Just last week, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, professors at Princenton and Northwestern respectively, released a study through Princeton that claims that the United States is no longer a democracy, but rather an oligarchy (state controlled by a small group of people).  The dramatic and shocking nature of this claim has lead to the study receiving a fair amount of attention.  Gilens and Page supported their claim by first looking at the results of nearly 1,800 policies enacted between 1981 and 2002.  They compared these results to the preferences of the average American (50th percentile), the upper echelon of Americans (90th percentile), and the major lobbying groups.  The conclusion of this comparison was that the majority of the policies benefitted one of, if not both, of the latter two groups instead of the former.  Gilens and Page went on to describe the importance of your preferences as “near-zero” and “statistically unimportant.”

If you’re skeptical of this discrepancy between public opinion and the political action that is taken, consider the recently proposed plan for mandatory background checks on all gun purchases.  This proposal seems very reasonable, and thus, according to a Gallup poll, over 80% of Americans supported its enacting.  However, due to the strength of the gun lobby, the bill died after being voted on.

Many feel that the issues behind this depreciation of the value of your opinion are related to crooked politicians who are prone to over-politicking.  This study seems to indicate that there is evidence to support this claim.  However, this politicians themselves would likely indicate that they were just doing what they felt was best for their constituents.  This raises the classic American debate of whether Congressmen should act as trustees or delegates for their constituents.  They’re given the power of their people.  Should they use it to do what they think is best or what their people seem to want?  This dilemma is a central one for Congressmen, and seems to be the best evidence against this new claim.

Beyond losing value to those with more political muscle, your opinion is also very hurt by the practice of gerrymandering.  Gerrymandering is the process of manipulating the borders of a Congressional district with the intention of leading a candidate from a certain background to easy victory.  Redistricting generally occurs after House seats are reapportioned, or after the decennial census.  The process is controlled at the state level.  

Standard (L)- Green and Purple each receive 50% in each district
Gerrymandered (R)- Total amount is still 50-50, but purple wins three districts to green’s one.

Pennsylvania serves as a great example of this situation.  After the 2010 census, Pennsylvania was set to lose a House member and Republicans were in control of how the districts would be redrawn to account for this change.  This control allowed the GOP to turn formerly blue districts in to House races in which Republicans would be able to compete.  They achieved their goal with great success, as Pennsylvania Democratic candidates received more than 50% of the state’s total votes, but still only 5/18 seats.  In districts drawn for competition, Democrats would have likely won nine or ten seats in close contests.  Instead, they walloped their opposition in 5 races and then struggled in the rest.  Pennsylvania’s gerrymandering is not even necessarily the worst.  It is truly a nationwide epidemic.  See the Illinois 4th District below for a particularly egregious example.

 

The votes of Republicans in this district, are worth almost nothing, as 3/4 of the district are Democrats.  However, this also leads to a very inflated value of the votes of Republicans in surrounding areas.  With the green and purple dots example, Republicans would be the purple dots here.

There is some question as to whether or not your votes count for anything to begin with.  As Congressmen increasingly disregard the wishes of their constituents, whether or not someone is disenfranchised will almost start losing relevance.  However, gerrymandering has already greatly deteriorated the influence of many voters’ opinions and their ability to get candidates that they like in Congress.  Do you think that this is justified?  And if not, what actions can be taken to make Congressional decision-making more representative of the population on the whole’s opinions?

One of the greatest advocates for easing the voting process has been the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  Part of the ACLU’s voting rights platform is “Promoting Access” to the polls, namely by creating new and more convenient ways of registering to vote.  One of the chief methods that they propose is to allow same day registration.  Currently, in the vast majority of states, if a voter does not register to vote by a certain deadline he or she will be left disenfranchised come election time.  However, with same day registration, those who are eligible to vote will be able to register at their polling places, greatly growing the size of the electorate.  Currently, ten states and Washington DC allow same day registration, with California set to become the eleventh state to permit it.

The process of registering on election day is not necessarily a simple one, as there are certain requirements that must be met.  First, would-be voters must prove their residency, for obvious reasons.  Where the voter’s residency is is essential, as it determines what district they are in and thus what races they may vote in.  There is no standard way to prove this residency among same day registration states.  In some states a driver’s license is enough, but in others, a paycheck or utility bill with the voter’s address is needed as well.  Even more extreme, some states also require a current voter to vouch for the registering voter’s residency.  Additionally, an ID is obviously required.  To prevent fraud, many same day registration states send mail in the days and weeks after the election to confirm the voter’s address and prevent voter fraud.

Through this process, more people are able to participate in the electoral process.  However, there is some concern regarding fraud with same day registrants, as there is not much time to confirm everything that the applicant says.  If there is fraud, it is also much easier to remedy the situation without same day registrants.

