Mass Media and Government

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

15. Mass Media and Government

Define prior restraint and libel. How do these concepts relate to freedom of press? Discuss and evaluate how the Supreme Court has protected or curbed freedom of press.

“Prior restraint” is defined in the text book as the censoring of news stories by the government before publication.

“Libel” is a published or broadcast report that exposes a person to public contempt or injures the person’s reputation.

One of the cornerstones of the public self-image of any American is the Bill of Rights, and central to the idea of protected universal humane rights is the one for Freedom of Speech. It is held in a quasi-religious reverence almost universally, but often in daily life practice is difficult to find the practical limits that should or should not be applied to such a basic freedom.

Once upon a time I heard a quotation to the effect that every single personal freedom only extends as far as the exact point where the next person’s freedoms begin. Being young, and fairly pigheaded, I thought to myself that, upon reflection, it was not really my lookout if everyone’s freedoms began so very far away, then.

As the years went by and brought with them clarity and perspective, I realized that I might have been wrong in viewing the situation in that manner. However, it made me realize that perhaps many people view the situation in a similar manner, and then that is how difficulties arise when protecting or curbing some of these freedoms.

In specific, in this country we rely on the laws of the land to protect and curb certain actions instead of basing such regulation in an esoteric idiosyncratic focus. For example, in the matter of prior restraint against public information media there have been certain instances where the Supreme Court has had to intervene and interpret what the Bill of Rights had to say in respect to that and how it should be interpreted in reference to the present time frame when the question at hand arose. Seventy years ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Minneapolis weekly newspaper saying that even though they might be rascals, they could not be suppressed if they wanted to call city officials “corrupt and grafting” sons of a bee. However, the Court announced that the press could be censored in advance by the government in very “exceptional cases” during wartime or other times. After several cases cropped up where there had to be a resolution handed out, it almost always ended up favoring a newspaper against prior restraint by the government. However, even up to the present the issue remains largely unresolved.

In the question of libel, the freedom the press enjoys has been slightly curbed by something called alternatively the New York Times rule or the Sullivan rule. If in fact the statement that offended can be shown to be the honest truth, then there can be no reparations for damages to the insulted party. Which I guess only adds injury to insult. Especially since the Supreme Court has made it almost impossible to libel a public figure, advocating for a robust and vehement debate on public issues, which could include attacks on government officials. However, in an effort to establish some limiting factors, the Supreme Court established some very narrow parameters as to who could be considered a public person, stating that a private person could not become a public entity by the mere expedient of being involved in a matter of public interest.

These matters seem to actually restrain the freedom of speech that the press enjoys, but the fact remains that in modern times a large section of the public has come to believe the press’ claims that they are the “fourth power” in the check and balance proposition which is the American Government, granting themselves quasi-official status to mediate and equilibrate the interactions between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government and the American public. So then, as with any other of the branches of the government, they will have to operate within a framework that narrowly inhibits any tendency to overstep the trust that many Americans place on them.

Sources:

Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to the American System, 10^th Edition, Milton C. Cummings, Jr., David Wise, Thomson Wadsworth, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Media and Public Agenda

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

16. Media and Public Agenda

What is the relationship between political information and democracy? Is control of information a mechanism for maintaining political power?

One of the primary concepts that I learned when I studied basic computer programming principles in a college class was that one must distinguish between data and information. Data, we were told to memorize, was the collection of straight forward facts that even in these collected format could not convey a message. In contrast, information was the coherent grouping of data with a purposeful intention and specific focus, which main concern was the usage of its data to support the message one wanted to convey. With this concept in mind, I approach the questions for this exercise with a predetermined notion.

The free access to political information is paramount to the well-being of a democracy. This has been made apparent throughout history in the examples provided by the demise of many other forms of government when their choke hold on political information slipped their grubby grasp and the subjects of said forms of government found themselves in possession of information that their erstwhile government wanted kept away from their prying eyes. Dictatorships and monarchies alike suffered their timely demise every single occasion when political information was out in the open. Sometimes it was information that painted a grim picture of economics or of military weakness. But history has also shown us that the availability of the same political information has been one of the main strengths of democracy, because when people are kept well informed and in possession of facts (data) they have been able to better choose the representatives they need in order to better serve the needs of their own society. In our representative democracy steps have been taken to virtually guarantee that the flow of information remains open with the establishment of the Bill of Rights that has as its first item Freedom of Speech, and the recent Freedom of Information Act that allows private citizens to gather data and compile their own information concerning the elected representatives and other functionaries of government.

