Something is needed to give the government an illusion of legitimacy, since we no longer think the first-born son is the only legitimate ruler. It is an illusion. Your vote can be and far more often than people imagine is stolen. I have seen close elections and inevitably they end up with the guy from the party that controls the election bureaucracy winning. I remember in particular a whole ballot box of Democratic votes in a close Gubernatorial election in Seattle showing up where the local judge force them to be included even though it meant more people had voted than had been listed as voting.
Now of course this is only possible in close elections, but they can be extremely significant -- look how Bush won in Florida and thereby got the Presidency, or how Kennedy won in Illinois with the same result.
The biggest problem though is the electorate itself. They vote based on impressions they get from a debate, with little if any knowledge of the candidate's voting record, and no sense at all of what the person is like. At least in things like Congressional leadership contests, the candidates are personally known to the voters, and so more sensible people usually win.
I can't think of how many times one or another candidate has won an election simply because he or she came out with a particularly effective campaign add. Why do you think so much of political advertising is so negative -- when everyone says they don't like them? It's because if you can tarnish your opponent with something, even though untrue or not the whole story, you win.
I repeat -- elections are a farce and the ensuing legitimacy an illusion. If I could think of something better I would be all for it. As it is, the process needs radical reformation.
Now of course this is only possible in close elections, but they can be extremely significant -- look how Bush won in Florida and thereby got the Presidency, or how Kennedy won in Illinois with the same result.
The biggest problem though is the electorate itself. They vote based on impressions they get from a debate, with little if any knowledge of the candidate's voting record, and no sense at all of what the person is like. At least in things like Congressional leadership contests, the candidates are personally known to the voters, and so more sensible people usually win.
I can't think of how many times one or another candidate has won an election simply because he or she came out with a particularly effective campaign add. Why do you think so much of political advertising is so negative -- when everyone says they don't like them? It's because if you can tarnish your opponent with something, even though untrue or not the whole story, you win.
I repeat -- elections are a farce and the ensuing legitimacy an illusion. If I could think of something better I would be all for it. As it is, the process needs radical reformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment