Filtering by
- All Subjects: Elections
- Creators: School of Politics and Global Studies
- Member of: Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
- Resource Type: Text
- Status: Published
As one example of the victimhood narrative, ABC News used to run a special called My Extreme Affliction as part of 20/20 until 2012. As the name implies, the specials covered people with disabilities, specifically extreme versions. One 2008 episode on Tourette’s syndrome described Tourette’s like it was some sort of demonic possession. The narrator talked about children who were “prisoners in their own bodies” and a family that was at risk of being “torn apart by Tourette’s.” I have Tourette’s syndrome myself, which made ABC’s special especially uncomfortable to watch. When not wringing their metaphorical hands over the “victims” of disability, many news outlets fall into the “supercrip” narrative. They refer to people as “heroes” who “overcome” their disabilities to achieve something that ranges from impressive to utterly mundane. The main emphasis is on the disability rather than the person who has it. These articles then exploit that disability to make readers feel good. As a person with a disability, I am aware that it impacts my life, but it is not the center of my life. The tics from my Tourette’s syndrome made it difficult to speak to people when I was younger, but even then they did not rule me.
Disability coverage, however, is still incredibly important for promoting acceptance and giving people with disabilities a voice. A little over a fifth of adults in the United States have a disability (CDC: 53 million adults in the US live with a disability), so poor coverage means marginalizing or even excluding a large amount of people. Journalists should try to reach their entire audience. The news helps shape public opinion with the stories it features. Therefore, it should provide visibility for people with disabilities in order to increase acceptance. This is a matter of civil rights. People with disabilities deserve fair and accurate representation.
My personal experience with ABC’s Tourette’s special leads me to believe that the media, especially the news, needs to be more responsible in their reporting. Even the name “My Extreme Affliction” paints a poor picture of what to expect. A show that focuses on sensationalist portrayals in pursuit of views further ostracizes people with disabilities. The emphasis should be on a person and not their condition. The National Center for Disability Journalism tells reporters to “Focus on the person you are interviewing, not the disability” (Tips for interviewing people with disabilities). This people-first approach is the way to improve disability coverage: Treat people with disabilities with the same respect as any other minority group.
The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.
This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.