Making Sausage: Experiencing the Mechanics of Democracy

• In Event: Applied and in the Field Active Learning

Abstract

This paper sits at the intersection of corrosive attacks on democracy—particularly in the form of unsubstantiated but repetitious claims of massive voter fraud—and innovations in education—especially under the rubric of High Impact Practices, such as experiential learning.

This paper presents four experiential learning activities that can be employed to expose and engage undergraduate students with the nuts and bolts of the mechanics of operating a democracy. Each of the four activities bring students in to first hand contact with elements of the democratic “operation”—the process of safeguarding the integrity of the voting system, the time-honored expectation that candidates must confront each other in public debate (even if the efficacy of the process has been challenged), the actual act by a community to vote, and the process of reporting and making sense of the vote as the results unfold.

Each activity—experiencing voting day preparation; participating in a debate watch; conducting exit polling; and producing and distribution the news as results are announced—has similar pedagogical elements. All should be set within a two-fold context. The first element is studying an election worthy of attention. The 2024 US Presidential Election, even in jurisdiction that the outcome moot, is such an election. Students will not just witness the election, they will be deep in the process. The second element is the theoretical elements, in the structure of an educational enterprise—an American government or political parties or elections class—which provide theoretical and analytical structure.

Each activity is experiential, so should involve best-practices of experiential education: front-loading of information and expectations; in several instances, training (tips on how to observe behavior) or behavioral expectations (do’s and don’ts, public etiquette); and post-experience reflection, such a metacognitive essay.

Three of the activities can (I argue, “should”) involve the practice of political science through the application of social science research methods. These include field experiment, pre-test/post-tests, qualitative research (such as focus groups or interviews), surveying or polling, field observation (anthropological or journalistic), news reporting and analysis.

I. Experiencing the election process preparation
This activity involves meeting with those responsible for managing the voting process—generally an “election authority.” A second activity is to observe or actually participate in training of election judges, poll workers, and others responsible to administering the actual vote.

II. Debate Watch
This is more than just getting a class together to watch and talk about a debate. The Debate Watch is a formal activities, held in an auditorium or large lecture hall, with institutional sponsorship and publicity—for both the student body and the local community. The goal is to attract a sufficient sample size and conduct a pre-test/post-test! Make it an event.


III. Exit polling
Students conducted exit polling. Do not ask voters who they voted for—the local election authority will have the vote results faster than you can process your results. Aim to test theory, perhaps generated out of an elections or political parties course. Students will live through voting process and spend several hours with “the real voters.”

IV. Election night reporting
Organize, at least for a few hours, live broadcast (Internet or YouTube channel) of results of the election. The students will find their best (fastest yet most accurate sources among networks and websites)—write stories, read or ad lib them on air. Interweave pre-packaged interviews, class panels, synopses of class research papers, etc. This can be expanded or contracted based on resources. It is real time data collection and analysis, under pressure, using knowledge and insights gained over the semester.

The Political Science Department, in cooperation with other units of the College and external organizations (such as local election authorities and political parties) have been doing combinations of these activities since 1990. Most of the activities have been subjected to some form of assessment—both quantitative and qualitative. While assessments reveal mixed results in change in substantive knowledge (mastery of theory, for example), the assessments uniformly reveal leaps in enthusiasm, relevance to personal lives, and expectations of commitment to civic engagement. The increase in enthusiasm appears for both engagement in the mechanic of the democratic process (voting, participating in the voting process, participating in government), and for the relevance of social science methods.

Author

• John W. Williams, Principia College