The 2014 midterm elections had the lowest voter turnout of the previous 70 years, with only 36.7% of eligible voters participating, according to the United States Election Project. This year’s midterm elections are extremely important, as the Senate and the House of Representatives could switch party control. Furthermore, many states are having gubernatorial and congressional elections, and state senate/house seats are also up for grabs. In Illinois, in particular, there will be elections for the Governor, Attorney General, Congress, and the State House and Senate, as well as many for various local and city offices. The rest of this article will present you with voting information and important dates so that you can be an active participant in these elections.
How to Register:
In order to register to vote in Illinois, you must be a U.S citizen, have an Illinois state ID or driver’s license, and be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Additionally, you must live in your election precinct 30 days before the election and not be serving a sentence of confinement. You also cannot claim the right to vote in any other state. You may consider yourself officially registered to vote once you receive your voter ID card in the mail. In Illinois, you may also register to vote on Election Day at your polling location. You can also register to vote through the mail, in person at your local County Clerk's Office, or online at the following link: https://ova.elections.il.gov/.
The voter registration period starts on August 8th and ends on October 9th. Early voting starts on September 27th and ends on November 5th. November 1st is the last day to request absentee ballots, and they must be postmarked by November 5th. You do not need a specific reason to request an absentee ballot. You can find absentee ballots here: https://www.vote.org/absentee-ballot/illinois/.
In Illinois, polls are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In general, you will not be required to present a form of ID when voting. However, if you did not show a proof of ID when you registered to vote, you will be required to show an ID at the polls. If you are voting early, you will also be required to show your ID at the polls.
Voting Information for Other States:
Hopefully all of this information will help you exercise your right to vote here in Illinois or in any other state across the country. Every state is having important races during these midterms. These upcoming elections will shape our country for the next few years and, though past midterm elections have been overlooked, it is vital to let your voice be heard! So make sure to get out and vote!
After the most recent elections, people have been fired up, exercising their political voice in many different ways. From the 2017 Women’s March, to people calling their representatives to voice their opinions on policy issues such as DACA and universal healthcare, to people getting out to vote in 2017 which led to historic elections (such as with Doug Jones, the first Democratic senator in Alabama in 25 years, and Danica Roem, the first openly transgender state legislator), it became clear that people all across the country are eager to participate politically. But do UChicago students’ political practices reflect this apparent increase in the scale and diversity of people’s political engagement?
During Spring Quarter 2017, the University of Chicago Democracy Initiative (UCDI) conducted a survey in order to better understand the UChicago undergraduate community’s opinions on the effectiveness of 5 different types of political engagement: voting, protesting, calling representatives, attending political events, and participating in political organizations. The survey also asked students how frequently they participate in those forms of political participation and why students may choose to not be politically involved. This survey included 223 responses, and the UCDI was able to see how UChicago students are generally involved in politics, thereby highlighting the ways in which our engagement can improve.
UChicago’s Political Engagement
One goal of the UCDI in distributing the survey was to determine what types of political participation the student body believes are the most and least effective at causing change. According to the results, the top two most effective were voting (45.7%) and calling your representative (20.4%). For least effective, the top two were participating in a political organization (32.1%) and protesting (22.5%).
Although a large percentage of UChicago students believe that protesting is the least effective form of political engagement, they still have a more favorable view than the average adult. According to a 2009 Pew Internet and American Life Project Survey, only 4% of American adults participated in a protest in the past 12 months. Both college students and adults have negative opinions on protesting, which contradicts the popularity of current protests such as the Women’s March and NFL kneeling. While UChicago students’ opinions on protesting did not correlate with today’s rise in protesting, their opinions did correlate with the current climate’s increased calls to action through voting and calling representatives. Therefore, it may be the case that UChicago students think the most effective forms of political engagement are through elected officials.
Aside from voting, the vast majority of survey takers said that they don’t participate in the four other activities (protesting, calling your representative, attending an event, and participating in political organizations). The most common reasons selected for why people don’t participate in those ways are because they don’t have time, they are too lazy, or they don’t have enough information. According to the aforementioned 2009 Pew survey, 30% of American adults contacted a national, state or local government official about an issue, 24% attended a political meeting on local, town, or school affairs, 12% attended a political rally or speech, and 15% were an active members of groups that try to influence public policy or government in the last 12 months. Although it is important to keep in mind that its sample size was smaller, the UCDI’s survey seems to indicate that UChicago students are slightly more politically engaged than the average American; however, that doesn’t mean that we should not strive to be more involved.
