Once again its election season – as if it ever isn’t election season – and questions swirl around candidates like the growing fall leaves. But there is a more, dare I use the pun, primary issue to be addressed: just how democratic are we? Typically these lines of argument come from two sources: Iran and socialists. I am neither Iranian nor am I a socialist. I do, however, recognize the flaws of our system.
These system flaws are not so much due to the procedural system, i.e. our mode of Republican representation, but rather the larger system interplay of parties, the media, and campaign election law. Currently in Russia the television media will only cover Putin’s party, giving only minimal or negative details of other parties. We rightly decry this as anti-democratic. What about our own media? The newspaper here at Miami University did an interesting little study of the primary debates – not even down to two candidates here – and found mainstream candidates received five times or more speaking time. Pollster.com notes this make-up of words spoken by candidates: “1,872 - Senator Obama; 1,766 - Senator Clinton; 1,518 - Senator Edwards; 1,281 - Governor Richardson; 1,180 - Representative Kucinich; 961 - Senator Biden; 912 - Senator Dodd; 753 - Senator Gravel.” How representative is that? And if the argument is they should receive more time because they are “mainstream” candidates, does that not beg the possibility that they are mainstream candidates because of the special treatment?
But our media is ‘free’ the argument goes, Russia Putin controls it. Does that not just make it all the more suspect? In Russia to become one-sided it requires overt control. Our media just plays the ploy willingly. They don’t even take the bribe! Whose is really worse? Our entire system is biased towards specific candidates chosen, not by any public input, but rather the perception of public input created by political and media elites. Polls do not pick front runners, media framing artificially creates poll numbers. The causal arrow is pointing the wrong way. Yet, we blindly assume that not to jump on the poll boat is to ‘throw away’ a vote. Nader made a worthwhile observation in 2000. He noted when Bush receives a lot of votes no one argues he “stole” them from Gore. But when he, Nader, gets votes, he must have ‘stolen’ them from Gore. The assumption is that the two parties ‘own’ the votes and anyone else who gets them is stealing private property.
What is the solution? Vote in primaries. Vote against mainstream candidates. Those will be nice individual protests, but what is needed is a systemwide change. As long as the system is set up to bias one, or in our case two, parties, they will continue to win. It isn’t only in Russia where they “fairly steal elections.”
2 comments:
I agree, as you might guess, except for one small point. I am more and more convinced that we would be better off with a legislature chosen by lot from those willing to serve. They could elect the executive, and the rest work much as the Constitution was originally set up.
Something like that seems to be the only way to eliminate the problem you point out.
Post a Comment