This accelerated democracy site got me thinking on why people are so disenfranchised from voting in the US. The causes are multiple, of course, but some of the silencing comes from a) dispersed communities and b) modern etiquette. The Vanishing Voter project I'm sure has more, so I'll probably revise this post after I've read what they have to say.
In the old stereotypical factory town, there was a commonality to discourse because folks were in similar situations. In my office in DC in 2003, there is little survival need and no assumption about what the person next to me thinks. I tread lightly on statements of belief, because I might offend. "Talking politics" has become branded with a stigma.
Even at the church I attend, there would be a great resistance to enforcing a political dogma, in spite of the church being deeply involved in civil rights, poverty programs, and peace campaigns. No one would think of stating that one should obviously be a Democrat or Republican. Is it politeness? Are we avoiding presumption? Doesn't it matter a little more than politeness does? Why is politics a dirtier conversation than sex now?
There's a category of discussion on lists that is termed "religious". It applies to issues - operating systems, abortion - that invariably boil down to decisions of faith. Arguing "religious" topics just leads to flame wars and overfull inboxes, so it is discouraged. Politics is seen as "religious".
I'm sure politics in the US has been tribal and thus "religious" since the franchise was extended beyond the Constitutional Convention attendees. But has it always been so tasteless to even discuss it? I try to talk more about politics recently, try to insert politics into conversations, because politics should reflect life as we live it. Is it a class issue? Does the lower class talk about politics more, and since I'm middle class I don't hear the talk? Complacency as a result of oversuccess?
The Vanishing Voter page states that "the weakening of the political parties as objects of thought and loyalty has reduced the incentive to participate, particularly among lower-income Americans." Intersect that change with the dispersion of public life, and you end up with the majority of americans without a group or forum where they access politics and its excitement. No wonder it is such drugery to vote.
So, my brainstorm today: I'll throw a debate party for one of the upcoming debates. Getting people to sit down and watch a political debate should be easy, right? If I make it social, perhaps. It's likely that anyone who watches these debates, in fall of 2003, is going to continue to be involved all the way through till November 2004. I'd like people to be able to talk about politics without feeling like they are proselytizing. Issues shouldn't be anathema!
Debate party:
1. Red-white-blue decor.
2. "Position Bingo" - cards with rows of yes/no issues (proposes universal health care plan?) and columns of candidates. Each square is triangle-divided into Yes/No. First person to circle a line of answers from the debate wins a prize.
3. Vote for the "winner" of the debate - perhaps collect a hat-pass of funds before it starts, and then send the cash to the winner's campaign.
4. Vote for who will be *branded* the winner by the media - encourages critical thinking about reporting.
5. All-American food. Chili, hot dogs, hamburgers, apple pie.
6. Since these debates will be Democrats, a door prize for the most vehement Republican that comes, especially if they participate thoroughly in the conversation.