Because of the nature of a blog, I will no longer attempt to focus on delivering organized thoughts, but rather I’ll just throw stuff out and leave the audience to piece it together.
At our recent university elections, we had slightly more than 50% turnout. That’s not a new pattern and it’s not surprising. In the U.S., about 60% of Americans voted in the last presidential election.

In my opinion, what’s surprising about turnout is how high it is. The two competing parties in student elections campaigned on what was basically the same platform: financial aid, protecting racial diversity, making campus resources more available to students. There was no reason to compare, aside from the individual competencies of the people running.

With presidential elections, we have slightly more to vote on. Voting for George W. Bush is voting for tax cuts, against abortion, and for an interventionist policy for preventing terrorism. Voting for John Kerry is voting for the opposite on most of those issues.

What we never bother to discuss is the consequences of turning an election into a referenda on two different policies. A U.S. defined entirely by the last paragraph would be a rather unfortunate country, for a number of reasons:

1. First of all, the above obviously does not represent any one person’s opinion. The Democratic party’s supposed position as the promoter of homosexual rights can put it in conflict with religious portions of its African American voting block, for instance. While this may not always be true, what is clear is that there are conflicts within parties, and if a Republican/Democrat win automatically implies the entirety of their agenda, it’s clear that the people’s will isn’t being carried out.
2. An elected official has a short lifespan in office–anywhere from 2 to 6 years. The danger of this is that in a world where elected officials==elected agenda, an elected official will feel that they need to accomplish their goals in an extremely short span of time! This encourages the short-sighted; plans that will offer a good chance of improving society in the short-term without caring about the consequences of the next future.
3. Similarly, this mentality causes us to judge government officials on their “results,” as if every official had to transform society in some noticeable way before they left! There is no room in this reality for a reasonable and fair leader who is not interested in creating dead-end policy programs to sell himself or herself.

These are all common criticisms that have come up before. The question remaining is this: if not a representative, what is an elected official supposed to be? However, there is an entirely different way of looking at the problem.

The other question: How do we change society?

This framework has a gaping hole in it: If leaders aren’t there to simply serve out their party’s policies like a dinner course, who should be creating the policies that change society?

It is my opinion that changes in society are driven from local decisions. If we take a look at most of the great changes in our world, my guess is they will support this public point of origination. As a result, the best way to be a citizen is not to vote, but to participate and engage in changing society yourself.

This outcome may be new, but it is not surprising. Consider how diluted the average vote is, consider how often it takes place, and consider how many decisions take place in between elections.

Engagement and dialogue become more necessary, not less, after an election.