Wishful Sinking

by Adarsh Balaji

Civic engagement undoubtedly plays a significant role in the growth of a democracy. A government by the people and for the people defines nations such as the United States at its core. However, Norman Ornstein has linked a faulty “success” to prosperity. 

The “land down under” seemingly brings ninety percent of its voters to the ballot box. Ornstein argues that civic responsibility has been instilled within each Australian citizen because they find the urge to vote for government officials. This scenario is a terrifying prospect in a land as prosperous and enhanced as the United States. Ornstein remains true when he speaks of the national conventions and the voting pandemonium that occurs between the top two candidates. One must remember though that Australia is and has been a constitutional monarchy. This consists of a monarchy and a bicameral parliament where only one aspect of government requires avid voting participation. The Australian government consists of several high ranked individuals elected into Congress to overlook the various departments. As such, it is imperative that a nation such as this puts in unregistered support to keep the government stable. In America, however, we have a solidified system of checks and balances where no one person has dominant control over the government. If we were to incorporate all the unregistered voters who do not vote due to personal preference and force them to put effort into a lost cause, we stimulate animosity within the nation. In addition, due to personal preferences the overall vote would be far more split whereas now the Republican and Democratic parties clearly exceed due to vigorous support and financial success. We would much rather have the sturdy American population voting for sound reasons instead of swing voters falling for political fodder and risking the stability of the democracy. Once again, Australia has a reigning monarchy whereas America has no fallback. This is not to say America needs a fallback because we have clearly shown our nationalism and dominance economically, fiscally, and socially. America also faces a much higher illegal immigrant crisis than does Australia or any other nation for that matter. What would we do when compulsory voting is enforced and one campaign clearly hopes to augment the status of illegal immigrants to naturalized citizens? Would that not unfairly aid that party simply because of an influx of numbers? This shows that many people in America choose not to vote simply because they are indifferent with the people in office and are more concerned with improving their own life. The government is instituted to aid that process but not to reap benefits unfairly from the hundreds of thousands who call America home. Clearly the United States has several issues to ameliorate; however, to force sovereignty is counterintuitive. One is not forced to practice religion by the book if one does not choose to, one does not have to start driving the day they are legally allowed to, one is not required to attend public school even if they pay property tax to support the school system. Simply put, America thrives on its leniency with living standards, but to tighten that grip with something as important as suffrage borders on government indecency.