Follow the Leader
As I roughly traced the history of democracy throughout civilization, it struck me how little true progression there has been. Biases against the lower rungs of society, using economic and class status, lack of education, gender and, of course, race have been consistently debilitating throughout history with marginal progressions only occurring in the latter half of the 20th century. I wasn’t able to uncover too much info on what specific challenges voters faced in many of these historic democratic chapters other than general voter suppression, but it’s clear that in modern times, with the advent of technology at the very least, information can spread easier, for better or for worse.
Pre-historic hunter-gatherers were often small leaderless packs without any formal leaders. As in any democracy, some members would have more influence and oratory skills than others, but they likely all had a say in group decisions. In the film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, you see a depiction of pre-historic posturing when one side of two warring factions discovers that large bones make great weapons. The first ape that attacks the rival ape and kills him was probably revered and elevated to General status. I imagine this alpha ape garnered admiration and fear from the others and became the de facto leader due to recognition of his courage and killer instincts. No doubt there were more timid apes with less say in matters. Choosing a leader, fighting and survival could be seen as pre-cursors to the brutal partisan battles we have in politics today. Prehistoric man were perhaps the first democracies, but it would be far-fetched to call them “civilizations”. In most parts of the world, people likely only had to start obeying a village chief once they started to settle down into farming communities, where some semblance of order was needed in order to thrive. As communities grew into villages, people needed laws and leadership.
Athenian democracy, often described as the first known democracy in the world, developed around the fifth century BC in the Greek city-state (known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica. Other Greek cities set up democracies, most following the Athenian model, but none are as well documented as Athens’.
It was a system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. Voting, even in ancient times was intent on excluding certain segments of the population. Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, i.e., not a foreign resident, a slave or a woman, and the number of these was “probably no more than 30 percent of the total adult population.” The longest-lasting democratic leader in Athens was Pericles. After his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolutions towards the end of the Peloponnesian War. The Macedonians suppressed democracy in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but how close they were to a real democracy is debatable. Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (508/7 BC), and Ephialtes (462 BC) all contributed to the development of Athenian democracy. Cleisthenes broke up the power of the nobility by organizing citizens into ten groups based on where they lived rather than on their wealth, creating the modern notion of voting districts.
The Parliaments of England and other European countries began in the Middle Ages and are the institutional forebears to today’s democratically elected representative bodies. During this era, the governing offices of medieval church and state were often filled by election, in accordance with public and canon law. Medieval people liked their elections, voting for bishops, popes, abbots, mayors, members of parliament, town councils, even, surprisingly, kings. A smooth succession, where son followed father without rival or dispute, was not nearly as common as has been in the modern era. Often, election by a voting body facilitated the peaceful transference of power, even if such decisions also considered the privileges of birth and rank, as well as the requirements of the church. There are important differences between medieval and modern elections but also some noticeable parallels. The United States seems to have taken its cue from this era with its refusal to separate church from state.
Under canon law, medieval people were guaranteed certain human rights, including welfare rights, the right of certain classes to vote, and religious liberty. Canonists supported the free exercise of these rights, as they believed them to be supported by biblical tradition. Common law, or ius commune, upheld that a right order of government on earth was based in natural law and the upholding of these God-given rights. In effect, common law and canon law were seen as linked systems, to be enforced at the highest level to promote God’s plan for the world. Voting rights were recognized under both systems, so that secular elections evolved from the system put in place by medieval canonists for choosing offices within the church. On the other hand, unsurprisingly, elections were also seen as starting points for revolt and rebellion. This was the fear most frequently expressed about elections, and much of what we know about them was aimed at reducing the potential for strife, unrest and uncertainty.
