Points of View Essay
Bee804
HEREARETHETOPICS.docxHERE ARE THE TOPICS
Political Participation in the United States
Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection . 2018.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Gale, a Cengage Company
From Opposing Viewpoints In Context.
Full Text:
Political participation refers to a voluntary action taken by a private citizen or group of citizens to influence the outcome of a political issue, such as supporting a political candidate or proposed law. The actions of elected officials or government employees, who have a professional obligation to engage with public policy, do not constitute political participation. Running for office, however, can be considered an act of political participation. People can engage with politics individually or with an organization, such as a political party, community group, or activist collective.
In the liberal democracy of the United States, citizens can vote in local, state, and federal elections as a means of expressing themselves politically. Voter turnout, which refers to the percentage of eligible voters who participate in an election, has waxed and waned over the past century, notably high in the 1960s while lower in the 1970s and 1980s. During presidential elections, which occur every four years, voter turnout is significantly higher than during midterm elections, local elections, political primaries, and elections that occur outside of the normal voting cycle. Some Americans have grown cynical about the effectiveness of voting and have chosen to abstain; their abstention may be considered a form of political participation because they are using their vote to express dissatisfaction with the political system. A 2018 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 91 percent of respondents considered voting in elections to be an important factor of good citizenship despite only 60 percent of eligible voters casting a ballot in the 2016 presidential election.
Voting, however, is only one form of political participation. Teenagers who are not yet eligible to vote, for example, can still take part in political activities by attending rallies, writing letters, and donating money to support a candidate or cause. In the twenty-first century, advances in telecommunications technology have changed how people participate in the political process, allowing people to articulate their politics on social media and other online forums. Additionally, frustrations with growing partisanship and corporate interference have driven some Americans to seek new ways to offer their support or opposition to political developments. Political experts have credited the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, a polarizing cultural figure, with exacerbating social and political divisions among the people of the United States; these divisions have led many Americans to become more politically active in their communities. Evidence of this shift can be seen in the increased number of candidates in the 2018 election, including record numbers of LGBTQ, Muslim, racial minority, and female candidates.
Individual Engagement
Political participation requires more than simply an interest in politics but necessitates action taken to influence a political outcome. While many political activities involve joining an organization or political party, the American political system offers individuals several opportunities beyond voting to engage. In addition to voting for a candidate, people can support candidates by volunteering with a campaign, donating money, or prominently displaying campaign materials, such as a sign in a yard or a sticker on an automobile. Campaign volunteers offer their time and energy to raise awareness about their preferred candidate or cause by reaching out to potential voters through making phone calls, mailing campaign materials, and canvassing, which refers to any organized campaign in which volunteers attempt to directly contact registered voters or donors, typically by going door-to-door soliciting signatures and campaign contributions or educating voters about the issues.
Contacting elected officials to encourage them to address a social problem or take action on a political issue is a constitutionally protected form of political participation, as the First Amendment guarantees the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In most cases, citizens can reach government officials by telephone, email, physical mail, or at a town hall meeting or other in-person event. The nonprofit organization Congressional Management Foundation estimates that 20–30 percent of each congressional office's budget is used to receive and respond to constituent communications. Following the contentious election of President Trump, however, a substantial increase in citizens contacting their representatives to express their support or opposition to Trump's policies resulted in many people being unable to leave messages as officials' voicemails and email inboxes reached their storage capacity. As a result, some citizens sought alternative means of contact. To express her opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos as US Secretary of Education in January 2017, for example, Utah resident Julia Silge attempted to reach her senator Orrin Hatch but found that the surge in phone calls and emails rendered such traditional channels unusable. Instead, Silge arranged to have a pizza delivered to the senator's Salt Lake City office with a message voicing her objection. Although the federal building's security personnel did not allow the pizza to be delivered, the story went viral after Silge shared it on her social media accounts, prompting the senator's office to issue a prepared statement encouraging others to explore creative alternatives to reaching their officials. Despite his constituent's effort, Hatch voted to confirm DeVos.
