What ever happened to the US election system?
Posted December 10, 2007 on 9:39 pm | In the category Canada, Election, Election 2008, U.S. Domestic Policy | by Mackenzie BrothersIt’s not so long ago that the US caucus system designed to choose nominees for the presidential candidates of the only two parties that count came up with figures like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Kennedy, Reagan, McGovern, Nixon. Now it is certainly true that not all of these chaps proved to be such worthy leaders, but all of them were at least experienced politicians or, in the case of Eisenhower, an important historical personality and father figure. You could despair of Reagan and Nixon’s California view of the world or McGovern’s innocence, but their campaigns were veritable Socratic dialogues compared to the reports reaching foreign ears of the level of discussion in the current round of presidential candidate debates.
Recently on what many thought were satirical comedies, European and Canadian television has been running selections from Youtube or CNN debates in which grown men striving to lead a very powerful nation struggled over who was the best Christian or indeed if one of them was a Christian at all. This takes place in a country that is supposed to separate church and state. The Scopes trial was revisited and nobody seemed willing to really defend the idea of evolution. Questions were thrown at the man who was once the leading candidate about whether he wore secret underwear, and the beast that raised questions about real Roman Catholic beliefs, who seemed to have left the stage forever with the Kennedy election, once again raised its weird head. Fortunately Joe Liebermann isn’t in the mix.
What is going on? It is impossible to imagine any of these debaters would be taken seriously as a contender for any important position in any other leading western country with arguments like these. Certainly it is true that at least a couple of these people might have something to offer on some important topics, like health care for the US society or the Middle East for the global one. But they don’t seem to be able to find a forum or get much of a chance to discuss anything of consequence when the only topic that wins you votes is whether your Christianity is better than the next guy’s. Isn’t anybody down there working on a way of changing the electoral system?
4 Comments4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
answer is “NO”. We are trapped in a seriously demented reality show and there will be no winners. More on this in a future blog – – suffice for now – the MacKenzie boys are on to something.
Comment by jeff — December 10, 2007 #
The US election system is an oxymoron. With really only 2 parties to choose from, that is no choice at all. The art of debating is slowly dying off. Change is needed, but to what?
Comment by preacherbbb — December 11, 2007 #
There are as many problems with the U.S. election process as there are critics of it. The emphasis on relative strength of candidates’ Christianity is an issue because some (mostly Republican) candidates want it to be a big issue (not Giuliani probably…) and because the American press assumes that the right-wing Evangelical movement is this monolithic, powerful group hell-bent (whoops, sorry about that) on electing one of their own when they actually represent a relatively small percent of the voting public. They do, however, tend to come out in primary states like Iowa and S. Carolina – two important early primary states. The press treats the run as a horse race and spends most of its ink handicapping it. The mainstream press either does not bother with much serious analysis or – like Fox News – merely pimps for their own point of view.
Campaign reform has been tried and has failed to correct or even improve the situation. About 50% of eligible voters don’t bother voting; money trumps ideas; and at the end of the day the electorate has to take responsibilty for the quality of its political campaigns and the quality of its country; that latter quality in obvious and compelling decline.
Comment by jeff — December 11, 2007 #
jeff has nailed it on the head. there are really no viable candidates in either party. as for third party folks………….?
anyway, thanks jeff. for once i agree with something on this Great Blog. (and it is a great blog, i just don’t agree with all of it)
cole cordray
colecordray@msn.com
Comment by cole cordray — December 30, 2007 #