Posted by
Libertybob on Monday, April 30, 2007 12:30:21 PM
Every election, the news reports that a pitiful turnout has taken place. Usually, less than 50% of the people turned out to vote. Since a majority of the vote wins, that means usually less than 25% of the populace is choosing who will lead. This is often viewed as a problem that needs to be corrected, but such a perspective misses the bigger picture.
A prime example of a "solution" to voter apathy helps demonstrate this. A new idea floating about on various states' ballot initiatives is to enact a "voter lottery." Everyone who votes will be entered into a lottery, and a winner will be chosen to win a million bucks. Thus, those who otherwise wouldn't vote may be willing to take the 5 minutes necessary to go out of their way and punch a card.
What's so bad about this idea? If citizens don't care to follow the issues or be involved in the political process, why would we want them to? Why would they make informed, wise decisions?
In fact, they probably wouldn't. As I have posted numerous times, every citizen does not have an equal voice. This can be explained by summing up how Socrates considered the matter:
-In a democracy each citizen has equal voice.
-If each citizen has equal voice, each citizen has equally valuable political views.
-If each citizen has equally valuable political views, no citizen is better equipped to lead. -If all citizens are equally equipped to lead, there is no need to elect a leader for one can be randomly appointed merely to rubber stamp the will of the populace.
But we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic, which the founders believed was the best form of government. They were NOT in favor of democracy. The founders were well aware of the notion that democracies are the most desirable form of government, and they opposed it. They tried to establish means to avoid the US becoming one.
Republics take a lesson from Plato. In his Utopian republic, the class of rulers was not those who were the strongest, nor those who garnered the most public support. The rulers were the philosophers. They would be people who would make decisions after carefully examining alternatives, and using their wisdom to come to the best result. The principle he espoused in making such a choice was that those who would rule the wisest would rule. See the difference?
Thus, if people are too apathetic to get involved, then truly it is for the best. The best way to combat voter apathy is simply to let it continue. I would much rather trust my tax dollars and the future of our nation to those who follow politics year round and have informed opinions, than the guy who walks off the street and punches a few random names simply to enter a lottery.