As citizens have rallied to oppose Trump's various cabinet appointments and other actions taken by the administration, activists have urged citizens to contact only the members of Congress that represent them rather than attempting to contact representatives of other districts. Because elected officials are typically more responsive to their own constituents, overwhelming their offices with letters and phone calls may be counterproductive if activists from other districts prevent local voices from reaching their representative. To reach a wider audience, a concerned citizen may host a public debate or speaking event, create politically motivated art, publish an editorial, or write to the editorial staff of a newspaper.
Since the 2000s, the Internet has increasingly become a common arena for people to espouse their political beliefs. Social media users have used online platforms to share personal messages, news, and memes. Coordinated social media campaigns often adopt the practice of developing a hashtag, a metadata tag that helps organize content thematically, and encouraging others to use it, a phenomenon known as hashtag activism. Some famous examples include #BlackLivesMatter and #TakeAKnee, which both sought to draw attention to racial injustice and called for increased accountability for police accused of using excessive force. Though some political scientists credit online activism with spurring political movements in some cases—such as the 2010 uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, collectively known as the Arab Spring—others have questioned the extent to which online activism results in political change offline.
While critics acknowledge that social media campaigns can be effective in raising awareness and, in some cases, funds for a political cause, they note that users may feel that they have accomplished something meaningful when they mark their approval of political content with a "like" or share a relevant news story with friends, but the users have likely made a very small impact. Critics note that the feeling of accomplishment is not necessarily bad but express concern that it could deter the person from taking more substantive action offline. These concerns have led some critics to disparagingly refer to online activism as "slacktivism" or "clicktivism." A 2018 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 32 percent of US adults had promoted a political cause to others on social media in the previous year, 18 percent had changed their social media profile picture to show support for a cause, and 14 percent had engaged in hashtag activism.
Political Organizations
Creating or joining an organization can be an effective strategy for strengthening the impact of political participation. Membership in a political party allows citizens to join others who share similar political beliefs and can typically be joined simply by identifying as a member on a voter registration form. Different states have different systems and requirements for voting in primary elections, which are elections in which voters select which person will represent a specific party in an upcoming general election. In closed primary systems, states allow only those registered with a party prior to election day to vote in that party's primary. Semi-closed primary states allow voters previously registered with a specific party to vote but also allow unaffiliated voters to register for the party on election day and vote. Open primary systems allow voters to participate in any primary election regardless of party affiliation. Semi-open primary elections allow voters to declare a party and receive a party-specific ballot in the voting booth.
Though the Democratic and Republican parties have the largest memberships of political parties operating in the United States, less established parties, including the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties, continue to attract members despite their limited political power. While registering is all that party membership requires, some party members may participate in a wide array of activities, including fundraising and volunteering. During campaigns, candidates may hold rallies to build their voter base, attract media attention, and raise money. Though such rallies typically end after a candidate is elected, Trump has broken with tradition and has continued to hold such rallies after becoming president, allowing his supporters additional opportunities to engage with him. Despite appearances, these rallies may technically be described as campaign rallies because Trump registered his 2020 campaign with the Federal Election Commission within hours of assuming office, another departure from governing norms.
Several nonpartisan organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, Nonprofit VOTE, and Vote Smart, work to increase political participation and improve voter turnout. These organizations may educate voters, register voters, arrange transportation to get voters to the polls, and advocate for improved voting processes. Volunteering with one of these organizations does not indicate support for a specific party but does signal support for the democratic process. Often these organizations work to oppose laws that restrict political participation. Laws that require voters to provide certain forms of identification, purge voter registries of inactive voters, and limit early or absentee voting have attracted protests from activists who regard such laws as state-sponsored voter suppression.
