Running for office recently has become like just another Olympic sport but with less media coverage. The process of nomination and campaigning up until the actual Presidential election has become competitive, long, complicated, and increasingly insignificant. With each year critics continue to ask whether the process we have now is necessary, effective, or democtratic.
It all begins when a politician decides to run for office. This decision is the first step and potentially one of the most narrowing for running for President it a physically and mentally demanding race, which not ever politician is willing to endure. Once the decision is made the nomination game begins. Each nominee works to get the greatest number of delegates for the National Party Convention, where the Presidential candidate is chosen and the party platform written. Delegates are picked up from caucuses and primaries. In a caucus the delegates are chosen out of a state party leaders meeting whereas. In the primaries, where citizens vote for the candidate, a delegate is chosen who votes for a candidate and then must support that candidate at the National Convention. Along with the delegates are superdelegates. This position arose out of fear from the Democratic party that their leaders did not have a place in the National convention. Throughout the primary and caucus system nominees begin to drop out, often for lack of money, and by the end a candidate is chosen to represent each party in the Presidential election. Many critics have issues with the caucus and primary system. They believe it receives far to great attention and that states (Iowa, New Hampshire) with small populations are receiving the most media and voice. Also, because the system requires so much out of the nominee it becomes a challenge to maintain ones already governmental duties. Also, the percentage of voter participation is exceptionally low at about 5% of registered voters and thus the decisions made do not represent a large majority. One of the greatest criticisms that is seen in the entire election process is that money is too important and influential. The second great criticism is that the media has too much power. Some alternatives which have been proposed are having either a national primary or regional primary, the former would hold an election similar to the Presidential one but for each parties candidate, and the latter would hold a primary like those of the states but in general regions rather than each specific state.
Money and the media have become the two most influential aspects of the election at large. The last man standing from the primaries is usually the one who had the most money and used it most effectively. The system of receiving money is very complex. In 1974 the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed for “tightening reporting requirements for contributions and limiting overall expenditures.”(Government In America, Ch. 9, p.284) From this act came a number of reforms. The FEC, Federal Election Commission, is one of the most significant for it creates laws and enforcements restricting the money spent during campaigning. Also from the Act came the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, partial public financing which includes matching funds, an full public financing for the general election. If the candidate does not wish to receive these public finances he is still required to report how much money he spends and can only receive $2,000 from an individual. Of course politicians have found ways to receive more money than the FEC intended. Soft money, for a while, was a corrupt practice that brought in large amounts of money from large businesses to parties. Even when this was banned by the McCain-Feingold Act PACS were created. A PAC, political action committee, is either a corporation, union, or another special interest group which gives large sums of money to the candidate which they believe supports their interests. The PACs, just as soft money did, are in a sense corrupting the government in that there becomes a commitment on part of the candidate to support them.
The Media, as is growing in our day-to-day lives has grown in our elections. The Media has soon become one of the greatest forms of communication between a candidate and the people but also as a source of information. Despite the importance placed on media the national tv coverage of conventions has continuously declines since the 1950s. The media has its benefits. It allows for more people to be conscious of conventions and the candidates and it allows for easier access to information. The internet has become a huge component of a campaign. The internet, however, is probably the only form of media which in actually used for beneficial uses. Television and even newspapers have begun to report useless information and have focused on everything but the issues. As national coverage decreases so does the information it provides. The issue comes in with entertainment. Because the media is interested in entertaining the style and
celebrity like qualities of each candidate are discussed and critiqued. Even the debates have become so scripted that the words that come out of the candidates mouths are empty, where they stand on important issues is no longer as clear as it should be. The media has made campaigning and the election one big show. So the question is, with all the money put in and the effects of the media, is it worth it? Many critics and political scientist say no. They believe that campaigning only activates and reinforces but rarely converts. This means all the advertising and debating etc only make people vote more for who they would vote for anyone, rarely are people effected enough to change or reevaluate their point of view. Those select few, however, can make the difference in an election, so does that make it worth it? Another important aspect which political scientist have addressed is selective perception which means that people generally listen to what they already agree with and interpret it in the way they have already formed their opinion.
Along with the question of is it making a difference comes the question if is it even democratic. William E. Hudson compares our democracy with the origin of democracy, Athens. In comparison with Athenian democracy we are not very democratic. However, the switch of power and roles must be considered when comparing the two governments. In Athens elections were seen as very undemocratic, however they held assemblies in which the people could discuss their beliefs and make decisions about laws. That assembly system would be unreasonable in our country and so our system redefined the ways in which the Athenian values could be put in to practice. We are given the vote, as our voice in the assembly and by voting we are selecting the candidate we wish to speak for us. The seems to be a very good system if it were to work ideally. In Athenian democracy, public officials were for the sole purpose of executing the decisions made in assemblies. In our democracy elected officials do the debating which is done in the assembly for us. “Truly democratic elections must provide citizens a chance to join the public policy discussion and guide their representatives’ public policy decisions.”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 181) This does not occur consistently however and thus representation is the crucial factor. Hudson believes that for our elections to be democratic they must have equal representation for all citizens, they must be a device for the debate and contemplation of public issues, and they must actually control what government does. In the past few elections our country has not seemed to meet those requirements. Representation comes in to question with the Electoral College. Because of the Electoral College one person does not necessarily equal one vote and so in some states people’s votes are more influential skewing the ultimate democratic system. If it were a direct-election system every vote would count equally and each candidate could focus on addressing the nation rather than making promises to fifty different states. Also, because elections are becoming more candidate based rather than party based it is hard to vote for the beliefs you have because instead of voting for a system you are voting for a specific person, “This sort of candidate self-selection is harmful to equal representation because, without party involvement, individual voters have no influence on the candidate choices hey will confront at election time.” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 187) Also due to fundraising candidates become committed to their greatest donors, such as the PACs, and so those who cannot give, find their voices overpowered by those fueling the candidates campaign. Elections now, greatly due to the media, do not show deliberation on public issues because our main source of information does not focus on the issues and thus the candidates themselves begin to not show how they stand on the issues, “Voters cannot even be sure that candidates actually believe what they say in debates or speeches.” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 209) So, instead pointless factors are analyzed, such as with the Horton mug shot, and one could argue that close to nothing substantial is learned. The last place where our democracy fails to be democratic is even if the last two faults did not exist who we vote for in the end does not make a lot of the decisions. Important decisions made in our government are made in legislation, bureaucracy, and the courts.
As stands now, it seems our elections have swayed far from Athenian democracy and even has swayed far from what we value and define as democracy. Even so, does our undemocratic system work? Should we let this flaw in our government slip or is there a way in which we can reform and turn back to the way a democracy should be run.
-Isabella
No comments:
Post a Comment