The meaning(lessness) of our elections

An exchange with Polish Wolf over at Intelligent Discontent brought to mind a truth that is not so much inconvenient as unpleasant. I keep it submerged and don’t often let it surface. 

It is widely shared wisdom that everyone should vote, no matter intelligence or education. We should all have a voice. That sounds really good. We should all genuflect now. 

The  universal franchise created a new environment,  new problems for leaders last century. The biggest one was most people are clueless about international and national affairs, so that consulting them should only be done for show. There are two spins to put on this:

Bertrand Russell agreed that the average citizen was indeed clueless, but that the process was useful anyway. It routinely forces changes in leadership, a good in itself even if that is an unintended outcome for voters. It reins in aristocracy.

In the US  his reasoning does not apply, as our elections are privately financed, and this has led to two, and only two parties. The two parties and their financiers are our aristocracy. Democracy is a sham here. 

In the twentieth century American intellectuals addressed the problem of the universal franchise coupled with the ignorant voter. Their conclusion was that people had to be allowed to believe that they were in  charge, and so be given their sham elections and never let in on the secret. 

That’s pretty much how we do it now, and if we had enlightened leadership it would be a workable system. But we do not have that, so that the true effect of manufactured consent is an elite and detached leadership class fronting for silent power, or what we now call the “1%” (but which is in truth more like the “1/10th of 1%”). There is no effective way to hold them accountable, as our elections have no substance and do not affect policy. 

So contrary and illogical as it seems, our democracy was killed by too much democracy.

My solution? Rewrite or throw out the constitution. It’s dysfunctional anyway. Eliminate private money from politics, and minimize high elective offices, instead having very small districts elect representatives in gymnasiums, each required to make the case for election by means of deliberation. The resulting body, a parliament of sorts, would by ballot appoint the top tier of leaders and hold them accountable, removing them from office when they misbehave. Sound familiar?

The advantage of this system is that disinterested people would not show up, nor would they be encouraged to do so. People would not be encouraged to vote for the sake of voting, nor would they be influenced by stupid TV ads and other manipulations used to win elections. However, if conflicts arise that spring into action various constituencies, they have a means to power.

There is no system that satisfies ideal democracy, but my goodness, the one we have here is a not even a good joke. It is a hoax. My suggestion does not eliminate the problem of parties, but without money, influence, there would be more than just two.