to gain voters by tearing down their opponents, rather than focusing on their platforms. The politicians also make endless promises inorder to obtain pledges of support, and it is viewed that candidates will do anything to get themselves elected. Also, personal failings and gossip about the candidates are taking headlines in the media, instead of their policies about certain issues. Election laws are also a source of voter decline. Polling hours are very short. In some states, polls close at 7pm, and in others 8pm or later. The states that close earlier have a much lower percentage points that the states that close later. It is also said that turnout would increase if Election Day was a national holiday. The major obstacle in election laws is the registration requirement. "Government assumes the responsibility for placing eligible citizens on the registration rolls. In the United States, the responsibility rests with the individual." Although this is democratic, allowing people to make their own decision whether they want to vote or not, its sad that the government doesnt give people insentive to vote. In order to vote, they must take that many more steps before hand. In some states, it is allowed to register at their local polling place on election day. The percentage of turnout was noticably higher in these states. Young adults, who are more in tune to modern "political moods," are more likely to vote with the use of election day registration offered.
In order to fix the problem of decline in voter participation, Patterson offers a few ideas. I agree with Laura and Chris that they were great solutions, that would be easy to put in place. The extension of campaign coverage over other areas of media would be beneficial to the viewers. Shorter campaigns, prefferably starting in the summer, rather than the spring of the election year, would have immediate effects on the public's attention to the campaigns. With a shorter campaign, the mudslinging of candidates and the unsavory campaigns may decline also. Polling should be extended to 8 pm or later on Election Day, or even better, Election Day should be a National Holiday. The registration requirements should be changed so that voters can register on Election Day, making the voting process less complicated.
I believe that this article was very well written, and it clearly states the problems with our modern elections and gives obtainable solutions. I agree with basically everyone that says that the lower class will have a large turnout this year. The economic problems that the country is facing is taking its toll more on the lower and middle class then the upper class, and the war is taking away the lives of the lower and middle class' family and friends. I feel like these two problems will affect the public's interest in changing the policies in our country. Because the issues are so vital to our national security, I believe that it is really really important for citizens to vote this November, and I think that voter turn out will be higher than in the past.
In Thomas E. Patteron's "Where Have All The Voters Gone?" readers explore the decline of voting in America as a trend coordinating with a rise in increasingly personal, various issues, and a decrease in issues that once united political parties.
Since the middle of the 20th century, voter turnout has decreased immensely. Why? Patterson's time spent researching this issue has brought up a few good points as to why so many Americans are not exercising their right to vote. First, there is the issue of class separation; during the time of FDR and Johnson, most Americans - regardless of class - supported The New Deal and the Great Society. After the Great Depression and the Second World War, society and the economy were in absolute turmoil. Americans voted then because they were concerned for their well-being as a nation. However, with the aforementioned programs put forth by FDR and Johnson, economic and societal problems lessend each day. With safety nets in place and a stable economy, politics began to focus on other issues. What divided Democrats and Republicans in the first half of the century - the nation's economic well-being - took a back seat to smaller, more personal issues, such as education, abortion, and global trade. It became virtually impossible for each party to form a stable platform that would please a majority of its constituients due to the fact that many of these issues were a question of morality. Since that change in party focus occured half a century ago, party affiliation and prominence has decreased greatly. And with this change came another; that of the voting class. Lower income people voted in the early 20th century because the politics of that era were focused on their economic well-being. However, politicians have lost these voters because issues that vary from person to person - often times regardless of political affiliaton - are most important today, and have been for several decades. Therefore politicians aim at the class with the largest number of potential votes: the middle class.
Despite the magnitude of the American middle class, voter turnout is still waning. Patterson expresses the ideas that political campaigns are done in such a manner that simply turns people off; excessively long campaigns, poor campaign messages, and unsettling promises have hurt politicians more than helped. Long campaigns simply leave voters worn out, and with a combination of all-too-specific campaign messages and too much "mudslinging," people simply become sick of it all.
According to Patterson, little can be done to repair this voter deficit in the near future. He does propose some ideas that could potentially stop its increase and, with high hopes, possibly restore at least some of it over a period of time. One point he seems to stress is shortening campaigns. He argues that even educated citizens become sick of the back and forth between overly ambitious candidates, almost forgetting the reason (platforms) they were there in the first place. His second argument is that if Election Day were more akin to that of other democratic societies,' then more people would be encouraged to vote. That is, if voting hours were extended for the sake of those who work, if Election Day was made into a national holiday, and/or if voters were allowed to register on Election Day. Patterson claims that any or all of these would encourage voters because they would not feel as pressured for time to vote, or feel helpless that they had missed a deadline.
