Last week in The Quad, Dr. Roger Barth of the Chemistry department responded to my article, “West Chester Students Reluctant to Vote on Election Day,” in a “Letter to the Editor” (November 16 Issue). To summarize my original article, I did not vote on election day because: 1) I equally disliked all candidates 2) I would not be responsible for supporting any politicians who harm the people with their policies 3) My individual vote will never have a statistical impact on an election 4) I kept my integrity instead of settling for people that should not be in charge of anything.
My conclusion simply requested that people refrain from criticizing my choice. Dr. Barth felt that, despite my request, criticism was warranted because my attitude hurts my demographic. I would like to respectfully respond to Dr. Barth’s criticism.
Most importantly, I did not even suggest that any of my fellow young people should refrain from voting. The article was specifically in reference to my individual vote, whereas Dr. Barth’s response dealt with the student demographic as a whole. Keeping this in mind, some of Dr. Barth’s statements such as, “You are screwing yourself and your fellow students by placing you and them in an ineffectual demographic,” are greatly exaggerated. As my individual vote has no impact on the election, I am not “screwing over” anyone, including myself.
Dr. Barth’s thesis is that my demographic and I are “ineffectual” because we do not affect allocation of public funds through voting. If Dr. Barth only means ineffectual in regards to public funds, he is clearly factually incorrect. Tom Wolf, the governor elect, promises to give more funding to education across the board, yet only 23 percent of young voters turned out in Pa. Dr. Barth, however, implies that students are an ineffectual demographic in general because we have poor voter turnout. This ignores the many ways an individual or group can affect society such as entrepreneurship and peaceful protest.
Dr. Barth’s argument also assumes that all youth, support additional funds for public higher education. I do not support this. Many of my peers do not support this. As economist Dr. Daniel Lin argues, government subsidies and loans are the very reason higher education is so expensive in the first place. It is very feasible that raising interest rates on student loans, for example, could reduce college costs substantially in the long run. As a matter of principle, I do not see voting as a tool with which to acquire benefits. Rather, I see it as a defense mechanism against tyranny. If voting is only a tool to receive public funds, voting becomes an extremely greedy and counterproductive action.
Even with poor voter turnout, campaigns do not ignore my demographic. For a very long time, youth have been apathetic. This apathy, however, has not stopped campaigns from reaching out to youth in the hopes that they may tip the scales. This strategy worked very well for the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. But again, my article had nothing to do with the youth demographic as a whole.
Lastly, imagine that youth provided a 100 percent turnout in every election. Would this mean politicians would suddenly start keeping their promises? According to a recent study from Princeton and Northwestern University, the United States is an oligarchy. In other words, a few powerful groups influence legislation, regardless of public opinion. Even if politicians did listen to voters, would this necessarily be better for the country? Of course not. Dr. Bryan Caplan’s best-selling book, “Myth of the Rational Voter,” clearly explains how and why democracies choose bad policies. For example, most economists, regardless of political leanings, endorse free trade. Unfortunately, the average voter supports protectionism.
In effect, Dr. Barth is telling all student voters that we should vote regardless of candidate quality. We should vote for the people who claim they will give us goodie bags if we vote for them, even if those treats come at the expense of other groups or the nation in the long run. Perhaps it is this mindset which plagues our nation; this mindset that we should settle for liars with bad ideas only so we can hope to receive some of the taxes we are forced to pay. Dr. Barth closes by stating, “Fashionable cynicism will do nothing to maintain reasonable levels of tuition, quality instruction, and the reputation of your degree.” I challenge Dr. Barth, or anyone for that matter, to prove this statement empirically. I am certain, however, that a professor speaking to a student with less than professional language can tarnish the reputation of a university. I did not vote on Election Day. I am proud of my decision.
Tom Mandracchia is a fourth-year student. He can be reached at TM760425@wcupa.edu.