The statement “polarization is bad for democracy” may feel like a somewhat broad statement. Is it referring to Congress and the fact that they cannot get anything passed? Perhaps it is referring to violence that has transpired such that of January 6^th, 2021. However, when all the interpretations are put together, it shows how polarization has negatively impacted our country.

Polarization happens due to biases humans have. In political psychology, they two most prevalent to individuals are confirmation bias and groupthink (Lu). Confirmation bias is where a person seeks out information that support their belief system and ignores information that goes against their beliefs. With so many ways to get instantaneous information, the ability to seek out information that supports one’s beliefs is incredibly easy. For example, a liberal may only watch MSNBC to get their news while a conservative may only watch FOX News to get their news. This leads people to only receive news that they agree with and thus think any other opinion is invalid or wrong. Groupthink, in the political context, has simlar effects to that of confirmation bias. Groupthink is where a person’s opinion conforms to the opinion of the group. For example, a Republican may not have an opinion on gun control, but once they learn that most other Republicans oppose gun control, they decide that they are also against gun control. While there are many types of biases that influence citizens’ ability to accurately determine whether a policy is favorable to their lives or not.

The harms of political polarization in the United States impacts every person in at least one way. While some of the harms are more direct such as a policy is passed even though only extremist agree with it, some are less discussed. Researchers have found 14 harms of the large degree of polarization in the United States (Smith, Jilani).

1. We’re segregated in our own communities.
   • Citizens are segregating by political ideology in their residential communities.
2. Our political culture is more and more antagonistic.
   • Our political campaigns have focused more on tearing down our opponents than building up support for our own ideas.
3. We judge and loathe members of other political parties.
   • People describe other of the opposite party as immoral (Pew Research)
4. Our families are being undermined.
5. We’re less likely to help each other out.
6. Our physical health is probably suffering.
   • Surprising fact: individuals who harbor racial prejudices and fears can wear down their muscles and damage their immune systems.
7. We’re more and more stressed out.
8. We feel pressure to conform in our groups.
   • See discussion of groupthink above
9. Deception is more likely.
   • We live in a society where there is so much information it is hard to tell what is true and what is simply a narrative.
10. Gridlock is damaging our government institutions.
11. Government shutdowns and gridlock cost taxpayer dollars in the billons.
12. We’re losing trust in key institutions
13. It’s hard for us to solve problems even when we do agree.
14. Violence is more likely.
    • Jan. 6^th 2021 was the top of the iceberg but it violence at rallies, marches, etc has increased.

The way individuals can help our society become less polarized are actually quite simple. The first is to read the news instead of watching a news network on television. These television networks are there to entertain you and keep people watching instead of providing the best news. To learn the most about a topic, citizens should seek out an unbiased (or a less biased) sources such as the Associated Press or the Wallstreet Journal and determine their opinions based upon the articles. The second is to talk to people about their views and be willing to change if their viewpoint is valid. While most peoples’ opinions on topics are shallow as they are influenced by biases, there is still something to learn. Why do they believe these things? What do they value in their society? The third to to get off of the poltical side of social media. This is mostly due to the fact that very few people are experts on the topic and thus, their opinion not should be taken as fact. However, due to social media becoming more of a silo for people, opinions are not challenged and people intrerpet it as fact.

Works Cited

Lu, Marcus. “11 Cognitive Biases That Influence Politics.” World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/11-cognitive-biases-that-influence-political-outcomes/.

Pew Research. “Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy, Pew Research Center, 28 Aug. 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/.

Smith, Jeremy Adam, and Zaid Jilani is Greater Good‘s Bridging Differences Writing Fellow. A journalist originally from Atlanta. “What Is the True Cost of Polarization in America?” Greater Good, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_is_the_true_cost_of_polarization_in_america.

Gerrymandering has been a part of US politics since the beginning of the country. In the 17^th and 18^th century Britain, English politicians created map that made it easy to buy votes, and thus, elections. The idea of creating districts for political gain hopped over the pond immediately following the founding of the country (Little). However, the origin of the word “gerrymander” is the best to describe its history. For the election of 1812, the Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, made a map with weird-shaped state districts. Prior to this point, gerrymandering in states such as Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, still had districts that looked somewhat normal. For this reason, political cartoonist Gilbert Stuart of the Boston Gazette made a salamander of the districts in Massachusetts for the slimy nature of the governor’s map. The election of 1812 of the Massachusetts state senate ended with Republicans winning 29 of 40 seats with only 49% of the vote (Little). The term, gerrymandering, is simply the word salamander and “Gerry” (the governor’s name) pushed together.

Before I dive into the issues with gerrymandering, please note that situation also applies for Republicans living in Democrat-controlled districts, but I will explore this issue from my own experience living in a Republican-controlled district. For context, Pennsylvania is a close primary state which means that a person needs to be registered to the party to vote in the primary election. I live in Pennsylvania’s 9^th Congressional District. My Representative to the House is Republican Dan Meuser, and he won in a landslide victory of more than 30 points over the Democratic candidate in the 2020 election (Ballotpedia). Looking to the 2022 elections, it is all but guaranteed that the Republican candidate will win the seat. This essentially Thus, it can be concluded that the election is decided in the Republican primary instead of the general election and makes it so that a Democrat’s vote in the general election will be useless. This begs the question, should Democrats register as a Republicans? This would give them the ability to vote in the Republican primaries and thus their opinion would be more valuable.

