According to the Guardian Unlimited more than sixty-three million votes were cast last Wednesday via phone to select the winner of a reality television program. This is eight-and-a-half million more votes than the most popularly elected president has ever received in the history of the United States of America (President Ronald Regan in 1984 who received 54.4M votes).
I realize that millions of those votes were likely placed by persons who are not old enough to participate in federal and state elections. And I understand that voting for the next pop musician is not as serious as choosing the leader of the free world and most powerful military on Earth. However, I have to wonder if election participation were made simple enough that it could be done from home using a phone or computer, how many more people would participate in democracy?
Bonus idea: Let me vote using a Nintendo Wii controller.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
The comparison between American Idol votes and presidential election votes is silly. You mention one major difference: age. But you fail to mention that American Idol voters can vote dozens (if not more) of times. Sixty-three million people didn't vote; sixty-three million votes (presumably by fewer people) were cast.
one thing you left out. voters for american idol can vote as many times as they like. so how many of those 63 million are the same person voting 50 times?
People are lazy. The easier you make things for them, the more likely they are to participate.
Voting is a right and, more importantly, a huge responsibility. People have fought and died for the right to vote and they only have to do it once every four years. How much easier can we make it?
So if you're swinging to the left with your Wiimote you're liberal, and to the right, conservative. It's too much pressure you guys.
But you fail to mention that American Idol voters can vote dozens (if not more) of times.
I don't watch the show and the article made no mention of repeat voters therefore I wasn't aware of the ability to place repeat votes. In previous types of competitions that I've seen there was only one vote per household allowed.
I still stand by my question.
Wally, according to Laws of Jinx you can't speak or say anything to anyone — not a single word — until you buy Jason a Coke.
Yeah, and you left out one major point: presidents are old and wrinkly.
Yeah, and you left out one major point: presidents are old and wrinkly.
Isn't the guy who won old and wrinkly?
Not as old as you ;D
*rimshot*
Good thing the State of Florida doesn't handle the voting process for Idol. No telling who our next pop star would be. I can just see Dean up there holding up four fingers encouraging you to dial in 1-800-Presi-04. With Ryan Seacrest's arm around him.
The stat that I would like to see is how many votes were cast from IM or cell phones, where folks had to pay to choose, and then compare that figure with government elections.
BTW: Weren't the idol vote calls a tollfree "800" number for landlubbers? Your title suggests otherwise.
Man, I almost posted this exact same blog entry last night. I think the only thing that stopped me was that I didn't want to ever mention "American Idol" on my site.
lol @ Mike D. Yeah, isn't that like the 11th Commandment? 'Thou shall not blog aboot American Idol on thy site." I love how Greg only referred to it as a 'reality television show'...
Personally, I only watch Idol when the season first starts... simply because it's such a train wreck. During the finale, my eyes were glued to a much better show: Lost.
Not as old as you...
Holy crap, that guy is only 29? He looks 40+, it's the middle-aged hair look.
Good thing the State of Florida doesn't handle the voting process for Idol. No telling who our next pop star would be.
Pat Buchanan?
I think the only thing that stopped me was that I didn't want to ever mention "American Idol" on my site.
Ha! I took great care in not using the show's name in this post.
I don't watch that silly show.
No, really.
Really.
OK, I really wanted the girl to win.
How much simpler could voting be though? I mean you puch a chad, fill in a bubble, or hit a select button -- done.
Voting in this country is typically always more than one office or issue. Could you imagine having to dial a singular 800 number and listening to the choices followed by "dial "1" for X dial 2 for Y"...You dialed "1" dial "3" if that is correct...
You couldn't really have a seperate number for each issue, candidate or office -- you think turnout is low now? A system like that would all but obliterate it in my opinion.
The web? Possibly. But then you're assuming 2 things -- everyone has capable access and that everyone with access knows what they're doing. My in-laws are still trying to access sites by typing the URL into Google's search field instead of the browser. There's still no shortage of people out there that need (and expect) their hands to be held through an experience.