Although I agree that this article has many good points and suggestions for the future, I agree with Carolyn and David: I don't think that the current issues will stimulate a significant increase in voter turnout. I believe that Patterson has found a legitimate pattern. However, I feel that if there is a spike in voting participation, the fact that this will be a historic election is going to be the main reason. I feel as though voter apathy runs too deeply within our society, as unfortunate a case as it is, and therefore I do not think the current issues our country faces, beyond whether our next president will be a Black man, or our next vice president a woman, matter enough.
In the article, Thomas Patterson observes that since the 1950's, voter participation has decreased, when the prospect for increased turnout at the polls seemed very good. What happened to the predicted increase in turnout?
According to Patterson, there are about a dozen reasons for this decline. One, issues don't have the power of previous years. There are many smaller issues of lesser importance that cannot win over voters totally. Two, parties have more intricate platforms than of previous years, and it is not easy to discern what they actually represent. Three, the working class does not feel involved or affected in the election. Four, parties cannot come up with a message to really compel and influence voters. Five, american society has become more complex, so appealing to large groups of people has become a more daunting task. Six, campaigns are very negative. Since it is more effective to tear down the opponent than to promote one's own campaign, there has been an increase in the negativity and mudslinging, and it is not appealing to voters. Instead of hyping how well the country will do if one is elected they tell how it will be negative if the other is elected. If both do this, it makes either option look bad, and the future of the country look bleak. Seven, Candidates are making promises to too many people and groups that it reduces the integrity of each promise that they make. Eight, campaigns are more like shows than an important government process. Nine, campaigning goes on for too long. People see the beginning of it too early, but tire of hearing about it when they should begin to pay attention.
There are some things that can be dont to remedy this. First, campaigns could be shortened. Second, broadcast networks could cover the election debates more. Also voting hours could be extended and registration could be made easier. Making the day of the vote a national holiday would increase the turnout because people would not have to worry about voting around work schedules.
In response to other posts, I disagree with the idea that this election more voters from the working class will participate because of the economic worry. I have not heard many convincing plans to fix the economy from either candidate. The most prominant issue is the war. Plus, even though it may be an issue for them, if they feel that the candidates plans will not affect them, then they will not vote either. Considering that legislation has concentrated on the middle class and the upper class more, the working/lower class will not feel that their vote will help THEIR situation much.
Here is a general question for debate; Why not make the vote in America mandatory? if it is made a holiday, then everyone is required to cast their vote just like every child must go to school. it would ensure participation in government. If one really does not have a preference in the candidate then they can choose to write someone in, just pick one, or go with a minority party. Would it be a bad thing to enforce this?
The article "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" by Thomas E. Patterson brings up a topic that, as the election day of 2008 draws near, is on the minds of political figures. They want to know if they are going to get your vote or not. In the 1950s, political parties were strong in that they had clear outlines as to what they did or did not believe in. Many people were divided to either the Republican or Democrat side of things because their division was fueled by an important issue, the economy. After the issue with the economy was solved to a point where Americans were satisfied with it, the focus of elections changed. The focus changed to smaller issues that did not necessarily have clear cut party lines, and thus, many people became independent, or did not cast their vote. The political parties lost their strength and became weaker entities as their platform became more complex and vague.
Since the 1950s, the election process has becoming much longer and much more public. People now see that the candidates running for office disgust them. The candidates have a more complex platform to run on which makes it so that a certain candidate doesn't fit everyone. People now feel as if they have to pick the candidate that agrees the most with that he or she believes. It is like picking the lesser of two evils. I agree with Emma in that the campaigns are now nasty battle fields where the candidates fight to see who can make the other look worse in front of the American public. This makes many people feel that the politicians are not completely honest about what they say. The campaigns are now drawn out for a long time, and the media cannot keep focusing on the same issues over and over, so they attack the personal lives of the candidates and we see less of what the candidates plan to do in office, and more about with whom they are sleeping. This is a disgrace to the electoral process, in my opinion.