Now the question of, “should Democrats register as a Republicans?” is ridiculous. Since I am making a legitimate argument for it means the system is currently inadequate for picking the Representative that best represents the people of the district. To reform this, 2 solutions would need to be implemented. Firstly, gerrymandering would have to be limited as much as possible. Voters would need to vote people out of office that are continuously making the cycle go around. Secondly, primaries need to be changed so that the best candidate to represent the entire district wins the primary. In a presentation by former Congressman Charlie Dent, hosted by Penn State’s McCourtney Institute for Democracy, explained current systems of primaries lead to more fringe people to get by as the moderates share the votes of the more centrist voters while there are fewer extreme candidates to share the more extreme votes. The example Congressman Dent gave was the nomination of Marjorie Taylor Greene as Georgia’s Republican candidate for Georgia’s 14 District. I believe that creating many marginal districts is important in keeping more moderate representatives in the House. The more moderate representatives should make it easier for compromises to be made and bills to be passed that would benefit the American people.

To solve these issues, I believe that having open, rank choice primaries and elections will lead to the best representatives for the districts. Open, rank choice election would allow their opinion to be heard even if their first candidate isn’t likely to be voted in. This would allow Democrats to rank Republicans so, in a Republican “safe district,” Democrats would be able to support moderate Republicans instead of fringe Republicans. This would lead to elected officials catering to all people of the district instead of just one party and the voices of each person is equally heard.

Works Cited

Ballotpedia. “Pennsylvania’s 9th Congressional District.” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania%27s_9th_Congressional_District.

Little, Becky. “How Gerrymandering Began in the US.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 20 Apr. 2021, https://www.history.com/news/gerrymandering-origins-voting.

Voter suppression has been in the news lately, but it is not a new concept in the United States. In Jim Crow era southern US, many obstacles were put in place to prevent people of color from voting. Legislatures in southern states passed poll taxes, disenfranchisement clauses, grandfather clause, and literacy tests. These laws were challenged as violating the 15^th Amendment in the US Constitution. The 15^th Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (Constitution of the United States, amend. 15, sec 1). However, in 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the laws in their ruling of Williams V. Mississippi. Directly after the Supreme Court upheld the laws other southern states followed suits with the voter suppression laws. It took until 1965 to pass a significant voting law to prevent racial discrimination at the ballot boxes.

Today, voter suppression has the same goal, prevent people of color from voting or make their vote less important. The most notable of the voter suppression laws has come from Georgia. Last year, the Republican controlled legislature and the Republican Governor passed a law that will prevent people from voting, but it hurts people in urban areas. These lawmakers went so far as to make it a crime to give people water and food while waiting in line to vote, and they also decreased the number of voting places in urban areas, artificially increasing the lines and the wait time to vote. While making it a crime to give people water or food may seem like a small thing not worthy of discussion, I assure you it is. These small things show you that lawmakers have thought of everything within their power to prevent people from voting, and I haven’t even spoken about the large item on the bill. The large items on the bills are voters will have less time to request absentee ballots, made stricter ID requirements, decreasing the number of drop boxes, and made it harder to extend voting hours if problems arise (Corasaniti & Epstein). This is not only happening in Georgia, but also all over the country. In fact, since 2010, 25 states have passed voter restriction laws (Brennan Center for Justice).

These laws disproportionately make it harder to vote if a person is elderly, living paycheck to paycheck, a student away for college/university, a parent, or anyone who is disabled. These groups of people rely upon the ability to get a mail-in ballot or cannot wait for hours in a line to go and vote. These laws particularly affect those who live in cities and are of lower socioeconomic status. Limiting access to mail-in and absentee ballots hurts urban voters as more people would have to justify the long wait. In addition, people of lower socioeconomic status may not be able to provide the requirements for an ID as they simply cannot afford to pay for the documentation. In the case of a parent who is living paycheck to paycheck, for example, can neither spend time during work hours as they need that money to buy food nor spend time afterwork to vote as childcare is too expensive.

Politicians are selfishly taking the election by coming up with ideas to prevent people who would vote for another candidate instead of supporting ideas that would benefit these people. This not only prevents progress throughout the country as politicians do not support policies their voter doesn’t want, but also goes against a significant part of the population in this country. For example, 125 million people are living paycheck to paycheck, but politicians would rather make sure they couldn’t vote instead of giving them a reason to keep them in office (PYMNTS.com). By limiting these citizens’ ability to vote, politicians making laws that make it harder for about 50% of the population from voting. In addition, these laws hit people of color particularly hard. Of the people who were affected by the Georgia voting laws, 70% were people of color. Assuming Republican lawmakers are not racist, the conclusion is that Republicans are disenfranchising people would are going to vote for the other candidate. As people are the people are the one who put them in office, preventing people from making that decision can be described with one word selfishness.

Today, democracy in the United States is at the most risk since the Civil War and voter suppression is atop the list of reasons. The goal of democracy is to make sure that every person’s voice can be heard, and citizens are able to directly affect change in the government. Voter suppression tactics make it harder for people to make change as people are unwilling to go through the hassle of voting. This restriction of civic engagement by citizens is a worrying trend. “Restriction of civic engagement” is not something that comes to mind when thinking about the ideals of the United States. The US is the land of the free, the land in which people can speak out against their government and change their leaders if they are going a poor job. But just like in the Jim Crow era south, people are restricted from being civically engaged and being productive citizens. This needs to change. The voices of people need to be the single factor in deciding who gets put into office, not just those who are fortunate enough to miss a day of work to vote or live in suburban areas. As Americans, we can do better.

Works Cited

Brennan Center for Justice. “New Voting Restrictions in America.” Brennan Center for Justice, 2019, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/new-voting-restrictions-america.

“Constitution of the United States.” U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States, 1787, https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm.

Corasaniti, Nick, and Reid J. Epstein. “What Georgia’s Voting Law Really Does.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html.

PYMNTS.com. “U.S. Consumers Living Paycheck-to-Paycheck.” PYMNTS.com, 15 June 2021, https://www.pymnts.com/consumer-finance/2021/new-report-upper-income-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/.