I’m not a big fan of voting. I think it’s overrated. I say this as a former candidate for office – not because I think I should have won. Far from it. More because it gave me insight into the mind of the voter. It was quite a disillusionment.
Let’s be frank. Most people are busy leading their lives independent of politics. They work their jobs and mind their kids and watch their TV shows and football games, and pay very little attention to politicians. The political world is one circle, the world of the voter is another. Once every two years they overlap. Just barely overlap. And that overlap is generally in the form of the 15-30 second TV ad.
I came to realize this when I ran – I had worked every door in my district, and came to know the mind of the voter very well. I like to think that I introduced myself to every voter in the district, and that’s why I lost. But bigger campaigns were going on, and I came to realize that voters knew little, if anything, of issues. Their ideas, slogans and catch phrases came to them via the blue light that glowed in every family room every night – the TV. Politicians invest immense sums in crafting these little propaganda spots. Every second is thought out – there’s a sublime message in every one. It’s not the candidate that is doing it – it’s the advertising professional. These people are steeped in the psychology of manipulation.
Every now and then something happens on the campaign trail that gives voters a true view of a candidate. Reality can kill a candidate. Conrad Burns’ handlers walked in fear that his true self would emerge, as it did when he drunkenly attacked fire fighters one night. “Macaca” was another glimpse. But mostly, candidates are kept under wraps, careful not to expose themselves. It was both sad and humorous to witness Hillary Clinton’s “human moment” in New Hampshire, when she came close to tears. Could anything have been more staged? That was a perversion of the gaffe – a free commercial dreamed up by an ad man. Shame on us that it worked.
Anyway, back to voting. I mentioned to Shane in an exchange over at Netroots that voting ain’t the be-all-end-all, that most people when they enter the booth are operating on “emotions, prejudices and fleeting impressions”. The job of the candidate is to enter the psyche of the voter and create either a favorable impression of himself, or a negative one of his opponent. That is where the circle just barely overlaps, where politician and voter interact. It’s a sad commentary on life in America. Our elections are quite a joke.
What to do? As I suggested to Shane, a start would be to eliminate the primary as we know it, and rely instead on caucuses. Fewer people would turn out, for sure, but no great loss. Those who did participate would be forced to negotiate head on with opponents, and hear what the candidates are all about. It would be more a deliberative process. Further, it should be done on a rotating regional basis, giving each section of the country a chance to go first. Iowa is nice, I’m told – a slice of heaven. But it has too much influence in our deliberative process.
I’ve been witness to many presidential elections. It’s torturous – so much energy, so little said. It’s all about advertising. People spend more time researching Ipods than they do candidates. And the advertisers have a free hand to mold the candidates in a false image. Democrats to this day hardly know Bill Clinton, and will know even less of Hillary Clinton when she is nominated. All they will have is an image constructed by experts in the art of psychological manipulation. It’s quite a joke.
Every now and then a good candidate comes along and delivers a real message. We don’t have much time for them. They wither away in the early primaries, short of money. Most people never get to know them at all. That’s the saddest part of American elections.
Piece of Mindful 
No offense, but when you have Budge agreeing with something you wrote about limited the right to vote, you’ve hit upon something dead wrong.
Frankly, I’m a little tired of people ascribing votes that run contrary to personal political beliefs to stupidity or ignorance on the issues.
LikeLike
I quote Chris Mathews and you tell me he’s insane. Budge agrees with me on something, and you use that as a basis for my being wrong.
Nowhere do I say that people are stupid, though many are. Most are simply too busy or indifferent to cast an intelligent vote. Tell me you don’t know that. Note that Budge and I disagree on just about everything, but I do not think he is stupid.
Politicians have to admire the voters as independent and thoughtful. You don’t. Your motives are different.
LikeLike
OK, they’re not stupid. But as Mark says, they are clearly not interested. Politics is not on their radar screens, or if it is certainly not local and state politics. I went door to door too and probably 1% had a clue. Only one knew who the incumbent was.
I agree an open caucus would have been preferable.
LikeLike
Emphasize open caucus – not the party insiders only type.
LikeLike
The problem isn’t with the voters — it’s with the process. Right now, because money largely runs our elections, people feel alienated from their government.
