"Democracy" In America

I want to put this myth to bed, once and for all.

Every four years we get to witness the spectacle of the election of the President, here in the United States. With grand pomp, ceremony, and an ungodly amount of money, the American people come together and choose a leader for the country in the flagship election of Western Democracy.

Right?

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, stupid, dumbheaded, ignorant, ill-informed, and again, very, very wrong.

Not that I blame the average citizen for believing this to be the case. A lot of very powerful interests and individuals, combined with the culture of American Exceptionalism, the hagiography of the Founding Fathers, and the like, forge an unholy alliance to keep people under the delusion that their votes count, that they're equal participants in the process, and that the quadrillenial process is anything to be proud of.

Ok, let's start with a little history True and False, to correct some of the longer running misconceptions about the way we handle elections in America.

Myth: The Founding Fathers, in their infinite and godlike wisdom and generosity, devised a series of clever checks and balances, orderly branches of government, overseen by regular elections to both protect the people and give them a voice and power over their government.

Fact: The Founding Fathers, actually, either hated or feared the American populace, and set up any number of roadblocks in the way of direct participatory democracy, to ensure that the people, who they saw as generally reckless and ignorant, could not burn the country to the ground.

To be perfectly fair to these men, a fair portion of the country did try to do just that, over a tax on Whiskey, during the first failed government of the United States, our Confederacy.

They gloss over the fact that we had a government before the Constitution in most of your civics classes and high school history texts, because it contradicts the mythos about the founding of this nation, and the Wise Old Men who created it. They were human, and their first attempt to create a lasting social compact? Almost fell apart over whiskey. Seriously.

So, when they created the system by which the national government was selected, they wanted to give the appearance of democracy, without actually allowing the masses much of a say. In this, at least, they were remarkably clever.

First, they gave the people half of Congress to elect for short terms, to allow them to exercise their indignation on a regular basis and feel involved. This was the least powerful part of the new government in many respects. Just look at the way the Legislative branch is laid out; the House starts impeachment, but the trial? That's decided by the Senate. The House has a huge number of members (435 currently), whereas the Senate is limited to 2 per state. Thus each Senator's individual power is far greater than a Representative. Finally, with 6 year terms, Senators are far more secure to work to enact their agenda, and since they're only up for election a third at a time, they're insulated from public retribution if they do unpopular things, as an aggregate.

Oh, did I mention, the Founders never intended that you get to pick your own Senators? It's true.

Originally, Senators were picked by the States, by whatever method each individual state felt appropriate. Usually this meant they were selected by the State government. This provided yet another additional layer of protection between the (admittedly) unwashed masses and actual levers of power.

But the Presidency was an even greater prize, and they had grand plans to make sure that the people never got a meaningful say in that contest at all.

First, they set up an indirect method of election for the Presidency, much like they had with the Senate. Only here was a twist; whereas with a Congressman, you elected by direct popular vote in your district, and for a Senator, you elected the people who would select them by direct popular vote in other districts, with the President, there would be no direct popular vote at all. That was too risky.

Rather, they invented the Electoral College.

This is a stunning bit of slight of hand. First, each state is allotted a number of Electors, determined by their number of Representatives plus their Senators. Then an elaborate farce is conducted whereby the rubes are convinced, by those silly ballots they fill out, that they are voting directly for a person to fill the office. In fact, you're voting for an elector for that person, who is not, in fact, actually compelled to vote for them in the actual College that determines who sits in the White House. They usually, but not always, do. (Electors themselves are picked by whatever process the state feels necessary, and are usually members of the American Aristocracy looking for a sinecure to pad their career. The idea is that you never actually know the name of your Electors; if you're a good pet American citizen, you never know that they exist at all).

This ensured that the Founders could always override a popular vote if they needed to.

The Electoral College itself is profoundly undemocratic. In high school you usually hear the arguments that the Senate, even though it's not apportioned by population, was necessary to appease the small states. Perhaps that's true. But the Electoral College compounds that error by adding another layer of indirect representation with the ability for the ruling elite to ignore your vote entirely.

As a further insult, they thought it'd be hilarious to hobble the office of the Presidency by having the Vice President be the runner up in the Presidental Election. This led to, naturally, bitter, intractable rivalries between the two most powerful men in the Executive Branch. Not surprisingly, this system didn't last long, and more or less prevented meaningful work from being done for the first few years of the New Republic.

So, in the original setup, it went like this.

Joe Bob in State X Votes for State Legislature
State Legislature Picks National Senators Out of Hat
Joe Bob is Convinced He Matters

Joe Bob in State X Votes for "President Y"
In reality, Joe Bob has voted for an Elector who has pledged, informally, to vote for "President Y"
Elector, out of a pool selected by State Government, picked by Joe Bob, can, or can choose not to, vote for "President Y"

Yay Democracy!