Beyond same day registration the ACLU is pushing to expand the electorate via online registration.  They argue that voters should be able to register or update their information online, as not allowing it is practically an archaic practice at this point.  Furthermore, it will allow increased expediency and convenience for those looking to register to vote.  Based on these arguments, twelve states have already implemented online registration programs, with five more set to implement them in the near future.  The ACLU is of course pushing for more states to join this movement, but also for those states which already have to expand their programs.  Many states currently allow voters to register using their driver’s license numbers of the last four digits of their social security numbers.  However, many applicants may lack these forms of identification.  These steps would help to expand the franchise of the country even more than it already has.

As a secondary benefit, online registration has been found to save states a great deal of money.  A study done in Arizona, one of the twelve states that currently uses online registration, found that the average cost for the state of a paper registration is 83 cents.  A similar online registration costed a mere 3 cents.  80 cents per registration certainly adds up and despite not being the primary goal of this legislation, it is certainly a valuable benefit.

There is a greater deal of concern regarding the safety of online registration.  Many believe that online registration opens up the door for security breaches including hacking.  To help combat this, captchas are generally included in online voter registration applications, preventing a computer from breaking in.

A lack of online registration and same day registration in a state does not necessarily disenfranchise many voters.  However, their implementation will increase the size of the electorate, enfranchising more people, something that very few people would consider anything but a positive for the nation.

Sources:

https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/promoting-access

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voter-registration.aspx

http://www.demos.org/publication/factsheet-voters-win-same-day-registration

The United States Congress: A legislative body composed of five hundred and thirty-five members.  One hundred Senators, four hundred and thirty-five Representatives, each delegating for a set land area and everyone living within it.  These delegates are all tasked with tackling each of the largest legislative matters faced by the United States, and they are authorized to do this by every citizen of the nation, who have elected each of their respective Congressmen.

That all sound about right?  Well it mostly is, except for one key element.  Congress is not authorized by every citizen of the United States.  There are well over 600,000 people living in the contiguous United States who are not represented at all when the legislative branch is called to a vote.

Since the formation of the United States, those living within the borders of the District of Columbia have been left out of the electoral process.  In 1961, as a result of the 23rd Amendment they were finally granted electors for presidential elections.  However, even today those living in Washington DC are not represented at all in the Senate and have only been granted a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, despite having greater numbers than the entire states of Wyoming and Vermont.

Citizens of Washington DC have obviously not appreciated this perceived wrong, and have thus begun to describe their situation as “taxation without representation.”  This statement is one of significant historical importance to Americans, as it was one of the chief complaints of those living in the British Colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence.  The situations are clearly not direct contemporaries; no one would believe that there is a serious possibility that Washington DC would declare its independence from the tyrannical United States.  However, the comparison that DC citizens draw is not entirely an unfair one , as they do pay taxes like any other represented citizen.

The “taxation without representation” mantra is one that DC citizens have made a central part of their identity, as the brash statement now adorns the license plates of the district’s residents.

President Obama showed his support for Washington’s struggle for representation by changing all of the license plates used in the presidential motorcade to the format pictured above.  Obama said that he made this choice after seeing “first-hand how patently unfair it is for working families in D.C. to work hard, raise children and pay taxes, without having a vote in Congress.”

However, irregardless of all of this logic and support, the District of Columbia still lacks representation.  Obviously there is a reason why this continues to be the case, and that reason is rooted in the Constitution.  When describing Congress, Article I Section 2 of the Constitution says that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.”  As Washington DC is not a state, the House of Representatives should not include members of it, per this definition, which is the one that matters.  One might question why this one, vague sentence is enough to end all talk of DC representation.  However, the Constitution has a well-deserved reputation as one of, if not the greatest document ever written.  For this reason, many Americans are very resistant to change it or to read it any way but literally.  The resistance of these strict constructionists has lead to DC representation receiving the label of “unconstitutional,” much to the chagrin of the city’s residents.

To look at this issue more politically, strict constructionists tend to lean conservative.  Coincidentally or not, Washington DC is an incredibly liberal city.  Representation for it would almost certainly mean two more Democrats in the Senate and one in the House.

With the 2012 election around the corner, many states began to enact voter ID laws, which would require those participating in the electoral process to prove their identity in some way upon arriving at their polling place.  These laws have varying degrees of severity.  In some states, if you are unable to initially produce a valid ID you will be given a provisional ballot and a few days to complete your vote.  In others, if you don’t have the photo ID you simply cannot vote.  Others still allow non-photo IDs.  Altogether, thirty states have some sort of voter ID law.

While these laws do not initially seem to infringe upon citizens’ right to vote too greatly, they have been the topic of much debate recently, as many claim that they are created in an attempt to disenfranchise many voters of lower socioeconomic standing, or the elderly.  These groups, the lower socioeconomic one in particular, tend to vote Democrat.  This claim is supported by looking at the states which require voter IDs.  Democratic strongholds, such as New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey have no voter ID laws.  Conversely, the five states with the strictest voter ID laws– Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee, and Texas– are all unquestionable red states, with their electorates choosing a Democrat only one time combined in the four elections of the new millennium (Indiana, 2008).

