The aforementioned research conducted by UNL’s Professor Hibbing and colleagues, as well as other political science research, provided various physiological and genetic explanations for voter behavior. Ultimately, researchers submitted that voters choose their candidate largely based upon personal instincts, and are therefore less influenced than some might think by the candidates’ campaigns. These inherent pulls toward one candidate over the other may allow voters to invest less time researching the merits of the candidates than some may think necessary.
This apparent shortcut excusing voters from an obligation to learn more about the candidates would frustrate Michael delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, who conducted research on what Americans know about politics.
They say Americans know more about public figures with greater political power and connection to themselves – for example, The President, their state’s governor – but they argue that “knowledge of public figures and of the institutions and processes of government serves little purpose if citizens are not also informed about the substance of the politics itself.” They say that people do not know more about these other aspects of politics because this information is not accessible to them. They would argue that even if people agree with the aforementioned research that even without extensive research they already know who they will instinctively vote for and even though information on the political system is difficult to access, “this [does not] relieve citizens of their individual responsibility to be informed.”
While delli Carpini and Keeter worry about Americans’ lack of political knowledge, Carroll Glynn et al. in their article titled, “Public Opinion and Democratic Competence,” say not to worry about it as much. They discuss the shortcuts voters use to learn the essentials of each candidate and issue to be voted on, and say, “What citizens do know, and what they learn about issues when they become salient and important, appears to be adequate for many purposes.”
Ultimately, the question becomes whether we are satisfied with a government elected by citizens voting instinctively and without any considerable amount of knowledge regarding our political system.
If voters 18 and older rarely do more than show up and cast a ballot, why even have a minimum voting age? According to the articles on genetic influences in voting, children are aware of the same instincts adults use in casting ballots. Therefore, only if Americans maintain that they have a responsibility to understand their political system – an understanding that comes from years of study and thought – should the voting age continue. Otherwise, let the children’s ballots they start casting for fun in kindergarten count. What’s the difference?
