Third Way: Why We Vote
Vladimir Vladimirov
With a momentous election only a couple days away, one small breath of relief is the predicted surge in voter turnout. As of writing, more than 66 million Americans have voted early, already bordering on total election turnout for most states in 2016. This new record of voting is, on the surface, a good sign for American democracy.
It would be an overall positive shift if with it came a Copernican revolution in our understanding of American representative democracy, the political machine, and the power all individual citizens hold not just through their vote, but through different acts of civil engagement. Voting is only one tool, albeit a central one, from a collection of methods we as citizens use to create power collectively. It is for this reason that not voting or seeing voting as a transaction is not only theoretically wrong, but dangerous to democracy.
To understand the centrality of voting and citizen engagement, it is important to first contextualize power in American democracy. As intended by the Founders, power was to be dispersed among different levels of government. The executive branch has federal power, the Senate, State power, and the House of Representatives is for the people. This coexists with the "checks and balances" of government, which was designed to temper power throughout the legislative (with House and Senate split to minimize its unilateral ability to control lawmaking), executive, and judicial branches.
What the separations of powers was intended to do, above all, was keep American democracy stable. In Federalist Paper no. 62, it is this outlook which creates the Senate as a body to prevent the "mischievous effects of a mutable government" by limiting the power of the people in the House and the executive branch. Limiting the power of the "mob” which was liable to act upon its "passions", was central to stability. American democracy was created by thinkers who cherished the (Spinozian) ideal of "a nation of philosophers". Confronted with the impossibility of this, their vision for the country was to create deliberative, stable bodies that would control the people’s passions and ensure power was never able to concentrate in one area.
As governance evolved, the powers of each branch shifted. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court robust power over the other two branches. In 1914, the 17th Amendment changed the election of Senators to be in the hands of the people instead of State electors, giving more political power to the people and paving the way for the institution's future polarization. In the past half-century, the executive branch has increased its foreign policy power and its regulatory power. America has moved far from the original conceptions of the Framers.
That is a positive thing. No founding philosopher could have predicted American global supremacy in 1789 or its recent degeneracy. To reach the global standing America had required evolution with the times while keeping a fundamentally similar structure to the nation's framing philosophy.
Yet, what the constitution failed to institutionalize, according to the philosopher Hannah Arendt, were venues of citizen power, such as local town halls, citizen committees, and civil societies. While citizen power existed in the House of Representatives, their power diminished over time as the local captured less attention than the state and federal. Before COVID-19, when local governments were forced to pick up the slack of a non-governing government, most Americans knew relatively nothing about their local and state government. The places where they had the most political power were total unknowns.
As state and federal power expanded, citizen power diminished. This was codified in law most clearly through voter suppression, ranging from Jim Crow laws in the early 20th century to the current laws disenfranchising felons in Florida. Suppressing votes is suppressing citizens power, the anti-thesis to any notion of democracy.
Of all the questionable activities of the current Republican party, who want to see less federal power, voter suppression is one of their most disgraceful, hypocritical, and self-destructive actions. Indeed, a true American conservative would enshrine voting rights as a top priority. Not only is it wholly faithful to the democracy right-wing pundits cherish, but it would also allow localities to become less dependent on a big federal government. Above all, it would bring some respect back to a party whose reputation has been tarnished in all but its own eyes.
Without the power citizens need to have in a democracy, voting can feel transactional. Citizens can see their vote as a form of "currency", investing in a president who will match their policies. The politically homeless may see it through this lens as well, as they have no party who fully represent their interests and must "hedge their bets". This capitalist thinking feeds into a tendency to exit the world of politics all together. After all, if one's vote is worth less than corporate money votes, which have financial incentive behind them, what change will it really have? This self-imposed exile is tempting in an age of polarization. If common aims are ignored and aisles uncrossed, what's the point of political engagement anyway?
This understanding of a vote as "buying" an outcome is far too consumerist and fundamentally misrepresents voting. A vote is an expression of power. It is a minimal commitment to what democracy should be: the citizens governing and representing themselves. The founders recognized, in Arendt's words, “power springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse”. By decentralizing power in America, the founders sought to prevent the creation of one power centre. This ideal has been corrupted, and it is in the hands of citizens to cleanse it.
Citizens have more than just the vote to enact change, too. Protest is one form of public power which has been used this past summer. Another option is learning about the political system through education. If you understand the philosophy that built America, you are infinitely more empowered. More innovation, such as citizens assemblies, a shift away from first-past-the-post voting, and, more radically, election by sortition, could all see citizens more politically literate and engaged.
It seems citizens are embracing this. In the fight against gerrymandering, the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has launched a platform where citizens can help in the redistricting process. In conversation with the PGP, Beto O’Rourke, a leading figure against gerrymandering, argued that citizens are realizing they need to do more than vote to protect their democracy; citizens should control re-districting, among other things, to keep their democracy fair and their power unthreatened.
% Of Registered Voters Who Say...
Voters are recognizing this shift too. According to a recent survey from Pew Research Center, a pollster, "83% of registered voters say that it 'really matters who wins the presidential election." That is a 10% increase from 2016 and 20% increase from 2008. Another Pew survey conducted in 2018 discovered that only 39% of respondents believe voters are knowledgeable about candidates and issues, indicating a profound need for increased political literacy. A majority of 61% of respondents agree that "significant changes" to the "design and structure" of American government are needed.
Views of voting do not come down partisan ideology. Voting is a philosophical and foundational mechanism of democracy. It should not be drowned out by capitalistic language or suppressed for short-term party advantage. Indeed, voting and other modes of citizen power should be strengthened. That is not a radical stance, and it is one that the ideals of the Founders sought to guarantee. Voting is more than just a sacred right; it is an institution of American democracy and a mechanism for balancing the power in what is an exceptionally fragile form of governance.