Patterson offers some ways in which voter turnout can be increased. First, we must look at the limitations in place on voting, such as time limitations, election day being on a work day, and polls closing early at night. This makes it more difficult for people to get to the polls and actually vote. Also, universal suffrage is not necessarily universal, in most European countries you are automatically registered to vote, where as here in the United States you must sign up. This leaves it to the people to sign up, and they do not know when the deadline to register is. Many of these issues have simple fixes, with automatic registration for all being the most difficult, but it is a start in the right direction to get more voters to the polls on election day.
After reading this article by Mr. Patterson, I was pleasantly surprised that he presented historical references and put forth possible remedies to the decline in voters. The 1950s were marked by national growth in terms of college enrollment, an increase in female voters, and the destruction of barriers to enter the political landscape. The 1960s however, began a downward trend in voter participation and knowledge of the political party platforms began to decline. One statistic offered by Patterson describes that in 1960, 60% of television households watched the october presidential debates, while 30% watched in 2000. Personally, I do not think that this comparison is particularly reliable, as tv was still a relatively new good carrying a limited number of channels and drawing in a limited audience. Since then, technology has evolved considerably, giving the average person more viewing opportunities than Hogan's Heroes and politics.
One interesting point made by Patterson is the idea that since the 1950's, political parties began to adopt more of a platform on various issues. The state of the economy no longer became the principle issue. Social issues(abortion, civil rights, etc) soon became topics of discussion, and as Amanda correctly pointed out, gave the people reason not to be avid supporters of either party. In this way, there could be a fiscal conservative with pro-choice sympathies.(Rudy Giuliani) If McCain were judged by 1950s standards, he might have even qualified as a conservative, whereas now, that is not the case.
Patterson also points out that the size and scope of political campaigns have turned largely negative. Ads criticizing a candidates stance on a particular subject are commonplace, yet I think Patterson is giving the campaign too much credit. The growth of technology has allowed people a larger role in the political landscape. With the internet, people can find information about a candidate's personal life and exploit it, which really liberates the campaign from becoming too unsavory. Even when the Clinton Campaign leaked information about Reverend Wright to the large media outlets, the mudslinging became the role of those outlets and the people who watched them, essentially allowing the Clinton Campaign to wash her hands of any involvement. Therefore, the media and public are more heavily invested in the unsavory side of politics than the actual campaign.
Patterson has some interesting ideas to increase voter participation. Listening to candidates announce their intentions nearly two years before the general election was overdoing it in my opinion. On one side, it would have been pleasant to shorten the unpleasant eight-month question: Who is Senator Obama? However, shortening the election cycle might lead to compiling negative attacks at a greater rate than people can digest.
The idea that registration should be automatic seems to be somewhat flawed in my view. If a person is well versed in political matters, that should be enough incentive to register. Those who would be automatically registered would not necessarily have any knowledge of the candidates. I imagine that an automatic system would only increase voter fraud as opposed to the desired goal.
I would also have to disagree with Patterson in which he said Cable does "not have the audience delivery capacity of the broadcast networks." If that were the case, people would not be so adamant in their dislike of Fox News or MSNBC.
"Where have all the voters gone?", its a question many of us do not think about these days. Its almost as though people not voting has just merged into our everyday lives and we just except it. Thomas Patterson refused to except this and decided to get to the bottom of the "vanishing voter".
The "vanishing voter" is not based on one simple problem driving voters away it is caused by many problems all together. The first problem is that the parties are not as strong as they had once been. Today very few people could tell you how each party felt about each issue. The parties have few issues that they can be hard core against or for. Yes, some issues such as abortion they can be but the major issues in this election ,such as Iraq, have flexibility. With the issue of Iraq there are so many ways of going about it that some may like a piece of McCain's plan and a piece of Obama's. With a mixture of issues and confusion of parties most people are declaring themselves "self-described independents". The parties grow even weaker by spreading themselves out in an attempt to reach everyone in our diverse country.
The next three problems that are causing the "vanishing voter" are triple whammies. The first is the never ending promises given out by each candidate to the American people. After 43 presidents the American people know by now that a lot of those promises are empty and eventually the candidates sound like broken records. The second problem is the negative campaigns. The candidates try to bash one another until, in the candidates mind, the voters see one candidate better than another. However, just like yelling fights in school you just want to scream "ENOUGH ALREADY YOU KEEP CALLING EACH OTHER THE SAME NAMES OVER AND OVER AGAIN". It may seem interesting at first but like the empty promises the negative campaigns get old really fast. The last problem Patterson found is just the cherry on top of the when does this end sundae. The final problem is the length of the campaigns. In the early part of the 20th century the campaigns didn't begin until the summer convention. Today the campaigns begin in the winter months. That amount of time for campaigning is ridiculous. The average brain can remember 7 numbers when learned in a short period of time, could you imagine trying to absorb everything brought to the campaign floor in the flash of a television screen from winter to election day? It would be almost impossible. Most citizens don't even watching the campaigns from start to finish because of this.
