Why democracy is failing
Nov. 5th, 2014 06:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altivoIt seems to be the same in most of the Western developed nations. Fewer voters actually exercise their right to vote, and those who do are making shallow choices driven by negative campaigns rather than candidates who tackle real issues.
The real problem, I say, is the fact that elections have been co-opted by wealth. What we have is no longer democracy, but plutocracy. It's an environment in which candidates who have huge sums of money to spend usually prevail by shouting down their opponents and beating the voters to death with strident (content-free) television advertising and clever slogans and posters that say nothing about commitment to ideals or practical solutions. In the US, the long standing controls designed to keep factions from "buying" elections with huge amounts of cash are breaking down.
The collapse of our educational systems continues as both ends of the political spectrum continue to peck away at the funding that built them and kept them going for the last century or so. Declines in literacy, driven by poor educational methods and standards and the ubiquitous pablum supplied by television and Hollywood have developed into a feedback loop that may be very difficult to break.
Unfortunately, this feedback produces a disinterested electorate that doesn't vote, or that is easily swayed by loud single issue publicity campaigns. The frightening success of xenophobic policies presented by the GOP in the US and the UKIP in the UK are good examples of this.
In my own county, voters who turn out seem to vote for the GOP without even investigating policies or candidates. It's an automatic, unthinking act. When asked, they can't really tell you why they do it, or even what the difference is between two candidates (when there actually are two... far too many are running unopposed.)
Is it any wonder that voters don't turn out when they are faced with a ballot that really offers no choices?
Illinois offered two candidates for governor, neither of whom is stellar. One inherited the office from a previous incumbent who was convicted of corruption. The other is an out of touch millionaire businessman who doesn't give a shit about working people, but has lots of money to back him. Such disheartening choices do little to energize reluctant voters.
The results are schizoid. Illinois voters backed (by about 2 to 1 margins) liberal ballot propositions (most of them non-binding) to raise the minimum wage, increase the tax rate for millionaires, strengthen protection for minorities, etc. Yet they voted into office a slate of candidates who oppose every one of those propositions, often in no uncertain terms. This doesn't suggest to me that there is much rational thought being put into how ballots are cast.
The real problem, I say, is the fact that elections have been co-opted by wealth. What we have is no longer democracy, but plutocracy. It's an environment in which candidates who have huge sums of money to spend usually prevail by shouting down their opponents and beating the voters to death with strident (content-free) television advertising and clever slogans and posters that say nothing about commitment to ideals or practical solutions. In the US, the long standing controls designed to keep factions from "buying" elections with huge amounts of cash are breaking down.
The collapse of our educational systems continues as both ends of the political spectrum continue to peck away at the funding that built them and kept them going for the last century or so. Declines in literacy, driven by poor educational methods and standards and the ubiquitous pablum supplied by television and Hollywood have developed into a feedback loop that may be very difficult to break.
Unfortunately, this feedback produces a disinterested electorate that doesn't vote, or that is easily swayed by loud single issue publicity campaigns. The frightening success of xenophobic policies presented by the GOP in the US and the UKIP in the UK are good examples of this.
In my own county, voters who turn out seem to vote for the GOP without even investigating policies or candidates. It's an automatic, unthinking act. When asked, they can't really tell you why they do it, or even what the difference is between two candidates (when there actually are two... far too many are running unopposed.)
Is it any wonder that voters don't turn out when they are faced with a ballot that really offers no choices?
Illinois offered two candidates for governor, neither of whom is stellar. One inherited the office from a previous incumbent who was convicted of corruption. The other is an out of touch millionaire businessman who doesn't give a shit about working people, but has lots of money to back him. Such disheartening choices do little to energize reluctant voters.
The results are schizoid. Illinois voters backed (by about 2 to 1 margins) liberal ballot propositions (most of them non-binding) to raise the minimum wage, increase the tax rate for millionaires, strengthen protection for minorities, etc. Yet they voted into office a slate of candidates who oppose every one of those propositions, often in no uncertain terms. This doesn't suggest to me that there is much rational thought being put into how ballots are cast.
