COLUMN: Uphold Your Responsibility

From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95 From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95Tired of Republican politics and the gridlock caused by a GOP White House and a Democratic Congress, voters elected Bill Clinton President in 1992 in an attempt to make Washington more efficient. Similarly in 1994, the same voters, now disillusioned by the Democratic efforts to lead the country, once again embracing their voting power, purged Congress of many Democratic incumbents and shifted power to the Republicans. Both cases demonstrate a fundamental principle behind our government: Power rests with the people. Through voting, citizens can peacefully replace our country's leadership during any election. If citizens are unhappy, the power to improve any situation rests with the voters themselves. The Founding Fathers purposely constructed our government that way -- so the power behind governance would lie with the masses. By selecting this form of governance, the Founding Fathers, in effect, struck a bargain with American citizens -- the people gain the benefit of maintaining power over government but incur the costs of participating in that government. The cost of participation is voting -- the energy it takes to educate oneself about the process and the candidates, and then physically going to the polling booths to cast a ballot. If citizens do not vote, the system breaks down. And if enough citizens do not vote, then our government becomes exactly what it is meant to guard against -- the rule of the few over the many. Without voting, citizens are shirking the critical responsibility invested in them by the Constitution. Unfortunately today, we find a government severely suffering from the very voter apathy that our political system must avoid. Not only do barely half of eligible voters participate in any given election, but it is 18 to 24 year-olds that are the worst offenders. In the 1992 presidential election, only 37.9 percent of eligible voters ages 18 or 19 actually voted, the worst percentage of any age group. The second worst group was comprised of voters between 20 to 24 years of age. Only 44.7 percent of these voters participated in the election. The only way presidents and our federal government can be successful and respected is if the people who empower that government provide it with the legitimacy for which it calls. This legitimacy is given through the voting process. And now this dangerous apathy has found its way to the University. Voter apathy, whether in a presidential election, a town council election, or even an Undergraduate Assembly election, is extremely dangerous. Although the federal government and the Undergraduate Assembly are very different governing bodies, the dangers of failing to vote apply in both cases. National voters and voters on campus are both frustrated by the slow bureaucracies that accomplish very little. Although the powers of national government greatly overshadow the powers of the UA, in both cases only through participation in elections can voters affect positive changes. Nationally, many voters do not think their vote will make a difference, but on a campus with a limited number of voters, anyone who participates can sway the balance of power. Nationally, about two-fifths of our generation voted in the last presidential election -- most of whom are not Ivy League students. But on an Ivy League campus, only 13.6 percent of students felt the need to participate in last week's UA elections. This is a disgrace for the University. We are supposedly the best and brightest, therefore, we are the very people who should be most active and most educated. Instead, the very leader of the undergraduate governing body himself advocates apathy by urging students not to vote. The low voter turn out for University elections is a dangerous trend that has helped root voter apathy in many students. If we fail to understand the importance of voting in a simple University-wide election, why are we suddenly going to feel the urgency to vote in a state or national election? Many will argue that they will vote in national elections because the federal government's legislation will truly affect the country while the UA does not have the power to profoundly effect campus. But unless you vote in the UA election and support the candidates you believe can do the best job, how will you ever know what a changed UA could accomplish? The result of the UA election is entirely ironic. Those eligible to vote did not exercise their right because they had no faith in the UA. But by not voting, these same frustrated people perpetuated the problem. When students are upset over student government, it is the perfect time to make sure they vote for a change, not a time to run from the polling stations. If those students fed up with the bureaucracy and static student government would mobilize and vote together to defeat the incumbents, then student government would at least be under different, hopefully more capable, leadership. And the larger voter turnout would give the UA some legitimacy. The voting process, regardless of the election, can bring about change. The voters can choose who they want to empower. But to do this, voters, especially in our generation, must educate themselves about candidates and then actually exercise their responsibility to cast a ballot. It is not surprising that our age group is most disinterested in politics and voting. The apathy that has been recorded on a national level is being born and nourished right on our very campus. Last week, students had the opportunity to vote for a change so that the UA would actually be accountable to its constituents. Students could have voted out the incumbents and selected from four referenda to reform the UA's constitution. On Tuesday and Wednesday, students chose to ignore their responsibility. As a result, 11 incumbents were re-elected and UA reform will not be possible for another year. So please do not complain that students have no support group. Do not whine that student government does nothing for those it is representing. Do not get angry when the UA wastes your money -- because by not voting, you deserve what you get.