Instead of just telling the American people why they are abandoning the polls Patterson also decided to provide solutions to both the citizens and the government. The first suggestion is that the broadcast networks pick up the campaign slack and air more of the election coverage so it is easily seen throughout the population. The second suggestion is that the voting laws be changed so that the polls are opened longer and registration to vote is easy and can be performed on the election day. Patterson also plays with the concept of possibly making the election day a holiday so people wouldn't have to choose between voting and work. Voting should work for the people not the other way around.
The article provided great insight into the world of the voter. It provided statistical evidence to support each theory and it was easy to understand. I agree with Patterson's findings of the the "vanishing voter" and I also believe that his solutions sound possible. Very few of these solutions can be seen today such as media advertising to vote. Many television shows have created episodes especially to reach out and get people to vote. Even commercials like the MAYTAG REPAIR MAN are subtle hints to get out and vote.However, larger steps must be taken if our nation wants to end this epidemic of the "vanishing voter".
Thomas Patterson's "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" addresses the extreme decline in voter participation from the 1950's. In his articles, he discusses the issues that have led to decrease in voters, due to the public's loss of interest in political campaigns. Patterson also suggests viable solutions to the voter participation problem.
For many years, elections were based on economic issues that greatly affected every American and developed strong interest in the presidential campaign, as well as loyalty to a political party. Once many of these economic issues were solved by the government, many less distinct issues were at hand(i.e. civil rights, welfare, environment, education); none of which were as general as the economic issue. Political parties could not build a solid campaign around any of these issues, because they were too "crosscutting" and neither party could address all these issues in a way that would create a following of voters. Because of this, there is no party prominence and awareness. When people are not made aware of distinct differences in parties, they will not recognize the options that either party could make available to them. The statistics show that people with strong party loyalty have a higher tendency to vote than people who call themselves independents.
Next, Patterson notes that the decline in voter participation has been most noticeable among the lower-income Americans. People at the bottom half on the income ladder will vote half as much as people at the top half. He explains that during time of economic harship, the issues highlighted in political campaigns greatly affected the working-class Americans. In 2000, lower-class Americans were 30% more likely to say that the election had no impact on their lives, which would obviously discourage them from voting.
Candidates struggle to find a message that can relate to a majority of voters. "A century ago, James Bryce worried that the growing complexity of American society threatened the parties' ability to forge and mobilize cohesive majorities". I think that this quote is very appropriate to the drop in drop in voters. Candidates cannot develop a common message to satisfy the complex needs of American society, because that message does not exist.
Americans are starting to see a lot of negativity in presidential campaigns. Much of what Americans see during a campaign is manipulation, deception, and ambition. Candidates exploit the fact that it is easier to attract undecided voters by attacking their opponents, than by discussing their political stance. Negative advertising has tripled since the 1960's, and account for over half of the ads in political races. Research indicates that Americans who think that candidates base their campaigns on negative messages were less likely to pay attention to news about it, and therefore less likely to cast an educated vote, or any vote at all. Lastly, Patterson says that the campaigns have grown much too long, and people get bored and lose interest by the time election day arrives. They may in fact know more about their political party 6 months prior to the election, than they do on election day.
Patterson suggests solutions to stop the decrease in voter turnout. He believes that broadcasting companies should increase coverage of events such as debates, and national conventions and also put them in prime time. In 2000, fewer than 2 million voters watched the average debate, where 10 million watched a debate in prime time broadcast. This is frightening because this is where most voters get their information. Also, Patterson suggests a shorter campaign. He says, " Most citizens are not psychologically prepared to pay close attention to a campaign when Election Day is months away." Also, because they have been paying attention for so long, they are not highly attentive to the campaigns as they are coming to a close before election day. Patterson believes that restrictions on polling hours are the reason for alot of the decline in voters. Many states only keep polls open till 7 or 8 pm, which discourages the votes of low-income workers who are stuck at their jobs. One strong point that Patterson makes is that election day registration should be a national practice. Studies show that in 2000, states who have election day registration had a turnout 15 percentage points higher than elsewhere. Lastly, Patterson makes the point that schools and universities need to do a better job of educating students and helping them register to create a lifelong tradition of participation in elections.
