Communication Breakdown: How to Bridge the Gap between Voters and Their Representatives
Creating a space for better communication between voters and candidates will increase the odds of electing responsible representatives. This would shift power from the donors and parties to the people of the district, creating a stronger dialogue between candidates and in turn creating opportunities to solve some of our current political problems. By building stronger communication between voters and representatives, we build a stronger union.
Stump Speaking by George Caleb Bingham, oil on canvas, 1853. (Photo: Wikimedia commons)
In 1797, during the Quasi-War with France, the Federalist-controlled judiciary was curbing dissenting voices. The then Vice President Thomas Jefferson drafted a petition to the Virginia legislature in response to a case brought against Albemarle Country Representative Samuel J. Cabell about letters he was circulating to his constituents. In it, Jefferson argues that free and full communication between the representative and the constituents is a constitutional right. He believed that the relationship between the government and the people should be honest and transparent.
Communication in our political system has broken down. Elected representatives fail to communicate transparently and honestly, depriving the people of representation. In what follows, we will explore how communication works and then discuss strategies for enhancing communication between voters and candidates to thereby foster the election of responsible representatives. Strengthening dialogue can empower constituents, address critical political issues, and fortify our union.
Honest and transparent communication is essential for any healthy relationship. Partners need to understand each other to live together; with added responsibilities like raising a child, successful communication becomes even more important now that both parties are tasked with supporting another life. There are many aspects of communication: what we say, how we say it, the words we use, and the emotion we deliver. We communicate actively by sharing and passively by withholding.
Each person has an identifiable communication trait: they are either active or passive. Where they fall on the active-passive scale depends on their life experiences. Active or passive communicators on the far ends of the scale are easy to spot. You will probably think about them while reading this. Most people, however, are closer to the middle. In most relationships, one partner is on the active side, and the other is on the passive side; one partner is quick to share, and the other withholds. Each trait has its strengths and weaknesses.
Active communicators prefer sharing information to allow a larger discussion. Their power lies in their delivery and the veracity with which they are willing to discuss their opinions. They use emotion to emphasize what they want the listener to hear. They may rush from point to point without allowing time for the other party to process. Combining an emotional delivery with overwhelming information clouds the listener’s mind, wearing them down, and obscuring the message. They can be so busy talking that it becomes hard for the other party to speak, sucking up all the oxygen and thus limiting dialogue. Active communicators are best when they pacify their emotions and communicate concisely, focusing on providing space for the other party to process and reply, only using emotion to drive home important information.
Passive communicators, on the other hand, prefer to share only relevant information. Their power lies in control. They deliver their message concisely. Passive communicators have tempered emotions when delivering the message, which allows the listener to determine whether it is positive or negative. But they may use emotion to limit dialogue, reacting negatively when questions are raised, or stonewalling the conversation. Passive communicators struggle because they assume information for the listener; they compound the problem by discouraging dialogue. Passive communicators are at their best when responding positively to active dialogue, focusing on hearing their partner out and sharing additional information as needed.
Suppose an extreme active communicator were in an argument with an extreme passive communicator. The active one would say a lot, the passive would say little; the active might yell, and the passive might walk away. The active never gives up, the passive moves on quickly. Both active and passive communicators are loud about what they want others to hear and quiet about what they wish to conceal. Active communicators overcommunicate, and passive communicators under-communicate; actives conceal in the open, and passives conceal in private. The volume and tone vary, but the result is the same. However, when they find balance and welcome dialogue, problems get solved.
On the other hand, failure of communication can doom a marriage, partnership, or union. The biggest threat to our Union is the breakdown of communication between its two parties: the people and their representatives. So, as you reflect on individual relationships, whether you are an active or passive communicator, and how you can help balance yourself, think about your relationship with your representatives. Do they communicate the right information or only what they what you to know?
Most communication between representatives and the people is done for the purposes of election, that is, getting elected or remaining in power. Candidates communicate using the negative traits of both actives and passives. Overwhelming voters with scripted lines that offer little substance, they are loud about what they want voters to hear and quiet about what they wish to conceal. They suck the air out of the room and withhold information. If they do not want to discuss something, they lash out or shut us out, ranting and raving or closing the door.
“The most basic responsibility of a representative is to listen and inform those they represent. Yet many candidates only listen to those who donate to or work for their campaign. When they get to office, they reward their biggest supporters with government appointments.”
The most basic responsibility of a representative is to listen and inform those they represent. Yet many candidates only listen to those who donate to or work for their campaign. When they get to office, they reward their biggest supporters with government appointments. This system of government is known as a “spoils system.” Andrew Jackson first popularized it during the Antebellum period, and it was enhanced for profit during the Gilded Age with Roscoe Conkling.
During a spoils age, representatives are incentivized to share information beneficial to their party and withhold information harmful to it, as representatives need their political parties to remain in office. Many voters do not even know who their representative is because it is not in the interests of the political parties for them to know. This incentivizes the legislature to conceal this information by redrawing the districts in a process known as gerrymandering. This is what we would call active concealment.
A spoils system does its dirty work in the open and justifies its corruption to defeat an existential threat to our freedom. In a spoils system, such as the one we find ourselves in today, the rights of the individual are ignored for the benefit of the political party. In reality, however, freedom lies in communication, particularly in the people’s ability to be informed and heard—the people’s right to be represented. The spoils system has created decades of bad communication that has led to a breakdown in trust. Voters are tired of being ignored and misled. The passive ones are tuning out altogether, and the active ones march in the streets and storm the capitol.
We need to practice better communication to save ourselves from disunion. Better communication starts when candidates create a space for dialogue with their constituents. Campaign events and marketing should be informational and focused on dialogue. There should be weekly debates with minimal moderator involvement—just the candidates speaking with each other. Moreover, the debates should be recorded and uploaded to platforms such as YouTube, and advertising should direct the voter to the debates. Finally, the weekly debates should take place inside the district where the election is held and should allow voters to ask questions.
Creating a space for better communication between voters and candidates will increase the odds of electing responsible representatives. This would shift power from the donors and parties to the people of the district, creating a stronger dialogue between candidates and in turn creating opportunities to solve some of our current political problems. By building stronger communication between voters and representatives, we build a stronger union.
