Column: Voting not the cure for indifference

There's a lot of chatter right now about voting, especially with one particular statewide ballot initiative coming up for public vote on Nov. 6.

Question 5 proposes to make voter registration an automatic process through the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles.

On the surface, it seems reasonable. Voting, after all, is a right, a civic duty and responsibility of every United States citizen.

All of that is true.

But so this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Don't forget about liberty, the foundation of free choice. This principle holds that individuals should be free from government compulsion to live or behave in certain ways.

Liberty gives us the freedom to choose right from wrong without authority dictating that choice for us. There are obvious exceptions to this, which is why he have criminal laws against behaviors and actions that result in harm to others.

In recent times, however, the United States government — state governments, too — has taken on a more paternal role in which laws are passed for our own good, because individuals cannot be trusted to make good decisions for themselves or others on their own.

A lot of people today appear to believe this, so liberty has suffered.

I understand why.

The presence of apathy, of indifference seems pretty thick in the United States of America these days.

Voter turn-out, though, is not so much the problem as lost interest in the political process is.

Modern voting behavior nationwide has tended to ebb and flow. Nevada has followed suit statewide.

On average, between 50 and 60 percent of the country usually casts ballots during presidential general elections in recent times. Nevada was even higher than the national turn-out in the last election, according to the Nevada Secretary of State's office.

But mid-term and primary election turn-outs, both for the nation and for the Silver State, tend to dip sharply to anywhere from one quarter to two-fifths of the voting population.

Presidential general elections historically seem to draw the most voter activity. Primaries and mid-terms not so much.

What concerns me is the disinterest that many people show toward United States politics. Sure, people vote, and sometimes in near-record numbers, too. But do they really care?

Automatic voter registration is not going to address indifference toward our political process. All it will do is increase the number of registered voters, many of whom may not even turn out to vote anyway because of their disinterest.

Political apathy is a cultural problem, a burden of the People that can only be addressed as one individual to another in our communities.

The solution is cultural change, which must start at the local level and spread. Government can do nothing to make us want to participate.

Question 5 will undoubtedly boost numbers, which makes government look good.

But apathy shall remain, and simply registering people to vote won't change their lack of interest in the process. Many people vote begrudgingly, because they feel they have to.

That's perpetuating disinterest, not dissuading it.

Furthermore, Question 5 takes individual choice out of the equation, something that I'm surprised the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Nevada supports. Liberty, after all, is its middle name.

Currently, individuals have the choice of whether to register or not. I am baffled that anyone eligible to vote would choose not to do so. But it is still their freedom to so choose.

During the American colonial period, the notion of individual liberty was considered absurd by most.

European cultures, dominant throughout much of the Americas at the time, were convinced of the divine rights of monarchs to rule absolutely as paternal (or maternal) authorities over the people.

The Age of Enlightenment, though, was also born during this era. Enlightenment valued liberty, which was achieved through self-control; that is, self-government and self-regulation.

Individuals were regarded as capable of choosing right over wrong, good over bad, even when they had the freedom to choose either. And they should be free to do so from government compulsion.

For many following the Enlightenment in the Americas, liberty was not only perceived as possible, but also practicable. There was belief in the individual to do the right thing by choice.

Question 5 takes a slap at liberty, assuming the individual is not willing to make the right choice, so government makes it for them.

Should the measure pass, I forecast that voter turn-out will continue its usual pattern, and disinterest in the process will progress despite of automatic voter registration.

The problem shall remain, and we will have a new law to go with it, too.

I believe the cure to political apathy is cultural change, but I don't know how to get us there. Indifference, too, is a choice.

But perhaps if people start losing their liberty, they will sit up and take notice.

Mind you, I don't advocate this as any sort of a solution at all. However, I am saying that most people don't take action unless something affects them directly.

Losing freedom can do this. I just hope and pray it never comes to that.

As an alternative, I suggest we focus on changing this culture of indifference and disinterest from within. We won't do that with any laws.

We have to do it ourselves, together, E Pluribus Unum.