In the previous article "Why Should We Vote", I suggested some of the most important arguments for voting for a candidate for office. But I left the last part of the argument out, which is why should we vote for a candidate based on why they are running for office in the first place. If the candidate can't tell you why they are running for office, why should we?
One of the best arguments for voting for a candidate based on why they are running for office comes from an article by David Norton and Michael Norton of the University of San Diego. In their paper "Voting the Vote: The Logic of Personalizing Public Policy," they suggest that there is a positive correlation between political party affiliation and the quality of candidates running for elective office. The correlation is such that when a politician is more Republican than another candidate, he or she tends to get more support in the voting booth. When a politician is more Democratic than another one, they tend to get less support.
According to the logic of this study, voters can make a choice between two equally viable candidates and choose to vote depending on which candidate they think will do better in the upcoming election. So if the candidate who is more Democratic is chosen by the voters, they will then believe that the office-holder is qualified to serve them. They will be more likely to vote for that person as they feel that they can trust that the person is capable of doing a good job.
This is a fascinating argument. It makes sense intuitively. After all, in a way, people are choosing to vote based on the opinions of other people. However, this doesn't mean that all their opinions are accurate; only that the person who has made the choice to cast a ballot is doing so because they believe that the person they have chosen is the one they want to work with.
There are some problems with this reasoning, however. For starters, this reasoning seems to go against the reality of democracy. If every citizen were automatically entitled to vote, then many political issues would never come up. If every citizen were a checkbook away from being able to buy the goods and services that they need, then we'd never have any economic issues. It's true that a large portion of the population don't vote, but that doesn't mean that the others don't have a say. The reason why we have a representative system in our country is because the citizens want to be heard and have their voices heard be heard by a legislative body with checks and balances to protect them.
The second problem with this argument is that there are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't base our choices of leadership on popularity. We don't base our choices on popular opinion because popular opinion is rarely right, and it certainly isn't the way that our leaders should be voted. Why not just say that popular opinion is no better than the true facts? The reason why we shouldn't vote for an essay question is that this argument doesn't actually make sense, doesn't accurately represent reality, and certainly doesn't make for a good question.
The third problem with the why should we vote essay question is that it presupposes that everyone is perfectly aligned with voting the way that they want. This is obviously not the case, since different people have different views and desires. So why assume that everyone is in perfect agreement on the direction in which we should go? And what aboutmore tips herewho disagree with majority opinion? Should they be prevented from voting for the reason that they don't believe that they can get along with the rest of the people?
Those are three problems with the why should we vote essay question. But there is still one more question that arises. Why should we vote for an essay? Why not just choose the best candidate without having to worry about whose slate was actually selected? The only real difference between the two situations is that with a slate, a majority is in charge, and in a non-vote election, the outcome will be determined by a majority vote.