But why would these laws be so prohibitive for those of the lower socioeconomic classes?  Unless you have a photo ID you can’t complete basic tasks that adults in our society do, things like purchasing alcohol or signing up for a credit card.  What sort of adult doesn’t have a photo ID already?  The Washington Post shows us, profiling Cheryl Ann Moore, a 54 year old woman from Philadelphia.  She has voted since she was 19, but because of Pennsylvania’s new voter ID laws, Moore was worried that she would be unable to vote in the 2012 election.  She’s held the same custodial job for 24 years and only uses cash because credit cards are too “dangerous.”  She doesn’t need an ID to cash her checks because she has been going to the same place for it for so long that they just know her.  Like many living in a more urban environment, Moore doesn’t drive, instead using buses to get around.  Even months before the election, Moore had to take off work and wait for four hours at the DMV to get her ID.  Many in Moore’s situation who are unable to do this will simply be unable to vote.

Pennsylvania’s recent voter ID law has of course been a topic of much debate since it began to be discussed by the state legislature.  It is one of the strictest voter ID laws, but may not ultimately be enacted.  It was passed in state legislature despite every Democrat voting against it, and then signed in to law by Republican Governor Tom Corbett.  The law’s enactment was initially delayed until after the 2012 election and now, nearly a year and a half later, its fate is still undetermined.  In mid-January a state judge struck down the law saying that the burden it would place on those currently without voter IDs would be “unreasonable.”  However, even this is not the ultimate fate of the law, as it is expected to be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court next.

Obviously voter ID laws do have benefits as well.  Otherwise, legislators would have a difficult time justifying their enactment not being partisan-related.  According to Protectmyvote.com, polls on voter ID laws show that they receive an overwhelming amount of public support, ensure that voter fraud is not an issue, and could make the voting process more efficient.  However, voter fraud appears to practically be a non-issue, as the number of fraudulent votes cast appears to be incredibly small– some estimating it to  be as small as 1/15,000,000 votes cast.

Since the inception of the United States and modern democracy, the right to vote has been one of the most basic, inalienable rights held by a country’s citizens.  Of course, the people for whom this right is inalienable have changed throughout the country’s history.  Initially, only white, land-owning men of a certain age were allowed to vote.  Through subsequent constitutional amendments, that right was also extended to men of other races, and finally women.  Most would say that after the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, the United States was finally practicing universal suffrage.  However, in the 2006 election, approximately 5.3 million people were denied the right to vote.  These millions of people were stripped of one of their most basic rights for a very simple reason: because they were convicted felons.

The simple fact is that in many states, felons are not permitted to cast ballots.  The states themselves control this situation, and some are stricter than others, but altogether, they disenfranchise millions of people annually.  Of the 50 states, only Vermont and Maine allow current inmates to vote, while 36 states prevent parolees from voting, and 31 leave those still on probation out of the electoral process.

Initially, this doesn’t seem like such an issue.  Oftentimes, felons are not the most upstanding citizens.  If they’ve done something egregious enough to land themselves in jail they probably deserve to lose their vote, some would reason.  For this reason, the disenfranchisement of felons has been described as “a modern day literacy test.”  Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity sums up this viewpoint, saying that “If you aren’t willing to follow the law, you can’t claim the right to make the law for everyone else.”

However, when taking a step back, it is still taking away someone’s right to vote, something that almost all American’s would agree should be innately held by all citizens.  Furthermore, in some instances, felons are barred from voting long after they’ve had the rest of the rights reinstated, sometimes even permanently banned.  If someone is capable of reintegrating themselves in to society, should they continue to be ostracized on election day?

Some states have begun to loosen their laws, with only Kentucky and Virginia remaining as states where felons receive lifelong bans from voting.  Nonetheless, the laws of all the states combined to keep 5.9 million people away from the polls for the 2012 presidential election, a number greater than that of six years prior.  The question of whether felons who have served their time should be re-enfranchised is starting to be discussed in the world of politics.  President Obama is known to support voting rights of non-incarcerated felons.  It’s not universally supported, however, as Mitt Romney used the support of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum for allowing felons who have done their time to vote against him in the 2012 Republican primaries.

Some speculate that the disenfranchisement’s increased popularity among conservatives could be politically driven.  Not surprisingly, African-Americans and Latinos are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites.  Due to the varying socioeconomic statues of these different races, this should be obvious to most.  Likewise, it’s known that African-American and Latino voters give an overwhelming amount of support to Democrats.  It’s not at all out of the ordinary for a Democratic candidate to pull up to 90% of the vote among either one of these minority groups.  Thus, Republicans would be advantaged by stripping felons of their right to vote.  In fact, studies have shown that in some communities, as much as ten percent of the population could be excluded from the electoral process.  These communities, of course, are those lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and thus, they are composed of predominantly minorities, who we’ve already established find themselves unable to vote much more often.