Who are you voting for?

By James Jimenez / Spox

While the automation of the 2013 elections is an important topic, it would be best not to forget that elections are really all about the voter. No matter how high-tech the election system becomes, it still comes down to the quality of the voter’s participation in the process. So today, we’ll give the Automation Primer a brief rest and talk about how important it is not to take elections for granted.

THERE’S an old movie about a conman who runs for office using the name of the outgoing congressman from his district. The voters, totally oblivious to the fact that the familiar name no longer referred to the man they remembered, trooped to the polls, simply wrote down the name they’d always voted for, and ended up electing the masquerading conman to Congress.

Sure, it’s silly and exaggerated, but it does underscore an essential fact: voters sometimes take elections for granted and, because they didn’t take the time to learn more about the candidates, often end up voting on the basis of name recall. Are you like that?

Do this simple exercise: think of your congressman and list down 10 things you know about him and what he’s done both before he became a member of the House of Representatives and since. Chances are, unless you’re working for him or his opponent, you’ll have a very difficult time listing down even five things.

Yet, despite your lack of knowledge about your congressman, he controls millions of pesos that can be used for the improvement of your district. New schools, for instance, or health centers, even basketball courts to givethe youth something better to do than drugs—these things can be provided by thecongressman some of you might not even be able to name. On the downside, however, he might just take the money and run.

Now consider the mayor of your city or townand list down 10 things that you know about him from before he won elected office. Again,the chances are that you’re not having theeasiest time doing that either. And yet, themayor controls the police forces in your city or municipality and has a direct role to play inthe provision of basic services like schooling for your children, hospital care for theelderly, and even ensuring that your trash gets picked up regularly.

So now the question is, how can you tell if a person can do everything his position requires of him, if all you know about him is that his name sounds familiar? Of what value,therefore, is name recall?

These are the kinds of questions that citizens must be confronted with if we are ever to wean ourselves from our dependence on mere name-recall. Instead of simply going forthe names that sound most familiar, voters must be taught to identify tangible links between things that matter in real life andthe choices they make in the polling booth,and in so doing become more aware of thetrue consequences of their vote. And here is where voter education becomes critical.

Dysfunctional voter practices—vote sellingand thoughtless voting for instance—ultimately stem from a lack of appreciation ofthe true value of the ballot. The voter simply does not see the right of suffrage as being important enough to hold on to. Instead, it is seen either as a marketable commodity or—in the case of people who don’t think aboutthe choices they’re making—a useless trifle that can be discarded without a second thought.

Voter education is supposed to target these kinds of preconceived notions about what it means to live in a representative democracy. Voter education must attack these falsities, break them down, and replace them with a new paradigm. This is especially true of both first-time voters and pre-voters—youth who are not yet of voting age but are already politically aware. It’s not an easy task. For all that people wax lyrical over the idealism of youth, practical experience shows that even children hold a jaundiced view of politics andelections that has been shaped by jaded elders. The tabula rasa is virtually extinct; replaced by cynicism and an overwhelming sense of helplessness. Thus, even with theyouth—or perhaps especially for them—conscious effort must be exerted to combatthe warped perception that the right to vote can be treated so cavalierly.

In the movie, the conman quickly realizes that being an elected official isn’t all aboutthe perks and the power and gets his act together. His constituents were lucky. Despite their carelessness in voting for a charlatan, they still ended up with a decent public servant. But that’s Hollywood. In real life, there is always the chance that we won’t be as fortunate.

Is that a risk we want to take?

James Jimenez blogs at http://james-jimenez.com and tweets as @jab-jimenez on Twitter.