The right has been working for years to tell us the government is a seperate and distinct entity from the body politic, and the only way to deal with it, is to strangle it, instead of actually getting involved and changing it.
If you look at other industrial nations, voter participation and knowlege is vastly superior to ours. Is that because we’re dumber? Less civic-minded? Or just programmed to feel helpless?
Certainly the answer isn’t to exclude more people from the process. In fact, the reverse is true. If you get someone to vote, or to canvass, or visit a blog, or read a newspaper, that’s another person who’s taking an interest in government and local issues.
As for Budge…he’s an self-proclaimed anti-democratic ideologue. Personally, I think his views on society are misguided. So…if he’s linking to you to support his notions of public participation in government…well…what can I say?
As for not knowing who our local and state representatives are, you have to exert quite a bit of effort to find that information, don’t you? The Missoulian devotes maybe two articles a week to city council business (buried in the back pages), and our state leg. meets once every two years for 90 days. If you’re not familiar with Google, how would you get that info, on demand? The failure here isn’t with the electorate.
LikeLike
I’ll break out my copy of Deliberation Day – it’s got a great rundown of polls concerning voter knowledge. Very discouraging. Worth a thread of its own.
Your comments on Budge are noted – I have difficulty slamming someone with whom I’ve such a hard time winning a debate. Seems passive aggressive.
An open caucus is a deliberative process that is far superior to just voting. I’d like to see government assist in advancing the caucus system by offering days off, and as Ackerman and Fishkin suggest, payment to participate. I’m a little squishy on that part, but a day off for caucuses plus advertising and social pressure would do wonders for our moribund system.
LikeLike
Just to pucker Jay a little tighter, I’ll just add that I do think you’re on to something here.
LikeLike
First, this is both true and false depending on the context of anti-democratic.
My point about pure democracy is that it leads to a tyranny of the majority hence it’s A)over-rated from a pragmatic standpoint and B)antithetical to individual rights. Getting people to vote without asking them for the requisite knowledge to do so is foolish and sometimes dangerous.
So let’s not over state things. I’ve said in the past the I think everyone has the right to vote in the context of our current system. I think I’ve even said I would take up arms to defend that right and, if I haven’t, I’ll say it now. I have never said otherwise. But to assume that the outcome of a popular vote yields good government is foolish.
But I suppose it’s expecting too much that you would look at the deeper question of democracy v republic or the upsides and downsides of majoritarian decisions since you’ve shown no real interest in arguing why a more direct democracy would be good governance.
LikeLike
Certainly.
First of all, I’m not arguing for direct democracy. Never have. I’ve always believed in representative government. I believe that increased participation is key, which means increased interest, and a diversity of views battling for preeminence in government.
Right now, our system isn’t working because it represents only a tiny swath of the electorate: those who can afford to buy it.
I’d argue that that’s the reason people are disinterested: because right now, for the most part, their votes, their ideas, and their interests don’t count. IMHO we need to break down the barriers that have been erected to protect the dominance of the interests of those that control the government.
There is of course a danger to majoritarian rule — I’ve never denied that. But that’s what the Bill of Rights is for, and that’s why I tend to get bent out of shape whenever the government violates the rights of the individual as defined in the Constitution.
I also recognize the dangers inherent in a populist movement. But if we have a healthy respect for the rule of law, and cling to the individual liberties outlined in the Constitution, we’re fine. IMHO populism is a far better system than elitism; I think the danger of tyranny from an oligarchy is much more sharp and present than from populism. A dictator gets more done than a committee.
That’s the difference, isn’t it? I like republican rule because it’s more efficient, not because I believe that only a select elite has the ability to run, influence, or shape society or government. After all, who’s to decide who gets a say? And who’s to say that an elite will actually govern in the interests of everybody?
The best way to ensure a good government, IMHO, is throw open the process to everybody, and make it a big, squabbling, lovely mess, an unsymphonic, unharmonic brass band, a battleground of ideas, a multitude of competing interests. How much fun would that be?
LikeLike
Just to pucker Jay a little tighter, I’ll just add that I do think you’re on to something here.
I admit that an idea’s value can sometimes be judged by those that rush to embrace it.
LikeLike
I agree with your comments. I think they are dead on.
LikeLike