Some Thoughts on Elections and Democracy

[Guest fountainhall]

\We’ve just witnessed the greatest country on earth electing its President, a country which espouses democratic one-man-one-vote values. Yet, I have a few - no doubt contentious - thoughts.

 

1. 24 hours after the winner has been announced, millions of votes have still not been counted.

 

2. Some voting booths had machines which, when you punched one candidate’s name, registered a vote for the other.

 

3. As has often been said, the USA has adapted the democratic process to its own situation with the electoral college system. Yet, this is not one-man-one-vote. Presidents have got elected with a minority of the overall votes cast.

 

4. The democratic process is undermined since the ability to stand for office is wholly dependent on having unreal (obscene?) amounts cash placed in almost any manner at a candidate’s disposal.

 

5. A two-party system is inevitably adversarial resulting in a general reduction of the election process to the lowest common denominator. Essentially it boils down to an “I say, you say” squabble.

 

6. Even after a President has been duly elected after a majority, the opposing party sees no obligation to bow to the will of the majority of the people, continuing to assert its right to fight for the platform on which its members were elected. If, as we saw in the last couple of years, there is no way to build consensus, you end up with gridlock.

 

7. You also end up with the crazies screaming that the voting was all rigged. Donald Trump’s tweets in the last 24 hours have him elected crazy-in-chief in my book:

 

* “We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty.”

* “Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.”

* “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”

* “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

* “Hopefully the House of Representatives can hold our country together for four more years...stay strong and never give up!”

 

The picture this paints to the outside world is hardly one of a smooth democratic process. It is one of money and special interests controlling political puppets (how much did Sheldon Adelson shovel into first Gingrich and then Romney’s super pacs? According to Forbes magazine, US$53 million at the last count! All down the drain, but a mere trifle for a man with his wealth). Was it worth it?

 

Karl Rove’s Crossroads organization pumped $325 million of other people’s money into Romney’s campaign.

 

"Crossroads, which you helped found, spent - what? - $325 million, and we've ended up with the same president, the same Democratic majority in the Senate and the same Republican majority in the House. Was it worth it?" Chris Wallace asked Rove on Fox News about an hour after most media had called the race for Obama.

 

"Yeah," Rove responded. "Look, if groups like Crossroads were not active, this race would have been over a long time ago.”

 

Ah! Where would we be without ‘spin’!

 

Laos

 

What’s a poor third world country like Laos doing in a post about democracy in action in the USA? Well, last night on the History Channel there was a programme “The Most Secret Place on Earth (The CIA Covert War in Laos)” about the illegal war started by President Kennedy without any authorization from Congress against the communist Pathet Lao in 1962, a war that continued covertly under Johnson and Nixon.

 

Let’s forget for the moment that the US dropped more bombs on the tiny country of Laos than it did on both Germany and Japan combined in World War 2, thereby making Laos the most heavily bombed country on the planet - ever.

 

Interviewed for the programme was James Lilley, a former ambassador to China. Lilley started his career with the CIA when he was posted to Laos. Like most CIA in the country, he was based close to the Long Chieng airfield, the busiest airfield in the world at that time with more than 400 daily flights during daylight hours. Yet this airfield was on no map and only those in the know were aware of it - “the most secret place on earth”. He talked with some anguish about the efforts made to introduce democracy into the non-communist controlled parts of the country. He mentioned all the time and effort taken to introduce democratic values and free-and-fair elections at village and national level. He then put his head in his hands and said: “It didn’t work. They didn’t want democracy. How do you introduce democracy in such a country?”

 

50 years down the road, it’s still an interesting question. How do you introduce democracy – if, and I know it’s a big if, the majority of the people, for whatever reason, don’t want it? How can the west expect countries which have had absolute monarchies or a tribal system or whatever for millennia to embrace democracy in one fell swoop, when it took those same western countries many centuries to develop and evolve democratic institutions and only then to introduce the concept of universal suffrage?

 

And what example does the democratic system in the USA offer to such countries? Is Trump even partially correct? Is “the world” indeed laughing at the USA?

 

Just thoughts.

[TotallyOz]

Our election process is a mess. No one seems willing to tackle this issue. I had hoped that Romney would win the popular vote and Obama the election and thus pissing off 1/2 the people and perhaps getting rid of the electoral college. It didn't happen.

 

Many of our concerns are mine as well and I will never understand why so few people care to do anything about the problems.

[Bob]

While you raise some notions I'd partly agree with, I do believe you tend to paint a bleaker picture regarding some matters than what's true reality.

 

With respect to various voting machines, I have no doubt that out of 100+ million votes, thousands likely are in error (but, so what, that's miniscule).

 

Millions of votes aren't counted 24 hours later? I suppose that's possible somewhere but I'm not sure where that might be. Not in my home state of Michigan (where there maybe be a thousand or two votes not counted as yet as they wait review); however, that's a small minority of the more than 4.5 million votes cast in Michigan and, of course, it would not make any difference with the result. I suppose we could have a state where the final result in that state could be in doubt (Florida again?) but, again, it makes no difference how that turns out to the ultimate outcome.

