Kittles 16

Asia Kittles

Professor Blasi

English Composition 102

20 April 2017

The Effects of Political Ignorance On the Polls

On Tuesday November 8, 2016 the unthinkable happened. Donald J. Trump, a wealthy businessman and reality television star became the 45th President of the United States. Many were shocked. It was one thing for him to become the Republican candidate but to actually win the presidency, especially against such an experienced candidate as Hilary Clinton was startling. What was also shocking to learn about this past election was the amount of eligible people who didn't vote. TheNation.com released an article stating that “Forty percent of voters didn’t cast their ballots on Election Day…Some 126 million people cast ballots last month, but 93 million people did not.” Nancy J Girard wrote an editorial about not only the types of voters but stated that the reasons that people usually don’t vote are “due to laziness, lack of time in the day, or not knowing where the closest ballot was” (Girard 1). However for over 93 million people to all not vote, there had to be more behind such a significant amount of people. The controversies that developed over the amount of support Donald Trump gained could have led to others to believing they could make a difference by not voting. Nonetheless, that would mean an increase in voters for the other main ticket candidate Hillary Clinton. The competition between these two was constant, so maybe this distracted people from what was most important which were the issues. If potential voters weren’t sure where the candidates stood on certain causes, or if people weren’t informed enough, how or why would they even vote? The lack of voter participation in the 2016 presidential election occurred not only due to the chosen candidates but also because of factor such as political ignorance, a lack of diversity, and a loss of hope.

When it comes to the reasoning behind why so many eligible people decided not vote, political ignorance plays a part in the situation. Political ignorance itself is apparently a reoccurring problem that has been tracked for years but still is not fully understood. Throughout researching this discussion most people referred to Richard A. Brody as being the one to first assess this topic back in 1978 with a study he did where he ended up naming this situation as the “Puzzle of Participation.” However data was collected even earlier than Brody’s declaration of there being this problem in politics, back in 1947 by Dr. Hyman and his research associate Mr. Sheatsley. They first described people who were politically ignorant using the term “Know-Nothings.” Stephen Earl Bennett, from the University of Cincinnati, used the data from their study, a whole 40 years later, to determine if these people still existed in the public today. He stated that, “Americans' innocence of political knowledge has been so thoroughly documented that it is no longer noteworthy. What is worthwhile is to determine whether there still exists a "hard core" of people who are unwilling to receive or incapable of encoding information about that universe (477-478). Bennett states that this issue has been discussed thoroughly but this can one wonder why no changes have been made since it’s clearly still occurring today. In this day and age, it is much easier for most people to receive the information they need with the click of a button or by simply glancing at their phone. The media, and its platforms, is continuously developing and along with this comes manipulation to obtain views.

It’s important to note that for some people, they have more difficulty in receiving any information at all since not everyone is of the same socioeconomic status. Not having the same access that others do makes them mote vulnerable towards knowing the truth about what’s happening in the world. These people can be composing their political viewpoints without being fully informed which jeopardizes their participation. The research done by Hyman and Sheatsley shows that, “Very few Americans do well on tests of political knowledge beyond recognizing presidential figures:

Performance also varied from index to index; for example, while only 5 percent could not think of a single major national problem, 74 percent did not know the name and party of even one local congressional candidate…Although strictly speaking, most of those who failed knew "something" of public affairs, their inability to achieve a passing mark on a grade-inflated test constitutes sufficient reason to refer to them as “know-nothings” (480-483).

The complexity caused by the media can be the reasoning that has caused this lack of knowledge to occur.

Bennett stresses the importance of citizens being informed by stating that, “Hyman and Sheatsley believed that lack of interest insulates know-nothings from political information…Enhance people's desire for information about politics and you [ipso facto] expand their capacity for encoding the same” (478). Along with this point he stated that this can only pertain to certain people since, as mentioned before, not everyone acquires information the same, let alone retains the same amount either. Nonetheless, informing oneself and actively seeking out details by being up to date about the current political situation and their stance on issues is beneficial because that’s part of a role people have as citizens in America. Bennett states the difference knowledge can have on a person, when it comes to being aware and becoming enlightened: “One of the most basic things the informed citizen should know is the names of key political figures…Slightly more demanding is awareness of which party controls the government [but] citizens should also be aware of the major problems confronting the country. An enlightened individual will also know where the presidential candidates and the major political parties stand on important domestic and foreign policies, and he/she will also be aware of what government policy is on these issues” (478-479). He’s stressing the idea that those who are living in this country have the duty to take part in the country’s leadership.

