"America's Ignorant Voters"

[Seiyuuki]

What a load of crap. I'm not buying that the US is trying to take over the world.

It's interesting, that the people who know the least about how the US works are the people who live there.

Well, with rampant assumption such as this on the part of foreigners...there need to be some understanding.

The following are excerts from an article written by Michael Schudson, "America's Ignorant Voters."


It can be misleading to make direct comparisons with other countries, but the general level of political awareness in leading liberal democracies overseas does seem to be much higher. While 58 percent of the Germans surveyed, 32 percent of the French, and 22 percent of the British were able to identify Boutros Boutros-Ghali as secretary general of the United Nations in 1994, only 13 percent of Americans could do so. Nearly all Germans polled could name Boris Yeltsin as Russia’s leader, as could 63 percent of the British, 61 percent of the French, but only 50 percent of the Americans.

How can the United States claim to be a model democracy if its citizens know so little about political life? That question has aroused political reformers and preoccupied many political scientists since the early 20th century. It can’t be answered without some historical perspective.

Today’s mantra that the “informed citizen” is the foundation of effective democracy was not a central part of the nation’s founding vision. It is largely the creation of late-19th-centuray Mugwump and Progressive reformers, who recoiled from the spectacle of powerful political parties using government as a job bank for their friends and a cornucopia of contracts for their relatives. (In those days before the National Endowment for the Arts, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, and Walt Whitman all subsidized their writing by holding down federal patronage appointments.) Voter turnout in the late 19th century was extraordinary high by today’s standards, routinely over 70 percent in presidential elections, and there is no doubt that parades, free whiskey, free-floating money, patronage jobs, and the pleasures of fraternity all played a big part in the political enthusiasm of ordinary Americans.

The reformers saw this kind of politics as a betrayal of democratic ideals. A democratic public, they believed, must reason together. That ideal was threatened by mindless enthusiasm, the wily maneuvers of political machines, and the vulnerability of the new immigrant masses in the nation’s big cities, woefully ignorant of Anglo-Saxon traditions, to manipulation by party hacks. E. L. Godkin, founding editor of the Nation and a leading reformer, argued that “there is no corner of our system in which the hastily made and ignorant foreign voter may not be found eating away the political structure, like a white ant, with a group of natives standing over him and encouraging him.”

This was in 1893, by which point a whole set of reforms had been put in place. Civil service reform reduced patronage. Ballot reform irrevocably altered the act of voting itself. For most of the 19th century, parties distributed at the polls their own “tickets,” listing only their own candidates for office. A voter simply took a ticket from a party worker and deposited it in the ballot box, without needing to read it or mark it in any way. Voting was thus a public act of party affiliation. Beginning in 1888, this system was replaced with government-printed ballots that listed all the candidates from each eligible party. The voter marked the ballot in secret, as we do today, in an act that affirmed voting as an individual choice rather than a social act of party loyalty. Political parades and other public spectacles increasingly gave way to pamphlets in what reformers dubbed “educational” political campaigns. Leading newspapers, once little more than organs of the political parties, began to declare their independence and to portray themselves as nonpartisan commercial institutions of public enlightenment and public-minded criticism. Public secondary education began to spread.

These and other reforms enshrined the informed citizen as the foundation of democracy, but at a tremendous cost: Voter turnout plummeted. In the presidential election of 1920, it dropped to 49 percent, its lowest point in the 20th century – until it was matched in 1996. Ever since, political scientists and others have been plumbing the mystery created by the new model of an informed citizenry: How can so many, knowing so little, and voting in such small numbers, build a democracy that appears to be (relatively) successful?

There are several responses to that question. The first is that a certain amount of political ignorance is an inevitable byproduct of America’s unique political environment. One reason Americans have so much difficulty grasping the political facts of life is that their political system is the world’s most complex. Ask the next political science Ph.D. you meet to explain what government agencies at what level – federal, state, county, or city – take responsibility for the homeless. Or whom he or she voted for in the last election for municipal judge. The answers might make Jay Leno’s victims seem less ridiculous. No European country has as many elections, as many elected offices, as complex a maze of overlapping governmental jurisdictions, as the American system. It is simply harder to “read” U.S. politics than the politics of most nations.

The hurdle of political comprehension is raised a notch higher by the ideological inconsistencies of American political parties. In Britain, a voter can confidently cast a vote without knowing a great deal about the particular candidates on the ballot. The Labor candidate generally can be counted on to follow the Labor line, the Conservative to follow the Tory line. An American voter casting a ballot for a Democrat or Republican has no assurance. Citizens in other countries need only dog paddle to be in the political swim; in the United States they need the skills of a scuba diver.

