A Scary Proposition

Two Percent of Voters Thought Mitt Romney's Real Name is 'Mittens'

        If the United States as a nation was to be wrung out and sieved until only the most fundamental of ideals remained, the principle last standing would almost certainly be democracy (or "democracy" –but that's an argument for another time). Our nation was established by men who believed in affording citizens the right to decide for themselves how their country would be governed. Rallying behind the cry, “No Taxation Without Representation,” thousands of patriots fought tooth and nail in the hope of attaining the freedom of choice that their fathers never had. And that’s wonderful! But in today’s world, a world in which approximately four and a half million people believe they would be voting for someone named after a cat, was that struggle really worth it?

          Our democracy commenced in an imperfect way, extending voting rights only to white, male, property holders. Evidently they were the only civilians who knew what was best for the fledgling nation. But then poor whites and black males became members of this prestigious guild (although registration fees and literacy tests limited their involvement), and finally women could cast their ballots. Nowadays, the government is practically imploring us to take part in any given election, as voter turnout has been so low. We’ve come a long way.

          But at what cost? The quantity of the vote may have increased exponentially, but can the same be said about the quality? In any major decision there lies an opportunity cost, and the extension of voting rights is no different: there now exists a substantive group of people who will cast a vote next Tuesday without knowing who, or what, they are supporting.

          Am I arguing for a return to the oppressive measures of our forefathers? Of course not. The uninformed voter does not lie exclusively in any one demographic, and to brand it any other way is purely un-American. Rather than alleviate the problem through restrictive measures, we as a nation must make strides in our yearning for knowledge, and that knowledge must be readily available.

          Lest I am unclear, by uninformed voter I do not mean someone who is oblivious to the candidates that are running and their stances. An uninformed voter in this sense behaves similarly to a sponge, in that they blindly soak up anything seen or heard when it comes to their political views. They don’t actively seek out information, and make no judgments on their own accord.

          This voter proves hazardous, as one misstep by an aspiring leader could sway their opinion indefinitely. In this year’s election cycle, Romney’s 47% comments or Obama’s Benghazi cover-up undoubtedly swayed some voters with nothing else to center their opinions around. Political ads provide the same bias with their malicious nature. Both candidates bring to the table much more than their faux pas and gaffes. As a result of these isolated incidents, misinformed voters spread throughout the nation will be casting ballots for candidates without having paid attention to the core of their policies.

          There is no quick fix to this dilemma, as unqualified voters are inherent to a democratic state. And as unfair as allowing these citizens the vote may be, revoking that right of expression would prove ten times as iniquitous. Until money is invested in a constructive form of voter education (I'm looking at you, or you, political ads), we as a nation must simply concede that although our system is imperfect, it perfectly represents the people it governs.