Sunday, May 11, 2008
Are American voters ignorant -- or just apathetic? Plus: Shuttling blame for declining sex drive; polluting Bob Marley's legacy
Dec 1, 1999 | Is voter ignorance killing democracy?
BY CHRISTOPHER SHEA
(11/22/99)
Chris Shea correctly notes that voters want less government but want more from it. But he is wrong about the source, which is ambivalence, not ignorance.
The recent study by Albert H. and Susan Davis Cantril, "Reading Mixed Signals: Ambivalence in American Public Opinion about Government," presents the results of an extensive national survey designed specifically to get at this group of voters. The Cantrils find that, as a group, these voters are no worse informed than a) voters who seem more consistent in wanting to shrink government and have fewer programs or b) voters who think government size is fine and want more programs. The Cantrils do, however, find other distinguishing features about ambivalent voters, features that are extremely important because they are also important swing voters.
The study finds that people's opinions on issues in public debate today have more to do with ambivalence than with demographic characteristics, with the exception of age, or with whether they describe their political views as conservative, middle of the road or liberal. Among people generally critical of government, the Cantrils find, six considerations stand out as especially important in explaining levels of ambivalence:
1) Differences of opinion about how much attention government should pay to the concerns of low-income Americans. Those who think government is paying too little or the right amount of attention to the poor are more likely to be more ambivalent in their criticism of government than those who think too much attention is given to the poor.
2) Differences in how much people think their communities are affected by what goes on in other parts of the country. Those who sense interdependence tend to be more ambivalent as critics of government.
3) Differing levels of confidence in the executive agencies of the federal government. Critics who are more confident are usually more ambivalent in their criticism of government.
4) Differences of opinion about how to deal with the issue of race. Government's critics who think the country still has a long way to go in working for racial equality are more ambivalent.
5) Age. Younger critics of government tend to be more ambivalent in their thinking than older critics.
6) Differences of opinion about getting ahead. Those who think there are times when circumstances stand in the way are more likely to be ambivalent as critics than those who think anyone can get ahead with hard work.
-- Joseph Brinley
Director, Woodrow Wilson Center Press
Americans aren't ignorant and uninformed -- just the opposite, in fact -- but the elites who run for office obviously believe the myth. We're bombarded with idiotic, name-calling, preschool-level ads, debates that are composed of smirky remarks and no substance, and a choice of two people who support the same thing -- the status quo.
Quite frankly, under the electoral system we have today, my vote doesn't really count. Because a choice between two wealthy spoiled brats whose main goal is to protect their interests -- interests that are alien to mine -- is no choice at all. The system is so dependent on money that it is really just a bidding contest.
-- Juliane Schneider
Americans aren't too dumb to vote -- but we are too dumb to have "direct democracy," an idea we're going to hear more and more of as the average Joe American goes online: "To hell with all these representatives. We'll vote for everything over the morning coffee." I want a deliberative democracy which has a lot of smart and principled representatives working full-time for me. I wouldn't know the first thing about how to balance the budget or which missile would be the best buy, but I would hope I could elect someone who shares the same principles as I do to go to Washington and do that work for me.
-- Vincent Basehart
In many ways, our republican form of government is designed to allow the people not to sweat the details. My neighbor and I don't need to know how milk subsidies work; we elect representatives to take care of that kind of thing for us. Ignorance is no virtue, but there was no golden age of informed voting in America. In the 19th century, voters often knew their congressman by sight but couldn't name the president. Furthermore, voters in the past were far more likely to vote party tickets than voters today. If the republic could survive the Know-Nothing movement, it will probably survive the MTV generation.
-- R. Scott Rogers
What's really needed is an examination of just how much information the "average" American really has access to. In cities like Washington and New York (where many journalists and pollsters live), it's easy to assume that everyone has ready access to reams of daily political coverage. In fact, though, this is not the case in much of the country.
I look at my father, who lives in a small town in Pennsylvania. He reads two papers daily -- one from the town in which he lives and one from a neighboring, larger town. Neither devotes much space to national politics. Sure, he could subscribe to the Washington Post or the New York Times to round out his reading, but many people are too busy to read that many papers each day (and television news is certainly not that enlightening) or surf the Internet for news (and despite the incessant media coverage of the Internet, many Americans still do not have computers). Are American voters truly ignorant or do they just not have as much access to information as we'd like to think?
-- Julia Thomas
Get Salon in your mailbox!