Op-ed by Sarah Baker and Forrest Maynock
Voting is such a tricky subject in today’s political climate.
Three amendments in the US constitution are dedicated to voting.
The fifteenth amendment, which was ratified in 1870, provided voting rights to all citizens regardless of race or color.
The nineteenth amendment expanded voting rights to women, and was ratified in 1920.
The twenty-sixth amendment set the voting age at 18, and was ratified in 1971.
As the Declaration of Universal Human Rights states, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”
The key part of that statement is, “will of the people.” If an individual chooses to abstain from voting then he or she is asserting their will.
The problem is that in the United States, over 40 percent of the voter-eligible population don’t vote in Presidential elections, per The American Presidency Project.
Why are so many Americans abstaining from participating in such a core right?
I, Sarah Baker, agree with those who have speculated over whether or not the two-party system has been the foundation of political polarization in the United States, and while this may be a contributing factor, internal affiliates have done plenty of polarization on their own.
Political apathy is a result of American extremism.
When you box something, especially an entity as prevalent and important, both socially and personally, as politics, into two exact and extreme opposites of one another, you gain an immense amount of outliers who won’t feel like pursuing or educating themselves concerning such topics.
No one wants to include themselves in something that doesn’t even remotely represent their primary interests — especially if the result of that active inclusion is endless frustration in the continuity of excluding middle ground, among the loud and ubiquitous shame for those who fight for it.
The result is a fateful cycle of apathetic, eligible voters who don’t speak up or advocate against polarization and polarization that mass-produces apathetic, eligible voters.
On an individual level, I, Forrest Maynock, don’t think that the blame game can be played, but if there is, for example, a movement that promotes not voting then blame can be given to that group or organization.
Also, not voting based on principle, or voting for a third party candidate, should not be discouraged. There is always a third or fourth or fifth option.
The American two-party system is extremely limited. How can the United States truely be a democracy if there are only two options for the political power structure? In my opinion they can’t.
When two parties dominate the political landscape, there are many voices that are quieted and/or not taken seriously by the majority.
In some cases, educated voters are discouraged beacuse their views are not popular or their opinions are strange to those in the majority.
Limiting oneself to only two options when there are other potentially viable choices is not a good practice.
Uneducated voters do not have the knowledge needed to have an educated opinion on major political issues.
If no research is put into the issues by the voter, then how will they know fact from fiction? Does this mean that people with little political knowledge should not vote at all?
Of course not, but people with political knowledge should work towards educating others about the issues.
When voters have an educated opinion about the issues, and/or when they find a political candidate that matches their views on a moral level, then they should vote.
Now if a person is politically educated, and still fails to vote, then that is their freedom. Plain and simple.
Forcing a vote out of someone who does not have confidence in a candidate or knowledge of an issue is not freedom.
There can be no such thing as implementing freedom by force. That is tyranny.