Consider this statement:

A good citizen votes in every election.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks: Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a good citizen might not vote in every election. Discuss what you think determines whether a good citizen votes in every election.


A timed response to this statement is given below. Detailed commentary on this and other essays can be found in The Berkeley Review's Writing Sample  review book.


    Let us consider a good citizen to be someone who does more than merely obey all laws and causes no offense to others, but who also contributes to the common good of society by organizing civic groups, for example, or by giving time and money to charities. Voting contributes to the common good. It is participation in the decision-making process that creates our laws and elects our government officials. The passive, law-abiding aspect of good citizenship and the active, social-involvement aspect of it together reflect an ideal that exceeds the legal definition of being a natural-born or naturalized citizen. Some people, in fact, might be called "good citizens" even when they are legally not citizens at all, because their public behavior marks them so obviously as good neighbors and assets to their community.

    Clearly, then, saying "a good citizen votes in every election" does not mean that voting in every election is a special kind of behavior which by itself automatically confers the label of "good citizen" on any individual who performs it. That is, it cannot be true that if one votes in every election, then by definition one is a good citizen, because it is possible to imagine individuals of a strikingly uncharitable or non-law-abiding character who might still make it to the polls every election without fail (perhaps because of some compulsive personality trait). Instead, it seems more reasonable to read this statement as saying the reverse: If one is a good citizen, then one will very likely demonstrate that innate goodness by voting in every election, among other worthy deeds one might do that contribute to the public welfare.

    When might a good citizen not vote? Many examples suggest themselves: The elderly immigrant who never became a naturalized citizen, but who raises funds for the local library. The 16-year-old candy-striper hospital volunteer who is too young to vote (and many candidates win their elections with the help of youthful campaigners not old enough to cast a ballot for them). The paroled felon who coaches late-night basketball games to keep kids in his old neighborhood off the streets and out of the crack wars that sent him to jail. The individual who--deprived of even a write-in protest option--expresses disgust with a field of ineffective or corrupt candidates by refusing to give any of them their voter's seal of approval. What about the citizen who has made every effort to educate themselves about the candidates and issues in an upcoming election, but who still feels so confused that they fear they might make the wrong choices in the voting booth, causing more harm than good? Some good citizens can't read, and some are mentally disabled. Finally, there is the good citizen who usually does vote, but who suddenly falls ill on election day, too late to file for an absentee ballot.

    In each case just described, some obstacle prevents the individual from voting: A legal limitation arising from citizenship status, or age, or paroled criminal status; a limitation of conscience or inadequate knowledge; a physical limitation. To the extent that a good citizen is free from such limitations and able to participate, we find that generally they do vote in every election, or at least in most of them, because it is in their nature to contribute willingly and regularly to the common good.



HOME | WHO | WHERE | MCAT | TBR | HOME-STUDY

©2009 The Berkeley Review