On Voting and Bowling Together

Originally submitted by: jadelay

One of the worries of Democrats across the nation is that if the candidate of younger people, Barack Obama, is not selected as the presidential nominee, that young people will drop out and stay at home on election day in November. The energy and enthusiasm Senator Obama has launched is intergenerational, but young people, among them people in their 20s and 30s, have been an integral part of his grass-roots organizing success. At least since the findings of Robert Putnam in his path-breaking work from the 1990s, called "Bowling Alone," the nation's civic-minded have been wringing their hands over declining voter turnout rates. Concern over younger voters is particularly acute, but the alarm has broadened to all age groups. To summarize Putnam's conclusions: we are not joining political parties with the same fervor; our rate of volunteering for commissions and other local government task forces is diminishing; and we are not joining and sticking with clubs and service organizations like we used to. The way Putnam memorably demonstrated this was to show how more and more people in America were dropping out of their local bowling leagues, where they discussed local and national issues with fellow citizens between the gutter balls and strikes, and instead are now choosing to bowling alone. Well... bowling for political capital and bowling together is back in the news. After Senator Obama's highly publicized gutter ball (was his score below 40??), we might say that we now have a chance to bowl together again. And to go voting again. Except that voting is a private act. Unless you are attending a primary caucus in the states where it is the way candidate delegates to the convention are chosen. Several people have complained about caucuses as a way to choose candidates. They say that they are intimidating groupthink exercises, favoring the loud, the people in a community with clout and those candidates who can get citizens to the polls no matter what the weather is. From an ethical standpoint, I suppose these are all reasonable objections. I don't think I would be in favor of voting for my candidate in a public caucus when my boss is standing next to me wearing a funny hat for the candidate I think would ruin the country. But I do wonder whether we might not change our voting so that it is more public and festive. We could still ensure voting in private, but do so with a few new artful twists. You can judge their ethics. First of all, I think we should have election days off. They should be public and paid holidays. This includes local elections too. So, for example, on May 6th, Ann Arbor has a school board election. We should have the day off. So should the kids. The older students can volunteer if they wish to help at the polls. Second, we need to redesign the places where we vote. Many of these places are schools and community centers. We need to have an infrastructure fund for polling places. Not only will the voters find their polling places more welcoming, but many of our schools and community centers across the nation that are crumbling will get much needed renovations. Businesses should pay for these renovations. If businesses won't pay for these retoolings, then we should recommend theatres, museums, sport stadia, and even bowling alleys for our new polling places. Not only do citizens get to vote, they may see a play, go to a museum or see a game that day. They might even get to bowl together.