If one were to believe the hype, nothing less than the fate the civilized world is riding on the results of the upcoming midterm elections. American-style democracy, we're told, will step in and sort things out. Reminds me of T.S. Eliot: "An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry." Not everyone is fooled, of course. "I think it is dangerous to confuse the idea of democracy with elections," says Indian novelist, Arundhati Roy. "Just because you have elections doesn't mean you're a democratic country."
Questioning America's status as a democracy is typically considered nothing short of blasphemy in polite circles but if next month's elections are so fair and free, why are there so many questions about how votes are ultimately counted? Then again, the vote count issue would be a lot more pertinent if we had worthwhile candidates running in races in which the outcome was actually in doubt.
In the 2004 primary races, 65 percent of the congressional races were uncontested and 58 percent of incumbent Senators who ran were unopposed. In addition, the candidate who raised the most money won 91 percent of those races. Speaking of money, how can U.S. elections be deemed truly democratic when only "major" candidates are allowed to participate in televised debates and only those accepting inordinate amounts of cash from wealthy/corporate donors are considered "major" candidates?
Even if vote counting was made foolproof, debates were open to all, and genuine campaign finance reform was enacted, you'd still have to address the fact that Americans are more likely to vote for the next American Idol than their next congressional representative. The 2004 election saw the highest voter turnout since 1968 yet that was still only 60 percent of eligible voters.
Needless to say, the election-related issues discussed above may explain some of this ballot box apathy but, on a more practical level, have you ever wondered why the voting is held on a Tuesday instead of over a full weekend? Turnout is bound to be higher over a Friday-Saturday-Sunday period. Also, a "none of the above" option would not only allow disgruntled voters to express their disdain with the alleged two-party system but also might create a run-off election or even a new set of candidates. In 2000, 50,455,739 voted for George W. Bush; 50,996,039 for Al Gore; and 2,781,109 for Ralph Nader (the rest were scattered over a handful of other candidates). In 2000, there were 195,027,520 eligible voters in America; 156,421,311 were registered, but only 110,604,647 hit the polling booths. That's 56.7% of eligible voters participating. Almost 85 million more Americans could have voted in the 2000 presidential election...but instead they opted out. 85 million.
In the end, of course, terms like "democracy" mean far less than the actions performed in their name. Mahatma Gandhi asked: "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" If those 85 million stay-at-home voters decided to show up and say "no" to the current system and "yes" to true democracy, we'd finally have something to justify the election hype.
your article seems all about people not getting out to vote is what is destroying democracy but you miss the big point.We have had 2 fraudulent presidential elections and this is beyond debate anymore.The Republicans have their crooked electronic voting machines in place.There have been scores of articles on how easy it is to hack these machines and how many ways it can be done.polls which in the past were seldom wrong are never right.Most of these polls now show Democrats winning to give them a majority.I plan on voting this one more election but if Reppublicans win once more despite polls,despite their unpopularity i know the system is hopelessly corrupt and a different action is needed not just geting people to the polls.In all the south american dictatorships people went to the polls,the same can be said of former communist Russia.voting by itself does nothing if the process is corrupt and your votes don"t count.
by
liberalsrock (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 8, 2006 at 9:09:12 AM
Voter Consent Laws - None of the Above Ballot Option
I agree with your suggestion to put "None of the Above" on the ballot. It is a basic democratic principle that government must obtain the consent of the governed. Clearly all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent. And elections, whether ballot questions or elections to office, are the most fundamental method by which voters give their consent.
While voters can withhold their consent when voting on questions by voting no, currently voters are unable to withhold their consent to elections to office. We should consider enacting a Voter Consent law, giving voters the ballot option to withhold their consent to an election to office by requiring a votable line "None of the Above" (NOTA) at the end of the candidate list for each office. By voting for that line instead of a candidate, the voter indicates none of the listed candidates is acceptable and instead votes to hold a new election, with new candidates, to fill that office. If NOTA wins, a new by-election is called fill such offices. While NOTA by-elections are an expense, they would not occur unless voters voted to hold them, and they are likely to be less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.
With a NOTA ballot option, voters make the final decision about the choices political parties made, rather than those parties deciding the final choices voters can make. Even candidates running unopposed would have to obtain voter consent to be elected. And all political parties would know their selected candidates must face NOTA as well as any opponent, reducing the incentives for negative campaigning and "lesser evil" candidates. Buying "access" to candidates or determining election outcomes with contributions becomes a more uncertain enterprise. Surely a Voter Consent law will not solve all the problems with democratically governing ourselves; however, it seems to me a reasonable, fair, and workable improvement, returning some power to "We the People", from whom our constitution draws its legitimacy, and taking some power from political parties and corporations, whom our constitution never mentions.
As for voters who now stay away, or do not vote for any candidate for an office, because of dissatisfaction with all candidates, I suggest voting and writing-in "None of the Above" as a clear way to withhold consent as well as to call for enactment of a Voter Consent law.
by
William White (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 78 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 9, 2006 at 2:37:36 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
