Pundits like to point out that a low number of voters participate in elections. A Huffington Post article recently pointed out that only 15.7 percent eligible to vote did so in last week’s Iowa caucus. Statistics such as these are usually pointed out in an attempt to highlight the decadent state of democracy or a loss of a sense of moral obligation or some other third pessimistic point of view.
But I think those people are not asking the right question—or, at least, the more interesting one—it's not “Why aren’t more people voting?” but rather “Who are these people who still vote?”
History gives some perspective on the matter.
According to Mark C. Carnes and John A. Garraty in The American Nation: A History of the United States, "Eight times as many people voted in 1840 as in 1824.” Well, how did that happen? Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States and that guy on the 20 dollar bill, that’s how. From this much information, one could surmise that Andrew Jackson did a good thing. He was somehow able to make democracy more accessible to the American people. More democracy means a more fair representation of those who vote—or so the logic goes. Except not really.
There is a problem with this. It has to do with the way in which he managed to get these people to vote, coupled with a fundamental shortcoming of democracy.
Carnes and Garraty write:
The difference between Jacksonian democracy and the Jeffersonian variety was one more of attitude than of practice. Jefferson had believed that ordinary citizens could be educated to determine what was right. Jackson insisted that they knew what was right by instinct. Jefferson’s pell-mell encouraged the average citizen to hold up his head; by the time of Jackson, the ‘common man’ gloried in ordinaries and made mediocracy a virtue.
In short, Jackson won the election of 1828 because he could rally the vote of the “common man”— that is, the vote of the average, less-educated, and usually misinformed voter. Jackson supporters saw his victory as a victory for democracy because the superior, educated, middle and upper-class voters did not decide the election. A victory it was not, for no women, African Americans, or Native Americans took part in the voting. The Jackson supporters were also wrong in that they forgot one simple fact: Education is good. It helps one to see through the facades of a politician's personality and to make informed decisions about what a nominee actually thinks in terms of policy and issues.
And so what happened in the campaigns of 1828? Jackson ran a campaign based on personality, not policy. Catchy slogans, large-printed broadsides, sensationalized rallies, and party loyalty—the whole nine yards became a thing because of Andrew Jackson. And over the past 188 years, it has morphed into a competition comparable to a monster truck rally, one that drives away so many cynical intellectuals.
There are so many examples of personality dominating politics; it's scary to make the list: Donald Trump fan clubs; Hillary Clinton supporters who vote for her because she is a woman and no reason else; Evangelicals who are attracted to the feigned Christian faith of conservative nominees. The list goes on and on. What's scary is that the nominees play on these sentiments to get votes. Just watch any debate, Republican and Democratic, and you will see what I mean.
And so the reason you need to vote (and make an informed decision) is to fight the ignorance. If you have made it this far into my article without getting bored of my history lesson, it means you probably can tolerate information without any sensation. It means you have a propensity for objectivity and reason. Put those attributes to work and vote. Do it because you need to offset the number of uneducated votes, not because you feel some need to "restore democracy.” We already did that once, and it’s the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