In the video lesson we are shown several ways in which this flow of information can be staunched in order to gain a degree of political dominance by a cadre willing to maintain its political power. We are treated to the historical notion that many of the main political players even from the beginning years of the free United States have had a controlling interest in the communication media of their days. The inherent conflict of interest between owning a newspaper and running for public office is expertly explored in the movie “Citizen Kane” (arguably the best movie ever made), and also played out in the melodramatic real-life situation of Hearst. Even now days one can witness the difficulties news media has in keeping controlling interests out of the editing room. Financial pressures are brought to bear in many levels of the news broadcasting media, and independent outlets are being edged out of circulation more and more as economic pressures are applied against them.

Out of the blue and like a thunder strike from jolly Thor, the Internet brings a new level of contention against the willing or coerced lapdogs of controlling interests by allowing every person willing to learn the facts first hand to research his own facts and create his own political information, finally allowing the private citizen to become the watchdog for political information freedom and the well-being of democracy. I believe we are heading for a new era of political party development in Texas, where controlling interest have long been able to quell the “boat-rockers” and maybe in the near future we will see a multi-faction, if not a multi-party, new democracy shape itself in Texas in response to the pressure applied by better informed citizens.

Sources:

Texas Politics, 9^th Edition, Richard H. Kraemer, Charldean Newell, David F. Prindle, Thomson Wadsword, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Interest Groups

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

17. Interest Groups

Define the term interest groups. Identify the main strategies used by these groups and give examples. Which branches of the government are subjected to these activities? How legitimate are these activities in a democratic society, compared to other forms of participation such as voting?

“Interest groups” are succinctly defined in the text book as “private groups that attempt to influence the government to respond to the shared attitudes of their members”.

Interest groups have several main strategies with which they seek to influence the people in charge of policy-making decisions. The people they target are not only members of the legislative branch, but they also target officials of the executive branch, regulatory agencies and even the courts. The most time-honored tradition of interest groups is to “lobby” the person they wish to influence. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the nation this practice has been well known and used by interest groups. Usually, one envisions a lobbyist as someone who buttonhooks and corners people into listening to them by lurking in the lobby area of the building where the person is located at the moment. And although that happens too, a lobbyist often is a person who actually gets to know the officials in question. They visit officials, attend hearings at congressional committees, government agencies and regulatory commissions, and form friendships with the staff members and bureaucrats. The main tool used by lobbyists is money. They might slip a few thousands to their intended target, but because of certain limitations on how much officials can be bribed, the lobbyists also hand out party-favors and contributions according to the rules of engagement. One example of how lobbyists work is the passage of Medicare prescription drug benefits for elderly persons, in which the pharmaceutical industry poured millions of dollars in contributions and well-placed favors to key people and managed to pass the law in precisely the manner in which they would be most benefited by it.

Also, interest groups use mass propaganda as a tool for exerting pressure and molding public opinion to achieve their ends. Through the use of television, magazines, newspapers, Internet advertising and even direct e-mailing and snail-mailing, interest groups try to create the right environment and climate for the change they wish to implement. An example is the case of AAA and their opposition to the bill that would have allowed larger trucks on national roads. Using vast amounts of money they bought a mass publicity campaign that managed to alarm the general public enough to defeat the bill when it came up for implementation.

Another form of interest groups’ influence can be seen in the organization of grass-roots movements that try to urge people in a more one-on-one basis to get in touch with their representatives in Congress and other government offices and urge them to action or to refrain from action. The best example could be apocryphal, but it seems that the NRA can flood Congress with five hundred thousand letters at the drop of the hat, if necessary, to continue opposing the passage of gun-control laws.

And when dealing with single issues, interest groups can also act through PACs, the so-called political action committees that are often arms of corporations, labor unions and even independent interest groups.

To be sure, interest groups are necessary to the democratic process insofar as the need that representatives of the government need well-researched material in which to base their opinions. However, since the general public cannot afford millions of dollars in informing their representatives of their needs, it often seems a lopsided and unfair practice to have interest groups with seemingly bottomless pockets garnering favors left and right among the officials that are meant to look after the welfare of the general public.

