In her presentation, “The
Art of Choosing”, Sheena Iyengar (2010) explores three primary assumptions
that apply to Americans and how they make choices. Her hypothesis theorizes
that if a choice impacts an individual, the choice should be made by the
individual; if more choices are offered, better choices will be made, and we
should “never say no to choice” (Iyengar, 2010). By beginning with an
illustration of how Americans and Japanese view green tea, with or without
sugar, Iyengar (2010) provides a foundation from which to understand how the
concept of collectiveness, that once existed in American culture, transformed
into individualism. As Iyengar (2010) notes, we as Americans believe our way of
choosing is somehow better than methods that have existed in other cultures
longer than we have been an independent country. In an effort to demonstrate her
points, I’d like to take each assumption, apply them to the overall process of
voting, and then ask if more choices lead to better choices by individuals and
if we should say no to some choices.
In her green tea story, Iyengar
(2010) points out the manager of the restaurant was simply trying to protect
Iyengar from herself as she did not know any better and by not allowing her to
put sugar in the tea; they had helped her to save face. The studies she
performs with grade school children clearly show the divide between
individualism and collectivism as American children performed better when they
made their own choice and Asian-American children performed better when mom
made the choice. According to Iyengar (2010), “if a choice affects you, then
you should be the one to make it”. Now, let’s apply this to voting. How many
times are we told elections have consequences? Many, including myself, would
argue we are experiencing such consequences as a result of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential
election; but, that’s a story for another blog. Iyengar (2010) further notes
that first generation immigrant parents have a major impact with their children
and choices. Those choices helped to form a sense of community, added to a
collective concept, and shaped the preferences of earlier generations (Iyengar,
2010). I would imagine this was seen with each wave of immigrants who found
their way to America’s shores. Voting choices belonged to white men for many
centuries. Various beliefs and preferences would have been discussed with male
heirs thereby shaping voting preferences. Through war and
protest, these choices were extended to freed black men and eventually women. Imagine
the discussions parents held with their children to emphasize the history of
not only achieving the right to vote; but, the importance of voting. Again,
preferences are shaped. I remember many discussions around my father’s dinner
table that often included politics and elections. Although they were not first
generation immigrants, my parents shaped my understanding of voting. It is a
choice I have made each year since 1980. Since casting my first ballot, changes
have been made that offer a voter more choices. Have more choices led to better
choices?
The second assumption Iyengar (2010)
covers is that better choices are made when more choices are offered. Prior to
2004, Florida provided limited options for voting. The most common was to vote
in your assigned precinct on Election Day. If a voter expected to be out of
town, or could otherwise not vote on Election Day, an absentee ballot could be
obtained from the local election office and the voter could cast the ballot
early. Today, we have as many as fourteen days of Early Voting and voting by
absentee ballot. A number of other states offer this convenience, too; however,
I wonder if different ways of voting have led to better choices, or for that
matter, better turnout. A voter has three choices: vote by absentee, Early
Vote, or vote on Election Day; yet, as noted by Iyengar (2010) all three are
still an act of voting. Just as Iyengar (2010) describes those who adamantly
defend the choice between Coke and Pepsi, is there any difference between today’s
Republican or Democrat candidate? Is the difference enough such that the
difference can be spotted by voters? Are today’s voters overwhelmed with too
many choices? Do we fear the choices? Have elections, for some, become “meaningless
minutia” (Iyengar, 2010)? In a 2010 Flagler
Live article titled, “Lazier
Voters: Flagler’s 52% Turnout Was Worst In at Least 16 Years of Mid-Terms”,
a decline in the total percentage of Flagler voters is shown from 2002 to 2010
for mid-term elections. Did the added choices have an impact? How many wrote-in
“Mickey Mouse” or “John Wayne” for President? Will the different ways to cast a
ballot provide me with a better opportunity for representation; or, am I
confined to candidates selected by establishment organizations? How many simply
decide to say “no” to choice?
The final assumption, “never say no
to choice” holds interesting connotations when applied to voting (Iyengar,
2010). In her speech, a tale is told of French and American parents facing the
same medical dilemma with a child. In France, medical professionals made the
choice to discontinue life supports; while American parents made the final
choice (Iyengar, 2010). What if professional election teams conducted all of the
research, submitted final selections to local, state, and federal legislative
bodies, and made the final choices for various elected offices? How would
voters react? I would imagine it would similar to the findings of Iyengar
(2010); voters would not give the final choice to professionals. It would be completely
contrary to our teachings and beliefs. Yet, today, so many choose to say no the
choice of voting. Iyengar (2010) notes those American parents who made the difficult
decision felt “trapped, guilty, and angry”; yet, they chose to end life support; not medical professionals. Perhaps
young voters do not wish to feel “trapped, guilty, or angry” with their choices
and that is why they choose to not vote. That’s another interesting note for another
blog.
The final image presented by Iyengar
(2010) completely drives home the point about choice, particularly with voting.
Think of today’s politicians as a choice between “Ballet Slippers” or “Adorable”;
one being “elegant” and the other being “glamorous” (Iyengar, 2010). Absent
faces or labels, what is the difference? At one time, such as when politics was
the topic of discussion around my father’s table, there was a discernable
difference between the two major parties. It was easily spotted and voters from
both sides saw opportunities through their choices. When I speak with my
children, who are just two generations removed from my father, the concept of
voting for the candidate who will do the most good for the collective is a
foreign concept. Their concept is what will the candidate do for me? Our once
close-knit families and communities have thinned and have allowed for the
transformation of individualism. The concept of individualism and leadership is
playing out before our eyes with each headline that flashes across the evening
news screen. We see a leader apparently more concerned with playing golf rather
than developing strategies to address possible threats. Perhaps this is why,
that with even more choices for voting, we choose not to.
No comments:
Post a Comment