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.
Writings 
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."
Subscribe to this comment's feed
