Torch, Spring/Summer 2008

having a slightly more valuable vote since each state is guaranteed at least three votes in the Electoral College. That might be a benefit for conservatives because those smaller states in the central and western regions of the country tend to support conservative candidates. Others worry about the undue influence of the larger states like California and Texas, which have burgeoning populations. Over the years, the process of selecting the president has changed and has led to a more democratic process, meaning that the voters have a stronger voice in determining who is president. Interestingly, while the voters have a larger role, the participation of voters in the presidential election has tended to decline. While Gilded Age voters turned out at a rate of 80 to 90 percent during the 1890s, turnout fell below 50 percent by the 1990s. Many factors have caused this decline. In the 19 th century, Americans listened to three or four two-hour speeches in a single day. The issues were clearly delineated, and the average voter had a good handle on them. They knew what made their candidate distinctive. Today, the advent of television has resulted in shortened attention spans and image-conscious politicians. Americans get most of their impressions of candidates from 60-second commercials and 10-second sound bites on the news. Even the televised debates often give candidates only a minute and a half to address the most pressing issues of the day. The role of the average voter has pushed candidates to the middle to try to appeal to the most voters. The end result is usually a campaign with two relatively moderate candidates and an electorate that knows little about either one. When the change in how the president is elected is combined with the change in the role of government over 230 years, we see a disturbing development. In the 20 th century, the government took on a new role of creating a safety net for disadvantaged Americans, providing medical insurance and pensions for the elderly, and developing a series of entitlements that benefit virtually every cross-section of the population. As a result, politicians have much to offer voters beyond their own character or a pledge for good government. The debate about entitlements is not the issue here; their use as political tools is. The founders did not want the president elected by the masses because they were fearful of what might influence their voting. Today, we have lost both the republican buffer between voter and the presidency and the limited role of government. As a result, presidential candidates can appeal to voters based on what they will provide for the voters if elected. In its most crass form, campaigning becomes little more than a quid pro quo — I give you something you want and you give me your vote. When combined with the short attention spans of Americans and image-driven campaigns, the changes in the presidential election system are a cause for concern. Indeed, one wonders in more pessimistic moments how long the American system can survive. The notion of the common good appears to be lost in the shuffle. Yet, in Christ there is always reason for hope. The increasingly democratic system, with all of its flaws, provides an opportunity for overcoming some of the setbacks. We must demand of our politicians that they clearly articulate what they believe and why their party and political positions make them distinct from their opponents. If the electorate does 16 TORCH