Unanimous votes were the intended manner to win in the Middle Ages. In 1125, the German princes assembled to elect a new king. According to rumors, the archbishop of Mainz, who presided over the event, threatened to behead any of the assembled candidates whom objected to the election of his rival. There were two major reasons why medieval elections were meant to be unanimous. Firstly, the elections were described as reflecting God’s will, who spoke through the people. A split result, in turn, would mean that either the candidates or the electors ignored the will of God (dissension was usually the work of the devil). The fear underpinning the archbishop’s actions in 1125 was that there was no guarantee that an unsuccessful candidate would accept a decision. During the following year, one of the unsuccessful candidates sought to claim the throne by force.
For these reasons, several months could elapse. It was also important that elections were conducted in private, away from the gaze of chroniclers and observers. The moment a decision had been made, the emphasis was on demonstrating unanimity. In the papal elections that took place after 1271, a two-thirds majority was deemed sufficient. But to ensure the semblance of unanimity, ballot papers were burned before an election was announced: nobody would know just how the votes had been shared out.
In 1789 George Washington became the first president of the United States. The USA was the first representative democracy, inspiring democratic revolutions across Europe and the world over the next two centuries and beyond. But only 6% of the population were allowed to vote, an even smaller proportion than in Athenian democracy. Women, slaves, foreigners, and white men without a certain standing in society still couldn’t vote. So, they were not dissimilar to the undemocratic European societies in only allowing a tiny minority to have a say in their representation.
The U.S. has a long history of problems at the polling station. The ways in which voting has been made difficult over the years falls into two consistent categories: problems of technology and problems of access. Over the centuries, technological changes have provided new opportunities for errors and difficulties when voting. Voting by voice or color-coded ticket exposes voters to intimidation or vote-purchasing; voting secretly excludes those who cannot read or write. It can be hard to interpret a voter’s intention in a check box on a piece of paper, but mechanical voting machines can also malfunction; who can forget the hanging and dimpled chads of the 2000 election? Meanwhile, computerized machines haven’t fixed that problem: in 2004 Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland collected reports that voters in three counties never even saw the Senate primary on their voting machine screens.
Exclusionary tactics designed to prevent certain segments of the population from voting or simply gain access, has always been the more troubling Election Day problem. Blacks, women, immigrants, lower income citizens, all have had accessibility issues. Many still do. In 1856, all white men in America could vote. In 1870, all American men were legally entitled to vote. 1920 saw women voters finally getting their due. And until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states could use literacy tests and other barriers, unofficially waived for white men, to exclude black men from voting.
Although the Voting Rights Act finally allowed black people to participate in democracy in the United States, it doesn’t mean there haven’t been countless attempts to cheat the system by opportunistic politicians. Gerrymandering is when a political group tries to change a voting district to create a result that helps them or hurts the group who is against them. It works by wasting votes. Gerrymandering is unfair for a number of reasons. It can cause minorities to have less of a say in the areas in which they vote for an official. This is because it often disproportionately represents one class/political leaning to ensure a certain candidate or party will win the election.
Tactics of brief or changing polling hours, last minute changes to polling locations or inaccessible locations still occur, and a general distrust for politicians all contribute to the United States Voter turnout in 2016 dipping to nearly its lowest point in two decades. Add to that the confusing and archaic electoral college system of counting votes and it’s no wonder why many people don’t trust the system. About half of eligible voter millennials, an estimated 126 million people, voted which means 55% of voting age citizens cast ballots, far below older generations. That measure of turnout is the lowest in a presidential election since 1996, when 53.5% of voting-age citizens turned out. Voter turnout for non-general elections is even worse with less than half of eligible voters going to the polls for the 2014 midterm elections. The high point for turnout was 2008, when nearly 64% of voting age citizens cast a ballot. Obama was certainly a compelling enough figure for voters to come out in droves, compared to more recent elections. He had recognition and his oratory skills spoke volumes to people who could connect with his message. How might we create that feeling for all candidates, if not the star power but at least the clear comprehension of where candidates stand for not only national but local politics as well?