 

Money has definitely corrupted the system especially since the Supreme Court ruled there are no limits for PACS. I hope Obama gets a chance to replace one of the right-wing justices in the next 4 years and then maybe there can be another review of the campaign finance laws Congress enacted but the Supreme Court partially tossed out.

 

Yea, the whole process is messy and it always has been. But, ultimately, it's worked fairly well (not perfectly) for 220+ years. That's not too bad.

 

No comment on the "Laos" issue you raised - not because I don't agree with the concept that the bombing should never have happened (just like the Vietnam war should have never happened) - but I do award you the non-sequitur award of the week for straying there.

[Guest fountainhall]

No comment on the "Laos" issue you raised . . . but I do award you the non-sequitur award of the week for straying there.

 

Does that mean I won some more M&Ms?

 

I guess the link was somewhat tenuous, but it was still about democracy and elections and the problems which arise when one nation tries to impose its ideas of democracy on another.

[ChristianPFC]

\We’ve just witnessed the greatest country on earth electing its President,

 

You mean the largest economy on earth or the country that has the highest military expenses or the highest number of prisoners (relative to population)?

 

* “Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.”

 

I'm laughing at him. (Actually it's not funny. We are lucky people like him do not have absolute power.)

 

“It didn’t work. They didn’t want democracy. How do you introduce democracy in such a country?”

 

Fortunately, times where Europeans tried to introduce Christianity to other cultures are over. Maybe those in power realize that trying to introduce democracy is futile for some cultures.

[Bob]

Does that mean I won some more M&Ms?

 

Well, I was thinking of some more S&Ms delivered, of course, by Khun Thaiworthy in his best leather gear. Come to think of it, Khun TW could do the US a favor by spanking several Republicans until they're able to spell the word "compromise."

 

Seriously, I think it's probably beyond reality to think one can erase most of the nastiness in the US elections and its politics, at least in the short term. It would be nice, though, if somehow we could limit the electioneering to a 4-6 month time period immediately prior to a given election. That ought to give the politicians a bit more time to actually get something done!

 

Alternatively, electing a President for only one 6 or 8 year term might also help. And, importantly, change the terms for all senators and congressmen to a single (or even multiple) 6-year terms. As it is for the House now (2-year terms), those bastards are actually attending fund raisers prior to the time they even enter office! A whole lot has to change before it's going to get much better.

[Guest fountainhall]

You mean the largest economy on earth or the country that has the highest military expenses . . .

 

Point taken. I was basically repeating what I've heard so much in the last few weeks. I guess I've become indoctrinated!

 

Re Khun Bob's points on the election process, the key ones, I believe, are placing firm limits on how much candidates can spend and reducing the period during which electioneering can take place. But why make it even as long as 4 months? In the UK, the Prime Minister has the right to name the election date at any time within the government's 5-year term (unless he has lost a parliamentary vote of confidence). The election then takes place within about a month. That really concentrates minds and limits costs.

 

The problem I suppose is that in the UK the parties have leaders in place when an election is called. In the US, because it's an election for a President rather than a government, either one or both parties are essentially leaderless until the endless primary process is over. That always surprises me if only because the party that loses is effectively leaderless for more than 3 1/2 years. Would it not be far simpler and more effective for the losing party immediately to go through the primary process so that its leader/presidential candidate is in place a good 3 1/2 years before the next election?

[Guest thaiworthy]

Well, I was thinking of some more S&Ms delivered, of course, by Khun Thaiworthy in his best leather gear. Come to think of it, Khun TW could do the US a favor by spanking several Republicans until they're able to spell the word "compromise."

 

I tried this before on Traveler Jim. It didn't work. All he got out of it was a big, red butt.

[Guest fountainhall]

Thinking over my OP, I guess my basic points were -

 

1. The USA continuously table thumps about the need for one-man-one-vote. But when it comes to making that vote count, the electoral college partly denies that to US citizens.

 

2. The USA continuously table thumps about the need for free and fair elections. How can any election be free and fair when it is bankrolled to the tune of US$2 billion+? What example is that to other countries?

 

3. Instead of table thumping about the need for democracy in other countries, would the US (and other western governments) not see their efforts bear more fruit if they first helped fund grass roots democracy institutions rather than an immediate jump from a totally undemocratic system to a fully democratic one?

[Guest]

There are a number of flaws with democracy.

1 Continuous pressure on politicians to take short term measures so that they can get re-elected. The unintended consequence seems to be massive budget deficits in most of the large developed economies. These are irresponsible and unsustainable.

2 Politicians with no management experience, no business sense whatsoever and no ability to allocate capital are suddenly put in charge of about 40% of state gdp (typically). That's damaging to the economy.

3 Voters who make no contribution to the economy and have no intention of ever doing so get to vote. Even though they're voting on how to spend other peoples money. That's immoral.