The U.S. Election System

Discussing topics such as: voting incentives, gerrymandering, the criticisms of a two-party political system, and "one person, one vote" brings up many controversial and confusing dilemmas to think about. I'll focus on a few highlights.

First, are scheduled elections a problem?

From the President's viewpoint, perhaps knowing that he will be running against other candidates or leaving office in four years will make it harder to motivate himself and initiate change rather than focusing on the end of his term. In the U.K., they only choose to run elections based on popular opinion and on the basis of the Queen's opinion. If Margaret Thatcher was elected only twice in her 18 years of office, was it good or bad?

I would say it's better than what the U.S. has. I think that running elections in 4-year increments creates a constant pressure on the president's mind of: how do I make citizens realize that I'm working towards solutions? instead of: how do I work towards solutions to our problems? There is a large distance between these two concepts. This is why we have representation, rather than a full-out democracy. I believe that politicians are the experts on these topics in comparison to the average citizen, and therefore, I am comfortable putting power in their hands in making some decisions for my life that I might not be fully able to make due to lack of knowledge.

Yes, we have two-term limits for presidency, and I understand the need to keep a rolling cycle of presidents so that none become complacent. However, I propose ten-year limits, with the option of having a new election every five years based on the U.K. principle of public opinion polls. There would have to be strict requirements on who is running the polls so that there are no biased results for the benefit of the current president. Still, I think this would allow true change in the government, rather than a rushed feeling of making a good impression on the people within the term.

Why do people vote?
I think people most often vote when they have a strong opposition to a candidate. Very few seem passionate about the person they are voting for.
Another major incentive would be economic or social oppression, injustice, or pain felt by what people might attribute to the government.

Why do people not vote?
They believe their voice is not heard. That is what mainly comes to mind for me. I was absolutely shocked though when researched this topic and found this article (written by a psychology website makes it a little more interesting I think):
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-psychology-behind-political-debate/201112/why-dont-people-vote
The 15% that don't vote due to illness/disability is extremely surprising to me, although I understand it with so many elderly people being registered and unable to travel out to vote. What was absolutely astounding to me though was the 17% who said they have conflicting schedules or were too busy. This is the most important group, because they are most certainly a major chunk of the working population! How can they be too busy to have the say in what affects their lives more than anyone else's?

I think this is where my reason comes in. It's opportunity cost to them- is it really worth it for your voice to not be heard when you sacrifice some hours catching up at work, the time you have to take care of your children, or the little bit of spare time you get in your day?

Unfortunately for most of the U.S., that's exactly the problem- there's no incentive for re-prioritizing your time.