Combatting accessibility issues like long lines, no parking and no time, during the elections in the fall of 2016, Ada County, Idaho introduced an innovative “food truck voting” strategy, making voting as easy as ordering lunch. The county tried out mobile voting using a converted food truck, with much success. Although the county offers four locations for early voting, the converted food trailer-turned-voting center could be moved all around the 1,060-square mile county to hit highly populated areas in the weeks before the presidential election. With more than 425,000 residents, the county is Idaho’s most heavily populated. Making it easier to vote had a great impact in increasing voter turnout in this county.
In 1990, Rock the Vote, a non-profit organization and progressive-aligned group in the United States whose stated mission is “to engage and build the political power of young people” started. Rock the Vote is known for its celebrity spokespeople and its partnership with MTV. Personal anecdote: In 1996 while I was an undergrad, I received a direct phone-call from none other than Nate Dogg (as in the 90s G-Funk anthem ‘Regulate’ by Warren G. feat. Nate Dogg) encouraging me to vote. It was really cool.I definitely voted because Nate Dog wanted me to.
As much as I’d like to avoid any mention of Fox News, it has been a steady and influencing force for ultra-conservative media since 1996, when it was created by villainous white media conglomerates Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and promoting a right wing agenda. It happens to be the channel of choice and primary source of news for the current President.
With the proliferation of mobile apps and websites designed to help citizens in the modern era register to vote, it would seem like it’s easier than ever to participate in the voting process. It remains to be seen how effective digital design can be in encouraging democracy. There are apps such as TurboVote that companies like Facebook have been pushing aggressively. From the TurboVote site: “Since 2012, more than 3 million voters have signed up for TurboVote through partnerships with more than 300 institutions of higher education and 50 nonprofits and organizations, including Starbucks, Univision, Facebook, and Google.”
Large corporations as of late, such as Walmart, Levi’s, Patagonia & Lyft have even begun promoting voter turnout. “The participating companies all insist that the effort, called Time to Vote, is nonpartisan. They say they are concerned with persistently low voter turnout rates, and want their employees and customers to get to the polls on Nov. 6.”
Electionday.org is a website urging companies to give employees time off this year to vote. According to them, most nonvoters say that they simply do not have time to vote due to work or school conflicts. Their tagline: JOIN THE GROWING LIST OF BUSINESS LEADERS ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE ON ELECTION DAY is adding participants on a regular basis. They illustrate three primary issues to voter turnout:
- Voting on Tuesday: An arcane tradition that was chosen in 1845 as the most convenient day for most Americans to vote. True then. Not so true now.
- State Leave Laws: There’s no federal law that governs time off to vote, and only twenty-three states require paid time off to vote.
- Voting Lines: Americans amassed $544 million in lost productivity and wages in 2012 due to voting lines. That year, some American citizens waited 7 hours in line to vote, creating a kind of feedback loop for those less able to sacrifice their wages, who therefore stay away from polling places. One study estimated that long lines deterred at least 730,000 Americans from voting in November 2012.
Ballotpedia is a nonpartisan online political encyclopedia. Founded in 2007, it covers American federal, state, and local politics, elections, and public policy. Its stated goal is “to inform people about politics by providing accurate and objective information about politics at all levels of government.” The website “provides information on initiative supporters and opponents, financial reports, litigation news, status updates, poll numbers, and more.” It is a “community-contributed web site, modeled after Wikipedia” and “contains volumes of information about initiatives, referenda, and recalls. I think that Ballotpedia is comprehensive, to a fault. It is overwhelming and not appealing visually to younger voters especially, whom speak a different sort of visual language.
So a rough run-through of the history of democracy shows that there have been some consistent themes of voter suppression, voter biases, civic struggles, corruption, intimidation and perhaps worst of all, apathy. In this country there is certainly a deep partisan divide and, judging by recent compelling televised events, such as the Kavanaugh vs Blasey-Ford testimonies, a palpable anger at the lack of true progress and diversity in still predominately white male-dominated higher offices. What can I create to help facilitate voter turnout? Judging by the glacial pace of progress throughout the centuries, it seems my work is cut out for me but technology and software have proven outliers in the modern world, speeding up progress in many facets of society. Perhaps it can make more than a dent, even in politics.