The only viable solution I see is to standardize the process. Everyone either punches chads, fills in bubbles or clicks.
You do have to wonder if making the process easier is really what's needed to get more people out there to vote. I think if you asked most people who didn't vote why they choose not to the answer is likely to be that they don't believe it will make any difference; not that they just can't put their big gulp down long enough to pull the lever (though having cup holders in the booths would be nice).
The "54m versus 63m" statistic is bogus on two fronts. The multiple votes issue has already been mentioned, but how about the simple fact that you're comparing total votes cast to votes cast for one candidate? Two seconds on Google reveals that the total turnout for the 1984 presidential election was 92.6 million votes. I'd expect Fox to make this kind of pathetic statistical bait-and-switch, but it's ridiculous that news outlets have parroted it without any second thought.
Regardless, your point is valid. Even compared to 92 million votes, the 63 million votes cast for something as trivial as a reality show is scary.
How about sweetening the pot for voters in real elections by offering a chance at $1 million? What's that say about the state of democracy in America?
I wonder what would it be like if the entire process, for electing the president, were modeled after American Idol? Could GW be one of the funny rejects!?
Actually... we don't need more people voting in this country. We just need more of the informed ones who know what's going on voting, and who actually care about how politics affects our lives outside of thinking "George Bush is the kind of guy I could have a drink with at the bar" or "Johnn Kerry looks like Lurch from the Addams Family" mentality.
Having more people vote in an easier fashion will convert the current high school level popularity contest that is the Presidential election into its junior-high school level equivalent.
There's a reason the framers created the electorial college inside a republic with the kind of political representation we use and why we are not a mob rule style democracy.
Freakonomics Blog :: Why Vote?
I was thinking about writing something similar to what Andrei wrote. But I think what would be best would be if we had a greater number of voters, AND they were well informed about the issues at stake. It kinda scares me that guys who think the Apollo moon landing was faked on a sound stage are helping to choose our nations leaders, but I know of no better system. I'm afraid the only thing we can do is work to curb voter apathy, as Greg often uses his blog to do. But Andrei makes a good point, and we need people to care enough not only to vote, but to follow world politics enough to vote intelligently. In other words, we must not only convince people to vote, we must encourage them to really be involved in the democratic process.
You know, maybe the trick is not to make the process of voting easier, but intead make it more exciting.
Design matters. If you build boredom into the process (of anything) you'll get boredom and apathy as a result.
This is funny, because right after I heard the numbers on the A.I. vote, I thought the very same thing. Wouldn't it be great if we could vote via text? But what about people with multiple phones? How do we know what constituency they reside in? Etc, etc.
The answers to the above are not as important as the fact that this has gotten people thinking. As with almost all great advances in policy, technology, design or whatever, results come not from static, single-minded criticism, but from open discussion and debate.
To that end, I agree with Andrei and James that education and knowledgability are integral parts of informed decision making. True, while it would be an immense convenience to be able to vote/order food/renew your license/whatever via the phone, email, web, etc., you would need to assure that:
a) access and comprehension of such services was ubiquitous (avoiding the mistakes of early internet adoption and the like)
b) those participating, whether it is via a new technology or via tried and (hopefully) true ballot boxes, are sufficiently informed about their choices and the impact of those choices
This is why (and I am sorry to pull in a tangential debate here) it is so important to avoid sweeping moves in legislation, such as the immigration bill, net neutrality reforms, or, dare I say it, the Patriot Act, that are so complex one loses an understanding of the whole.
Consider how difficult it will become for a huge chunk of completely legal citizens, as well as those who need a form to even take an ESL class, if the government makes English the primary language, thus eliminating documentation, forms, warnings, or any written communication in other languages.
I consider it unacceptable that we are willing, as a collective republic, to let conditions worsen through apathetic dismissal of education at all levels of our society. To bring this back to voting, whatever we can do to spark conversation about our political process and its actors, be it blog commenting, writing our congresspeople, or more active forms of, well, activism, is healthy for the country, its voters and its continued prosperity.
