One of the textbooks I used back when I taught political science in college was called something like American Government: An Experiment in Democracy.  It was a good book, I thought . . . probably still is, since textbooks just seem to keep coming around in newer editions.  I try hard not to study politics these days, but I'm an addict when it comes to that sort of thing.  Maybe I should find a new edition of that book and see if the authors are saying what've I've come around to believing, and that this:  The grand experiment in democracy is a failure.  

So what are you saying here, former prof?  Well, I'm saying we've failed at being a democracy.  It's just that simple.  You can stretch the term like a surgical glove, and you can't stuff democracy into the form of government we now have.  Real democracy went down the tubes a long time ago when people stopped voting.  They never did vote in large enough numbers to make this country really democratic, but the past fifty years has seen a decline in voting numbers . . . and in democracy.  The critical question one must ask as a test of how democratic we are is - who runs America?  Do the voters decide, even in an indirect fashion?  No.

I don't want to get into all the snarly mess of who actually does run the country. All sorts of theories abound about that, but it sure as hell ain't the good old voter, the citizen.  And it's not so much that some devious group stole away our democratic power; it's just that we gave it up by being a bunch of dumbasses who couldn't drag our lazy, indifferent asses to the polls.  The biggest contributing factor in the demise of democracy in America starts at the base, with the citizen voter . . . yeah, that person who did not exercise his right to vote and allowed it to become useless.

There was a time when I advocated incentives for voting.  What about a law that said no one could receive a tax refund without proof they had voted in elections?  How about a tax break for voters?  What about extending voting time from one day to a week, and what about doing away with the idiotic system of electronic voting?  Nobody in this day and age can cast a vote and be assured it will be counted correctly, that's how bad the current system is.  And do you see Congress scurrying around trying to better the system? Nah, and the reason is because they know you don't count much anyway, at least not as a general group.

Elections these days are being waged somewhat like a business sell products.  They're very much involved in target marketing, and folks in the business of winning elections have gone high tech.  They've got all sorts of devices at their disposal these days, and they still can't get half the registered voters to show up in major elections.  It seems that nobody can energize the voter anymore . . . and that means democracy no longer works.  The majority rule is dead.  For all practical purposes, the plurality rule is almost dead.  It's all a matter of maniuplation of certain groups to see who gets in . . . and you, dear voter, don't amount to a hill of beans anymore.

Well, that's not exactly right.  Maybe you're still a small hill of beans, but you don't count for much in the end.  You are useful in getting politicans what they want . . . and that's set up to where they can take advantage of how the system really works.  If they can get hooked up with the monied interests of the nation, if they can get them on board, the voter can be easily maniuplated.   Billions of dollars will be spent on elections across this nation next year, and most of that money is aimed at maniuplating the vote.  They can do this more easily because they know more than half the qualified voters won't participate . . . and they know who does participate, and so they know who to go after.

I'm not paying close attention to the primaries, and I don't watch network television at all.  My information comes off news services on the internet, and they're not a lot better than the boob tube folks.  I look at the candidates and think what many other skeptics of the system think - is that the best we can come up with?  I think maybe the answer to the question is no, they're not the best, but they are the ones with the best chance of winning.  That's because the power brokers will work toward setting them up as winners, and if you don't think these guys are good at what they do, just take a look at who's in the White House now.  They sold him to the minority of voters who showed up at the polling centers (or maybe a bare majority this last election) . . . and that scant group of voters dummied up and went for it.

Some experts argue that increased numbers wouldn't change much because the American voter is what he is, nothing more and nothing less.  Even if twice as many voted, the power brokers would still pick the winner, not them.  I disagree.  I think a massive turnout of voters would change politics in this country dramatically . . . might even restore it to being a democracy, or a something akin to one.  I'm just guessing here, but I think we may be seeing signs of greater particiaption at that level.  To change things, however, it needs to be a significant increase, not just a few percent.  We need for another twenty to thirty million people to show up in a presidential election, and that's not likely to happen.

I'm no longer as critical of non-voters as I was just ten years ago.  I understand their frustration with the system, but what I can't understand is their indifference.  Vote as a frustrated citizen, not as an indifferent one.  And do it even if you don't feel like you really have a voice anymore.  Who knows, maybe enough new people will show up to change some things.  At least it'll make the power brokers work harder, and if there's anything I enjoy, it's seeing them squirm a little.

So . . . vote, dammit!

D. Paz, 1/12/08