Sources:

Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to the American System, 10^th Edition, Milton C. Cummings, Jr., David Wise, Thomson Wadsworth, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Interest Groups in Texas

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

18. Interest Groups in Texas

What is co-optation? How does it occur? What are some of the problems that one might face in attempting to write legislation to minimize co-optation?

Since people require more and more things that are actually out of their control and have no idea how to protect themselves, often it is necessary to create regulating agencies to protect them from the stuff they can’t protect themselves from.

Co-optation is a term that denotes the transition a regulatory agency for the protection of the general public undergoes from being a guardian of the public interest to becoming a defender of private interests when, over time, they lose their independence and are “infiltrated” by the very interests they were supposed to regulate against.

This is how it happens. People often need an agency that will protect them and guarantee their safeguard since they cannot look after themselves anymore because of the changes in modern society. So first, there’s the process of the revolving door, which means that members of the regulating agency have come from the same industry which they are supposed to regulate, so because they understand how it is with them, they end up sharing the perspective.

Then, after being in the job for a while, it is very hard for anyone to not make nice with the people they are supposed to be regulating since they deal with them on a regular basis and get to know them pretty well. This makes it difficult for anyone to prefer any other opinion than that of their pals.

Also, public interest is quick to move on to newer developments and news and to lose interest in the initial reason for any regulation passed on their behalf. Because the regulators have to continue dealing with representatives of the groups they are trying to regulate and because of lack of interest on public advocates, it becomes very difficult for them to keep in mind the very esoteric concept of common good over the daily presence of interest groups representatives.

In short, the co-optation of regulatory agencies happens because we have to choose flesh and bone persons to man these bureaus, and many of the regulated appear more human to them than the disembodied general public.

The example given to us in the text book about the case of Farmers Insurance serves to show the many difficulties one would find if he ever tried to legislate against co-optation and render it into non-existence. First, one would have to find a case so gross and blatant that public outcry would be enough to mobilize the state’s law-making apparatus. Then, one would have to beat off with a stick all the representatives and lobbyists of the industry in question that would be trying to influence the outcome. Afterwards, one would have to be a saint to not be tempted by the obscene amounts of money that could lay in wait for a complacent and cooperative law-maker in line with the industry’s raison d’etre. And, in the end, one would have to be able to get rid of the dozens of other government officials already in line with the industry’s interests. If one could navigate through these murky waters, one would be better off applying for resident saint and patron of lost causes and get canonized right away before becoming a martyr for the common good.

Sources:

Texas Politics, 9^th Edition, Richard H. Kraemer, Charldean Newell, David F. Prindle, Thomson Wadsword, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Political Parties

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

19. Political Parties

Define political parties. Explain the functions that they perform in democratic governance.

Our textbook defines a major political party as a broadly based coalition or group of men and women that attempts to gain control of the government by winning elections in order to exercise power and reward its members.

However, the text offers the tangential option of regarding a political party not so much for what it is (which could be a small group in a community, or proponents of certain ideology, or the millions who vote during elections, or all of them together at once) but instead to think of it in terms of what it does.

What a political party does is to perform and essential function in the management of succession to power. They are a means to choose and offer the electorate some competitors for public office. Since the concept of democracy is that an electorate gets to choose, if there is no choice, there is no democracy. Since one of the worst problems of any government is how to manage the transfer of power, a democracy needs to provide an orderly institutional arrangement for the transfer of power. This is in contrast to totalitarian governments, where power actually has to be seized and thus the wielders of it are loath to part with it. When they have to, the transition often comes unexpectedly and in a disorderly manner. So the parties are part of the machinery of choice and order within a democracy.

Also, within this framework of political systems, the political parties help to mobilize the demands and supports that are inputs into the system and participate as well in the authoritative decision making, or outputs, of the government. In the example of elections for public office, a party helps to hold officials accountable to the voters and to recruit more candidates for those public offices. It helps its members to express their attitudes about the government in a more comprehensive and representative manner than, for example, interest groups; in fact, instead of trying to influence government on a certain issue, a party tries to become the government. This is a way that they could reconcile the interests of conflicting groups in society at large. A party can be a mediator among interest groups because in order to become the government a party actually tries to appeal to many groups of voters in a broad manner.

