This is to express my opinion, perhaps worthy of debate, that the underlying problem of our political system being so poorly run is the voters. Specifically, the fact that the voters consist, to a large degree, of people who do not follow the political process closely enough, and understand the issues well enough, to have an informed opinion about how they should vote. It is primarily for this reason that the political process becomes subverted into a fundraising/special interest contest. All proposed laws that attempt to rectify this situation will ultimately run up against this problem, to some degree.
Most people who are politically oriented, including anyone likely to participate in this debate (should it develop) are not very likely to be influenced by campaign commercials, speeches, photo-ops and the like. The means exists for someone interested to find about enough about a given candidate through more informative sources. If all the voters were of this type, there would be drastically less of these campaign commercials etc. Candidates wouldn’t bother with what is not especially effective. Candidates would be forced to debate the issues. There would not be the need for huge campaign warchests, and there would not be the need to service those who provide the warchests.
But most voters are not of this type. Most voters are too busy worrying about whether this movie star got engaged to that one, and similar concerns, to pay much attention to the issues. These voters are mostly reached and persuaded through the expensive and simpleminded means described above. Therefore our politicians must be expensive and simpleminded in order to survive.
What to do about it? No idea. The idea of some form of test for voter registration is tempting, but my understanding is that it has been shown in the past to be open to corruption. Certainly the recent trend towards encouraging massive voter registration is a bad thing, in my opinion. But I can’t think of anything specific to do about it.
Of course no politician can ever express any sentiment along these lines. To do so would be political suicide. (Imagine what kind campaign commercial that would make).
There’s an old saying from some Smart Guy or other that Democracy is a terrible system, but every other system is worse. Maybe this is just an inherent part of the problem.
If you look at countries with very high voter turnouts, with well educated voters, you find the same problems. There isn’t a country where corporate and special interests don’t have the final say (well maybe Cuba, but who wants to live there). There would still be huge campaign warchests because the canidates would still feel the need to get elected. If there was a canidate who didn’t repreent corporate interests, his oponet would get tons of money.
What you are arguing, is essentially an elitist argument. The people are unfit to govern for themselves. I think that’s bullshit. You’re blaming the victims.
I agree with your most recent post, with the exception of the third sentence.
Regarding your previous post: I agree that the same problems are present regardless of the type of voters who live in that particular district, but I think they are less severe where the voters are more politically active. (I don’t even think education or intelligence are the issue - its how much attention you actually pay to the genuine issues, as opposed to campaign nonsense).
Obviously, candidates would still feel the need to get elected regardless. But the means of getting elected would not be as money oriented. And the money itself would be less effective.
As an example, no amount of money is going to get an oldscratch to vote for a George Bush. No matter how many slick images he may put on his commercials, you will not be swayed, because you are familiar with, and disgree with, his positions on the issues. Many other voters are different.
True. But, I would like to see a selection of votes based on income and education. You’ll find a lot of relatively well educated people voting for Bush or Gore because they see no other options. Or maybe they are wealthy and actually know that their interests will be represented.
I think a good example of voter turnout not changing things is South Africa. I’m not completely up on the subject, so bear with me if my info is a little off. They had something like 94% turnout rates, they kicked out the apartheid government, yet still conditions for most people are worse now than 4 years ago. It isn’t for lack of caring about the issues. I’m sure you’ll see the same in any country with high turnout (anyone have any statistics). Although to be fair, this does come from my view of the state as a tool of the ruling class. Many liberals would disagree with me.
Also the country with the highest voter turnout’s ever, the USSR (they generally had 100% or greater turnout), had a pretty shitty government.
I think part of the problem lies in the enormous and ever-growing levels of bureacracy that voters are expected to learn about. They aren’t just voting for President, after all. They are, on an average ballot in a Presidential election year, voting for the P/VP, a Senator, a Representative, a state senator, a state representative, several dozen judgeships, city council representatives, school boards, local referenda, state referenda, bond issues, and several other categories. There are also often much more than two candidates for each position, including the P/VP. Not everyone has the time or resources to research everything on which they are expected to vote.
To clarify, high voter tiurnout is not the answer, it is part of the problem. In the countries that you describe, people voted out of a sense of civic duty and priviledge; they were not necessarily any more familiar with the issues that affected their lives than the population is here. My point is that an election where the electorate consisted of, say, SDMB posters, would be far more high-minded and less corrupt than an election conducted among the population at large.
Most voters are too busy worrying about putting food on the table and looking after their kids to be able to pay much attention to the issues–or lack thereof. Political acumen requires an investment of time and energy which most working people just can’t give.
Good thing indeed. Here’s a poser for you: if most politicians owe their allegiance to lobbyists and large corporations–to keep the campaign funds flowing, you see–then who’s the more morally bankrupt of the two? The corporations, who give money to influence the political process; or the politicians, who sell out their constituencies by accepting that money?
