Citizenship 101

Brian Frederking

April 12, 2006

            We love to complain about politics. The government does not do what the people want. Special interests have too much influence. Campaigns are meaningless, mudslinging events. But our own voting behavior contributes to these deficiencies in our democratic system.

            The problem is that too few of us vote on the basis of policy preferences. A recent study showed that less than 25% of registered voters can: 1) identify their own positions on a range of issues; 2) correctly evaluate political candidates’ positions on those issues; and 3) vote for the candidate whose positions are closer to their own.

            Instead of policy preferences, most citizens base their vote on what political scientists call retrospective and candidate evaluations. They ask two questions: Has the last four years been good for the country? Which candidates do I like and trust? As a result, in the last three elections over half of the people who voted for the winner (Clinton, Bush, and Bush) actually were closer to the other candidate (Dole, Gore, and Kerry) on the issues. This voting behavior perpetuates much of what we do not like about our political system.

One of our criticisms is that the government does not do what the people want. For citizens to have a meaningful role in a democratic system, elections must be a mechanism through which citizens tell their elected representatives what we want them to do after the election is over. Elections must be about policy. Elections must be about the future.

            But our voting behavior is about neither policy nor the future. For those who use retrospective evaluation it is explicitly about the past: how did the party in power do for the last four years? For those who use candidate evaluation it is about individual characteristics: do I like and trust this person? When we vote on this basis, we are not saying “make these decisions after the election.” We are instead saying “given your past record and who you are, we trust you to make our decisions for us.” And that is what our representatives will continue to do until we force them to change.

            A second criticism is that special interests have too much influence. When our voting behavior conveys that we trust our representatives to make our decisions for us rather than demanding certain policies, those who are actually organized and make those demands tend to get what they want. And when we add this dynamic to our atrocious campaign finance system, we get a political system in which only big money successfully funds and lobbies our representatives.

A third criticism is that campaigns are full of mudslinging. Our voting behavior also encourages this. Consider the task of challengers in campaigns against incumbents running for re-election. Given our voting behavior, the only way challengers can win is if they convince us that the last four years were horrible (retrospective evaluation) and we should not like/trust the incumbent (candidate evaluation). Mudslinging exists because our voting behavior requires it. If we want campaigns to be about policy rather than mud, then we need to vote on the basis of policy. We need to reward the candidates who talk about the future, and punish those who throw the mud.

            Increasing citizenship skills so that we vote on the basis of policy is one simple way that regular Americans can help change our political system. We need our campaigns and elections to be about the future: what policies should we pursue to best solve our problems after the election is over? Being able to understand your own positions, evaluate the positions of the candidates, and vote for the candidates whose positions are closer to your own is a very basic citizenship skill. And less than a quarter of us can do it.

We need to understand how our own behavior perpetuates this system. And we really need to increase our citizenship skills prior to the 2008 election. That campaign should be about the future: what the role of the US in the world should be, how to fight terrorism, how to deal with our deficits and debt, how to fix our schools so that all Americans to have equal opportunity; how to fix our complicated and expensive health care system, how to create jobs in this new global economy, etc.

Without an increase in citizenship skills, the 2008 campaign will again be dominated by the past (did Bush really lie to us about Iraq?) and by individual characteristics (do we really want Hilary to be president?). I am so afraid that in this crucial time in our country’s history, we will again have a meaningless campaign. We need to demand that our candidates have an honest policy debate about the future. We need to become better citizens.