It is common for politicians to use the United States as an example of a superior
democratic model. We hold our model of democracy up on a pedestal as if it is the
epitome of political equality. However, this is not the truth. In a country where voter turn
out is embarrassingly low and socioeconomic status is the leading indicator of political
participation, we cannot begin to claim that we are a society of political equality.
Because our country suffers from extremely low voter’s turn out, it is instinctual
to assume that any increase of political participation would help alleviate inequality is the
political sphere. However, Schlozman, Verba and Brady raise the question of whether
bringing new people into politics is enough to move towards political equality or do we
need to be bringing in new kinds of people. In “Weapons of the Strong?” the authors
discuss whether the Internet, as a tool to increase political participation, might help
alleviate or worsen political inequalities. It is agreed that the Internet decreases the
barriers of deficits of time, money and skills, lacking of motivation, and lack of exposure
to attempts to mobilize citizens to political action and that, therefore, the Internet is
changing how citizens participate in politics and increasing how many do. However,
some might argue that if the increase in political participation derives from the same
people, or the same kinds of people, who are already participatory, then the Internet’s
role in political action is actually increasing existing political inequalities.
Similarly, political scientists agree that the Internet is changing democratic
politics in America in many ways, including the methods that candidates use to raise
money. Those who claim that the effects of the Internet on political participation is
harmful to political equality extend this thought to acknowledge that because small
donations are unlikely to arrive with a set of policy instructions and only hold a
limited amount of leverage, our system of campaign finance lends itself to
greatening political inequalities in favor of those with high socioeconomic status.
Finally, skeptics of the positive effects of the Internet in political participation point
out that the Digital Divide allows political action to leave behind substantial
portions of the public, namely, those without the means to acquire a political voice
through the Internet.
Still, many are optimistic about the ways that the Internet can increase
political equality in America. Those who believe that the Internet might help
alleviate political inequalities point out that data suggests that offline and online
participant publics will not be appreciably different with respect to SES but that, in
contrast, the age profile of political participation on the Web differs from the age
profile of offline activity.
The study shows that there is a huge divide between the working poor and
the wealthy in terms of access to the Internet and the working poor are not using
the web for political purposes. While the young are least likely to be politically
active online, age is much less powerful in structuring political activity than
socioeconomic status. The digital divide is most evident among older citizens.
Political inequalities are highlighted even more clearly when the United
States is compared to Western European democracies. The US is the only major
democratic nation in which the less wealthy, as well as the young and minorities are
substantially underrepresented in the electorate. This phenomenon is due to the
characteristically low voter turn out. Piven and Cloward blame this on the
complicated path to voter registration in the US, citing that registered voters vote at
about the same rate in the United States as in many European countries. Our
history of barriers for voting rights and disenfranchising major social groups has
pushed out political participation very low and causes political inequalities to
increase. Meanwhile, Western Europe acted in the opposite way, increasing political
involvement and decreasing political inequalities.
Political participation is hinder at an even greater level when voter
identification laws are put into place. While some may argue that the integrity of
elections demands high levels of security in order to prevent voter fraud, arguments
surrounding civil liberties and a desire to minimize political inequality are much
more persuasive. Those who support voter identification laws cite risks of voter
impersonation, double voting, illegal aliens voting, and voting under fictitious
registrations as cause for concern. Within the debate, policymakers attempt to find
a middle ground. While protecting the equality of voting participation should be a
priority, it is understood that voting is entitled only to those who are eligible and
therefore, it is reasonable request for eligibility to be proven prior to voting.
However, we must not allow fear of voter fraud muddy the waters of political
equality; if proving eligibility comes at the cost of the votes of the working poor, we
are infringing on civil liberties.
In order to ease inequalities in political voice, it is crucial that the
government provides means for all eligible citizens to vote. This would include
requiring employers to provide time for voters to go to the polls, ensuring that polls
are available to all citizens, offering the necessary resources to pollsters to make the
voting process as efficient as possible, and limiting how many hurdles voters must
go through in order to register. Due to the tangible nature of money, economic
inequality is both more noticeable and better understood. Political inequality,
however, is hidden behind polls and voting laws making it less visible and seemingly
less urgent.
1 Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. "Weapon Of The Strong? Participatory Inequality And The
Internet." Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (2010): 487-509.
2 Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. "Weapon Of The Strong? Participatory Inequality And The
Internet." Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (2010): 487-509.
8 Piven, Francis Fox and Richard A. Cloward, Why American’s Still Don’t Vote: And Why Politicians Want it That Way. Boston:
Beacan Press, 2000, pp.2-17.
9 Piven, Francis Fox and Richard A. Cloward, Why American’s Still Don’t Vote: And Why Politicians Want it That Way. Boston:
Beacan Press, 2000, pp.2-17.
11 Davidson, The Historical Context of Voter-Photo ID Laws. “Elections and Voting: Voter Identification.
12 Davidson, The Historical Context of Voter-Photo ID Laws. “Elections and Voting: Voter Identification.
