Read the Cause and Effect sample: Cause and Effect sample is attached to this message. Thinking as a writer, what in this essay is good? What needs work? What revisions might you suggest to the writ

Lname 4

Fname Lname

Miss Johnson

English Composition I

November 16, 2006

Voter Apathy: The Causes and Effects of Not Going to the Polls

Few can doubt the corruptness and hypocrisy of American politics. Scandals hit the news daily. Senator A takes a bribe. Congressman B serves only lobbyists. President C cheats on his wife. Voters take note of these transgressions and of others within the political environment. They scratch their heads and wonder how things could possibly ever change. After all, all politicians, even those with the best of intentions, seem to debase themselves once in office. Therefore, voters wonder why they should participate in the process. They ask themselves how they could possible make a difference. Sadly, voters cite many reasons for not going to the polls, and these reasons keep true reform from occurring within the political process.

Certainly, of the many causes of voter apathy, a sense of pointlessness keeps voters from the polls. Unfortunately, many apathetic voters sense that their vote does not count. Their sense of futility further increased over the last few presidential elections. Even with such a close vote count in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, many voters realize the insignificance of their vote. The feelings of many voters concerning the Electoral College provide a prime example of this perceived insignificance. The Electoral College process boils presidential elections down to individual state races. In most states, the candidate who wins the majority of the state’s votes receives all of that state’s electoral votes, which negates the votes of those who vote for another candidate. Indeed, according to the National Archives Electoral College FAQ website only two states with few electoral votes, Nebraska and Maine, divide their electoral votes based on the popular state vote. Since large states like California and New York have such a large pool of Electoral votes, presidential candidates choose to spend their time focusing on issues important to these large states and on visiting these few states. Regrettably, voters from small states poor in Electoral votes find their states, their issues, and their votes ignored. Because of this inequity, this system diminishes the importance of individual voters, and these voters no longer feel connected to the election process.

Furthermore, they believe that politicians make campaign promises they can have no intention of keeping. Time after time, apathetic voters recognize the disingenuousness of politicians who seemingly promise voters whatever necessary to ensure their election. Whether an assurance of new projects for a Congressional district or a promise to eliminate the federal deficit, voters realize that elected officials inevitably will renege on the very pledges that prompted voters to cast ballots in their favor. Undoubtedly, when potential voters listen to the campaign promises of the candidates running for office, they remember the false guarantees of the past and therefore choose to not reward such deceit with their votes.

Since few who truly desire political change believe they have the power to cause this change, incumbents continue to dominate politics. This domination by entrenched politicians creates more of an aristocracy than a representative republic. This political entrenchment clearly shows itself in well-know political family dynasties. After all, most voters have heard often of the Kennedy, the Gore, the Eisenhower, and the Bush families. Candidates possessing these family names reap the rewards of name recognition, and voters often vote for names they know rather that for the views held by such powerful families. Moreover, once voters elect politicians to office, they face difficulty in removing these incumbents. Again, name recognition, as well as tradition, plays a part in the continual reelection of incumbents, whether or not these ensconced politicos deserve this reelection or not. These entrenched politicians, some who have held office for decades discover their seeming invulnerability and soon forget their constituents. Sadly, this sense of entitlement these “royal” politicians feel often disconnects them further from the electorate.

Regrettably, politicians continue to focus on big businesses and wealthy contributors rather than the normal voting population. Since these wealthy individuals and institutions regularly contribute huge sums of money to political campaigns, politicians feel more of a sense of obligation to them. Moreover, these large campaign contributions dwarf voter campaign contributions, and therefore, further isolate politicians from those who put them in office. Indeed, most politicians will pay more attention to and focus on the issues of someone contributing one million dollars than someone only able to contribute ten dollars. Sadly, voters can easily see this money-driven bias and choose not to vote.

In an examination why voters choose not to go to the polls, voters express their frustration with the political process. Indeed, voters feel a sense of futility when examining their places in the Electoral College system. Similarly, they experience great disappointment when recognizing how politicians lie to secure their votes. Unfortunately, these causes of voter apathy also allow these deficiencies in the political system to remain. By not voting, voters allow political dynasties to grow and incumbents often to remain stagnant in office. Furthermore, by not voting for change, voters allow politicians to remain beholden to wealthy individuals and companies instead of to the regular voter who gave them their position. Regrettably, until they take the initiative to participate in and to vote for political change, voters will never enact the change in the American political system they seek.