1
   

What does the U.S. democracy look like?

 
 
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2005 09:26 am
We are firmly entrenched in a two parties system which seems incongruous to may of the other democratic states. Most are based on a parliamentary system and multiple parties, often governing based on coalitions. They also have their own scandals. But apparently as the great nation we are, our scandal always seem to loom larger and attack the core of our democratic ideals (or is our wishful thinking about some kind of political fair play).

Krugman in an editorial both in the NYT and the IHT gives a bleak view of the nastiness that apparently overshadows or is deep-rooted in our system:

What They Did Last Fall

Excerpts:


Quote:
By running for the U.S. Senate, Katherine Harris, Florida's former secretary of state, has stirred up some ugly memories. And that's a good thing, because those memories remain relevant. There was at least as much electoral malfeasance in 2004 as there was in 2000, even if it didn't change the outcome. And the next election may be worse.

In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.

But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever.

Mr. Gumbel throws cold water on those who take the discrepancy between the exit polls and the final result as evidence of a stolen election. (I told you it's a judicious book.) He also seems, on first reading, to play down what happened in Ohio. But the theme of his book is that America has a long, bipartisan history of dirty elections.

He told me that he wasn't brushing off the serious problems in Ohio, but that "this is what American democracy typically looks like, especially in a presidential election in a battleground state that is controlled substantially by one party."

So what does U.S. democracy look like?

There are the election night stories. Warren County locked down its administration building and barred public observers from the vote-counting, citing an F.B.I. warning of a terrorist threat. But the F.B.I. later denied issuing any such warning. Miami County reported that voter turnout was an improbable 98.55 percent of registered voters. And so on.

We aren't going to rerun the last three elections. But what about the future?

Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation.


More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opinion/19krugman.html or http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/08/19/opinion/edkrug.php

So what's your take? What reforms might just help to get the nasty out of our politics. What will it take for your vote to really count? What will it take to re-enfranchise people?

Don't be shy but lets remain civil.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 648 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2005 09:33 am
As Krugman noted "romantic " election returns are not unknown in US election but it has gotten out of hand and the new electronic voting machines increase the opportunities for fraud. I think it is time minimum national standards were established for elections, at least on the federal level.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2005 09:44 am
Hi Acquiunk.

It is indeed curious that we are one of the only advanced federal democracy not to have minimum uniform standards across the board.

In western Europe voter turnout in national elections is close in average to 70%. Turnout in Canada while in decline is still a healthy 75% during federal elections, currently at around 60%.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2005 09:49 am
I don't like nastiness and manipulation. On the other hand, a look at Tocqueville's `Democracy in America' (1835) will convince you that both have been a fact of America's political life for a long time. It's not a pretty sight for sure, but I don't expect it to kill self-governance in America any century soon.

Paul Krugman wrote:
In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

Yes -- and perhaps even more importantly, Germany won the 1966 world championship. In the real world, in soccer as in politics, umpires are part of the game, and so are the bad calls they make. There's no point in complaining about it, though it does keep conversations going.

I don't think any reform will change that, especially since the politicians with the most power to reform are also those with the greatest incentive to cheat. What will help is close scrutiny by the public. For example, Snopes, Factcheck.org, and other debunking organizations may eventually grow sufficiently big to fill in for weakening traditional watchdogs (trade unions, moderate Christian churches), and keep politicians reasonably honest. That's my hope anyway.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2005 10:26 am
Given that Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel which had as its basis, at least in large part, political rivalry, it certainly would be silly to suggest that bitter partisan divides have not been a fact of American political life from the outset.

Even before the American Revolution, partisan bickering and dirty tricks were a feature of the American political landscape. James Otis, Jr. was one of the principle fomentors of opposition to the new trade Acts of Parliament after the French and Indian Wars. The newly appointed royal governor, Francis Bernard, was courted by Thomas Hutchinson, and he made Hutchinson the Chief Justice of the colony's supreme court. That office had been promised to James Otis, Sr. by the previous governor, and therefore, James Otis, Jr. organized and lead a faction dedicated to bringing down Hutchinson. Thus meant that he joined opposition to the trade acts, even though he had previously served as an advocate general in the vice-admiralty courts which were intended to enforce the acts.

The religious revival movement of the early eighteenth century in America had far less impact on society than popular American history contends. Its influence was strong, however, in New England, where a majority of the people were Congregationalists, which church was badly divided by controversy, and split into "Old Light" and "New Light" factions. This was never so true as in Connecticutt, where the Old Light church fathers had used the colonial government to ruthlessly suppress the revivalists, and any New Light believers who got in their way. When a New Light minister became the head of Yale University after the French and Indian Wars, the war with established religion and governmental authority was on once again, and the New Light faction became dedicated supporters of the opposition to Parliamentary acts.

When James Stuart, Duke of York, took New Amsterdam from the Dutch (renamed New York in his honor), the Crown acquired what would become New York, New Jersey and Delaware (the latter having been duely stolen from the Swedes by the Dutch not long before). The English wisely chose not to interfer in the Dutch Reformed Church, but they also unwisely sided with aristocracy, and left the Dutch patroons in place on their large estates. Political opportunists sought to organize the largely English-speaking tenants of the great estates, and came down on the side of opposition to Parliament, identifying the patroons as political lackeys of the Crown. In Pennsylvania, similar opposition centered around the resentment against the political control of the Quaker merchants, and their refusal to fund a militia to fight the Indians who terrorized the Scots-Irish and German settlers in the frontier regions.

There's nothing new in any of this.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2005 01:20 pm
Lets face it: for all the might of our claim to be civilized, we might just be on the way to be.

Both our declaration of independence and our constitution inspired many. Yet what did it exactly lead to at first?

A nation of slaves. A nation of partially human beings: the infamous fractional for Black Americans. The absolutely equal status between women and men (still a fixture today) where woman were equal to men as long as men were more equal then they were (and no votes for them too).

We were and hopefully still are a nation that borrowed the uniquely French concept of Happiness.

That concept was supposed to be a leveler where all had a chance. The American dream was born.

Yet today we have one of the most corrupt and nasty electoral system of all where a President as long as he has the necessary electoral votes can be elected despite he isn't the majority's choice. Our elections are not unlike any bidding wars at an auction house: whatever you spend as long as you outspend and out-trick your opponent, the Pennsylvania avenue lease will be yours to abuse as GWB has done with no such thing as a thought for American democracy. He has never been about policy but about politics. Political power grab and paying back his friends.

He leads a war but never wants to remember the ones that have fallen doing his bidding. A nation can't accept responsibility or grieve when there is basically a media curfew at seeing the coffins of those that made the ultimate sacrifice.

Our election system is in the hands of only two parties that now have a long history of feeling quite above the fray. The one day where as a nation we will wake up again, we might want to curtail the boundless spending that goes on. Most western democracies have severe spending limitations. We basically have none. It suits the Democrats quite well given their propensity at getting good ole soft money. And the Republicans only but envy them at times only to outspend them.

Both Bush and Kerry spend in excess of 310 million dollars to get elected, Bush spending 345 million and Kerry 310.

http://www.crp.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=E

No other democracy is so much cash dependant. In many ways we have recreated a god given monarchy except that it is a cash given one. Ever heard of spending limits as most other democracies have?

Maybe dueling had some kind of attrait.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What does the U.S. democracy look like?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2025 at 02:19:31