Erich Mattei’s article, “‘Louisiana Voters Choose None of the Above,'” expresses some provocative viewpoints that are ultimately unsubstantiated and uninformed. First, he addresses the notion of being automatically bound to the U.S. constitution. It is true that no citizen signs a “constitutional contract”; however, having the idea of a such a contract demonstrates a misunderstanding of the principles upon which it was written. Corporations and the “market,” while integral parts of America, are secondary in importance to the overriding, defining, and non-coercive principles of the nation, which must be in place first in order to avoid a system of tyranny through outright market coercion and corporate rule. To believe otherwise is to believe in a form of totalitarianism, which doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of Marxism, but, ironically, can manifest itself indirectly in other extremist ideologies such as the contradictory “anarcho-capitalism.” The procedures, rights, and liberties contained in the constitution, such as voting, are ultimately transcendent of the economic paradigm (or any specific paradigm), and are not equal in value and nature with the literal economic phenomena of signed contracts and transactions. Second, the notion that theoretical truths do not need empirical evidence to be proven is intellectually dishonest. It is indistinguishable from the shallow dogmatism of such a viewpoint as religious fundamentalism. It leads me to another critique of Mattei’s article, namely his assertion that voter apathy is a myth. An empirical observation of the political scene requires one to suspend his political ideology in order to be objective. The stats that Mattei uses reveal that voter apathy is indeed alive and well, but not because, as he says, there is widespread fear of the state. Anyone who observed the Louisiana gubernatorial race would know the main reason for low voter turnout was that people believed that the two candidates were uninspiring, too centrist, and similar in their views. Mattei’s assumption that voters stayed home because they share the same libertarian government phobia as he is an inaccurate projection. Many people, for instance, felt that the Democratic candidate was not left-wing enough for their liking. An empirical look at history also reveals the desire for a “third party” amongst many usual non-voters, who showed strong interest in alternative candidates such as Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. Ultimately, Mattei’s article mistakenly says that a fear of the state is behind low voter turnout. In actuality, however, the causes are a lack of inspiring candidates, a lack of candidate choices, and simple laziness on behalf of many non-voters.

Jason Lafon psychology senior