I think that Patterson makes many valid points in his articles that I fully agree with. It is very obvious that our country needs change. Our government is by definition,"rule by the people" and if people don't vote, then what will our government become? If less and less Americans participate in elections, and the vote becomes more concentrated among high income citizens, than aren't we heading towards an Aristocracy?
Thomas Patterson's "Where Have All The Voters Gone?" is a shocking view at the unintended reasons for recent voter apathy. He cites the specific pitfalls of the interest of politics in society. Many are inadvertent effects of the modernization of political campaigns. He offers solutions to these problems and notes that unless something be changed in the near future, the prevailing downward spiral of voter participation will continue.
The multiple reasons for this pattern are vast. Patterson gives most of the blame to the media. He believes that the economic issue that clearly defined two parties decades ago is gone, and an economic safety net was put in place by Lyndon Johnson. For this reason, politics are less likely to have a life-altering effect on the majority of the voting public. In modern elections, the issues and stances taken by the candidates are not clear cut whatsoever, and many issues overlap and contradict each other, making it more difficult to remember a candidate's views as well as endorse one. People often do not vote because they do not support either candidate. It is difficult because many times there are some policies voters agree with, and others that they do not. The one defining issue of an election is no longer a norm. This has decreased partisanship throughout the years. Most recently, candidates have begun to target the middle-class voters and create initiatives based on their wants and needs. For this reason, low income voters do not participate because they are not the concern or focus of politics and their lives will remain seemingly unchanged no matter which candidate prevails. Due to the vast number of electoral concerns, campaign messages have become increasingly difficult to spread. There are too many positions to take on too many issues for a single message to suffice. In addition, through the course of the campaign process, these views grow and change and contradict each other. The trend of mudslinging introduced in the mid 20th century has also had a negative effect on voter turnout. People have begun to dislike and distrust the mean spiritedness of campaigns and feel that ambition has overtaken morals. Currently, a candidate’s personal past is magnified for all of the public to see, increasing the probability of a reason for distrust among voters. Ironically, negative advertising currently accounts for over half of the ads featured in most campaigns. In a time when voter turnout is low, candidates want to persuade people to flock to the polls and thus they make impossible guarantees. These promises, many believe, are a lie that will be told simply to win the election and indeed not an actually pledge. Candidates promises encompass a variety of groups making up the voting public and it is impossible to keep all of these without contradicting some. This has created an even greater sense of distrust towards politicians. Finally, one of the largest reasons for concern among voters is the campaign is too long. After hearing about candidates for a year or more, people become immune to the messages and frankly forget about the issues.
All is not lost with the trend of voter apathy. Patterson suggests a multitude of solutions. He believes that major broadcast networks are not fulfilling their obligations and they should put debates on primetime so they can be viewed by all. He also argues that a shorter campaign would be more effective and well endorsed by the public. By extending the polling hours, lower income workers would have an easier time voting and the registration process should be simplified to include same-day registration. He also believes that agents of political socialization can help encourage voter participation. These include schools, churches, the media, universities, non-profit organizations, unions, and corporations. By instilling a solid political background and inspiring an interest in politics, voter participation will rise.
What I enjoyed most about this article was its consolidation of such a variety of problems and solutions and the fact that is was very easy to comprehend. Patterson did a great job of laying out the issues in such a way as to inform the reader while suggesting fixes. I do agree with these fixes and think that a great deal can, and should be done to increase voter participation in the United States. In addition I also believe that until a campaign issue is found that will effect everyone’s lives, or the problems are fixed, voter apathy will continue. I disagree with Kaz in that the economy will draw people towards the election. I think that people who usually do not vote, will not because they are not well educated about the economy and have faith that it will rebound. I do think that the diversity of 2008’s candidates is a reason for larger voter turnout in the African American community as well as among feminists. However, those who are biased against either group in any way may feel dissuaded from participating. It is not the variety of the candidates or the severity of a few, select issues that will draw the voters in. It is the willingness of the government and society to take the initiative and take steps towards increasing voter participation.
Post a Comment