Tuesday, September 1, 2009

On voting and handwashing

In class on Monday we discussed the concept of hand washing, and how difficult it is to perfectly implement this seemingly simple task into the medical field. In this reflection we are asked to consider other situations where a large amount of effort has gone into changing/improving something, but the results still aren't perfect. After thinking about this for a little while, the issue of voter turnout came to mind.

We live in a country which is based on the concept of freedom and representation of the people, yet in the 2008 election voter turnout was only 56.8% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). Although this number has risen slightly over the past decade, it is still down from the higher, though still depressingly low, 63.1% turnout in 1960. On “off” years, or non-presidential years, the numbers are even worse, hovering around 38%. Why is it that such a low number of people exercise what could arguably be the most important and significant right of the American people?

Although I don’t have the knowledge to talk about them all, many efforts have been made to increase voter turnout. As an example, at least one major effort to combat this is the “campaign” to associate voting with patriotism and loyalty to one’s country. Sure, my vote might have seemingly little significance (more on that later) in the long run, but the very act of voting shows that I care about my country. The question then, is why aren’t they working? Why do only just over half of the registered voters in America turnout to vote on something as important as who our next president will be?

While I don’t have the answer, the situation does rather parallel the hand washing example discussed in class. It would seem that again time and importance are people’s main excuses for not voting. I know from firsthand experience (being a Republican in Illinois), that, more than likely, my vote will not have an effect in changing the outcome of the election. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t vote anyways. It is the thought of “my vote won’t count anyways” which is so dangerous. Do we want our doctor to abstain from washing his hands before he examines us, just because it “probably won’t matter”? This kind of thinking indicates casualness and apathy towards the situation.

This apathy, coupled with the fact that voting takes time and effort, are a deadly combination. If we can’t convince people that there vote is important, then how are we going to convince them to take time out of there busy schedule to go vote. The issue, then, seems to be centered on convincing people that their vote is important. While I certainly can’t prove this here, I do have at least one thought to consider.

Imagine a situation where 100% of the registered voters voted. How could they argue that there vote doesn’t count? Sure, the president elect will more than likely win by a margin of tens of thousands of votes, but does that really matter? Think of it this way. If I, as a Republican in Illinois (I use this for an example- I don’t wish to get into politics) don’t vote because I don’t think it will matter, and every other Republican does the same thing, then the whole situation becomes ridiculous. People don’t vote, since they think that there vote won’t matter because they know that other people aren’t voting, etc. etc. However, if I could somehow know that 100% of the people in Illinois, whatever their political party, voted, then I could rest assured that my vote was at least cast in the situation where it would most likely have a significance. By that, I mean, if all Republicans voted together with one voice, then, regardless of the outcome, they would all mutually know that they had done the best that they could. Therefore, it would seem that a single vote would count, because everyone would vote with the knowledge that they had the full support of everyone else of their particular political view.

As with hand washing, it seems that we again have a situation which seems so simple, in principal, to fix, yet so hard in reality to accomplish. Until we can convince people that every vote counts, voter turnout will always be low. And how do we convince people that every vote counts when people, by nature, tend to automatically round low probabilities to zero? Actions such as making it easier and simpler or even more patriotic to vote will be of little significance until we address this foundational issue.

I feel as though I have only scratched the surface of a very complicated question, which, honestly, I know relatively little about. I hope, however, that the reader of this post will think honestly about their motivation for either voting or not voting. I know that I personally in thinking about the topic have resolved to increase/continue my voting participation, because, although I am very small in the big picture, I am all important in that voter turnout most certainly can’t be 100% until I vote. Now, if we could all just think this way…

2 comments:

  1. Thanks for your response. Voting is an interesting area to consider, especially on the question of whether it parallels the issue of washing hands in hospitals.

    It seemed to me you struggled on the question - does voter turnout matter? There are several ways it might matter. Here are a couple. Could voter turnout affect who wins the election. Suppose those who do turn out are not a random sample from the population of eligible voters but rather that there are certain political views that get over sampled in the actual turnout. Then low turnout might favor one candidate and high turnout the other. Even if no individual vote is likely to swing the election, aggregate turnout can matter. But this is an example of how voting might be dissimilar from hand washing. Apart from the inconvenience, which you note well, nobody benefits when doctors fail to wash their hands. But somebody does benefit when people fail to vote.

    A different way to look at it that makes the two seem more alike is to consider the effect of turnout on elected official behavior while in office. One might reasonably speculate that higher turnout signifies the voter pay more attention to what the official does while in office. Low turnout signifies the opposite. If that is true, high turnout might make it harder for special interest to affect outcomes via lobbying. Low turnout might encourage the lobbyists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I should clarify that I feel that voter turn out is very important, as it does show support for one's country. I didn't mean to harp on any inconveniences of voting, but was rather just trying to honestly assess the situation to see what the problems are.

    ReplyDelete