In this equation, p*B is a minuscule amount in a typical election and civic duty and personal utility are encompassed by D. Proponents of direct electronic democracy suggest that the voting remotely by the click of a button would lower the marginal cost of voting, thereby increasing voter turnout by making the difference between C and D positive for a greater portion of the population. This argument neglects to acknowledge the other important factors that would influence the electoral participation model with the adoption of direct electronic democracy.
First, direct electronic democracy would likely lead to greater skepticism of the electoral process. The execution would involve collaboration with US tech companies who have been under popular criticism. This skepticism would not only deflate p*B but would also negatively impact the value of D as citizens lose faith in the political process. Additionally, the personal utility gained from visiting the polling station and voting in-person would be lost if voting took place entirely online. To avoid this impact, a thoughtful rollout of this proposal would still include in-person voting as an option on election day. While it is easy to get behind any effort to increase voter participation, the introduction of direct electronic democracy would need to be accompanied by extreme security measures (funded by taxpayer dollars) in order to ensure the electorate's faith in the process and actually increase turnout.
1 comment:
Interesting post! A high cost to voting can certainly be a barrier to the expression of ideological political preferences by many individuals and could, potentially, have a larger influence on the representation of some groups than others. That makes the concept of voting at one's fingertips or at the push of a button fascinating. Groups that may otherwise face high costs to voting – such as having to skip work and paychecks vital to their survival – may for the first time be able to express their preferences on a level never before seen. This may, in fact, change the political landscape for the better. However, one must also question whether this could carry unintended consequences of a voter base that is increasingly uneducated on the policies they're voting on. When the opportunity costs to voting are decreased to such a level that one loses nothing by voting – i.e., that there is no investment required – they may also feel less pressure to spend extra time and effort learning about their voting choices – they have limited time, after all! When voters have to give up time, salary, and other benefits to use their voting privilege, they have a vested interest in the outcome of the election. They give up some time and salary because they hope or expect to benefit by the outcome of the election. But when voting is only a website and a click away, there is less pressure to be educated on the issues, and voters may participate with less vested interest in the outcome. As you stated in your post, I foresee no easy solution to this that does not go against the concept of democracy itself. It is, however, something to think about.
Post a Comment