| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels Of course, everyone knows that the election in Iraq was a sham. Every Iraqi ballot had numbers corresponding to their identity card so that officials could see who voted and how. Sure, you could vote against Hussein, but it wouldn’t be good for your health. But more importantly, it was deemed vital by Iraq’s government that it look like the entire Iraqi population supported him in a time where his authority has come under threat of direct attack. I’m pretty sure some Iraqis didn’t vote. After all, at least one citizen was too sick to get to the polls, and certainly at least one person wondered, “Why bother voting? We know who’s going to win. I’ve got better things to do.” But that didn’t keep Iraqi officials from declaring a 100 percent turnout long before it was even possible to count the number of ballots registered, much less figure out whether everyone submitted their own ballots rather than have others submit it for them. It was the perception of 100 percent turnout, 100 percent support for Hussein that mattered. While Iraq’s election wasn’t about to fool anybody, it did demonstrate that Hussein understands one crucial truth: in politics, perception is reality. What appears to be true is more important than what is true. But before we snicker too much at Iraq’s election, consider some facts about our own. Incumbent candidates in the House of Representatives were re-elected an amazing 98.5 percent of the time in 1998 and 2000, and incumbency in the Senate regularly tops 80 percent. Of the 34 Senate seats up for election in 2002, only six of the races are considered competitive. Roll Call cites only ten House incumbents as being on “thin ice” in 2002—out of 435 seats. If it weren’t for redistricting plans pitting incumbents against each other or drastically changing their constituencies, the situation would be even bleaker. So, in a way, it’s rather odd for us to be scoffing at a no-brainer election in another country when the vast majority of our federal elections are no-brainers as well. Unless members of Congress voluntarily step down or are forced out by scandal, they basically can stay in office for as long as they wish. No wonder most voters choose just to sit at home. Now, from a moral standpoint, there’s no question that our democratizing is better than Iraq’s. American politicians don’t threaten people with bullets if they don’t vote or don’t vote for the right person; they merely threaten that the other candidate will take away your grandmother’s Social Security money and leave her homeless and hungry if elected, or bribe voters with promises of spending increases that someone else will be made to pay for. The rest of us then see through the rhetoric and refuse to vote at all. But seriously, while the process is far different, the results are fairly close to being the same. Those in office, both in Iraq and America, face little challenge from anybody but themselves. Part of this is because our electoral system is geared toward protecting incumbents who, incidentally, are the ones drafting the rules. But it’s also because we have allowed our perception of elections to cloud reality. We’re so convinced that money inevitably corrupts politics that we don’t mind it when people are restricted in how they can financially support a campaign, even though the vast majority of donors want to donate so that their chosen candidate won’t change their view on key issues, as opposed to trying to “corrupt” the candidate into a new position. The result? Incumbent politicians from the two major political parties have no problems raising money in small chunks, while challengers and third-party candidates almost always lag behind in fundraising. Some suggest that money should be taken out of the election equation altogether. But, it costs money to disseminate political views and it’s not wise to let the entrenched incumbents already in Congress be allowed to choose how much money gets used for whose political speech. Think challengers and third parties would fare well in that debate? If it were up to me, I’d kick corporations and unions out of the donor pool and let American citizens donate as much as they want. Limiting donations favors the incumbent’s long list of donors, and having only individuals be donors prevents corporations and unions from gaming the system—a game won by incumbents since they’re the ones in office right now armed with the federal power those groups fear. The natural advantages incumbents have would be gone, and maybe then our elections wouldn’t be foregone conclusions every two years. Oh yeah, and we need to do something about those voting booths... |
||