If the complexity of U.S. political institutions helps explain American ignorance of domestic politics, geopolitical factors help explain American backwardness in foreign affairs. There is a kind of ecology of political ignorance at work. The United States is far from Europe and borders only two other countries. With a vast domestic market, most of its producers have relatively few dealings with customers in other countries, globalization notwithstanding. Americans, lacking the parliamentary form of government that prevails in most other democracies, are also likely to find much of what they read or hear about the wider world politically opaque. And the simple fact of America’s political and cultural superpower status naturally limits citizens’ political awareness. Just as employees gossip about the boss than the boss gossips about them, so Italians and Brazilians know more about the United States than Americans know about their countries.

Consider a thought experiment. Imagine what would happen if you transported those relatively well-informed Germans or Britons to the United States with their cultural heritage, schools, and news media intact. If you checked on them again about a generation later, after long exposure to the distinctive American political environment – its geographic isolation, superpower status, complex political system, and weak parties – would they have the political knowledge levels of Europeans or Americans? Most likely, I think, they would have developed typically American levels of political ignorance.

TO BE CONTINUE...

[Seiyuuki]

CONTINUING...


Low as American levels of political knowledge may be, a generally tolerable, sometimes admirable, political democracy survives. How? One explanation is provided by a school of political science that goes under the banner of “political heuristics.” Public opinion polls and paper-and-pencil tests of political knowledge, argue researchers such as Arthur Lupia, Samuel Popkin, Paul Sniderman, and Phillip Tetlock, presume that citizens require more knowledge than they actually need in order to cast votes that accurately reflect their preferences. People can and do get by with relatively little political information. What Popkin calls “low-information rationality” is sufficient for citizens to vote intelligently.

This works in two ways. First, people can use cognitive cues, or “heuristics.” Instead of learning each of a candidates’s issue position, the voter may simply rely on the candidate’s party affiliation as a cue. This works better in Europe than America, but it still works reasonable well. Endorsements are another useful shortcut. A thumbs-up for a candidate from the Christian Coalition or Ralph Nader or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People or the American Association of Retired Persons frequently provides enough information to enable one to cast a reasonable vote.

Second, as political scientist Milton Lodge points out, people often process information on the fly, without retaining details in memory. If you watch a debate on TV – and 46 million did watch the first presidential debate between President Bill Clinton and Robert Dole in 1996 – you may learn enough about the candidates’ ideas and personally styles to come to a judgment about each one. A month later, on election day, you may not be able to answer a pollster’s detailed questions about where they stood on the issues, but you will remember which one you liked best – and that is enough information to let you vote intelligently.

The realism of the political heuristics school is an indispensable corrective to unwarranted bashing of the general public. Americans are not the political dolts they sometimes seem to be. Still, the political heuristics approach has a potentially fatal flaw: It was subtly substitutes voting for citizenship. Cognitive shortcuts have their place, but what if a citizen wants to persuade someone else to vote for his or her chosen candidate? What may be sufficient in the voting booth is inadequate in the wider world of the democratic process: discussion, deliberation, and persuasion. It is possible to vote and still be disenfranchised.

TO BE CONTINUE...

[OzMan]

What is it with all of the Scandanavians taking potshots at the US all the time? Seemingly every chance they get they're taking stabs, bashing the US and our "massive flaws and ignorance". I'm sorry, but what did we do to you again? Just because we're not a neutral country doesn't mean we're building a friggin' empire. How do you know how the US works? Just because some Italian a-hole told you to get your arse moving in traffic in NYC doesn't mean he wants to control your country. Good god, chill out. Are you one of the people who thinks this war was about oil and exterminating Iraqis? If you are, I'll save my wrists and stop wasting my time.

Oh, that's right, now I remember. Your country (Sweden) spawned the former chairman of the Union whose main goal is to become the biggest economic power in the world. And you want to talk about the US trying to take over the world because we capture and kill terrorists and rebuild crappy countries because the other spineless powers wouldn't?

Yeah, yeah, you're right....hypocrites...

[Saranof]

Oh, that's right, now I remember. Your country (Sweden) spawned the former chairman of the Union whose main goal is to become the biggest economic power in the world. And you want to talk about the US trying to take over the world because we capture and kill terrorists and rebuild crappy countries because the other spineless powers wouldn't?

Yeah, yeah, you're right....hypocrites...