Rather than supporting political candidates or the political process, some organizations focus on specific issues, such as campaign finance reform, or general causes, such as environmental concerns. While some of these organizations may occasionally endorse a candidate, maintaining party neutrality can help them bring together people who feel the same way about a single issue but disagree on others. Often these organizations sponsor campaigns and political events that a person can participate in without becoming a member. People who oppose war, for example, may participate in an anti-war protest march without joining an anti-war group. Likewise, a person may sign a petition indicating that they oppose a proposed gun control measure without having to become a member of a gun rights advocacy group.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Political Participation in the United States." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PWVFTD318738378/OVIC?u=uphoenix&sid=OVIC&xid=8ec78f7a. Accessed 4 Nov. 2018.
Voting Laws
Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection . 2017.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Gale, a Cengage Company
From Opposing Viewpoints In Context.
Full Text:
The right to vote, a tenet of representative democracy in the United States , first appears in the US Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that if the right to vote for president, vice president, congressional representatives , or senators is denied to any male citizen of at least twenty-one years of age, then that state’s representation in the US Congress will be reduced according to the number of citizens who were allowed to vote. In 1870, Congress ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, which made it illegal to restrict an American citizen’s right to vote based on that citizen’s race , color, or “previous condition of servitude.” This amendment was intended to give former male slaves the right to vote as full American citizens. Nearly fifty years later, in 1920, women were granted suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment, which declared that the right to vote could not be restricted because of a person’s sex. In 1971, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was intended to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by banning the use of literacy tests and other voting restrictions. The VRA also required certain jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting practices to seek clearance from the federal government before changing any voting practices. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that the federal government could not continue to enforce the section of the VRA that required oversight of areas with a history of discrimination against certain voters unless a new formula for identifying those counties or states was developed.
Laws and Efforts to Increase Voter Turnout
Constitutional amendments have protected and expanded the rights of voters, but ensuring that all citizens have the legal right to vote does not guarantee a strong voter turnout during elections . Turnout varies by state, but nationwide, only 35.9 percent of the voting-eligible population voted during the 2014 midterm elections. At the time of the 2016 presidential election, 200 million of the approximately 231 million eligible Americans were registered to vote. However, only about 139 million ballots were cast in the November election.
To increase opportunities for citizens to register to vote, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, also referred to as the “Motor Voter Act,” which required states to give residents the opportunity to register to vote in federal elections when they applied for or renewed their drivers’ licenses. The act also required states to offer voter registration at offices that provide public assistance and programs for people with disabilities. Six states are exempt from the NVRA because they offered election-day registration for federal elections or did not have a voter registration requirement at the time the NVRA was enacted.
Efforts to increase voter registration, including election-day voter registration, which was available to voters in thirteen states and the District of Columbia in November 2016, continue to reach potential voters. Programs to increase voter turnout, also known as get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaigns, work to reach individual registered voters. Using marketing strategies like direct mail and social media , GOTV programs help voters with options such as voting by mail with absentee ballots. Depending on state law, absentee ballots are available to those with disabilities or illnesses, senior citizens, people serving in the military, college students who attend schools out of state, and those who cannot vote without assistance at the polls. Voters can request an absentee ballot without providing a reason, referred to as a “no-excuse” absentee ballot, in twenty-seven states.
Early voting, in which voters may cast their votes either in person or by mail as many as forty-six days before election day, also become more prevalent in the years between the 2012 and 2016 federal elections. An additional approach, online voting, was available in some form in thirty-two states as of the 2016 election. With the exception of Alaska, online voting has been restricted to select voters serving in the military or living overseas. While advocates of online voting believe the convenience of voting from home could increase voter participation significantly, opponents worry that online voting is vulnerable to hacking and fraud.
Voter Identification Laws
Many voting law efforts are motivated by concerns about voter fraud, spurred by reports of votes cast and applications for registration filed in the name of deceased people. Additional findings cited include a 2012 report from the Pew Charitable Trust, which indicated that one in eight voter registrations had expired or contained potentially problematic inaccuracies. Many of those concerned worry that inactive or deceased voters’ names remain on registered voter lists and that little is done to confirm the validity of votes cast. Following the 2016 election, President Donald Trump expressed concern that voter fraud had been committed by millions of immigrants who were not eligible to vote. Despite experts debunking the reports that provided the basis of Trump’s claims, Trump signed an executive order in May 2017 to create a commission to investigate voter fraud in the 2016 election. Many critics have argued that the commission and investigation constitute a waste of government resources.
