In Search of the Informed Voter

By
Michael Opitz

Yes, in this last Georgia Primary less than 25% of the citizens voted. The discussion with many is the problem of increasing voter turn out. We hear that the voters in other countries vote in much larger numbers, but are these informed voters? I remember a civics’ history lesson in the 8th grade that during the reconstruction period after the Civil War, many uneducated voters were told that if they vote for a certain candidate, they would receive a "mule and 40 acres of land.”

The uneducated voters never received promised mule and forty acres, and the South was exploited for the next 100 years with all the ensuing social problems. Interesting that the politicians then and now never accepted the blame, and the uneducated and uninformed voters never understood how they were being manipulated and to what end.

Nothing much has changed in American or even in world politics. Lots of politicians and lots of promises during a fine speech to capture valid or invalid votes. Sadly, many of whom are out to enrich themselves while only pretending to solve our problems. We hear their local speeches and then see the way they vote in Washington. Due to the Internet and cable news, it is easier now than before to identify the hucksters, and they are legion.

However, it takes an informed voter to understand the issues and the politicians. Even then, we make mistakes. So as a quality principle, we do not need more uninformed uneducated voters, we need more informed better-educated voters. We need voters who are stakeholders in the system. Perhaps that is why the early founders required that voters be property holders. These people had a direct stake and were often active members of the community, and for the most part, they were informed.

As times changed and more people were enfranchised to vote, the politicians still had to mingle and talk with the voters. The Lincoln Douglas debates were in front of crowds who added their comments. No expensive TV or ad agencies to craft the messages and more demand for money to fund the political enterprise.

So now we know the comment by former Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, that “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Money is more important that ever, and we know that the big money is now from big business and the multinational corporations from around the world. There is a direct correlation between money funding a candidate and winning elections. We get what we pay for, an election process of choosing candidates based on sound bites, TV ads, and direct mail pamphlets paid by the big money donators and PACs who demand special favors in exchange for their support.

This is current reality, and below are the results:

Massive illegal immigration to lower wages for big business.
Massive transfer of America’s manufacturing base to foreign countries resulting in a loss of American wages, benifits, and jobs.
Reduction and elimination of import taxes, which have been used for a couple of hundred years to fund our government and its operations, in order to promote a “Free Trade” policy. This policy was and is fundamental to moving our manufacturing off shore.
The elimination of our national borders to promote the free movement of goods and people, which will ultimately destroy America.

When we ask the politicians about these issues, they claim that they don’t understand or are uninformed on the issue. I am reminded what Bill Clinton always used to say about events he wanted to avoid, “Gee, I didn’t know anything about it until I read about it in this morning’s paper.” That answer is no longer acceptable.

We know the system is broken, but it can be fixed, and we can begin electing those citizens who are serious about dealing with America’s problems. We must eliminate and reduce the big money buying of our political representatives. Also this is not an indictment for all elected representatives. We have some excellent representative here in Georgia and across the country, but there are too many who are poisoning the water of America, and they will not change. We can at least implement a better process that will help clean up some of the mess and have a positive effect of better government.

Money contributions should be limited to only citizens. Corporations, profit and non-profit, do not have protected free speech under the U.S. Constitution, nor do they have any protections under the Constitution. Their moneyed ads can be regulated out of existence just as cigarette and whisky ads are no longer allowed.
Only voters in that voting district should be allowed to donate money and resources to a candidate. Only Georgia voters could donate to a Georgia senatorial race. Only the voters of a congressional district could denote money and resources to a candidate.
Money raised in one campaign could not be transferred to another campaign.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, money is not “Free Speech.” If so, bribery would be labeled as a dialogue. Congress can limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction on this issue.

These changes do not guarantee the voters will become more informed, but it does mean that the elected representatives and candidates will become closer and more responsive to the people. It will have a significant effect on lessening the influence from big corporations and self serving moneyed interest, and ultimately improve the process for better government.