Presidential elections use a winner-take-all scheme. Some primaries do this too. I realize this really devalues a person's vote. For example, in Maryland, Obama and Hillary are the top two candidates. If one gets 60% of the vote, and the other 40%, then the delegates are split. There is some value, even if you don't back the winning horse.
Even a candidate with as little air play as Ron Paul can pick up delegates here and there, provided proportional representation is available. And that means people's opinions are being heard. Of course, the media and politicians would prefer that not happen because the fringe scares them. They want people to back a front-runner, and let the others fall by the wayside.
I recall hearing a story about Nixon, who felt sorry for a guy that got a silver medal in the Olympics. The guy thought he did pretty well, but for Nixon, winning was the only thing, so he couldn't imagine how anyone would think differently.
Whether this story is true or not, it does reflect a kind of truth, which is that elections aren't about hearing differing points of views, but about suppressing fringe dissent, so the rest of the electorate doesn't have to pay attention.
It seems strange we favor democracy, but only care about who wins, rather than the discussion that should ensue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment