Democracy is not the rule of the majority

[BenReilly]

There are those who believe democracy is the rule of the majority. That is a mistake. Democracy is the rule of those who participate. The latest debacle of the prime minister at the Likud convention clarifies that authority – in an interesting but dangerous process – is being transferred to the minority. And all by the rules of democracy.

In order to clarify the events of last week, lets examine what has caused numerous writers, commentators and politicians to scream out in disgust: the Likud referendum. During the two weeks that preceded the poll, it was the main issue on the agenda. Everyone had something to say. And then, when d-day arrived, the voters failed to show up. They abandoned the voting stations. Who showed up? Mainly those who are driven by ideology.

Ideological motivation is, no doubt, a worthy stimulus. However, when technical distortions enable a messianic group to take over the majority – democracy is in danger. A little more than one quarter of Likud constituents voted against the disengagement. But on the day of the vote, they consisted of the majority. Where were all the rest? Well, as it turned out, over 50% stayed home.

(...)
Polls that indicate that the majority of Likud voters support Sharon do not lie. However, a democracy that is based on primaries – which creates a low voter turnout, an ideal greenhouse for a takeover by an ideological minority – is what we are witnessing flourishing before us.


http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=10747

Aside from this specific example, which most people here might not be interested in, the general issue is interesting.

[Rick B]

Aside from this specific example, which most people here might not be interested in, the general issue is interesting.

I actually think this is quite an important point considering that both America and Britain are nearing elections. From the British perspective, only about 55% of the country votes. In reality that is usually the educated and employed. If say the Labour party, who used to be a "working class party" spent time and money garnering support from the 'non-voters' as such, they would never stay out of power.
I hve no idea of figures, but am sure the non-voting population in the US is at similar levels. Do either party ever try to gain that support? Is it a generalisation to say it is in only certain area's of society i.e. the poor, unemployed etc or does it cross society because of disillusionment?

[Caesar]

We have mandatory polls.

[IntheNet]

Vote early and Vote often! Oh yeah... Vote Republican!

IntheNet
Bush/Cheney in 2004

[Mel Brennan]

Participation is not (just) voting. Voting - and having a meaningful vote - is one result of participating.

Democracy is not (just) voting. Democracy - even as practiced within republics like the U.S. - is engaging and challenging and affirming and reshaping the institutions of democracy everyday.

If the time we spent dutifully being consumers was spent being citizens, we'd see far clearer the problems we face and the modes though which to engage them.

What does it say that there is nothing in, for example, public education that absolutely, fundamentally grounds young people in the truth that democratic efforts will not bear fruit if they do not participate, everyday? Civics tells students how government is supposed to work; it doesn't tell them how to participate everyday, nor does it make participating everyday paramount and essential to the effective viability of the town, county, state, and nation.

A fatal flaw.


We need to really, seriously, have a national, extended discussion about what citizenship means today, what it should mean, and what, if anything, we are going to do to fulfill its meaning.

Without citizenship being redefined in ostensible democracies, nations that claim to be by of and for the people in governance will continue to fragment and disintegrate in terms of citizen power, and coalesce and integrate in terms of elite power.

[BenReilly]

I hve no idea of figures, but am sure the non-voting population in the US is at similar levels. Do either party ever try to gain that support? Is it a generalisation to say it is in only certain area's of society i.e. the poor, unemployed etc or does it cross society because of disillusionment?

It's even lower over here. Age seems to be a greater factor than income with regards to voting rates. Also, while very low income people are more likely to vote Democrat, race and religion (esp. religious participation) appear to be the biggest factors.

[Chicago1871]

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

[BenReilly]

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Some would argue it's one wolf and three sheep, and somehow the wolf always wins.

[Rick B]

It's even lower over here. Age seems to be a greater factor than income with regards to voting rates. Also, while very low income people are more likely to vote Democrat, race and religion (esp. religious participation) appear to be the biggest factors.


Probably a question you would think the answer to be obvious here, but you've said age? By that do you mean the younger generations don't care of the older generations have become disillusioned? One thing Ive never understood is why religion is so much of an issue? We certainly don't have that here. The split between Labour and the Conservatives is very much done on class and income levels (obviously a generalisation but never the less).

[BenReilly]

Basically young people don't vote (it's now below 40% for Presidential elections). 25-30 year olds also have low voter turnout.

http://www.civicyouth.org/images/youth_turnout_trend.gif



As for religion, here are some figures:

Vote in 2000 by church attendance

Bush Gore
More than once a week 68% 32%
Once a week 58% 42%
Once or twice a month 41% 59%
A few times a year 40% 60%
Seldom 39% 61%
Never 35% 65%

[Barbara]

We have mandatory polls.


How do they enforce that?

[topcatcole]

An even scarier aspect to this in the states is the primary system. For those of you not in the US, we have primary elections so the major parties can choose who their candidates will be. The people who vote in primaries are typically the most motivated voters within the party. For the republicans this tends to mean the far right voter and for the democrats this tends to mean the far left voter. This leads to the American political saying that you "run the primary to the (left or right), and then race for the center."

This gives a large advantage in the general election to candidates that have locked up their party nomination early. They can start to "run to the center" much earlier. This is one of the many ways incumbents have an advantage.

Someone asked why this is happening. I think part of the reason is the length of election cycles in the US. In the UK the cycle is much shorter and I think this is much better. Another problem in the US is the election day itself. Many parts of the world have elections on the weekend when the majority of voters do not have a conflict with work. I think this would help.

It seems to me that the greatest reason for the lack of participation is that many, many people feel that their vote just does not matter. In part because the primary system tends to produce candidates that are either to the right or left of most voters, these voters feel that neither candidate represents their views. Hence they are faced with voting for the "lesser of two evils" or not voting. The dominance within political advertising of the "negative" ad further increases this alienation.

[Rick B]

Someone asked why this is happening. I think part of the reason is the length of election cycles in the US. In the UK the cycle is much shorter and I think this is much better. Another problem in the US is the election day itself. Many parts of the world have elections on the weekend when the majority of voters do not have a conflict with work. I think this would help.


? I don't get you on this point. Your election cycle is 4 years, ours is a maximum term of 5. Our elections are always in May and the media certainly starts the ball rolling around a year before.......

[topcatcole]

? I don't get you on this point. Your election cycle is 4 years, ours is a maximum term of 5. Our elections are always in May and the media certainly starts the ball rolling around a year before.......
Election cycle is not exactly the right term. What I am really talking about is the period of time an individual candidate spends actively campaigning (with full media coverage). For a candidate in the US to have a shot at the White House, they have to start a minimum of two years before the general election. Our primary season starts the January before the national election, so we are actively involved in elections from January to early November.

[Rick B]

Election cycle is not exactly the right term. What I am really talking about is the period of time an individual candidate spends actively campaigning (with full media coverage). For a candidate in the US to have a shot at the White House, they have to start a minimum of two years before the general election. Our primary season starts the January before the national election, so we are actively involved in elections from January to early November.


Ok, I understand. Ours is different mainly because we elect the party, not its leader. Therefore we can concentrate on policies supposedly....

[-cman-]

Sideline: Anyone wanna bet what the 18-24 turnout will be in November? I think it will match or exceed 1992 (Clinton - Bush).

Considering what the quite obvious stakes are in the current environment, I can never quite get my mind around why a sizable minority will still decide not to vote. Saying this election is probably the most important election in 50 year is no longer hyperbole, the results WILL matter in immediately tangible and long-term ways.

I agree that we do an awful job of teaching young people the how and why of ownership of their democracy. However the problem is deper than that. The really ridiculously useless form of the media's coverage of isses and politics, the general lazyness and insipidness of popular culture that denegrates seriousness or intellectualism, and a general culture of convenience that just plain promotes lazyness.

None of that is going to change barring a massive cultural or political upheaval.

[topcatcole]

Ok, I understand. Ours is different mainly because we elect the party, not its leader. Therefore we can concentrate on policies supposedly....
LOL. Both of our systems seem to have difficulty getting around to that!!

[topcatcole]

I agree that we do an awful job of teaching young people the how and why of ownership of their democracy. However the problem is deper than that. The really ridiculously useless form of the media's coverage of isses and politics, the general lazyness and insipidness of popular culture that denegrates seriousness or intellectualism, and a general culture of convenience that just plain promotes lazyness.

None of that is going to change barring a massive cultural or political upheaval.
This is very true. The influence of the media in elections is just plain terrible. No real discussion of candidates and their issues except in a very superficial way. I cringe everytime I hear "More Americans Get Their News From ABC News Than Any Other Source." That is not a knock on ABC, but on TV "journalism" as a whole.

I have good friends and neighbors who work at one of the biggest papers in the US (take a guess), and even they are very disillusioned by the lack of quality they perceive.

This constant posturing and planned sound bites from both campaigns is just further turning people away. How many people support Kerry-Edwards because they hate/fear/loathe Bush-Cheney or vice versa. Sad, but It seems like this is the prime motivation of a majority of voters,

[yossarian]

This is very true. The influence of the media in elections is just plain terrible. No real discussion of candidates and their issues except in a very superficial way. I cringe everytime I hear "More Americans Get Their News From ABC News Than Any Other Source." That is not a knock on ABC, but on TV "journalism" as a whole.

I have good friends and neighbors who work at one of the biggest papers in the US (take a guess), and even they are very disillusioned by the lack of quality they perceive.

This constant posturing and planned sound bites from both campaigns is just further turning people away. How many people support Kerry-Edwards because they hate/fear/loathe Bush-Cheney or vice versa. Sad, but It seems like this is the prime motivation of a majority of voters,


....television....the drug of the nation....breeding ignorance and feeding radiation.....

[Mel Brennan]

....television....the drug of the nation....breeding ignorance and feeding radiation.....

http://www.acroots.com/spearhead/images/hypocrisy.jpg

The GREATEST luxury...