At the risk of demoralising anybody with even a shred of hope for the hip, materialistic and carefree Generation Y, the title of this article was actually inspired by the highbrow reasoning of a fellow Gen Y friend of mine who declared rather smugly that he will vote Labor because, like, Julia Gillard is pretty hot. Personally I wouldn’t disagree, but I can safely assume that if we were all to cast our votes according to such values we would have a serious problem with this country.
Did Abbott's frolick on the beach influence your vote?
It is often said that an unintelligent vote is worse than no vote at all, so thankfully sporting a shiny auburn crop or emerging seductively from the ocean in the spirit of James Bond Casino Royale does not, for the most part, affect where we sit on the political spectrum. So in a country that requires mandatory voting and with a remarkably close election which resulted in the first hung parliament in 70 years, one would hope that voters are making careful and calculated decisions on who they believe to be best suited for the job. However, the recent Gillard versus Abbott fiasco suggested that this may not be the case, demonstrating the startling decline of political awareness and the disturbing rise of uninformed voting.
Plato expressed his grievances on this matter in the Republic, claiming that one of the major problems with democracy was the widespread existence of uneducated and ill-informed voters. Along the same lines, John F. Kennedy warned, “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” The significance of such ideas becomes very clear in light of the most recent federal election, where it appeared that voter preferences depended less on policies and propositions and more on dodgy attack campaigns and catchy slogans. Winston Churchill stated that “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter”, and he certainly had a point.
Plato argued against democracy, claiming that the majority of voters were unaware of what were essentially good for them
When I asked a girlfriend how she’d voted, she lifted her head up high and swiftly declared her preferred candidate, reciting almost word for word the vicious and somewhat condescending attack ad launched the week before by her party of choice. A relative of mine justified his vote with an impassioned sermon surrounding the ethics of ‘backstabbing’, and another shrugged his shoulders and admitted that he had voted for what his girlfriend had told him to. The male versus female spectacle demonstrated by this year’s infamous election debate “worm” revealed a drastic battle of the sexes, and while it is exciting to have our first female prime minister, to base a vote simply upon a candidate’s gender is certainly troubling. While many of us snickered at loony Latham’s dramatic urge to cast a blank vote, one must confess that this does actually seem to be a fairly safer option than sending in herds of apathetic and poorly informed voters to decide the fate of the nation. It has been widely acknowledged that people today are becoming increasingly apathetic and unaware about political issues, and in this information age, where extensive coverage on every key issue is available at the click of a mouse, this can be rather difficult to comprehend.
The 7pm Project offered fresh coverage of the election which appealed to younger audiences
Sure, the nature of Australia’s political climate can be to some extent disenchanting and unromantic; revolution and major political changes do not linger in the air, and it is probably safe to assume that nobody is going to be writing heart-wrenching poetry or inspirational song lyrics about resource tax and Work Choices. The fact is however that these issues remain crucial and relevant to every individual, and as long as there is very little emphasis on the importance of political awareness, this will continue to be a very serious problem. A sharper focus on political studies can be introduced into school curriculum, and media coverage of political campaigns can be adjusted to appeal to younger audiences. Of course, the eradication of compulsory voting as well as the implementation of mandatory testing (akin to the Australian citizenship test) to earn voting rights would probably help in combating the dangers of uneducated voters, but this is all conceived to be too radical (not to mention Plato’s proposal for a complete overhaul of the democratic form of government). According to the system, my friend has every right to vote for Labor because Julia Gillard looks stirringly sophisticated in figure-hugging pantsuits. In that case, maybe next election I’ll vote for the Shooters Party to satisfy my savage affections for Call of Duty 4.
I fear for a democracy run on elitism, by elitists, who – so sure of their own intellect and conviction that they are right – discount the votes of the majority of the population because they are less informed.
But, in the words of Voltaire, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Viva la people’s democracy.
Definitely, although ignorance and difference in opinion are two very different things.
I agree that the state should not enforce people to vote, but not for the snobbish reasons you put out. I am sure you are one of the elite cadre that believed that those who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 were “ignorant” or “stupid” – despite, quite likely, some of them holding PhDs in Political Science – hell, Dr. Condaleeza Rice has such a qualification (a PhD in International Relations.)
Holding the electorate to your personal standards of intelligence will not improve the process – it will just distance intellectuals like yourself even further from the real voice of this country.
You’re absolutely right, Crushtor. Encouraging political awareness and a sound understanding of current policies and political affairs is downright elitist. Shame on me.
I am all for encouraging political awareness. I myself have a degree in political science.
However calling the electorate “stupid” to begin with doesn’t help. I still believe it alienates people like you and me who want to see more political education given to those who have little to none.
One must go to teacher’s college to become a teacher; you must go to medical school to become a doctor. I did not read political science at University to become a voter – no one has to in order to be a actor in our political system. Saying “you need to be educated” to exercise a basic right in our democracy is tantamount to saying one must undergo invasive physical testing to qualify for Medicare benefits. It sounds sanctimonious and condescending.
I suggested upon publication to the editors that I completely disagreed with using the word “stupid”, and I have never or would never use it. Being ill informed is completely different from being stupid. It seems you are upset with what you think is implied by my article, and not explicitly said. Now even though I don’t have a degree in Medicine, I still understand that smoking is bad for my health. Just the same, one doesn’t require a degree in politics to vote ‘correctly’, and by correctly I mean in accordance to their beliefs and personal values. Whoever voted Bush, despite the repercussions, did not vote wrong if they based it on acceptable reasoning. What I am regarding as a problem is this: people vote for a party that does not represent their personal beliefs and values, because they are just not aware of the party’s agenda. This is what is meant by educating the people, not going out and getting a Phd in Political Science.
You say “What I am regarding as a problem is this: people vote for a party that does not represent their personal beliefs and values, because they are just not aware of the party’s agenda.”
A lot of people I know voted for the Greens this election because they were dissatisfied with Labor or the Liberals. When pressed on the knowledge of the Greens’ policies, they could not come up with any explanations of that policy that reflected, to a significant degree, the policy statements of the Greens party.
Now you say that the people ought to be “educated” in these policies. There are numerous avenues for this self-education, yet people neglect to do so.
So what I struggle to understand is this – how will you achieve your goal of “education” when otherwise rational people with adult agency do not seek to do so of their own volition?
What I take umbrage with is your notion of “political education.” In a free civil society there is more political opinion and information open for access than ever before. Just because you educate (or rather, teach to) someone does not make them less apathetic towards it. I was “educated” in mathematics, but if anything, I became more apathetic over time; not the other way around.
Like I said – your article says that those who have education/are more informed are “better” voters who vote according to their own internally formed principles. Therefore, in your estimation, those who have less information tend not to. It still sounds as if you are belittling voters who are less informed by implying they generally do not vote according to their own values and principles.
If a Feminist voted for Julia Gillard “because she is a woman”, who gives you the right to judge?
The abolition of mandatory voting would certainly help to some degree, but one must also look back to the Obama elections. Celebrities endorsed a particular candidate and many people did not make intelligent and educated votes.
@crushtor
Frankly, I cannot believe your arguments. There is no question that voter ignorance has been a major flaw since the beginning of democracy. I am sure you are not serious, especially since you seem to enjoy flaunting your degree in political studies. In that case, maybe I should flaunt mine too. You need to grow up and start using your head, my friend!!
Anyway, I think it was also Churchill who said that democracy was the worst form of government except from all the others that have been tried, so alas, I will not be pulling out the Republic anytime soon.
All in all, fantastic article; funny, profound and as humble as the topic of discussion can possibly allow. Though I myself have no problems with accusations of elitism.
Never thought I’d hear the name Gillard and the word ‘sexy’ in the same sentence haha. Brilliant article!