The disgruntlement over the failure of Alaska legislators to produce a budget and to complete their work within the voter-mandated 90-day session seems widespread, judging from open blogs on the various news services around the state, talk radio and letters to editors in the printed editions. Despite the Republican majority leaders' spin that the problem is a Democrat-led minority that won't do what it's told by the majority, and that the minority is only interested in raises for union members, most of the opprobrium seems to be falling on the majority. That's either because the Democrats are better at explaining their agenda, or because the public agrees that Medicaid expansion will in fact save money and lives, that the Susitna dam is an unreasonable expenditure at this time, and that education funding is a better priority -- and also that the proposed Erin's Law should be law, rather than an opportunity for molesters to hide their sick inhumanity.
The legislative paralysis here, which mimics the same kind of phenomenon we've watched in the U.S. Congress, prompts the question of just how democratic a political system we still have in this country. "Still" may be the operative word. In a representative democracy, i.e., in a republic, which we have been since our national beginning, elected representatives are on their own; they're not bound by instructions from their constituents. Periodic election is the electorate's only guaranteed access to them. Normally, if elected representatives want to continue to serve, they must satisfy a majority of voters either that they are sufficiently implementing the voters' wishes, or that they are less damaging to those interests than the alternative candidate.
But at the moment there are several problems with voting. Nationally there is the now-familiar campaign to suppress by various means the opportunity to vote. Then in Alaska, there are a number of "safe" seats, particularly among the leadership, members whose support in their district is so strong, often because of redistricting, that they face neither a significant primary nor general election challenge. Also, both nationally and in Alaska, money plays a substantive role in limiting choice. As political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern found in an important study a year ago, rich people and organizations have a much bigger impact on government policy than the views of middle-income and poor people. In Alaska, more large campaign contributions come from conservative and oil groups than come from liberal and union groups.
But the largest voting problem in America today is voter apathy. It's not unusual for local and state elections to be decided with 40 percent or less voter participation. In the 2014 national general election, in 43 states less than half the eligible population voted; in the three largest states, less than a third of eligibles voted. Alaska's participation, 54 percent, was much better because of the contested race between Mark Begich and Dan Sullivan; usually it's smaller. Both income and education have an effect on voter participation: the more of either, the higher the turnout percentage.
The American founders weren't excited about democracy; that's why they didn't provide for it in the Constitution. Both Washington and Jefferson thought that worthy members of the community are entitled to the protections of civil government; worthiness included education, and civic virtue, i.e., pursuing one's obligations as a citizen, as in voting. Their thoughts on citizen responsibility today would be interesting.
In his new book on character formation, David Brooks suggests that the narcissism of younger people today, manifest in such things as their use of social media (the incessant "selfie," for example, and broadcasting widely what used to be private), is partly responsible for much voter apathy; young people feel there are more important uses of their time. They also think that their votes will have no impact; some say they're simply not well enough informed. All could be true.
What is certainly true is that leaving the choice of who's elected to a small portion of the electorate pretty much ensures the same people will be repeatedly elected, bringing with them the same attitudes and convictions that are today leaving many citizens highly aggrieved, feeling that solutions to their grievances are simply out of reach.
Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.