There is no excuse for asking people to leave their house to check a box. If the world's most powerful government, of the most technologically advanced nation, can't handle a secure web form, then we've got much bigger problems on our hands. Furthermore, I say extend this idea beyond just voting. I would love to see my president say to the American public, "Look, I'm really conflicted about this upcoming decision, and I want to know how you feel. Logon to WhiteHouse.gov and vote about what I should do." I believe in a representative government, but the Internet, in my opinion, allows us to take back some of the responsibility from our representatives.
At the risk of boring poli sci students who have probably heard this a million times before -- on a strict rational self-interest basis, the cost of voting (registering, burning gas to get to the polls, taking an hour of time) is almost always greater than the benefit (having a miniscule effect on the outcome). If we assume people are rational self-interest maximizers, the question really is why do so many people vote already?
Although I guess one would think that American Idol voters are acting in a similarly irrational manner (don't they have to pay a buck to vote or something?)...
I guess the point is that it seems the main reason people vote is peer pressure. They vote to fit in. If fitting in with the American-Idol-watching crowd is more important than fitting in with the civicly-engaged crowd...
American freaking Idol. A few thoughts:
First, I'll never understand that show. Those people are the very people I remember people making fun of in the 90's. It's Starsearch. When did Starsearch become cool again? Probably because the participants are all Fox'd up and good-looking. I just don't get the appeal. And I never will...
...which leads me to numero Dos: I've come to realize one of two things are happening: most of America is nuts and the show sucks like I think it does, or most of America "get it", leaving me the poor lonely guy in the corner of the restaurant yelling to the waitress for more bread. I hope it's neither.
And third (or whatever, you're not counting), picking up the phone is about as much effort as poor American culture should endure to vote for, well, anything. Getting up off the chair, out the door, in the car, down the block, parking in front of the voting office, and standing in line, is WAY, TOO, MUCH! I barely got through it and my guy still lost. Sheesh. Nah, they better institute a call-in...
On a side note, I wonder what arm movement or wrist snap it will take to pick a candidate in the next election? Well, I've got one idea, but it's not appropriate movement. :)
That's why voting is compulsory in some countries... I guess that could improve democracy in the states.
Just an idea.
cheers!
Agreed on the Wii idea - or even better, on my DS Lite.
Filmnut,
The problem with your idea is that the president should not be listening to a bunch of uninformed or misinformed people about most of the decisions that he makes in running the country. He should be listening to people who have studied the issues and understand the complexities of the world. What should be our foreign policy in regards to Khazakstan? I don't think most people are qualified to answer that question.
Reagan didn't receive the largest popular vote in US history. Both Bush 43 (62,040,610) and Kerry (59,028,111) received more votes in 2004 than Reagan.
I am so sick of the lazy asshats in this country.
Ever listen to Carlos Mencia. He makes a good point, all we keep doing is lowering the standards in this country, from education to how we even handle voting.
Sure, txt messaging from your cell phone to vote is a great technology, but sometimes "easier" isn't the best way or the most logical way.
Voting is simple. Like it was mentioned above, you hit a button, punch a chad, or whatever.
In my personal opinion, America truly is becoming a fat and lazy country obsessed with insignificant shit (like celebrities, dieting, etc...). That is all we need is someone needing to vote from their lazy-boy recliner with their cell phone while they have a bag of ruffles potato chips on their lap and American Idol on the tv. Dee Dee Dee
Sorry, I had to rant.
That's an inaccurate comparison anyway. Idol votes is a total figure, presidential votes is a figure for just the winner, not the total.
(I didn't reald all of these comments, maybe somebody already pointed that out.)
(I didn't reald all of these comments, maybe somebody already pointed that out.)
Then why bother commenting at all? Asshat.
Its just a lot of comments, man.