This knowledge that people acquire can help those who are uninformed or a “know-nothing” determine which political party they decide to choose to be apart of. Deciding on a political party means joining and supporting a group of people who share similar interests as you on major issues such as education, immigration, and equality rights. Taking a look at the history behind the political parties could help someone learn more about what it supports and values. For example, back in the 1960s during Nixon’s presidential campaign, he used the strategy of: “[Nixon] advised Republicans to press forward to secure voting rights for blacks in the South, not as a means of improving their condition, but with the hopes that increased black participation in the Democratic party would drive whites out in disgust” (Gillette, 74). He was acting selfishly for the sake of the interests of his political group and to gain the support of his people. Although it appeared he was trying to better the lives of blacks he actually wasn’t and as the quote states only did so as an attempt to ruin the democratic party. Learning this history behind the tactics of political parties may make some people, specifically African Americans and other minorities, reconsider which party they choose to join.

With all of the hardships minorities faced with voting, once they finally acquired their right they still had trouble getting to and through the polls due to the restrictions that were placed on them. Enbar Toledano, at the Emory School of Law, states one restriction that was added to the polls at one point was that the ballots were only given in English (408). This automatically discriminates against all people who didn't speak or weren't able to read in English. It was because of measures such as these that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was created and why Section 5 of this law was, and is still today, so important. Toledaro opens the law journal with defining the 15th Amendment and the Section 5 clause along with the speculations that have occurred because of it:

“The Fifteenth Amendment purported to withdraw race and color from the calculus of suffrage. Instead, it gave rise to an era of creative exclusion in which Southern states erected one barrier after another and Congress floundered in its attempts to secure the black vote it had promised. After ninety-five years, progress at last seemed possible with the introduction of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), an echo of the Fifteenth Amendment fitted with shiny, new teeth. Section 5 of the VRA reversed the inertia of discrimination by requiring states with a demonstrated history of employing disfranchising voting practices to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws. That provision, however, was a temporary measure, designed to remain in place only as long as it was needed. In light of modem developments in black suffrage and political representation, and with the election of President Obama symbolizing to many a post-racial America, increasingly more scholars and politicians argue that section 5 has run its course” (389).

Toledando discussed that some key states would require “qualification or prerequisite” to keep many minorities from casting a vote, which were usually tests of knowledge to prove their citizenship (408). The removal of this clause would also just prove how minorities are still mistreated if other parties wanted this removed just because of the improvements that these groups have achieved. There are still countless instances in the news that depict how people of minorities still receive so much injustice — the work of this clause is far from being served.

It’s interesting to compare this to the trials that Hyman and Sheatsley performed on people about their political knowledge. Bennett quotes NYU professor, Robert Weissberg,who said, “Factual knowledge of the political system" is necessary for "effective political participation…The immense complexities of modern bureaucratic government makes [sic] such information a virtual prerequisite for political action” (Bennett 477). Professor Weissenberg stresses that knowledge and understanding is everything, which is sort of related to how the government felt back then by administering these tests, however they were doing so only to people of color as a way of discrimination. Once again they were contradicting the right given to this minority by changing its purpose. The people that took part in the tests given by Hyman and Sheatsley still all performed poorly regardless of their race. It’s also important to note to this was clause was to help those of all minorities, even though it’s visible in helping blacks. Toledano wrote, “In a decade when the country was essentially black and white (at 10.5% and 88.6% of the population, respectively), Section 5 was conceived as a means of forcing the Fifteenth Amendment's suffrage guarantee upon the Jim Crow South…The inherent difficulties in arriving late to the scene, so to speak, place Hispanic/Latino and Asian groups at a distinct disadvantage politically: these groups are underrepresented both as voters and as elected officials” (410).

