Longer Or Shorter?
Dysfunctional governance remains a roadblock to problem-solving because of those who don’t vote
When it comes to elections, the U.S. has — as with so many things — turned something of importance into an unfortunate distortion. What lasts for a few weeks or months elsewhere is now close to a two-year circus of absurdity here. Demonstrating the ineptitude and cluelessness of too many citizens, seemingly anyone can attract the bottom 20+ percent of voters no matter how incompetent and unqualified the candidates may be. Nothing these candidates say, no matter how absurd and/or utterly false, seems to bother those with the lowest expectations. Indeed, the fact that some of those seeking to be president have never held public office or occupied a role in governance actually adds to the attraction of even the most questionable candidates.
This has led some to conclude that too many American voters are simply too clueless to be allowed to vote after a duration-limited campaign common elsewhere, and that a prolonged campaign is the only way to ensure that the most marginal candidates are finally recognized even by low-information voters as being completely unworthy of an office that places vast demands on intellect, wisdom and experience. It also eventually becomes obvious to those most angry over dysfunctional governance that electing an outsider with no experience in governance can’t actually make things better.
But, really, when it comes to why dysfunctional governance remains a roadblock to problem-solving, It’s more about who doesn’t vote than it is about extended campaigns and bizarre candidates. There simply aren’t sufficient numbers of moderates — from center-left to center-right — elected to office, be it a presidential or off-year election. Where are the mainstream voters?
One theory is that many mainstream and progressive voters have given up, convinced that nothing changes for the better no matter who they vote for. I think Obama has proved that the right candidate can actually get more done than expected despite a legislative branch that has largely failed to serve country and greater good. But it ultimately really does require legislative members of equal pragmatic ambition to functionally solve issues in sensible, practical ways.
For those who are convinced that the country’s highest court has permanently distorted politics and elections by insisting that money is speech and corporations are people, I suggest they consider the other side of the coin — and not meant as a pun. Those in the middle and center-left are also no longer limited in how much money can be raised and spent. It might not seem an ideal or noble reality, but it is how things are and are likely to remain. There are far more centrist voters than far-right zealots, but, in the end, those who want to make a difference must still vote.
Voting might seem an exercise in futility, but that’s because the numbers of citizens who have the right to vote but don’t is much higher here than in other democratic, capitalistic, developed countries. We are a nation of citizen slackers who deserve the intellectually dishonest, fact-free ideologists who are elected to office. And I can prove it.
Go to www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm and choose United States from the drop-down menu. Look at voter turnout. Now do the same for other countries. Start with Canada and Mexico and then try Europe, Asia and Latin America. We are pathetic. And that’s in comparison to countries that don’t demand compulsory voting. Check out Australia and Belgium for examples of voter turnout when not voting is not an option.
Despite the vast sums of money and length of the political election process, voting in our “exceptional” nation is hardly exceptional except for how low the numbers are relative to other democracies. Those who are most committed to ideological beliefs tend to vote more often, skewing election results toward non-mainstream candidates. To make this even more effective, Republicans are busy trying to disenfranchise voters who are least likely to vote for them by citing voter fraud — an claim unsupported by research.
There are things that can be done to make voting easier, although I would expect pushback from conservatives. One that has been implemented in California is that anyone obtaining a driver’s license is automatically registered to vote unless they opt out. Voting via internet would also be a logical option that could be easily implemented as well. In many countries voting is on Sunday, which is not a day of work for a majority of citizens. Voting by mail is already an option in, I assume, every state (or should be), and extended hours and even days are often available, although here again conservatives try to minimize this to discourage those more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.
Despite the differences between the theory of democracy and what happens when human nature is applied, it remains the best system of governance in terms giving citizens the right to determine who governs. But to be representative of the will of the majority, citizens must participate. Dysfunctional governance is what happens when the mainstream voter lets those outside the middle gain too much influence — tyranny of the minority.
The result is that the lowest-information, ideologically extreme voters — representing some 20 percent of the electorate — elect those who are least interested in democracy that doesn’t serve their agenda. The fundamental characteristics of democracy, which include compromise and consensus so that the greater good is served, are undermined to such a degree that responsible governance is blocked.
Those who are angriest about this, far right conservatives, are also most responsible for it. But mainstream moderate voters are also part of the problem when they fail to vote. The excuse that voting doesn’t make a difference is both pathetic and self-fulfilling. There’s absolutely nothing pragmatic about being part of the problem.
