In the dramatic days following the Republican’s senate-race victory in Massachusetts, politicians have been startled into the reminder that victory is always hard to guarantee. A common nightmare is voter apathy – that terrible high school dream where you’re the most popular kid at school but all your friends forget to vote.
While pundits will talk about vague platforms, poor campaigning and finger-pointing as root causes of voter apathy, science suggests alternative explanations. Investigators James H. Fowler (who collaborates prominently with popular Pfoho housemaster Professor Nicholas Christakis) and Christopher Dawes recently showed in 2008 in two independent studies of fraternal and identical twins that voter turnout may be genetically linked and inheritable.
The reasoning, as in most twin studies, was that if voter apathy were inheritable, then identical twins should have more similar patterns of voting or abstaining than fraternal twins. Examining data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, investigators were able to estimate that genetics dictates some 72 percent of differences in voting turnout. Futhermore, roughly 60 percent of differences in other political activity can be explained by genetic makeup. Other geneticists like Dr. Robert Polmin of Kings College, London, suggest that while the association may be true, the percentages concluded may be too high.
Naturally, each of the scientists concede that the remaining percentages that influence whether a person chooses to vote are gained from environmental cues, suggesting that although politicians may tremble at the idea that voter apathy is genetically engrained, there is still hope for behavioral changes caused by inspiring speeches and attractive ads.
In other words, don’t give up Dems. Just because you did it once doesn’t mean you’re allowed to sit back and expect voters to flock.