Your Vote Is Important
Margaret Wright - October 21, 2003

George W. Bush should be eating his words. "You mean after five months of looking we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" I'll leave that landmine alone for awhile, and replace it with another question - "What happened to the surplus?"

Surplus? Oh yes - one of the major campaign issues of 2000. The United States presidential election of 2000 made history. Though George W. Bush is our president, it's still unclear whether he should be. Al Gore won the popular vote by a 539,895 vote margin (about 48% of the vote). However, Bush won the Electoral College by five votes. Though he is not the only President to take office without winning the popular vote, it is a rare occurrence. But did it really matter who won? The President's power is kept in check, and Congress holds most of the government's power. The President is especially powerless when the Congressional majority is of a different party, which is often the case. You could possibly argue that the President is bordering on a figurehead. Most people don't pay too much attention to elections since no matter who wins, the government and the condition of the country won't change that dramatically. In most instances this may well be true.

But in September 2000, Bill Clinton announced a record budget surplus - around $230 billion, the largest in U.S. history. This was a big factor in the Presidential election of that year. Gore planned to use the surplus to strengthen social security and Medicare, while Bush planned to spend it on tax cuts, health, and defense. That didn't happen. Currently, our nation has a $455 billion deficit. The national debt has risen from $5,703.6 billion in 2000 to $6,896 billion, though the estimated debt should have been around $6029.8 (If you're curious about the U.S. budget, you can go to http://www.access.gpo.gov/usbudget). So what happened to the surplus? It's gone.

Bush took office during a term that would be full of national crisis. On September 11, 2001, Americans realized that they were not invincible from foreign terrorism. The collapse of the WTC was a heartbreaking tragedy and the whole nation looked to the President to do something about it. We wanted to find Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice (and still do.) Somehow, all of this led us to war. Bush declared that our country must stop terrorism before it starts and he wanted to keep our enemies, such as Saddam Hussein, at bay. We entered combat in Iraq to search for the weapons of mass destruction Hussein refused to let U.N. inspectors search for. The war has been extremely controversial, causing many people to question its relevance to 9/11. To explore all the conflict surrounding the war would take another article. We never did find any WMD.

These two defining events in American history occurred during the same presidential term. I am not trying to say whether or not Bush handled things rightly or wrongly, but it should be noted that another president may have conducted matters differently. Bush may have felt war was necessary, but would Gore have? Our last election clearly shows that our vote does matter, and this presidential term shows who is in office matters as well. And yet, less than half of Americans vote. American politics are in sad shape. The U.S. has the lowest voting turnout of any world democracy except Switzerland. Political participation in presidential elections has been steadily declining since 1960, the worst case being in 1996 when only 49% voted. Voter turnout is even lower in congressional and local elections. These figures look worse when compared to other countries: the voter turnout in the most recent national elections was 49% in the U.S., 82% in Germany, 72% in Britain, and 68% in France.

It could be that Americans feel voting is not important because we haven't experienced the political turmoil that other countries have. For instance, France is known for its political instability - they have had sixteen constitutions since the fall of the Bastille in 1789. Therefore the French have an interest in maintaining stability, and it seems as if the Fifth Republic is succeeding. High political participation is one way to ensure this, as well as giving French voters the satisfaction of knowing they can finally stimulate change and voice their opinions effectively.

After World War II, Germany faced a division into two separate states, one democratic (West) and one Socialist (East); later they dealt with the struggle of unification. In the West, citizen participation in the democratic process was encouraged and expected. East Germany also stressed democracy in their own way, emphasizing that political participation was a responsibility. These historical forces pushed political participation into a large part of society. Even after unification, Germans have been socialized into a pattern of high political involvement. On the other hand, Britain's government has been extraordinary stable, and yet its political participation is considerably higher than that of the U.S. Americans take their ability to vote for granted.

I have to wonder about the Americans who do vote. The "Terminator" is the governor of California, a state with a bigger economy than France. Californian voters, upset by a sliding economy and an unbalanced state budget, called for a recall election to remove Governor Gray Davis. Speaking of deficits, California currently has an estimated deficit of $8 billion. Not only does the actor, who has never held a political office until now, have to maintain the status quo in California, he has to make it better. Is he really qualified to get California out of the sorry state it's in? Schwarzenegger took 47.9 percent of the vote to win the election. Of course, he was running against Larry Flynt (the publisher of Hustler magazine), Gary Coleman (of "Diff'rent Strokes" fame), adult film star Mary Carey, and 131 others. Approximately 9.25 million Californians (60% of the state's registered voters) cast their votes. This marks the highest non-presidential election turnout for the state since 1982. Maybe if we have someone famous run for President, people will actually vote. Tom Hanks seems like a really nice guy; I think he could do a good job, or at least avoid scandal.

It seems that most Americans simply aren't interested in politics. Who would be since politicians all seem to have a bad name these days? So now we're reduced to turning elections into popularity contests, filling the ballot with celebrities who can capture our interest. Our vote is important, especially in times like these. There's no excuse not to vote; it only takes a second. America has been blessed, but even though our government is relatively stable we should take the voting process seriously. If you're unhappy with the war, such issues as the attack against homosexual marriages, or the joke politics has become, voice your discontent at the polls in 2004.