On October 4, 2012, I enter adulthood. I’ll have been a college
freshman for a month and have had a taste of sweet, overwhelming
independence. In particular, I’ll have gained the privilege and
obligation that is the right to vote. I can influence political
office, the highest office, a mere month after my 18th birthday.
Supposedly.
Let’s examine the influence I’ll wield. I live in New Jersey, which
casts 14 electoral votes for President. Over half its population of
8.8 million are registered voters; half of those (2.3 million) voted
for President in 2008. Assuming these numbers stay relatively stable,
the math shows I’ll have 1.3x10-8 % of the total say in who leads the
country. My activist excitement wanes. Even my home state’s say, 14
out of 538 electoral votes, is miniscule, and Presidential candidates
pay little attention to states that are so reliably in or out of their
favor (NJ has voted overwhelmingly Democrat since 1992). But wait,
what about swing states like Ohio and Florida, whose sizeable and
politically diverse electorates have them essentially designating the
winner? Candidates certainly give them enough face time, hustling
their way to every town hall, community center, and place of worship
from Cleveland to Tampa. According to USA Today’s 2012 electoral map,
only 11 out of 50 states are predicted to be up for grabs, with both
candidates scheduling a majority of their appearances within them.
Basically I don’t count, and no one in my state or the other
“dependables” does either.
Perhaps most shamelessly, they will bombard these political
battlegrounds with deceptive, expensive attack ad campaigns. They have
proven extremely effective, and could be the reason why even citizens
in swing states may have no influence. Voters exert influence on
whether a candidate wins, but candidates themselves influence voters.
At first, it seems puzzling; why choose attack ads to convince an
electorate? Most polls conducted on the subject show an overwhelming
majority prefer positive to negative campaigning, especially in
relation to ads. They are badly written parodies of themselves,
replete with overly sarcastic narrators and reality show sound effects
(dun-dun). Unless age 14-17 is their intended demographic, these ads
should not convince anyone. But they do. These polls depict what
people think about attack ads, not how they feel after watching one.
The effective appeals to emotion contained within ads are what drive
both partisans and independents to the polls.
If attack ads are most effective in gaining votes, then candidates
must aggressively fundraise to match the increasingly steep cost of
airtime. As a result, whoever donates has significant say on who wins
and therefore, influences the candidates. There are two ways to do
this: from the bottom or from the top. They each apportion influence
differently. The former, more widely known as grassroots fundraising,
relies on a large number of small contributions (usually $1000 or
less). This can actually more fairly distribute influence than the
Electoral College, since the money people give transcends electoral
districts. It makes the candidate rely ever closer on popular support,
while in turn the average citizen contributes more to the political
process.
Unfortunately, the mechanisms for this sort of fundraising are the
same as the mechanisms to get votes in the first place (i.e. attack
ads often lead to an increase in grassroots fundraising for the
attacking candidate). To fund ad campaigns, candidates must rely on
higher, quicker forms of income. This is where fundraising from the
top comes in. A candidate convinces a small number of very wealthy
people to donate considerable amounts of money, sometimes in the
millions, to flood out their opponents on the airwaves. The influence
generated by their funding of campaign coffers is massive and
concentrated. These people, often businesspersons representing a
certain industry, seek direct dividends on their investments.
Countless pieces of legislation, particularly financial regulations,
have been blocked or struck down by politicians receiving donations
from the executives they would affect. The Supreme Court ruling in
favor of Citizens United only made this practice more open; now a
corporation can publically use its assets to dominate the political
arena through the candidates and ads they fund.
So this is the path to the Presidency. 11 out of 50 states can choose
who gets their votes. Vapid thirty-second ad spots determine who cares
enough to vote. Corporations fund the ads that make people vote. On
November 6, we have a President-Elect. This isn’t decision; it’s
delegation.
But we’re forgetting one thing: Corporations, ads, and electoral
predictions don’t vote. We do. As a collection of individuals, we own
the Presidency and we determine what influences our decisions. It
falls on us to either act on rational argument, or submit to shallow
emotional appeals funded by emotionless entities. This is how we
regain the influence our Constitution provides us. We are the
beginning and the end of the political process. Let’s not let our
leaders forget who controls their fate.