The reason this is significant to note is due to other minorities, such as Hispanics and Muslims, deserve to be protected and fought for just as actions have been done for blacks. The author noted that “[In 2000] anti-Islamic incidents rose from the second least reported to the second highest reported. And while Muslims are the most visible targets of the post-9/11 era, that period has also engendered antipathy to immigrants and minorities more generally” (412). This could be a reasoning behind why so many minorities are the one that don’t take part in elections, by feeling discouraged from participating. Thankfully this clause has continued to be renewed because the discrimination that occurred proves its still needed, especially since the nation’s population persistently grows in diversity.

Aside from some races being underrepresented in politics, politics itself has always been male-dominated or in other words gendered. It wasn't until suffrage movements occurred throughout the 19th century that women began their involvement. The authors of “How Movements Win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and U.S. Women’s Suffrage Movement, 1866-1919” account how the shift that happened in politics changed the view of the role of women in the world. They wrote that,

“During the nineteenth century, a clear cultural demarcation between women's and men's appropriate social spheres emerged, with women's place defined as the private sphere of child-rearing and domestic work and men's place defined as the public sphere of politics and business. Such beliefs excluded women from having a formal voice and thus formal power in politics. But the suffragists found gendered opportunities in changes or variations in gender relations that altered existing views about the proper roles of women. In particular, the rise of the "new woman" offered a gendered opportunity to the suffragists. Around the turn of the century, women increasingly received extensive edu- cation, worked outside the home, entered professional careers, had fewer children, divorced, and became involved in various charitable and political activities” (53).

The work done by suffragists centuries ago paved the way for all women today, even in aspects that don't involve politics. They changed the way society viewed women at the time and changed how women should see themselves. Overall they gave women the confidence they needed to break through the barriers that were built upon them at the time. Looking at the history of this movement and how women have expanded it greatly today, it can make a person reassess their view of women in politics. Its women like Susan B. Anthony, Michelle Obama, Hilary Clinton, and even MalalaYousafzai, and all other women who choose to be advocates for issue they care about, who are living proof of the work suffragists became decades ago. It is due to these female advocates that it’s especially important that when have the confidence to place their vote.

Besides these women being political legacies of the suffrage movement, the Civil Rights Movement itself left civic legacies to the American people. Diann Cameron Kelly, a professor at Adelphi University who studies Social Work, describes these legacies. She stated that,

“[The Civil Rights Movement] captures the principles of trust, activism, and efficacy and provides millions of American citizens and their children with a richer national identity. What Americans inherited from the Civil Rights era were laws, practices, and policies that strengthen the social ties among citizens. But our inheritance was significantly enriched by the civic values, in particular, that emerged from this era: trust, efficacy, and benevolence. Further, this civic legacy opened the doors for citizens of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds to engage in civic political arenas as public servants and leaders for all Americans and prospective Americans. Finally, this civic legacy provided us with a civic platform—associations and organizations, as well as political and technological infrastructures—that increased interaction between citizens and prospective citizens and strengthened civic literacy, social trust, and collective efficacy” (429-430).

These are the claimed “legacies” that Americans were supposed to develop from the Civil Rights Era, but one may begin to question whether the country actually did acquire them entirely or not. Yes laws and policies were created but have they actually “strengthened the social ties among citizens”, if anything it seems that they divide citizens into an unfair hierarchy depending on political and social powers. Kelly then says that “trust, efficacy, and benevolence” occurred but also in what context? It seems as though a lack of trust has been caused when looking towards the government along with them misusing efficacy and benevolence to their own advantage and not towards benefitting the people. Also as for the “civic platforms” that were created, many of them continue to underrepresent its people which are mostly consisting of minorities.