Although it seems that UChicago students agree that voting is effective at inciting change, our community’s actual participation in politics doesn’t seem to reflect this belief. The National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE), which provides data on collegiate political participation, found that only 50.2% of eligible UChicago students voted in the 2016 presidential election, which is under the country’s average of about 55.7% (according to a U.S. Census Bureau study “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016”) . And although 73.5% of UChicago students who are registered to vote voted, only 68.4% of UChicago students are registered to vote. Therefore, it appears that UChicago students aren’t even participating in the political engagement methods they think are the most effective.
In today’s climate, it is now more important than ever to not only express your voice through voting, but also by engaging in different forms of political participation. We must challenge ourselves to seek out other methods political engagement that we think are effective. Whether it be calling your representative or marching in the streets, democracy only works when the people that are being represented are voicing their opinions. Therefore, with the important 2018 midterm elections less than a year away, the UCDI hopes that you make your voice heard and be politically engaged in any way, shape, or form, starting this month with the primary elections.
*To see UChicago students giving their opinion about some of these issues, check out the following video: https://youtu.be/2fhYjPa0THQ.*
After this election cycle, it appears that social media has become an integral part of our nation’s political process. Politicians and normal citizens alike have used social media to engage with politics, both to connect with voters and to obtain news about candidates and their policies.
During Spring Quarter of 2016, The University of Chicago Democracy Initiative (UCDI) conducted a survey in order to better understand the UChicago undergraduate community’s opinions on politics and social media. The survey explored the ways in which students use social media to both gain information and express viewpoints. It also looked at the ideologies and issues that students most strongly identify with. While the scope of the survey was fairly small, with only 133 responses, the information collected provided some insight into our school’s perception of politics and social media, highlighting the ways in which our engagement can improve.
The Reliability of News
One of the biggest stories to come out of the election cycle this past year was the influx of “fake news” that pervaded Facebook and other social media sites. One such story claimed that the director of the FBI placed a pro-Trump sign in his front yard, while another insisted that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex-ring out of a pizzeria. We posit that these news stories — no matter how seemingly benign or how radical they may be — are harmful to the election process because they obscure reality and focus on pieces of false information.
As a community that is highly active on social media, it is inevitable that we at UChicago will be exposed to such stories. Of those surveyed by UCDI, 78.2% said that social media sites are one of their primary sources of news, falling only slightly behind newspapers (including online publications) at 79.7%. Additionally, 80.1% of those surveyed said that they engage with politics on social media in some way at least once a week.
Most of those surveyed seemed to apply limited credibility to what they read on their feeds. Of those that selected social media as a primary source of news, just over 10% said that they would consider it to be mostly or completely trustworthy while approximately 27% found it to be hardly or not trustworthy at all. The vast majority — the remaining 62% — said that they found it to be somewhat trustworthy. These results seem to indicate that our community at large seems to recognize that social media can be a valuable source of information, but that this information must be approached with caution.
While it appears that the UChicago community possesses a sense of caution toward the reliability of social media sites, one way in which our engagement can improve is by adding a larger variety of news sources. If we aim for a society with informed citizens (as the UCDI does), we believe that information must be obtained from varying sources. When asked about where they get their news, 57.9% of those polled said they seek out only a small number of news sources that contrast with their ideologies, while an additional 7.5% said they only get news from sources of one political ideology. In contrast, only 18.8% said that their news sources are mostly or completely mixed.
Although this election cycle has come to a close, it is important to remember that being an active participant in our democracy does not mean voting for a presidential candidate every four years. Between now and November 2020, countless opportunities for political participation will arise at various different levels. In order for the issues that we most care about to be addressed, it is important that we take advantage of these opportunities as much as possible.
As an example, those surveyed were asked to select the top three issues that they were the most passionate about. Participants were given seventeen policy options — ranging from topics such as immigration to gun control — as well as a write-in option. While the results were fairly scattered, education stood out as the most popular choice by far, with 44.4% participants selecting it.
It should not be a surprise that education that concerns the members of our community. After all, our very presence at this institution indicates that we are passionate about this topic. Education, however, is not something that is controlled solely at the federal level. While federal politics do indeed have a significant impact upon education, state and local governments play an equally important role. In fact, only 8% of financial contributions to education come from the federal government, with the rest coming from non-federal sources.