This setup was later replaced by the infamous smoky back-room deals of the early political parties, where the powerful party rulers would get together, in secret, and pick their respective nominees. No caucuses, no primaries, nothing. You, Joe Bob the III, on election day, got your two choices, picked by the rich Washington Elite, both more or less determined to rape you up the butt for four years.

Pull the lever, monkey! Get your banana!

In turn, as national parties gained prominence outside of their Washington elite, the process changed yet again, to appease the rubes who were getting just a little bit wiser.

First, they allowed direct election of Senators.

Then they started allowing you to pick your party's Presidental candidate. Sort of.

The first idea was the Caucus system you see in ignorant, backwater places like Iowa to this day. Here, a small group of electors is again selected, pledging to vote for a candidate, in a miniature Electoral College of its own. Big surprise how that turns out. These people in turn select a delegate to go on to a process we'll see in just a bit.

When the plebs dared to voice concern over this raw deal, they invented the Primary. Now here is a hoot. You get a direct election to pick your candidate, right? Wrong.

See, what you're doing with the Caucus and with the Primary is, yet again, picking an indirect group, who then go on to the Nominating Convention in the summer of the election year for their party. There, they can, or can not, vote as they were elected to do, for the candidate Joe Bob the VI thought he voted for.

Oh, and if Joe Bob didn't vote for the candidate who got a plurality of the vote? He might as well have taken that ballot and used it for toilet paper. Winner take all, baby (in most cases).

So now the system looks like this:

Joe Bob the VI goes to a Primary or Caucus.
Joe Bob votes for 'Candidate X'
Joe Bob's vote for 'Candidate X' either actually goes to Caucus Member Y, or directly toward selecting Primary Delegate Y.
Caucus Members pick Delegates, if a Caucus was used; so now you have Delegate Y.

Delegates Y, from all over the country, converge on the Nominating Conventions of the two major parties. Keep in mind, there is no legal role for political parties in the American Constitution; in fact, they weren't supposed to exist at all. They simply evolved as a way to allow the rich and powerful to further manipulate the vote, as you'll see.

So now you have Delegates Y, for various Candidates, from Various states. They go into a big hall, and pick Candidate X, Y, Z or Q.

So what Joe Bob did, in effect, was vote for a guy, who votes for another guy, who votes for a Third guy, who may or may not be the Presidential Candidate Joe Bob wanted when he cast his ballot.

Then the two parties, having thoroughly buggered the concept of democracy, go on to the General Election. Where the process largely repeats.

Joe Bob VI on election day, votes for Candidate X
In fact, Joe Bob VI has voted for a Electoral College member who pinky-swore to vote for X. Doesn't have to though.
Electoral College meets, laughs over brandy, and picks your next president no matter what you wanted.

Four years of elected monarcy follow.

Cynical Enough yet? Oh, don't stop now, it gets better!

For not all State Primaries or Caucuses are created equal. Some are held earlier than others, and by the time many are held, so many candidates have dropped out or one has gathered such a commanding lead that their primary or caucus is one, giant game of patty-cake.

Thus we have the current Iowa situation. The ultimate in the rape of democratic principles. Iowa is a state comprising roughly 1% of the population. Roughly 6% of its population turns out for their caucuses. The race in Iowa is trumped up by endless campaigning, huge ad buys and money spends, and the media, which loves their paegentry and small town hucksterism, into a much bigger deal than it actually is. The Iowa Caucus eliminates roughly half of YOUR choices for President, right off the bat; if you don't do well here, you can't get donors or media coverage for subsequent contests, and you're doomed, even if you don't want to quit.

So. The final evolution of American Democracy, in terms of a Presidental Election, looks like this:

Joe Bob the VIII watches the news on Iowa Caucus day.
The Iowan political elite, representing .06% of Americans, narrow the field of both major parties by half.
Then it goes on in New Hamsphire, where the field is further narrowed by a Primary run in a state full of lunatics and weirdos. After New Hampshire you're usually down to two, maybe three candidates on each side.

Another couple batches of primaries, and before the vast majority of the country even gets to vote for their party's candidate, it's down to one Republican and one Democrat for the General Election.

Where you don't even get to vote directly for a Candidate.

And where, in a close election, the Supreme Court, or rarely, the Congress, gets the ultimate say anyway.

And Joe Bob? His candidate lost in Iowa and dropped out. He's out of the process by the first week of election year. He gives up on the system and stays home on Election Day.

As do most Americans.

This is our celebrated Democracy folks. Remember that as you hear the CNN anchors bleat about how 'informed' the Iowan caucus goers are, or read blog posts about what a 'Great job' they did.

The only job they did was to further the rape of American Democracy, and the disillusionment of its citizens. Whether that's a good thing, I guess, I'll leave up to you.