We are losing our democracy.
I know this is somewhat ironic, since recent elections have excited Democrats and seem to prove once again that voting matters. And it does. I will circle back to this...
In my discussion on election rigging, I stuck with some of the very basics of our political system. I didn't bring up concerns about purging voter registration lists, or details on primary debates that may or may not have had an impact. It's very hard to say what impact those things had, and whether it was deliberately done to have the alleged impact in the first place.
I also didn't get into the role of money, or lobbyists. Nor did I discuss the re-election rates for incumbents.
Instead, I want to emphasize that every presidential election our candidates are decided by a very small portion of our population. See, since we have this duopoly, most of our candidates are decided on by the primaries...
Except most of the population doesn't actually vote in the primaries. If you aren't the party base, if you don't consider yourself Democrat or Republican, or if you only sort of consider yourself one but don't really get involved enough to know the candidates and vote in the primaries...
Then you don't really get a say in who our president will be. By the time the general elections come around, it's too late. You're left choosing between whoever the Democrats and Republicans nominated.
The New York Times broke it down rather well in August over a year ago. In a nation of 300 million, only 14% of the eligible voting population (and 9% of the entire population) voted for Trump or Clinton.
The vast majority of Americans no longer feel as though we have much say in our system. The irony is that we could change that.
If...
If we were engaged. If we voted, especially in the primaries. In 2016 only 28.5% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. As I keep saying...if you wait for the general election it's too late.
In political science, it's well known that candidates have to cater to their base to win the nomination...then pivot more towards the center to win the general election.
In the past decade, as politics have become more divisive and compromise is seen as betrayal, it's gotten harder and harder to do that. The influence of money (and party control) on politics hasn't helped. There was intense pressure to get rid of the RINOs and DINOs, with the end result that too many politicians seem concerned with toeing the party line and catering to their base...
as opposed to representing their constituents as a whole.
This lack of voter engagement means we generally provide corrective action well after the fact. Late, and it's not always clear what the correction is for in the first place. Republicans and Democrats have this tendency to think they were given a green light for whatever, they take things too far, and voters get energized and punish them at the next election.
It's part of why midterms are notorious for strengthening the party not currently holding the presidency.
The problem is that the people who accept this system are the engaged political types...the ones who actually vote in the primaries. The 9% who voted for Trump or Clinton.
They've accepted the system as is, so they don't really see the need to change it. After all, why make it easier for a third party to run? So the ones best suited to changing things have no incentive to do so. (Not saying that the general public can't, if enough were engaged in the first place. Which is part of the problem, since none of this would really be an issue if they were.)
That 9% generally is more concerned with helping their party win elections. With exploring why Hillary Clinton lost, and how they can do better next time. With figuring out what Trump's success means for the Republican Party, and what that means. With deciding whether Democratic donors should select Kamala Harris as the next 'serious' contender three years before the next presidential election. (Not to pick on Kamala Harris, so much as the donors and political influencers who are essentially picking the candidate years before the rest of the population has a chance to even vote in the primaries.)
It will only change if one of two things happens - the general population becomes more engaged and votes for something different (and there are various suggestions on how to do that) or the powers-that-be realize that this is not acceptable and work to change it.
I know this is somewhat ironic, since recent elections have excited Democrats and seem to prove once again that voting matters. And it does. I will circle back to this...
In my discussion on election rigging, I stuck with some of the very basics of our political system. I didn't bring up concerns about purging voter registration lists, or details on primary debates that may or may not have had an impact. It's very hard to say what impact those things had, and whether it was deliberately done to have the alleged impact in the first place.
I also didn't get into the role of money, or lobbyists. Nor did I discuss the re-election rates for incumbents.
Instead, I want to emphasize that every presidential election our candidates are decided by a very small portion of our population. See, since we have this duopoly, most of our candidates are decided on by the primaries...
Except most of the population doesn't actually vote in the primaries. If you aren't the party base, if you don't consider yourself Democrat or Republican, or if you only sort of consider yourself one but don't really get involved enough to know the candidates and vote in the primaries...
Then you don't really get a say in who our president will be. By the time the general elections come around, it's too late. You're left choosing between whoever the Democrats and Republicans nominated.
The New York Times broke it down rather well in August over a year ago. In a nation of 300 million, only 14% of the eligible voting population (and 9% of the entire population) voted for Trump or Clinton.
The vast majority of Americans no longer feel as though we have much say in our system. The irony is that we could change that.
If...
If we were engaged. If we voted, especially in the primaries. In 2016 only 28.5% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. As I keep saying...if you wait for the general election it's too late.
In political science, it's well known that candidates have to cater to their base to win the nomination...then pivot more towards the center to win the general election.
In the past decade, as politics have become more divisive and compromise is seen as betrayal, it's gotten harder and harder to do that. The influence of money (and party control) on politics hasn't helped. There was intense pressure to get rid of the RINOs and DINOs, with the end result that too many politicians seem concerned with toeing the party line and catering to their base...
as opposed to representing their constituents as a whole.
This lack of voter engagement means we generally provide corrective action well after the fact. Late, and it's not always clear what the correction is for in the first place. Republicans and Democrats have this tendency to think they were given a green light for whatever, they take things too far, and voters get energized and punish them at the next election.
It's part of why midterms are notorious for strengthening the party not currently holding the presidency.
The problem is that the people who accept this system are the engaged political types...the ones who actually vote in the primaries. The 9% who voted for Trump or Clinton.
They've accepted the system as is, so they don't really see the need to change it. After all, why make it easier for a third party to run? So the ones best suited to changing things have no incentive to do so. (Not saying that the general public can't, if enough were engaged in the first place. Which is part of the problem, since none of this would really be an issue if they were.)
That 9% generally is more concerned with helping their party win elections. With exploring why Hillary Clinton lost, and how they can do better next time. With figuring out what Trump's success means for the Republican Party, and what that means. With deciding whether Democratic donors should select Kamala Harris as the next 'serious' contender three years before the next presidential election. (Not to pick on Kamala Harris, so much as the donors and political influencers who are essentially picking the candidate years before the rest of the population has a chance to even vote in the primaries.)
It will only change if one of two things happens - the general population becomes more engaged and votes for something different (and there are various suggestions on how to do that) or the powers-that-be realize that this is not acceptable and work to change it.
No comments:
Post a Comment