You hunt terrorist yeah? You mean Al Qeauda?Ahhh, the ones YOU funded during the 80s? :)

All us scandinavians? I thought it was the FRENCH who were the bad guys now!

Do I really have to give you a history lesson? Did you READ some of the things I listed? The same thing is happening now, we'll just find out later.

[Beowulf]

everyone always mentioned how we supported fundamentalist muslims which we did to stop the spread of communism.

Was that a good decision?, I don't know. At the time the spread of communism was perceived as the greatest threat to western democratic ideals. The US was actively involved in the world b/c so were the communists and sitting on our hands wasn't going to help.

I also posted this in another thread concerning the notion that once we supported something/one we cannot ever not support it/them:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=29394&highlight=#29394


Just a comment about a notion which seems to be prevalent, that I find logically untenable. It is this:

To say that a political/ foreign policy is flawed b/c it entails the support of something that was not supported before said policy or vice versa does not make any sense.

For example: You supported country x you can never not support country x w/o being criticised.

You voted for politician x you may not vote against politician x w/o being criticised

You etc etc etc

This is especially problematic when one takes into consideration regime/administration changes of the nations involved.

The notion is tantamount to saying that one may never correct a mistake.

Imagine the occupants of apartment 11b are enemies with those of apt. 11a this must always stay the same and never change, even if the occupants of said apt's change. See what I mean..

All Best
beowulf

[ibstolidude]

actually TB/AQ was not in exsistance at that time....

And the bulk of the mujihadeen that were supported during that time are those that currently hold power in afghanistan (or the sons of) ...they were the warlords - whose concept of indiviadual territorial rule was counter to the objectives of the nonsecular state with a central head, and therefore were fought by the Taliban during their up rising after the exits of Soviets of communism...

your comments of the US support of AQ show a lack of insight into historical fact you would do better to question the US unending supoprt of the saudi royal family.

[ibstolidude]

although I am not staunchly a "pro Amercian and everyone else sucks" kind of person..I think most countries have there merit and faults and ALL governments are by nature a machine made to drive itself forward...

but I would rather be in a quagmire of political murkiness in which state rights and local govenrments CAN drive their own trains than the quasi socialist state of "my governement knows best" that is inherint in many of the european political systems and too often reflected in a parlamaint "that will do the voting for me"...constitutional monarchy? now that is a concept ahead of the times

An corret me if I'm wrong but is not the swedish country divided into 21 representative counties? ... sound like another country you critique
- the "unicameral Parliament or Riksdag" comprised of 349 seats that are elected by popular vote based a proportional population representation and hold office for 4 years.. ... Sounds similiar to another country you critique
- the legistlative elections for the office of Prime Minister is held by the parlamaint - in 2002 Goran Persson was reelected until 2006 by the Riksdag by a vote count of 131 to 349....hmm the head of state elected by the representatives not popular vote sounds like another country you critique

But certainly there is no party loyalty that would not go beyond popular vote: percent of vote by party - Social Democrats 39.8%, Moderates 15.2%, Liberal Party 13.3%, Christian Democrats 9.1%, Left Party 8.3%, Center Party 6.1%, Greens 4.6% WOW look at the minority representation here...hell ther isn' even a second voice
or better
look at seats held:
Social Democrats 144, Moderates 55, Liberal Party 48, Christian Democrats 33, Left Party 30, Center Party 22, Greens 17

The minority voice must a booming one in Sweded.

or is it possible you just wish to place blame were ever you can...
As I stated before time to re-wrap the tin foil a little tighter...and tell me it is because i am a product of the propoganda media again, because the media I have been exposed to for the past 2 (until most recently) years predominantly european and middle eastern; then you will only support my point:

All governements and political parties seek to further themselves. In the US there is a wonderful expression "Time for everyone to clean up their own backyard".

[ScoutRanger]

blah blah blah, we are taking over the world, life as we know it is going to end....


*YAWN*

[James]

20/20 hindsight... How far back in history do we want to go to find things to argue about?

Here's something to think about. My ethnic background is what I like to think of as "American Mongrel". In the mix is some Scots-Irish. My ancestors emigrated to the colonies in the early 18th century because the English (starting with Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century) persecuted them. So, yeah, I hate Englishmen. They are very bad. All of them.

That's sarcasm, btw, for those of you who can't tell. I am really quite fond of the UK. :D

[duck]

Sweden-a country that has invaded and occupied all of its neighbours during the past 500 years. Even tried to conquer Russia but got an ass-kicking at Poltava in 1709.

[martinexsquaddie]

failed military 300 years ago :roll:
that must be a real insult :lol:
Try got your ass handed to you by the little people of north vietnam :P

[Seiyuuki]

Okie dokie...let us better understand the American's government before any judgement is pass...

Why does government pursue so many apparently inconsistent goals?

The answer to this question with regard to foreign and domestic policies are all one and the same. The government pursues so many apparently inconsisten goals because the interests and opinions of people conflict. People want different things and there are competing opinions of many different publics. In trying to appease these competing interest the
government become inconsistent in its policies.

Three constraints on the growth of government that existed for nearly 150 years in the United States:
1. The prevailing interpretation of the Constitution.
2. The restraint on the growth of the government by popular opinion.
3. The political system as designed by the Framers.

The Supreme Court restricted the authority of the government to regulate business and prevented it from levying an income tax. Popular opinion thought it was not legitimate for the federal government to intervene deeply in the economy. The separation of powers and other constitutional checks and balances made it difficult to adopt new governmental programs or revising old problems.

So...if the President want to spread joy and happiness throughout the world he will find it is not an easy task. Even humanitarian effort such as sending money to Africa to combat AIDS face major hurdles...as with most thing involving money. Another example, when workers were beginning to form Union, even though the government sympathize with their cause, they were very reluctant and at time discourage the acceptance of help from the government.

Another problem within the U.S. government today is that it has become more active.

As the government persists to do more, the more it will appear to be acting in inconsistent, uncoordinated and cumbersome ways. An activist government is less susceptible to control by electoral activity than a passive one. The political parties have declined in power and voters have reduced their voting turnunt. The more government tries to do, the more things it will be held responsible for and the greater the risk of failure.

As you can see, what with Afghanistan, Iraq, N. Korea, Liberia, etc...and all. There are those that already question our inconsistencies. Though I doubt any other country or organization has the capacity to do any better.

Why not have a parliamentary system for the sake of efficiency?

In a parliamentary system, bureaucratic authority would be more centralized, less local autonomy and more national planning. There would be much fewer opportunities for citizens to challenge or block government policies of which they disapproved. Governmental investigative committee would be very secretive, if Watergate occurred, the public would never know about it. Tax would be collected at a much higher rate and at a national level. Plus, the parliamentary system was around when our Founders founded our system of government, they studied Parliament and deem that it wouldn't work for the U.S. and to this day, their faiths are still well place.

The U.S. government is far from perfect, and yes, at times, we are inconsistent in our policies...but I doubt any other country in our place could do any better.

With regard to the concept of "Imperialism..." many on this forum has pointed this out, use examples, pointed out their historical perspective, etc...but in the end, even if we were to be "Imperialistist," what are you going to do about it? Sue us!!! p-)

or...

1. Gather your forces and take down the U.S. and start another World War that could perhaps result in a nuclear fire?
2. Place a blockade, embargo, quaranteen, etc...whatever on the U.S.?
3. ...Do something else (insert your idea here).
4. Or...keep on whining and bitching about American Imperialism and realize, really, that's all you can do...'cause we are either going to fade away peacefully or we're going to be violently force to fade away.

[OzMan]

Saranof, go right ahead and give me a history lesson about my own country. I'd be fascinated as to how long you've been living in a dark hole, or how many socialist/anarchist websites you've been to.

Remind me again, what did the US do to Sweden? I seem to have trouble remembering...

And what are your vast sources of knowledge about the US system again? Have you ever been to the US?

This should be fun. I can't wait to find out all I've been missing.

[Nokkvi]

Funny how the Swedes can act so high and mighty yet they provide the world with so many weapons of war including the "Imperialist" USA....Hmmmmmm! Is Sweden gunning for empire as well? They certainly profit from the death of others!

Hycklare!!

[Mortimer]

"With regard to the concept of "Imperialism..." many on this forum has pointed this out, use examples, pointed out their historical perspective, etc...but in the end, even if we were to be "Imperialistist," what are you going to do about it? Sue us!!! "


Sooooo basically you have just admitted that i am right.....but you don't care.........ok then

and as for what we'll do about it......you'll see

[Kitsune]

@Tane Angel:

Why are the European/Swedish Crime Rates so high?

Murder per Year and per 100.000 Inhabitants:


United States 1998: 6,6

Sweden 1996: 1,2

Germany 1998: 0,9

France 1997: 0,9

Britain 1998: 0,7

Russia 1998: 22,9

Mexico 1995: 17,2....


Sorry Dude, European crime rates especially in force related offenses like murder, armed assault, rape....are much lower in EU states than in the US of A. And we don't even have capital punishment.