In short, a political party manages the transfer of power, offers a choice of rival candidates and programs to the voters, serves as a bridge between government and people by helping to hold elected officials accountable to the voters, helps to recruit candidates for office, might serve to reconcile conflicting interests in society, staffs the government and helps to run it, and links various branches and levels of the government.

The fact box in page 258 of the textbook offers a rather inspired synthesis of what a political party is:

“The truth is that the national party is a broadly based, loose coalition of national political figures, state party leaders, staff workers, members of Congress, and other elected officials who come together every four years to support a presidential candidate. A political party tries to gain control of the government by winning elections in order to exercise power and reward its members.”

Sources:

Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to the American System, 10^th Edition, Milton C. Cummings, Jr., David Wise, Thomson Wadsworth, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Political Parties in Texas

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

20. Political Parties in Texas

Do candidates keep their campaign promises? Use the Brown and Oakley campaigns to explain your assessment.

It is a common truism that “you can’t trust a politician to keep his promises”. As a matter of fact, many people who willingly do without their right to vote for their representatives in government cite this as a major impediment in their decision to vote at all, since none of what was promised during the campaign will be actually realized.

I believe that it is very possible that the reason why candidates are often perceived to fail delivering on campaign promises has to do with the fact that often those promises are offered outside of the framework of government itself, and that those promises of change are often rhetorical in nature and impractical in real life. Who knows what kinds of compromises have to be reached for the government to function as it does on any given issue? It seems to me that many politicians often are co-opted out of their promises by institutional inertia, and are often foiled by special interests and party ideologues from each side of the aisle.

However, according to the video lesson, the political parties are considered (by way of surveys) to be fairly effective in holding elected officials true to their word and instill adherence to party platforms in the decisions of their candidates when it comes to acting for or against certain issues. Political parties can offer suggestions for political action by their elected candidates that are closer to platform promises than otherwise.

The video lesson offers us the example of the candidates for state representative for Terrell, Betty Brown (R) and the incumbent Keith Oakley (D). Mrs. Brown is a self-described amateur politician whose only interest in running for office is to secure a brighter future for her grandchildren and that brings behind her the juggernaut Republican Party against the confessed party-pooper Mr. Oakley, who actually has a personal vested interest in remaining in office, since the Democratic Party had finally involved themselves more intimately in his race. In the election, the people voted to keep Oakley over Brown, and Oakley expressed his concern that he had never before had been assailed by the full might of the Republican apparatus.

As part of his campaign promises, Oakley mentioned his willingness to pass some kind of tax relief legislation for property owners in his district, and to work on the creation of a state park in his district, since there is none. Apparently, as chairman of the House committee in public safety he is able to introduce such proposals.

However, once he was reelected he had only surmounted the first obstacle in his quest to fulfill his campaign promises. He still has to wage battle against the opposing party, and against the other incumbents who often seem eager to consider the voting process as an opportunity to jockey for position and for points in the next elections.

Sources:

Texas Politics, 9^th Edition, Richard H. Kraemer, Charldean Newell, David F. Prindle, Thomson Wadsword, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Media and Elections

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

21. Media and Elections

Explain why television and radio do not enjoy the same freedoms as the print media. Think about the Internet. How is it similar or different from other news media? What level of regulation would be appropriate for it? Is it more like broadcast media or more like print media?

The reason why radio and television do not enjoy as much freedom as the printed press is because broadcast stations are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. The networks are not licensed, but the stations they own and operate are. Now, the Federal Communications Commission does not regulate the news broadcasts directly, but the stations are required to operate in “the public interest”. One example offered in the textbook is that the Federal Communications Act requires broadcasts to provide equal time to all legally qualified political candidates if said candidates can afford to buy air time for commercials. But this requirement does not apply to news broadcasts, interviews and documentaries, and it also doesn’t mean that the stations must include fringe candidates in televised presidential or other political debates, since they are considered news. If any station should ignore the Federal Communications Commission they could find their licenses revoked (but this has not happened often, apparently). This means that the federal government can hold a big stick over the operations of a broadcasting company. And the reason why television and radio can be regulated was expressed by the Supreme Court when it said that “Unlike other modes of expression, radio (and television) is not available to all.” However, this regulation’s idiosyncrasies seem rather anachronistic and untenable when considering that television stations are more numerous than newspapers, and that the Constitution could not have possibly anticipated such a medium of communication.