The UChicago community’s participation in politics does not seem to reflect an awareness of these ideas. Of the 133 participants, only around 40% said they always participate in state elections and only around 26% said that they always participate in local elections. This stood in stark contrast to federal elections, in which over 60% said they always participate. In order for educational policies to be changed or maintained — whatever the case may be — it is important for us to stay involved in politics at both the state and local levels. For example, the next Illinois gubernatorial election will be held in 2018; it is important for those who have the ability to vote in this election ensure that they do so to influence decisions not only in education but in other issues such as reproductive rights.
These numbers were in fact even higher than the reported statistics for the University of Chicago, which the NSLVE voting report puts at 19% participation in midterm elections and 42% in presidential elections.
Although it may sound like a worn-out cliché, we must remember that voting is important, even if it may sometimes feel like our voices do not matter. We must also take the time to contact our representatives and engage with government on all levels both inside and outside the polling booth. Our system of democracy does not function without each and every person taking responsibility and pushing for the issues that matter the most to them to be addressed. Therefore, we at the UCDI hope that between now and the next presidential election, all of you reading this will take the steps necessary to stay politically engaged and shape our country in a positive way.
Like many divisive political issues, campaign finance is a battle of values: freedom versus equality.
Since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, we’ve seen more money than ever flood elections. Direct contributions to candidates’ campaigns are still limited to $2,700, but “soft money”—indirect spending—took a turn after 2010. The court’s decision stated that corporations and unions can spend unlimited funding on political activities, which often takes the form of issue advertisements, often endorsing certain candidates.
Attempts to limit spending in different ways, such as the 2002 “McCain-Feingold” legislation, have become largely impotent by Supreme Court decisions in 2010 like Citizens United and Speechnow.org v. FEC, which allows unlimited contributions from individuals to organizations that take conduct political activities.
We’re in an era of essentially unlimited spending to try to get candidates elected. Two questions arise: Is this a problem for democracy? If so, how can we fix the system?
In his 2006 book The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform, John Samples, Vice President and Publisher of the libertarian Cato Institute, argues that political spending is protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment as freedom of speech. This is the same reasoning that the Supreme Court has employed in its decisions to disallow campaign finance regulations.
Many who support campaign finance regulations argue that unlimited donations creates corruption. However, the Supreme Court finds no examples of “quid pro quo”—exchanging contributions for political decision-making to favor the donor—and Samples highlights the lack of conclusive research proving any of this kind of corruption.
In his 2011 book Republic, Lost, Lawrence Lessig, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and Harvard Law professor, argues that unlimited political donations have created a different kind of corruption. Candidates exhibit this kind of corruption by holding large gatherings for wealthy people, with the purpose of raising campaign funds. He also describes the reality of campaigning: it takes a lot of money to do so.
Lessig describes this “dependency” of candidates on wealthy donors as corruption. Oxford Dictionaries defines corruption as “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power.” Lessig’s argument, therefore, states that our political system—a democratic republic—is dishonest, as the time and access that candidates give to wealthy donors does not reflect the principle that candidates represent all citizens, not just the rich ones. Lessig contends that this causes citizens to lose faith and trust in government.
There isn’t much compelling research that unlimited political spending by individuals, organizations, and corporations concretely harms decision-making by politicians—though many argue that candidates are beholden to corporate interests, as businesses often contribute to and benefit from decisions made by anti-regulation politicians—but it’s easy to see that candidates do rely on large-scale funding to campaign. Just look at the 2016 Presidential race: As of August 1—for those donations that have been disclosed—all major candidates had raised over $10 million, with most having raised over $15 million (and the top three having raised $120 million, $67 million, and $52, respectively).
Lessig is right, that this does seem to create a dependency of candidates on lots of money, which—under the current laws—is most easily raised from wealthy individuals and corporations. However, many believe that political spending is akin to free speech, and that regulating campaign contributions is unconstitutional. So, the state of campaign finance law does seem to distort the “representativeness” of our democracy, but how can we limit freedom of financial expression, constitutionally?
This clash of freedom versus (democratic) equality is reconcilable. The most common solution—which 13 states currently employ, in some fashion—is public campaign financing, which provides candidates campaign funding from government revenue if that candidate raises a certain amount of donations under a certain amount, incentivizing candidates to focus on more individuals, and therefore relatively fewer wealthy individuals.
Solutions like this still allow for freedom of expression through campaign contributions and attempts to improve democratic equality. However, is there enough political will to enact such solutions? And, will some sort of public campaign financing actually solve the problem of dependency on wealthy donors?
Look out for upcoming articles in UCDI’s series about money in politics.
Sam Zacher is a fourth-year in the College studying political science and economics.
The University of Chicago Democracy Initiative (UCDI) is an independent, nonpartisan, student-led organization.