Oh, moral judgement ain’t up to me, but if I had to take a stab at it, I’d say that unless one held a gun to the other one’s head, they are equally slime.
Also, IzzyR. I see your point but, also don’t see it as a solution. Who’s to say that a minority of “well-educated” people will have the interests of the majority at heart. There have been numerous instances where voting restrictions were implimented, the France of Bonaparte the third comes to mind, and they definetly did not help for a better government.
Personally I like Bill Maher’s suggestion that politicians should wear corporate trademarks on their suits much like race car drivers and athletes. We all know these guys have been bought and paid for. It would be nice to know exactly who sponsors an individual politician’s ideas right up front.
As for the voting pool I have to go with “The masses are asses” sentiment.
Gov. Jesse Ventura commented that most voters look at an election as a horse race. They don’t vote according to their political convictions but simply try to elect the guy that is most likely to win the race. You should not vote to pick the winner but to express your beliefs. Even if your candidate looses, the overall numbers will show the winning politician where the country’s sentiments truelly lay.
I have a friend from Australia who was telling me about their system. Apparently, you are required to vote, in the sense that if you don’t they take something like $25 out of your tax return. Enough to encourage people to get off their asses, but not enough to be onerous if you can’t vote or want to protest by not voting (a concept I’ve never really understood). My friend asserts that while this doesn’t solve all the problems, it does have the effect that vocal minority groups (like the Christian right) and single-issue voters (say, pro/anti abortion zealots) tend to wield less power. They have to convince the public at large of their views, rather than just turn out to vote themselves and count on voter apathy to make their voice louder by comparison. So these groups tend to be more attenuated in Australia than the U.S. Makes sense. I know this doesn’t solve the broader issue you raised, Izzy, but it is one good effect of high voter turnouts.
I’m not sure I disagree in principle in IzzyR’s argument that specialists have greater political insight, although I think he underestimates the common citizen. The problem is how you decide in practice who can and can’t vote. Why exactly should you, for instance, IzzyR, be allowed to vote? How have you proven yourself worthy? By
Education?
Occupation?
IQ?
Income?
I’ve noticed elitist arguments tend to be advanced by people to whom it is obvious that they, themselves would be in the elite. This is not always obvious to others! How exactly do you (or any of us) stand out from the unwashed masses of idiots whose voting privileges are so problematic?
[non-serious, facetious suggestion] Another thought arises. All these qualities listed above occur on a scale. Should the voting be weighted, as well? A Ph.D. could count more than a mere bachelor’s, for instance, or a managerial vote be weighted higher than an ordinary employee. Obviously, an IQ of 150 is worth one and a half the votes of someone with an IQ of only 100. If we went by income, you could secure a raise just by mirroring your boss’ political views - great![/non-serious, facetious suggestion]
I don’t really see any solutions, as I noted in the OP (note to APB9999). Actually, I would imagine that if the more interested people were more or less evenly distributed throughout society (not a given, I’ll grant) then everyone’s interests and all viewpoints would still be represented.
But to actually enshrine such a policy would lend itself to abuse. I am under the impression that voter tests were once used down south to disenfranchise black people.
But I do think that the idea of encouraging people to vote has negative reprecussions.
BTW, I disagree with the assertion of several posters that the politicians and corporations are morally bankrupt or slime. Its not people that corrupt the system; it’s the system that corrupts the people. A rare person is of such exceptional moral character that they will resist the pressure, but most normal people, even if sincere and well meaning, eventually succumb to the realities of political life.
The answer in my mind is quite obvious. No individuals vote is going to influence the election. So why should any individual spend an inordinate amount of time researching the issues, making up pro/con lists for each candidate, etc. when in the end it won’t matter, especially in national elections. This is a positive explanation, not a normative.
So you could argue that those who take the time should be the only one’s allowed to vote, but who is to say what is the appropriate amount of political acumen? Or more appriately, how much time? If I am a scientist on the verge of finding a cure for cancer, should I be spending time learning about the candidates? An extreme example, I understand, but the point is, is there much gained from the country’s resources being geared toward individuals being more politcally saavy? Who best to decide how much time and effort is needed then the individual themself?
I agree with you on this one too, although probably for different reasons than you do.
BTW, has anyone seen “The Dead Zone”. I’ll never watch the West Wing with the same eyes again. Sorry that just popped into my mind.
I think you raise a very good point here. One that needs to be addressed. It’s the false assumption of many liberals, that the problem with society is we have the wrong person holding the leash. Get the right person (Nader) and everything will be worked out. This displays a gross historical ignorance, but whatever. You’re point on the system being corrupt is key. That is why you can’t have a solution under conventional democracy. Although I do still think that most major politicians are slime, and same with corporate lobbyists.
