- Jul 31, 2006
- 1,202
- 18
- 81
I posted this in another forum a while back and in light of the election, I think it's appropriate to post.
Presidential elections don't seem to me to be by any means a process by which the popular sentiment is reflected considering several decidedly undemocratic processes. First, primary candidate selection is in most cases determined by political clout and personage with those party committees that determine the candidates, not through a direct primary. Second, a candidate's popularity depends largely on the coverage they are given by the increasingly consolidated corporate monolith we call the 'news media,' meaning the ability to consistently disseminate information on a mass scale is more important in choosing who is president than any sort of popular vote. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concent...edia_ownership) Incidentally, how much money you have determines this ability of dissemination. As in the first case, the problem lies more in candidate selection than the final choice between the two party candidates. Another problem is that it requires millions and millions of dollars in corporate donations to ever become president. It is hardly a democratic system where the primary means by which candidates are put on the final ballot is one in which political clout and money ties play the primary role. Still another problem lies in the barriers to entry perpetrated by the two ruling political parties, which creates an inefficient system whereby the individual doesn't vote on the candidate that actually fits his views, but rather must compromise and choose between what he sees as the lesser of two evils.
Nobody can truly call the election process in any way democratic or representative of the will of the masses. It is more characterized by wealth's undue influence on its outcome and a fundamentally centralized candidate selection system.
Presidential elections don't seem to me to be by any means a process by which the popular sentiment is reflected considering several decidedly undemocratic processes. First, primary candidate selection is in most cases determined by political clout and personage with those party committees that determine the candidates, not through a direct primary. Second, a candidate's popularity depends largely on the coverage they are given by the increasingly consolidated corporate monolith we call the 'news media,' meaning the ability to consistently disseminate information on a mass scale is more important in choosing who is president than any sort of popular vote. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concent...edia_ownership) Incidentally, how much money you have determines this ability of dissemination. As in the first case, the problem lies more in candidate selection than the final choice between the two party candidates. Another problem is that it requires millions and millions of dollars in corporate donations to ever become president. It is hardly a democratic system where the primary means by which candidates are put on the final ballot is one in which political clout and money ties play the primary role. Still another problem lies in the barriers to entry perpetrated by the two ruling political parties, which creates an inefficient system whereby the individual doesn't vote on the candidate that actually fits his views, but rather must compromise and choose between what he sees as the lesser of two evils.
Nobody can truly call the election process in any way democratic or representative of the will of the masses. It is more characterized by wealth's undue influence on its outcome and a fundamentally centralized candidate selection system.
Last edited: