How far digital technological innovations have succeeded in overcoming political apathy and political disengagement? If your answer goes utopian way, how sustainable will that change be? Do we have any empirical evidence which may suggest that the change in real sense is sustainable?
I recently conducted a study on voter turnout in Canadian undergraduate student unions, comparing online voting systems versus paper ballot systems for general elections in 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. I found that online voting yielded a higher turnout on average to a reasonable degree of significance. In other words, making voting more accessible by adding additional online voting options would likely have a positive effect of voter turnout
1 - Too early to answer seriously from an empirical point of view
2 - Everithing depends on your definition of political disengagement. It would be more interesting to analyze the evolution of political engagement regimes in different countries. History is probably more relevant than sociology regarding this issue.
Justin Patrick I also agree with your findings that by making voting more accessible would likely have a positive impact on voter turnout. But I am not sure about how safe, secure and sustainable is the idea of online voting. And more there are plethora of studies which focus on electoral issues like voting behaviour we have fewer literature talks about engagement beyond the ballot.
Ismaël Sene you really made some interesting observations. Maybe if you would like to you can shine some light on how digital technologies can be/are being utilized to deal with political apathy or disengagement.
I don't know if there has been any work done on the presumption that increasing voter participation improves the sorts of candidates that get elected to office.
After all, we could pass laws that require everyone to vote or face fines. And we could lower the voting age to 10.
That would get us plenty of voters, but what would it mean?
Would we elect more television stars to office?
Has expanded the franchise done anything to improve the sorts of candidate that come to power?
The most interesting improvements technology is making to politics is adding more editorial voices to every issue and expanding our ability to get news from beyond our own borders.
But political participation will probably always be an interest of the few. Most American I know can't name their own representative in congress. Most are not interested in the news even at a superficial level.
Why do we work ourselves into a lather imagining it is so important that they know and participate? They are happy to leave the choice to others more interested and more educated in the matter.
Does it really matter if we get more of these sorts to march to the polls and cast a ballot who will never be informed?
Anyone and everyone is presumed capable of selecting the president but we are not considered capable of having a say in who the next night shift manager of our local grocery store.
Stephen Martin Fritz as far as I could grasp, you seem to be a bit hopeless about the present scenario of citizen participation in the American political process. I just wanted to ask you if digital technological innovations are making any difference in prevailing political apathy in America. And secondly how seriously should digital participation should be taken when it comes to governance and policymaking?
"Hopeless" is not the right word to use here Sandeep Sharma
I think I am not convinced that getting people to vote in larger numbers is helpful in making better laws. It may be an indication that they are looking to the politicians to improve society.
But I don't know that this is necessarily a good thing.
Are the politicians really where we need to turn to improve society?
The very reasons democracy works and is such a wonderful system to live under is because: THE LAWS MADE BY GOVERNMENT MEAN MUCH LESS THAN THE LAWS OF THE MARKETPLACE.
This is what defines a democracy.
What happens at the store means more in your life than who is in office and what laws are passed this week.
So it matters very little if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president of the United States as long as neither interferes too much in what really makes our life good -- THE American FREE MARKET.
Government needs to administer the courts, and regulate for public safety, but much beyond that, it's impact is over-estimated. (though necessary)
What brings people up from poverty is usually their own hard work at a job.
Not a government handout or a government program or a free college education.
I would not say there is much more voter apathy in America than in other developed nations. In many other nations they have assorted MANDATORY VOTING laws. America has none. So turnout is statistically lower.
Technological innovations like the internet might drive up voter turnout by making it easier for political parties to reach their constituents every day with some new news that THE SKY IS FALLING
IT IS ALWAYS FALLING!
That somehow if we don't vote their opponents will come to power and destroy the universe.
Politics tends to operate on exaggeration, fear-mongering and generating as much panic as possible -- and politicians promise to address all the problems that they claim are about to destroy us:
Climate change/immigration/deficits/drugs/income inequality/toxic masculinity
The list of all the things about to kill us is endless -- it depends on which politician you listen to.
But this is their job. To be alarmists. And we listen and decide who makes senses and who does not. It is a nice system.
In democracies, politicians are forever telling us that we are at a pivotal cross-roads in history and that this next election will decide the fate of humanity.
Half of the voters enjoy participating in the activity and feel good about doing their duty to save their country -
The other half trust the people that vote know what they are doing better than those who choose to stay home.
And they are probably right.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics
- Innovation