Note: I don't mean to anger anyone. I just want to correct Tane Angels remark about the "high European crimerates".

p-)

[springwheat]

You hunt terrorist yeah? You mean Al Qeauda?Ahhh, the ones YOU funded during the 80s? :)

All us scandinavians? I thought it was the FRENCH who were the bad guys now!

Do I really have to give you a history lesson? Did you READ some of the things I listed? The same thing is happening now, we'll just find out later.You seem to have the opinion that the US is the only country that has ever had foreign policy decisions come back to haunt them down the road. It happens, regretably.

Of course, Im sure if whatever country you live in is a model of forward thinking, and always takes a course of action that will best benefit everyone in the future. Your profile says you're from Sweden. I can't think of one thing Sweden has done on the international scene in the past few years. Well, besides criticize the EU, and expel Russian diplomats that is.

[budanski]

The stage of 2 world wars, ethnic cleansings, colonializations, slave trades and numerous conflicts. I'd say the U.S. is the lesser of two evils. aint hindsight a bitch?

[Seiyuuki]

"With regard to the concept of "Imperialism..." many on this forum has pointed this out, use examples, pointed out their historical perspective, etc...but in the end, even if we were to be "Imperialistist," what are you going to do about it? Sue us!!! "


Sooooo basically you have just admitted that i am right.....but you don't care.........ok then

"With regard to the concept of "Imperialism..." many on this forum has pointed this out, use examples, pointed out their historical perspective, etc...but in the end, even if we were to be "Imperialistist," what are you going to do about it? Sue us!!! "

:cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:
if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if

And yes...even if that is the situation, why should I care if its only people like you that are bitching about it. The day that you're right it's the day hell freezes over...last time us Americans check...it's still hot and toasty... p-) p-) p-) p-) p-)


and as for what we'll do about it......you'll see

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl What? You're going to join your Near Easts' terrorist friends in its fight against "Satanic America."

[Dominique]

With all due respect, I believe I said hate crime rates. If I did not, that was my intent.

Regarding the death sentence, in the US, some states do have capital punishment, which I oppose, but that is a different issue. Of course, if you would like to discuss the negative effects of capital punishment, I would look forward to reading your thoughts. With the exception of a very few convicted terrorists who are less of a threat dead than alive, I see no justification for taking another’s life once they are no longer a threat. But maybe my opinion stems from my military service; killing is not something that comes lightly, and I see no reason for a death to occur when someone is not a threat. And I would hope that the prison/justice system ensures that a criminal, once convicted and placed in a prison, will no longer present a threat. Have a good one. Just some thoughts...

While I can respect your opinion on capital punishment, I don't agree with it. Many of the individuals currently incarcerated in the US are predators. Committing crime is what they live for. The only way some of them will ever stop is to be executed.

Unfortunately, the fact that a criminal is locked up in prison does not mean that he/she is no longer a threat. I speak from experience. I was Corrections Officer (note that I did not say prison guard,) and tactical team member (we were trained to perform everything from cell extraction to in extremis hostage rescues), at an adult male correctional facility for 4 years, and trust me, inmates can be VERY DANGEROUS. All you need do is look at the number of correctional staff assaulted by inmates every year to see what I'm talking about.

Here’s one example. One of our former inmates got out after doing a little over 8 years for assault, and drug charges. Within six months of his release, he was back in for attempted homicide of a police officer (he shot the cop in the face with a shotgun while attempting to escape from an armed robbery), armed robbery, attempted carjacking (he tried to steal a woman’s car after shooting the cop), and at least a half dozen other charges. When he finally arrived back at the prison, his fellow inmates gave him a hero’s welcome because he shot a cop (Yep… he’s not going to be a threat).

A Texas corrections officer was stabbed to death by an inmate a few months ago. The inmate was already serving a life sentence for murder. What are they going to do, give him more time? I wish someone would go down to explain to the slain officer's family how this inmate was no longer a threat.

When someone will kill you because "The punk ass bitch disrespected him in front of his people" (i.e. the now dead individual tried to hit on the inmate’s girl friend in front of him), exactly how do you think locking him away is going to make him any less of a threat?

I'm sorry for rambling on like this, but I really believe that some of you have a misconception that the moment someone is sentenced to prison, they are suddenly no longer a threat. I’m sorry to say you are incorrect when you say they are no longer a threat. They are just as dangerous in prison as they are on the street, they just can’t get to the general public.

I’ll now get off my soapbox, now and let you return to the original topic of discussion.