Sunspace, here are some of my specific comments:
“No matter how hard Bill Clinton and the American media try to hold up the absence of riots in the streets as a triumph of American democracy, the picture is not pretty.”
No, it isn’t; however, Clinton is quite right – there has been no violence, any hysteria is confined to the news media and the partisans of both sides and said sides are going to court to try to resolve things in a legal manner. To me, that is not the picture of a “banana republic,” but of a nation committed to democracy. I would also point out the purpose of democratic elections is to determine a nation’s leaders, not please the media and other countries.
“Already corrupted by big money, American politics is now enmeshed in hardball partisan bickering, overzealous litigation and that most American of modern malaises, a round-the-clock national TV soap opera that stops only for the crass commercial needs of ad breaks.”
Big money has corrupted the system, but part of the reason stems from the fact that both parties must raise huge sums of money to pay for TV advertising. The U.S. media covers the elections less today than at any other time in history (source: James Fallows’ How the Media Undermines Democracy), but charges exorbitant fees for election advertising; then its commentators whine about special interests and big money corrupting the process. As for hardball partisan bickering, this has been a characteristic of American politics almost since the inception of the public. The country voted in Jefferson only because Alexander Hamilton convinced the House of Representatives that Jefferson was a lesser evil than Aaron Burr. What some of the northern papers and politicians had to say about Abe Lincoln was as harsh as Southern propaganda. Also, this columnist should read up on the Van Buren-Harrison and Kennedy-Nixon races sometime. As for the comment about litigation: sad but true, but what can one expect from the country that has the most lawyers in the world. As for the remark about the national TV soap opera, the media commentators and politicans may be working themselves up into a frenzy, but in my state of Indiana, people are going about their business and waiting quietly for the results.
“The whole scene has a decidedly Third World aura to it, featuring dynastic politics, questionable counting of ballots, and a refusal by the losers to concede defeat gracefully.”
Other than the Bushes and Kennedys, I am aware of no dynasties operating on the national scene today. Even the Bushes and Kennedys have had to go out and formulate ideas that make them attractive to the voters of their states. I also do not think that a handful of wives succeeding their husbands in Congress constitutes dynastic politics. In most cases, these women have played major roles in their husbands’ campaigns, they are generally known to and trusted by their parties, and they usually have a pretty good grasp of the issues.
“Whereas the Canadian national election is organized and supervised by a federal election commission - independent, non-partisan and neutral - the American presidential and congressional elections are left in partisan hands in 50 states. They, in turn, generally leave it to the counties, as in Florida, where 65 municipal jurisdictions held 65 mini-elections last week.”
The Constitution specifically states that each state may conduct elections however it sees fits. The USA isn’t going to have a national election board without a Constitutional amendment. The states, in turn, leave it to the counties, and that system usually works pretty well. Usually. Granted, our voting machinery is archaic in many districts, but it produced uncontested elections in about 90 percent of the states. I also think a comment by the Canadian writer Michael Slade (a pen name for a team of lawyers) applies: If the Canadian system is better than the American system in some respects, it is because Canada had our system to use as a model, and several decades in which to watch us operate that system. Canada and other democracies may not want to admit it, but they have had a chance to learn both from American successes and from American failures.
“Different states handle disputed ballots differently. The most bizarre arguments surround the punch card ballots featuring a metal stylus that can indent but not perforate. Such local anarchy - a harbinger, perhaps, of things to come under a decentralized Stockwell Day government - was inevitable.”
I don’t find this to be an indication of anarchy, but rather a result of the USA’s federalist system. That system usually works fairly well, and the 2000 election is the first in 112 years to produce this kind of result.
“National elections cannot be a priority at the local level where resources go to sewer lines, the dog pound, the rodeo arena, and lower taxes for the self-centred urban middle class.”
I can’t speak for other states, but it has been my observation that most local election officials in Indiana take elections seriously and try to do the best job possible.
“The problem may go even deeper. After all, civic sense in Canada even at the local level seems high enough for, say, the city of Toronto to invest in a $13.5 million voting system that lost not a single ballot Monday night.”
Goodie for Toronto.
“Only 50 per cent turn out to vote.”
Yes, but this country has no laws requiring people to vote. I also think that much of Americans’ cynicism about the political process results not from the antics of the politicians, but from the piss-poor way the American news media covers issues and elections.
“The illiterate of South Africa manage better. More than 90 per cent turned out in last year’s election and voted more properly.”
I would suggest that South Africans had far more serious matters to resolve than Americans.
“In India, with the world’s largest electorate at 620 million, the election commission dispatches ballots on elephants, camels and mules to remote areas - and gets them back and counts them faster than the folks in the compact counties of Florida.”
It seems to escape this bozo’s notice that the delay in Florida stems from recounting the ballots and getting in all the overseas ballots, not the original count. Which is more important for an election: speed or accuracy?
"As a German daily wrote last week: The American voters are the ``most self-absorbed and least politically interested people, electing the most powerful person in the world.’’
Probably true, but again a major reason for this is a corrupt, profit-hungry, ignorant media.
“Unlike in Canada where a dead candidate means the cancellation of the vote in that riding, a dead Democrat in Missouri got elected. His wife was happy to oblige and take his seat, as in the Third World where widows, daughters or sons walk into dynastic shoes right after the funeral.”
Personally, I like dead people serving in Congress; they can’t vote and can’t initiate legislation. We need to elect a few more corpses. As for the dynastic shoes remark, does this columnist present any proof that those people were bad for their countries?
“In the Third World, losers of elections dispatch thugs to beat up opponents, and unleash rented crowds into the streets to destabilize government. In America, they are hiring lawyers to pummel opponents in crowded courtrooms. And the Republican and Democratic parties are sending out loyal troops to wave placards to TV cameras and mouth the latest propaganda lines from the headquarters.”
This comment is idiotic unless one believes violence is preferable to litigation.
“Ralph Nader, a man of lifelong principles who advanced issues that neither of the two old-line parties would - on environment, election financing, etc. - was booed off the stage as a nuisance, and denied a dime by the monied who had already picked their horses.”
Ralph Nader may be beloved by the leftists in the media, but I think there has been a fair amount of evidence presented that his principles aren’t unblemished.
“The nation that lectures the world on democracy, and dispatches the likes of Jimmy Carter to monitor elections abroad, cannot seem to manage democracy’s most basic exercise. Jimmy should stay home.”
I actually agree with him on this one. However, I would point out that when large numbers of Americans, including myself, suggest this country not meddle in foreign affairs beyond protecting its own interests, we are routinely damned as isolationists. I find it hypocritical that Canada and the democracies of Europe beseech us to intervene in hellholes like Kosovo, Bosnia and Rwanda – countries that present absolutely no threat to the U.S. and where we have no strategic interests – but then criticize our methods when we take action. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
“As for us, we should pray that our rudderless neighbours find their North Star. And we should thank our lucky stars for who we are and where we live.” If an American wrote that, she would be accused of being a simple-minded, jingoist super-patriot who probably wants to bring back slavery and concentration camps.
