The Internet's case against Democracy

With so much ado about the presidential nomination process going on in the states presently, I feel some commentary on this matter from a more technologically-inclined view might merit my attentions. The greatest question raised by these elections is not which of the three possible nominees are going to best serve the ideals of the nation. It is quite simply this: is the current methodology by which we determine our leadership at all adequate for solving the problems that our country currently faces?

First a bit of an ahistorical preface: I do not here intend to concern myself with facts and a politically correct (read: moralistic) account of the current state of affairs. It is possible that my current diet of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer has motivated me along this course; the important thing is that those who read this article must withhold judgment if it is based upon some petty disagreement with the facts I invoke. If you can see the ideas and processes with which I am struggling then the value of this essay will not be lost on you. If, however, you choose to assume a reactionary, moralistic stance towards me and deny my views a priori on account of their seeming to be politically incorrect, then I encourage you to visit a more palatable website.

The American electoral system has its roots in the founding father's desire for a sort of 'landed aristocracy' (or as close as possible in the then just-conceived USA) to make most of the political decisions. I believe that it is from this viewpoint that women and African-Americans were excluded by the constitution from the voting process, not because of any virulent racism (though it of course did exist and was jockeying for this state of affairs as well). The electoral college as such comes into being as a way to limit the ability for the popular vote to determine who holds power in a country. This is obvious to most people: it is for this reason that our political system is so inhospitable to 3rd-party candidates. Instead of getting into this fertile topic however, let us simply concede that the electoral college as such functions as a way to remove and diffuse the power of the popular vote. If an electorate votes in a 'winner-takes-all' local election for the right to decide who their representative will nominate as president, it logically follows that a candidate with popular appeal--that is, a candidate who wins the popular vote--may not and in fact will not necessarily win the election (2000 is the most recent example of this phenomenon; there are other instances as well).

How has this system gone wrong? For several reasons. First of all, the 17th amendment (changing the election of senators to a popular vote instead of being nominated by a state's assembly) and universal suffrage are two glaring examples of "just" or "virtuous" democratization that has had a detrimental effect on the country's election system. Now before I get into the meat of my argument I would like to preface that some of the views (indeed even the one just mentioned) I do not in any way espouse; I am undergoing an exercise to see just how viable our current electoral system remains in this hyper-technological world.

Now, the result of this diffusion of voting power has been beneficial in recent years. Indeed as a fully-liberal democrat I can only be happy that women and minorities are allowed to vote; these demographic groups form the backbone of the Democratic election effort. But what has happened as a consequence is that most people who vote today do not have the slightest knowledge about who they are voting for. Indeed the current state of American democracy is a paradox of epic proportions: presently the widest number of people exercise power over the election process (we are second-only to India in this regard), but also the centralization of both power and the media has induced a process of stultification amongst this country's electorate that is staggering.

And this is the crux of my argument: the internet and its associated de-centralization of media distribution has been a boon to those members of society who have the time to learn about those men and women who stand for election. But at the same time, the people who really do know about what is happening in this country are effectively silenced by the great mass of people who are either too busy or too ignorant to bother with learning about the calamities that stand on our collective doorstep.

So we must grapple with the democratization of information but the necessary limiting of power. Can you not see why this is necessary? The only alternative is to work towards the education of everyone so that they are not so ignorant of our situation. But this is impossible with the current politics in play. The republicans are of course aware of this and have successfully neutered our public education system. So what does a Democrat of good conscience do? Hope for the best and assume that somewhere down the line people will be educated enough to make decisions that are based upon informed opinions and rational debate?

It is saddening for me to have to say this, but if you asked me my political views today I would say that I am a fascist. Not in the antiquated 20th-century use of the term. Global Warming, the war in Iraq, the coming conflict with Iran, and the economic crisis cannot be adequately dealt with by any of the candidates that stand for election (though a cursory glance to the left will show you where the realist inside of me places his hopes and hard-earned cash). What is most necessitated by the internet revolution is a de-democratization of the political process; one that does not allow the current farce to continue. What I refer to as the 'current farce' is the fact-of-the-matter situation in which a select group of people are elected regardless--this is the same situation as the one I am advocating--but for one major distinction: We must realize the pervasive corruption that has taken hold of Washington and destroy it by replacing not the people who hold office but the people who decide who stands for office.

It remains to be determined just who will retain the power to decide elections (and I suppose in that sense this article is most lacking). In this sense my ignorance of history does not pay off: I haven't the slightest idea of how to create a meritocracy that on the one hand keeps the best interests of the nation as a whole in mind but on the other keeps complete fucking tossers such as Jon McCain and George Bush out of the political process. Because indeed our current political situation is the result of a perversion of the existing meritocracy. Where previously distinguished military service or an Ivy-league education were beneficial requisites for holding office, the administration of George Bush has proven this state of affairs to be woefully inadequate.

I do not propose any solutions but I think that it is the job of this generation (my own) to come up with a solution to this problem that can be summed up as: "disenfranchisement, but disenfranchisement of the right people". More later.