What if....?

What if only college freshmen who have just passed American government 101 were allowed to vote for president?

At first blush, this odd question should be a bit frightening. But, if you look closely you'll see that "passed" takes a bit of the sting out of it, and that it’s just a thought experiment and a way to make a point; not a serious proposal.

What do these 18-19 year olds learn about voting that might radically improve the manner in which campaigns are conducted if they owned the franchise? First, they learn that there are three main criteria used by Americans in selecting presidential candidates- party affiliation, policy issue positions, and candidate characteristics. They learn that party affiliation and issue positions have a very close working relationship, in that the latter can be largely understood by the former, especially at the presidential level. They also learn that presidential campaigns spend the vast majority of their time and money focusing voters' attention on the third (least probative and predictive) criteria- candidate characteristics. In other words, presidential campaigns, just like most commercial campaigns, focus on getting and holding voters' attention and good feelings, not on the content of the candidates' philosophy or policy issue positions. So, if campaigns were forced to appeal to voters that acted on this basic knowledge of the process, campaigns would surely be very different. Emphysis on style would logically be replaced by emphysis on substance. As it stands, too many voters are fooled into seeing what amount to stylistic differences as substantive ones.

The Primary Wrinkle:

In presidential primaries, the two most important criteria for voters are necessarily muted and largely undifferentiated. All the leading candidates of each of the two major parties are going to come around to what are basically the same issue positions and the same basic philosophy of governance. The more unconventional ideas and perspectives are always knocked out of primaries fairly early. This is a wrinkle because it leaves only the third (and least probative) criteria as the primary source of differentiating information, making primaries little more than beauty pageants. This is not particularly problematic though because it leaves two general election candidates separated by the more important criteria - philosophy and policy issue positions, which should make the job of general election voters pretty easy. They just have to vote for the candidate whose philosophy and policy issue positions most resemble their own - the more personal candidate character issues having been dealt with in the primaries.

It’s kind of like a race in which the competitors first have to do a standup comedy routine in front of one of two large groups of teenagers with one candidate from each major party then moving on to the actual race. It’s weird, but doable. It produces two general election candidates whose most relevant differences (party philosophy and issue positions) provide voters with a clear choice between a liberal and a conservative. The problem is that too many voters don't shift their decisional criteria in a rational way when the general election comes along.

The General Election:

Sadly, the primary source of voter information in any election is the mass media, which contains VERY little information about how and why voters SHOULD shift their priorities away from candidate characteristics toward issue positions and party affiliation. Ironically, the logic of this shift is no secret. When presented with its logic the vast majority of voters see its utility, but too many can't quite get themselves to vote using this rational approach. It’s a bit like explaining the benefits of proper diet and exercise to folks. We all get it, but very few of us are able to act rationally with the information.

So, even though voters should essentially compare their own philosophy and policy issue positions to candidates, choosing the most compatible of the two, waaaaay too many continue to evaluate the "character" and personal characteristics of the candidates, choosing instead the one whose personality and "values" are most compatible with their own. No matter how many times voters are reminded that this method of choosing a general election candidate is like choosing a brain surgeon based solely on bedside manner, too many stubbornly refuse to let rationality spoil their fun. [The really scary thing is that many people probably would choose a brain surgeon using irrational criteria. This is democracy's dirty not-so little not-so-secret] This is why I suggest (tongue in cheek, of course) that only college kids who have just passed an American government 101 course be allowed to vote. For at least a few weeks these kids will retain this basic knowledge and act on it. After that, the overwhelming flood of irrational information and analysis overtakes most of them too.