Significant controversy has emerged regarding proposed and current state voter identification (ID) requirements. Voter ID requirements first gained notice in 1950, when South Carolina requested that voters provide some sort of identification when voting. By 2000, fourteen states were requesting but not requiring voters to present photo or non-photo identification at the polls. In 2008, however, Indiana and Georgia implemented strict voter ID laws. Registered voters in both states were required to present photo identification at the time of voting. Those who did not present the required identification were granted provisional ballots, which would only be counted if the voter presented proper identification at an elections office within the allotted amount of days. Indiana’s law was upheld during a Supreme Court challenge in 2008, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Georgia’s photo ID law in the same year. In both cases, the plaintiffs could not produce accurate reports showing that a significant percentage of the voting population possessed no photo ID and would be adversely affected by the law. In the years that followed, other states began to enforce equally strict ID requirements.
Opponents of voter ID laws argue that such requirements could deny millions of Americans the right to vote and therefore constitute a suppressive and discriminatory practice. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of 2006, as many as 11 percent of Americans—more than 21 million potential voters—did not have a form of government-issued photo identification. Obtaining such identification can be costly, with costs ranging from $75 to $175. In addition, it may require traveling to a state office, which can be difficult for some low-income, elderly , or disabled Americans. The 2006 Brennan Center survey found that 8 percent of white citizens of voting age lacked a form of government-issued photo ID, compared to 25 percent of African American citizens of voting age. A 2007 study of practices at polling locations by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology reported that African American voters were more frequently asked for ID at the polls than white voters.
As of 2017, sixteen states require voters to present a valid, government-issued photo ID to vote; sixteen others require an approved form of identification, including select non-photo options. In April 2017, a federal judge ruled that a Texas voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act, as it was found to have been enacted with the intent to discriminate against black and Hispanic voters. The law, which went into effect in 2013, required voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the ballot, but critics argued that many of the state’s black and Hispanic voters lack such forms of identification. The case followed three prior federal court rulings that identified various aspects of the law as discriminatory.
Those states that support voter ID requirements make the point that they are essential in preventing voter fraud by ensuring that votes are only cast by registered voters and not by ineligible voters or voters claiming to be someone other than themselves. Since the majority of registered voters have some sort of valid identification, supporters of these laws do not consider identification requirements as a burden or hindrance to voting. Instead, they assert that any inconvenience that might be incurred by voters who need to secure identification prior to voting is minimal when compared to the importance of preventing illegitimate voting.
Other Forms of Voting Requirements and Restrictions
Other debated voting requirements and restrictions include limits to absentee voting , proof-of- citizenship requirements for registration, and polling place closures. Some states have also applied limits to early voting. For example, in 2016, Ohio shortened the early voting period by a week and ended the “golden week” option, when voters could register and vote on the same day. The changes to Ohio’s early voting were challenged in a US court of appeals but ultimately upheld. Opponents to eliminating the “golden week” argued that it was a restriction that would disproportionately affect minority voters, who were less likely to have flexible work hours or own cars and more likely to take advantage of the additional time.
During the 2016 presidential election process, several states provided fewer polling places than in past elections, which, some critics argued, resulted in hardship for voters who had to travel farther and wait longer to vote. In Arizona , for example, 212 polling places that were open for the 2012 elections were closed prior to the 2016 elections. In some cases, states replaced multiple polling places with vote centers, where any registered voter in the jurisdiction can cast a ballot rather than being directed to a residence-based precinct. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, vote centers may increase voter turnout because of convenience but may also cause voter confusion. Some counties justified reducing polling centers by citing the increase in voting by mail, which reduced the number of voters using the polling places that were eliminated.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Voting Laws." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2017. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/BCMJQZ453910861/OVIC?u=uphoenix&sid=OVIC&xid=5f5cf38a. Accessed 4 Nov. 2018.
