American Pie: Succesful Democracies Need Informed Voters
In the recent US mid-term elections John Merchant was faced at a Florida polling station with a complex array of choices and decisions; so complex that the State had mailed out a “practice” ballot form with details of the candidates, and of the various constitutional amendments that required a vote.
John suggests that a case can be made out for a more parliamentary approach to government in America. "The opposers would say that such a system vests too much authority in the Executive Branch, and that there are too few checks and balances. My answer is that any system can be subverted, and the so called, “checks and balances” of the present system have not prevented Administrations past and present from riding rough-shod over rules and protocol, the war in Iraq being a case in point.''
In the weeks leading up to the recent, US mid-term election, print and electronic media here were littered with phrases like “The right to vote,” “Get out and vote,'' etc., etc. Surprisingly, the aspect of voting that receives much less attention is whether the electorate really understands who or what it is voting for. In a country as politicized and complex as the USA, sheer voting volume will not likely result in good government, and can lead to what it is reasonable to call political tragedies.
This mid-term election resulted in a somewhat predictable outcome. The Republican Party, which had been in control of Congress and the Senate for over eight years, was voted out, largely as a result of voter dissatisfaction with the conduct and prognosis of the Iraq war, but also because of the arrogant way that the President and his administration had done business during the six years of their two terms in office.
With a style bordering on Fascism, the Republican’s moves to strengthen the authority of the Administrative Branch, and their willingness to climb into bed with the extremists of the Religious Right Wing, finally scared the electorate enough to sway the vote towards the Democrats. Ironically, even the Religious Right was getting cold feet about the way business was being conducted, and was making moves prior to the election to disassociate its self from the Bush administration.
But though the outcome of the election was a good thing overall, it was unfortunate that much of the electorate voted like a stampeding herd. A popular slogan prior to the election was “Get the Bums Out” and that’s exactly what the electorate did. And not only the “Bums,” but also the Republican moderates, some of whom were more liberal than their counterparts on the other side of the House. It was a tragedy for these “good politicians” and their supporters. It was also a blow to the opportunity for bi-partisan government, a quality sadly lacking this past six years.
From a personal point of view, this election was probably the most complex that I have had to vote in. Fortunately, Florida had the good sense to mail out a “practice” ballot form with details of the candidates, and of the various constitutional amendments that required a vote. In all, there were 28 State, Municipal and Congressional seats to be voted on, and six Constitutional Amendments. Simply turning up at a polling station without this prima would have been a meaningless act.
As Florida residents of less than a year’s standing, it was impossible for my wife and I to be well informed about the candidates and other issues. In order to educate ourselves, we resorted to buying newspapers of different political stripes, but in the end we essentially “voted the ticket.” The way the last couple of elections have gone; the 2004 Presidential Election, and the mid-term this last November; it would seem that the rest of the population did much the same, helped along by massive, campaign advertising budgets.
It would seem then that being a successful first time candidate has more to do with time and place, profile building and fund raising ability than with merit. And about the same mixture can be applied to candidates seeking re-election. In my view, the proliferation of computers and the sophistication of the Internet holds out the prospect of a more objective and systematic approach to voting in the future.
Just suppose that prospective candidates were required to submit a resume in a standard form that didn’t allow for embellishment or nuancing, as if they were applying for a job. The vitae of the resume would then be verified and posted on a web page for all to see. Once the candidate was elected, he/she would be reviewed annually, and their performance compared with specific criteria: Issues voted on; Number of times present in the chamber; Motions proposed and motions passed, etc. The results of these reviews would then be posted on the same web page as the resumes.
Rarely in business or industry is there such an absence of employee accountability, and it’s a mistake to think that Congressmen or Senators have such high visibility that everyone knows how they are performing. The bright light of the media mainly illuminates a few, newsworthy politicians, and many citizens don’t even know who is representing them, let alone know how well or badly they are being represented.
Perhaps there is a case for, dare I say it, a more parliamentary approach to government in America. The opposers would say that such a system vests too much authority in the Executive Branch, and that there are too few checks and balances. My answer is that any system can be subverted, and the so called, “checks and balances” of the present system have not prevented Administrations past and present from riding rough-shod over rules and protocol, the war in Iraq being a case in point.
The compensation for adopting the parliamentary model is that the electorate doesn’t have to wait four years to “vote the bums out,” and hopefully, with a better informed electorate, only the bums would be ejected. As we have seen, an awful lot of damage can be done to a country in four years.
# # #
