One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. --quote attributed to Plato
The results of a USA Today/Suffolk University voter participation survey reveals no surprising details about the state of today's eligible voters; except that two thirds confirm they are currently registered.
Judging from a few of their primary reasons for not showing up at the polls on election day, apathetic voters illustrate how deeply uninformed they are about the inner workings of Washington, DC. They cannot fathom the degree by which lobbyists are organized, connected and relentless in the effort to influence elected representives.
For an example of the initiative that drives lobbyists, consider the 'day-in-the-life-of-a-lobbyist' guide offered by the California chapter of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. It encourages the effort to persuade elected office holders, by stating, "You have to be persistent... [which] means continuing to press your issue and recognizing that 'no' is only for now. There is no last vote. There's always going to be a next vote."
Now have a look at three of the various excuses eligible voters give in the survey for not going to the polls on election day:
"They aren't excited about either candidate."
"Their vote doesn't really matter."
"[N]othing ever gets done, anyway."
Is it little wonder that the lobbyist industry--which numbers only in the tens of thousands--out-maneuvers tens of millions of voters day-in and day-out in matters of public policy?
Call it electoral sabotage, by default--on the part of vote-eligible citizens too apathetic to participate.
To remedy this state of affairs would require an immense messaging effort by elected representatives and participating voters. The message to non-participating voters should spell out what the cost is for not being politically engaged, for refusing to pay attention. An incumbent running for re-election must remind voters how much time is spent on fundraising when it could be devoted to legislating and problem solving--all because a plurality of voters haven't tuned in.
Given that wide margin of unengaged citizens, it means a candidate running for public office must raise mounds of cash for the cost of media buys that reach voters who aren't paying attention. Money doesn't grow on trees, but it certainly finds its way from the wallets of the wealthy elite and into the coffers of a political campaign.
This defines the influence gap between voters and high dollar campaign contributors, who always come out on top over matters of public policy.
So, who can deny that we the people no longer call the shots? And who among us is ready to accept responsibility for that reality?