And that goes double for the Internet. The Internet is similar to other news media only in its availability to users. And although it is much more similar to broadcast media than printed media in that it has mostly an audiovisual content, it seems to enjoy the freedom of the press in the amount of restrictions that do not apply to it.

Recently, there has been a great concern all over the world about the appropriateness of the content and the ease of access by vulnerable users. Along with questions of morality and legality, the Internet is also burdened with the potential of actually harming private property in the form of software attacks upon the user’s hardware and software. But that is the nature of such open accessibility, that along with useful information and data, one has to deal with much stuff that is merely useless or uninformed and some that is actually harmful. However, and though many federal laws apply to define what constitutes an Internet crime, the global reaction to any statutes or policies that aim to control the actual content of information in cyberspace seems to be uniformly in opposition. It seems that the strength of the Internet as a news medium relies on the fact that it can be accessed and updated by anyone at all, and people seem to believe that any act on the part of any government to restrict content will only be detrimental to the usefulness of it as a faithful news source.

Sources:

Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to the American System, 10^th Edition, Milton C. Cummings, Jr., David Wise, Thomson Wadsworth, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Third Parties in Texas

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

22. Third Parties in Texas

Assess why third parties appear, and give three reasons to explain their limited successes in Texas.

Historically, the United States political system is a two-party system. And, although many different stances in public issues are taken creating varied factions within a party, often these factions end up endorsing the general party’s platform when pitching against the other team during election time. And sometimes these factions fail to address a specific combination of concerns for groups of people, and those people react by creating a coalition of interests with the purpose of influencing and changing the government to solve the issues that motivate them. These are the so-called third parties.

And in the state of Texas these third parties have made their appearance, briefly, but sometimes with lasting effect.

Texas has the peculiar history to have been mostly a “one-party state” in its politics (or, as the textbook describes quite forlornly, a “no-party” state), where politicians label themselves Democrat but in reality are out for themselves. However, since the end of the Twentieth Century, Texas has become more and more a Republican state, where the majority of people would vote Republican even if they didn’t know the issues at hand. In this climate of conservative unilateral focused perspective of the public issues, the third parties have a particular difficult challenge, since they are virtually the second party, albeit one without equal representation or support.

Specifically, Texas has some of the most unforgiving ballot access laws in the nation. If a third party wants to place its candidate in a statewide office ballot, the independent candidate must collect signatures that should equal in number the 1% of all the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Not only that, but the signatures have to be from registered voters who did not participate in a primary or runoff that year, and verified by the voter’s registration identification number. If the candidate manages to get himself in the ballot, and receives at least 5% of the vote for a statewide office or a 2% for a gubernatorial vote, the party can earn a place the next election. All these laws are a big deterrent for third parties to just sprout into the political scene. Understandable, in the context of providing an orderly transition of power, but still a clear example of discrimination, an example of the big boys laying down the ground rules so that little players can’t get on the playfield.

Also, when third parties manage to bring a valid point of contention that actually resonates with the electorate, even so, they might fail to achieve permanence and are often subsumed into one of the two major political parties, like when the Populist positions were adopted by the Democrats.

And another way third parties crumble out of existence can be exemplified by the political party La Raza Unida, who managed to win some local elections and to send their own candidates for governor and other statewide offices. Their demise as a political party was brought about by their internal contentions and feuds, and also by the infiltration of the party by the FBI for alleged radicalism.

The third parties in Texas are often effective in bringing to the forefront of the political scene points of variance that the electorate might hold against the other parties, and changing the approach of main parties’ platforms in occasions. However, third parties in Texas have not achieved staying power, and in the present political climate, they seem to be doomed to never stay long among us.

Sources:

Texas Politics, 9^th Edition, Richard H. Kraemer, Charldean Newell, David F. Prindle, Thomson Wadsword, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Presidential Elections

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

23. Presidential Elections

Explain the difference between a primary election and a general election.

The textbook defines an election as the procedure by which voters choose, usually among competing candidates, to determine who will hold public office.

