Exercising the Right to Vote is a Privilege and Responsibility (1984)

by Jeffrey Bingham Mead
Greenwich Time, Greenwich, Connecticut
Friday, November 2, 1984

'The disinclination to vote occurs not because the electorate feels it is not getting its way, but because it is not being represented.' 


In 1984, the election has managed to attract both established and new members of the electorate to taking a more participatory interest in the democratic process of choosing our leadership. The proliferation of new registered voters is indeed a very positive note when one looks back at the past trends of voter apathy and alienation.

It is interesting that in the past two decades, despite the liberalization of suffrage rules, voter turnout declined so considerably. Such past obstacles as literacy tests were largely, if not wholly, eliminated, and residency requirements -along with complicated registration procedures- were streamlined as well.

The competition among individuals seeking public office in the political arena is more widespread than ever before in the history of the United States. While more needs to be done, the spirit of competition is probably recognized by the public and candidates alike as the best in available stimulus for voter participation.

So while the race down on the homestretch of the 1984 campaign, with all its spectacle, rhetoric and suspense, I wish to address the importance of a voting ethic, and to discuss some reasons for the previous decline in voter turnout.

Measures need to be taken to ensure that voter participation remains high and sustainable. I not only address myself to readers at large, but also to young voters who, studies show, have not in the past exercised their right of suffrage in large numbers. I hope to speak not just to those here in Greenwich, but also to those who have made the exodus to colleges and universities.

Some of you may ask, does it matter whether the people vote or not? The low turnout at the polls in the past has caused a few political observers and pundits to comment that it represents an indictment of democracy in so far as that form of government fails to inspire the electorate to participate in even an elementary way. I have heard some say that we are better off without the votes of those least interested and poorly informed, prone to making the wrong choices if they were in a voting booth. In addition, low voter turnout perpetuates the view that a government elected under such circumstances is not quite legitimate.

What we all must keep in mind is that democracy itself is not to blame. With the growing influence of the mass media, especially television, campaigning for public office is shifted from being face-to-face and interpersonal to being more detached and impersonal. We are bombarded daily when election campaigns are in full swing with sophisticated, prepackaged, cleverly created presentations of candidates.

True, they do attract our attention, but these masterpieces of public relations do not by themselves motivate some people to become a habitual voter. What we should not doubt that concern for issues does motivate people to vote, many political strategists might say that peer pressure also pays plays a significant role.

I sincerely doubt that the reason for the sense of alienation in the electorate is any "failure" on the part of the government to meet the particular needs or desires of individuals voters. The discrimination to vote occurs not so much because the electric feel it is not getting its way, but because it feels it is not being represented. And to feel represented, these people must be sure that in someway they are being heard.

Greenwich is fortunate to have individuals in the various public offices who traditionally has been responsive. To their credit, these people work hard when they have the time to communicate with their constituents, and such public servants from the local level on up cannot be blamed for low voter turnout.

How ever, all elected officials are, by the nature of their role in serving the public, responsible as well to those constituent who feel ignored by government leaders and representatives. The special interest groups of recent years often spend more time talking to officials directly and are out of touch with the concerns of others. Once again, the average citizen feels left out.

Such actions do not bolster effective representation or encourage people to vote habitually. If anything, officials who cater to special interests may be discouraging voter participation.

Much is been done in the 1984 election to register more voters. Special thanks should go to the dedicated people of both major parties, and to the League of Women Voters and the Registrars Office at Town Hall. I hope such efforts can and will continue.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that for several years many Americans have enjoyed the benefits of government programs involving billions of dollars. But they do not care to participate in the political process by registering to vote and exercising the right on Election Day.

After all, if people are so willing to accept the benefits of the government, does it not make sense at least to require citizens to register? I do not know if it is comes unconstitutional, but I propose that we make that requirement of all 18-year-old – perhaps as a prerequisite to receiving a high school diploma.

It seems odd that all 18-year-old boys must register for the selective service, and yet the same just not apply to both boys and girls for voter registration. Is it not a necessity to participating in the democratic process? I also urge the members of Young Democrats and Young Republicans to go out into the community and seek out new voters of whatever age, including them in the organizations' activities.

Parents of young voters also must realize that their attitudes about voting and registration may have an impact on their children's attitudes about participation in the electoral process.

Finally, I believe that unaffiliated voters should have the right to vote in Republican Party state primaries as they already have in Democratic primaries. I call upon the Democrat-controlled state government to live up to its party name and allow those who wish to vote in the primary election of their choice to do so. Such action will require some political courage, but to swallow such a bitter medicine is better than denying the rights of unaffiliated voters.

As a rule, democracy is not enhanced if our leaders are elected by special interest groups and elitists may use low voter turnout to control the bureaucracy. Any government controlled by coalitions of convenience will be ineffectual and will serve to alienate voters.

The process of free election is indeed the centerpiece of the American political system. With our votes we choose government leadership and influence policy-making. We thereby legitimize a government. For most of us, voting is the only way we participate in politics. It is a precious right, and if you look at the emerging democracies around the world, you will find individuals who walk for miles and stand in line for hours just to have that precious privilege upheld.

The past has shown how we have taken this right for granted. 1984, I hope, will prove to be the beginning of a new era in voter participation. I urge all my fellow citizens who are registered to go to exercise this privilege. I also urge all those unregistered to register. Democracy depends on an electorate that values the principles and freedoms so precious to it.

Jeffrey Bingham Mead is a resident of Greenwich and a direct descendent of one of the founding families of the town. He graduated recently with a degree in English from Pace University.