These feelings that emerged are what could've kept people from the polls in the 2016 election; they greatly differ from the emotions people had felt during past elections, such as during the 2008 presidential election. Christopher Finn and Jack Glaser of the University of California - Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy concluded that aside from race, the emotions people felt during this election played part in voter turnout. They wrote,

“Within political science, the study of emotion’s role has focused on the motivating effects of anxiety1 and enthusiasm and, more recently, the effect of fear cues on political persuasion. The 2008 U.S. presidential election was, it is now cliché to say, unprecedented. One candidate was the first African American on a major party ticket, and he won. The election also came in the context of a severe financial crisis, a deeply disliked war, and an unusually unpopular sitting president. Given the long and bitter history of racism in America, the anger and fear many Americans felt over the war and the economy, and the pervasive theme of hope promoted by the Obama campaign, it seems probable that emotional reactions of voters would be influential” (263).

Obama’s theme of hope throughout his campaign was unlike the idea of his opponent John McCain. It had the ability to trigger the public psychologically by empowering them to believe that the changes they desperately were needing in the country would be possible not only through the work of the government but also through the people. This message was so unique because of the empowerment it instilled instead of telling people to simply rely on their government officials. This is also why more people, especially minorities, embraced his message and went to the ballots to vote since he was someone who actually represented themselves as well as their ideals.

The 2016 election supported minorities somewhat, that is by having a woman run in the primaries, but the importance of this was overshadowed at times by the actions of the media, who at times misinformed the public. Not only was this done by the media but this misconception could've also been created by the public. People of other races in particular could've had other views or thoughts about Hillary Clinton, even though her platform involved representing them, women, and children. She’s had a long run in the world of politics and it’d be easy to assume that she didn't endure many struggles to get to where she is today considering her extensive political background, economic status, and of course marital status to Bill Clinton, the 42nd President. However she is a woman working in the male-dominated world of politics. As history shows this is not easy for women to do and that doesn’t change no matter the decade. Her opponent Donald Trump has been quoted saying things that don't show much support for minorities, especially since he wants to build a wall to keep some of these minorities from returning, so he as well acts an example of a wealthy and powerful non-minority. After having a president who truly embodied the people he was leading, it’s possible that the public felt they had no decision. They lost the hope that President Obama had given them and felt that neither candidate would return this to them, so they didn't vote.

However these feelings could've also been conveyed through the media, especially since the candidates were quite active on their social platforms and the public took to their own social media outlets for discussions. As stated before, getting educated on social issues is essential to understanding them, and this goes with anything, but also where your information is from is just as a major part. If people get their information from unreliable sources, or more so underdeveloped sources, that will lead to people making ignorant answers, which is how political ignorance continues to be spread.

Annotated Bibliography

Cameron Kelly, Diann. "The Civic Legacy of the Civil Rights Era: Exploring the Values of a Movement." Smith College Studies in Social Work (Haworth), vol. 83, no. 4, Oct-Dec2013, pp. 427-445. EBSCOhost

Diann Cameron Kelly, a professor at Adelphi University studies social work with major focuses in the history of civil rights in the Unites States, social values, and political participation. The focus group she uses in her study can be a useful example in my paper to show the types of issues people truly focus on when considering on which candidate to vote for during an election. Aside from this, there is also useful information about the “civic legacy” that was left to the nation after the Civil Rights Movement, aspects such as broadening voter involvement and connecting American families of different cultures to improve the nations’s identity. These main legacies that Cameron Kelly states will act as good counterpoints in my paper to support my argument of how the election has done the opposite and divided the people of America. This source can connect its idea of civic legacies to wards whether these legacies were carried out through the public, which could be shown in voter participation discussed in Finn and Glaser’s article.

Finn, C and J Glaser. "Voter Affect and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election: Hope and Race Mattered." Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, Dec. 2010, pp. 262-275. EBSCOhost

In this journal article, studies proved two factors that play a part in voting patterns. These studies were conducted by Christopher Finn and Jack Glaser, both from the University of California - Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, which concluded that race of the candidate played a role in a voter’s decision between specifically white and black people. The other factor was emotion but specifically hope since that was the theme behind Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral campaign. They noticed that with their already being significant racial differences in the election between Obama and McCain, Obama’s hope and “Yes We Can” slogan really played to his advantage. The article written by Finn and Glaser focuses on the aspects of race and hope influencing voting, however this source can be related to the idea of how voters were also affected by other aspects such as lack of candidate diversity and being uninformed or issues, las stated in Stephen Bennett’s piece.