A general election is a term employed usually in reference to the difference and contrast of a primary election. In the United States, in most states, primary elections are used as a means to narrow down a field of candidates, and general elections are the occasions when people actually elect the candidates to offices. The general election is usually held on Election Day, the first Tuesday in November.

This day is a "general election" of sorts because the entire United States House of Representatives is elected on Election Day. However, not the entire United States Congress is elected that day. Prior to the 17th Amendment, members of the United States Senate were not elected at all. And although Senators have been elected since then, only one-third of them are up for election on any given Election Day.

In contrast to a general election, or an election in general, the term “primary election” refers to very specific political process. Prior to 1915, candidates for public office were chosen by quasi-clandestine meetings of politicians or in state conventions. But the many abuses propitiated by this kind of selection process led to reforms by popular demand that had some kind of law to provide primary elections to choose some candidates who would run in statewide contests. Also, party officials could and would be chosen in primaries.

There are several methods of primaries, and the most common one is the closed primary, in which only registered members of a party or people that declare their affiliation with a party can vote. In other states, an open primary is the method in which any voter may participate and vote for one political party’s slate of candidates.

Recently, another form of primary called “blanket primary” was used in four states. This is a system in which any registered voter is able to vote for candidates from more than one party. However, in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that this primary method violated the constitutional right to freedom of association by forcing political parties to allow nonmembers to choose a party’s candidates.

Also, during primaries, delegates for presidential and vice-presidential selection conventions are chosen in some instances. The book informs us that about three-fourths of the delegates to the national conventions were selected in presidential primaries in the year 2004.

Along with primary elections, other methods of candidate selection are still in practice among different states, but in the main, in the United States the method for choosing who will represent each party in the specific contests for the nationwide offices of president and vice-president, and who will represent the interests of each party for its members, is mainly decided with primary elections.

Sources:

Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to the American System, 10^th Edition, Milton C. Cummings, Jr., David Wise, Thomson Wadsworth, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005

Campaigns and Elections

Daniel Franco

Government 2301-2460

Dr. Eileen Lynch

April 2006

24. Campaigns and Elections

Explain and assess the role of elections in Texas.

Elections are crucial.

The textbook tells us that the participation of the citizens is what makes government legitimate, and morally right and worthy of support. If large numbers of citizens neglect or refuse to vote, it raises questions about the most basic underpinnings of political authority. Voting is participation in an election and it decreases alienation and opposition by making people aware that they are in fact part of the system. The effect people who vote have on public policy when it chooses one set of candidates who endorse one set of policies over another is that, although one single vote might not make a difference, a coalition of similar-minded voters can in effect choose who represents them in the decision-making process of government.

That said, and even though it has been pretty easy in Texas to register as a voter for years, the actual voter turnout has been consistently lower than the national level. Little consolation is the fact that the trend has been climbing unsteadily, since Texas voter turnout was about 7% points below the national level as a whole for national elections. It has never reached 50% yet. And these are the good numbers. The turnout for local offices is even worse. Some mayors seem to have been elected by less than 10% of their city’s electorate.

The textbook offers some possible explanations for this lackadaisical approach to civic responsibility in Texas.

Maybe, Texans don’t vote because they are not trained to participate.

Or maybe the “no-party” system prevalent in Texas does not foster an environment of healthy competition that would impel voter participation to more avid levels.

Or because Texas is a poor state (or more than likely a state with very, very uneven distribution of wealth) and the poor people stay at home and don’t vote because they haven’t been educated about it and have no competitive parties trying to get them out to vote.

Regardless of the many possibilities, the fact remains that voter turnout has been slightly rising in the past few years, and there is the hope that with the Republican Party gaining more and more of a foothold in this state, it will foster voter education and will have a positive effect on the electorate participation.

Because, otherwise, with such a large sector of financially-challenged minorities on the rise in population, the distribution of wealth problem seems one of the very last things that will be solved in Texas in order to foment better voter turnout in local, state and national elections.

Sources:

Texas Politics, 9^th Edition, Richard H. Kraemer, Charldean Newell, David F. Prindle, Thomson Wadsword, © 2005

United States and Texas government I. Programs 1-26 [video recording], Presented by Dallas TeleLearning DCCCD, © 2005