Get out the vote

I've always been a little ambivalent about the push to convince Americans to vote in every election.  In principle, I agree that having more people vote is good; on the other hand, it seems kind of overbearing, in the way that the anti-smoking campaign seemed well-intentioned but became overbearing.  I will not wear the "I voted" stickers, for instance, because it seems infantile.  Then again, maybe it's just because I'm so contrary.

In either case, I thought it would be a good idea to consider the other side of getting more people to vote.  Thinking of it in economic terms, we can consider the marginal voters -- the ones who don't vote now but will be the next ones to be convinced to do so.  It seems logical that people who are motivated to vote are also the ones who are motivated to research the issues, and that people who haven't thought much about the issues will be the ones who care the least and are least likely to vote.  Therefore, by convincing more people to vote, we are dumbing down the electorate.

Now, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't vote.  Actually, by taking the trouble to vote, new voters will also likely become more concerned to know the issues.  Encouraging more people to vote could therefore result in a more informed populace, even as it results in an electorate that is less informed on average.

My point is not that voting should or should not be encouraged, but rather that voting itself is not the most important thing.  What we really want is not more voters per se, but more voters who are informed about the issues.  Not only that, but we can expect that people who do become informed will also become more interested in the outcome and therefore more likely to vote.  So I propose that, instead of telling everyone to go vote, we should tell everyone to become informed about the issues, and let voting follow naturally.