Tuesday, October 22, 1996
VOTING:
Decision-making power lies in the hands of the American voters
who choose to partake in our electionsBy Andrew J. Westhall
"If you’re not part of the solution, then you must be part of
the problem."
 some genius
I commend Jake Sexton for opening up a debate which has long
puzzled most of the general public. The problem I have with his
statements ("In politics, money speaks louder than votes," Oct. 15,
1996) lies in his, as well as the Daily Bruin’s, ethical
responsibility to its readers regarding what is published.
Sexton needs to realize who his audience is as well as where the
power of decision-making in our political system lies. I cannot
believe that Sexton has encouraged voter apathy and unethical, even
illegal behavior, to impressionable students and other readers of
the Daily Bruin.
Many of these people, fresh out of high school, are about to
vote for the first time as Sexton argues that all that matters is
money and multi-national corporate behavior. In my opinion, I think
it’s time for you to drop the pen and pick up the sword.
Voting in the United States is a basic constitutional right.
Think about that … you have the right to vote.
Men and women, over the age of 18, regardless of any
qualifications other than you have to be a citizen and not a felon,
may vote. Women only began to vote this century with the passage of
the l9th Amendment in 1920. People of color only had federal
protection to vote with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of
1965. That was only 31 years ago in contrast to 133 years ago when
African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese, Mexicans and other
ethnic groups lacked sufficient rights.
It is unfortunate that many countries in the world do not even
allow their citizens to vote, or that the dominant party controls
the voter booths, and thus, the outcome of the election. But in the
United States, whoever wins the election gets to take office,
regardless of party. Voting is historically important to the
majority of the population as a right (51 percent female and 28
percent minority), but does it influence the decision-making
process?
As one who professionally works in the field of politics, I
would say it most certainly does.
Our political system is based on participatory democracy, and
you must participate to affect the outcome. Politics in the United
States is one of the most complex strategy games one can ever
participate in, and that strategy begins at the basic level of
voting. If we look at the 69th Assembly District covering Santa
Ana, where the voting population is 50 percent Latino with a slight
Democratic majority in registration, why is the incumbent
Republican Jim Morrissey, a white business owner, in office?
One reason … voter apathy in 1994.
With this one seat, the Republicans have a majority in the state
Assembly (41-37 with two seats vacant) skewing the decision-making
process in favor of the governor and Republican ideology in the
lower house. Without the balance of a Democratic-majority in the
state Senate, California could have become a scary place to live
over the last two years. That is what happens when too much power
is concentrated in one ideology, and also gives the reason why our
system of government was developed through checks and balances.
This is just one instance, and I can cite many more if necessary,
where voting does and will matter on Nov. 5.
Let’s move to Sexton’s other concerns regarding the influence of
money and corporate behavior in our political system.
How does money, or primarily campaign contributions, play a role
in the decision-making process? Well, the president was definitely
a bad example because he does not create the laws. It is true that
the power of veto is available to the executive office, but
ultimately he, or she, is someday the figurehead and
coalition-builder of the party, and of the nation. The real
decision-making is made in Congress and in the bureaucracies (where
coalition-building and concerned citizens are most important), as
well as at the state and local levels.
What allows money to become influential is apathetic voters and
lack of citizen participation.
In a sense, I was glad that Sexton used former U.S. Sen. Alan
Cranston as an example where money can be influential since
Cranston’s historical record shows that he was a corrupt politician
whose downfall came with the Savings and Loan scandals. Although he
was never convicted, there are still many instances where
politicians are punished for their behavior.
Take a look at local politicians like former City Council member
Patricia Moore of Compton, or Assemblyman Scott Baugh down in
Orange County. These people followed the unethical and illegal
behavior you encourage and they were caught. This is why we have a
Fair Political Practices Commission here in California as well as
its complement at the federal level. Candidates must also file
forms listing money that is legally donated, and this information
is available free of charge from the government. So the reality is
you can’t legally buy a vote, and illegally you are bound to get
caught, but what you do receive with money is access.
Access is very important in politics, but everyone has the
ability to gain it. It is true that money makes it a little easier
because resources and time are more readily available, but
politicians listen to their constituents’ concerns on the issue and
consider public opinion extremely important. The best thing about
participation is if you don’t like how they vote, then you vote
them out of office. This is all part of the process of
participation.
Remember, the key is that we live in a participatory democracy
and some people have time to participate more than others. Some
people even get paid to participate(lobbyists), but most don’t
participate enough with voting as the first step. The media also
chooses whether or not they want to participate in the process, but
we must understand that the media are corporations themselves.
Their views are biased towards the owners who choose the editors,
skewing the dissemination of information in their favor. I believe
we can all look to the first article on the Harrick-Blazer
controversy in the L.A. Times as a case in point. The media
participates because it is in their self-interest, and they get
paid to do it.