Gillette, Howard Jr. "Contemporary Party Politics: Signs of America's Shifting Political Culture." American Studies International, vol. 21, no. 5, Oct. 1983, pp. 67-87. EBSCOhost

This article was written by Howard Gillette Jr., one of Rutgers University — Camden’s very own professors who studies history. He cites many articles in his piece to help develop his ideas about the changing political culture in the United States. Although all his examples are from the 1900s, they show that this culture and the public’s way of thinking is still current today. This is an argument I’ll be making in my paper and this article supports this idea. Most of the information he discusses is focused strictly on the political parties and groups that came about in the 1900s. However the article states the tactics candidates used, the role media played in politics, and showed a different reasoning behind why political parties were advocating for blacks to receive the right to vote. All of this information will help support my arguments and can connect to the ideas in law journal by Enbar Toledano who argues the idea of those believing we’re living in a “post-racial America” just because the country has had a black president.

BENNETT, Stephen Earl. "'Know-Nothings' Revisited: The Meaning of Political Ignorance Today." Social Science Quarterly, no. 2, 1988, p. 476. EBSCOhost

This article analyzes what political ignorance is and introduces it under a new phrase called “know-nothingism”. Author Stephen Bennett, from the University of Cincinnati, uses the research Hyman and Sheatsley 1947 case, which is who coined the term and related it to the idea of political ignorance. Their research will help me develop and strengthen the ideas of my paper by giving me supporting ideas that link to why people decide not to vote and why the public feels their not informed. These statements are proven by the polls they conducted of the which used information from the Center for Political Studies and National Opinion Research Center’s 1944 Election Study. Even though this information is over 50 years old, it will be interesting to show the similarities to the political climate today and if there are any differences. A connection can be made with Finn and Glaser’s article on voter affect since “know-nothingism” itself is an aspect that kept people from the polls.

Toledano, Enbar. "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and Its Place in "Post-Racial" America." Emory Law Journal, vol. 61, no. 2, Nov. 2011, pp. 389-434. EBSCOhost

Enbar Toledano, the author of this journal, analyzes politics under the lens of the law. He’s specifically looking at the 15th amendment, which gave blacks and those of another race or color the right to vote, and then deeper at Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 of the VRA states that any states that had a history of depriving people voting rights to first gain clearance from the government to do so. This was to help reverse the discrimination that'd been caused in voting, but it was also supposed to be only a temporary clause. The debate over whether to continue to renew it or to get rid of it once and for all is still in occurrence, but people feel as though with all of the advancements African-Americans specifically have made in politics proves that it’s no longer needed, however this clause also supports other minorities and not just the one. Supporting different people of the different communities of America is one of the civic legacies mentioned in the Cameron Kelly’s work.

Secondary Sources

Girard, NJ. "What Type of Voter Are You?." AORN Journal, vol. 80, no. 4, Oct. 2004, pp. 643-644. EBSCOhost

Nancy J. Girard wrote this editorial actually for the AORN or the Association of Operating Nurses. Although it’s for a nursing publication it gives statistics from the 2002 election, information that was acquired form the U.S. Census Bureau. These statistics can help support the argument of determining the factors that play a part in voter turnout. This information and the observations of different voter types can actually be connected to the ideas of both Toledano and Bennett’s articles since they both discuss representing and involving more diversity in politics.

McCammon, Holly J., et al. "How Movements Win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and U.S. Women's Suffrage Movements, 1866 to 1919." American Sociological Review, vol. 66, no. 1, Feb. 2001, pp. 49-70. EBSCOhost

Although this article is about how movements specifically win and help carry out change, the discussion of suffrage movements depicts the idea of a minority gaining support and representation in politics. The article discusses how women got the chance to break into a male-dominated field and their breakthrough gender roles is what generated a culture shift for them. It allowed women to be viewed differently, and after a while, they were able to gain respect and even male allies. This article can connect to the ideas in Toledano’s journal about how African Americans and other minorities are make steps towards gaining more equality, with the help of the fifteenth amendment and clause 5, but there is still much work that has to be done as well as mindsets needing to be changed.