Democracy lacking in winner-take-all elections

The editorial “Public Opinion: So What?” (BDN, March 29-30) touches on the crucial issue of American politics today, namely, that our political system is broken and needs to be fixed. It doesn’t matter very much whether our political leaders disregard public opinion polls. The deeper problem is that public opinion is not expressed at the polls.

This great country belongs to all of us. The tax money collected by our government belongs to all of us, and all the things and services purchased by those funds, including our military, belong to us. And we decide how all those resources are used.

How does Vice President Dick Cheney fit into that? How can we have an elected leader who expresses contempt for the opinion that elected him? The answer is that our political system has channeled and restricted public opinion to such an extent that Mr. Cheney has no fear of public opinion. He has been able to control it sufficiently for his purposes, and it can’t touch him now.

The problem is our winner-take-all elections. Bush-Cheney won by the merest whisker. It didn’t matter at all. They won, and they act like kings because they got all the immense power of the presidency. They are the “deciders,” by a margin of 500 “hanging chads.”

There are many millions of citizens of voting age in the United States, and that means many millions of opinions about what our government should do with our money and resources. Why should elections be “winner-take-all”? Isn’t it more sensible that the results of elections should reflect the range of opinion expressed in the election?

The consequence of winner-take-all elections is that we are forced into a two-party system. Third parties, let alone multiple parties, are deselected by political evolution in our system. I believe that the Republican Party is the only case in American history in which a third party has endured. In that case, it replaced one of the pre-existing parties. No third party has had a real chance of winning a national election since 1860.

The reason why third parties don’t work is that a vote for them is a vote thrown away. Usually third parties are the “kiss of death” for whichever major party is closer to their position. Those who make the effort of creating a third party are punished for trying.

Having only two real alternatives is an immense restriction on democracy. What is even worse is the restriction on what those alternatives are. Because only a majority is meaningful, the nominees of the two parties must have a good chance of gaining a majority in the election.

What kind of people have a good chance of winning an election? Not people who tell the truth. A lot of people don’t like to hear unpleasant truths. Not people with strong convictions. Strong convictions will inspire people to take stands regardless of public opinion at inconvenient times, such as before the election, unlike our vice president. Not people with radical or innovative ideas, which almost by definition don’t have mass acceptance while they are still radical and innovative.

Even more disturbingly, it is almost a requirement that a nominee must have the active support of some of the rich and powerful, including multinational corporations, and definitely must not be actively opposed by the rich and powerful. Wealth doesn’t totally control this country, but it swings enough weight to make a majority unobtainable.

If our elections had proportional results, as they do in parliamentary democracies, then voting for a small party would not be throwing away your vote. For example, if in a national election one-quarter of a percent of the vote entitled a party to one representative in the national legislature, then every quarter percent of the vote would be significant. Shouldn’t it be significant in a democracy?

In a democracy like that suggested above, you could vote for someone who actually represented your views, and the voice of every quarter percent of the voters would actually be heard, and would play a part in our political decisions. In a parliamentary system, the executive is chosen by a majority of the national legislature, and his or her term lasts as long as that majority lasts. Executive officials in parliamentary systems do not make statements like Mr. Cheney. Their reality is different.

The consequences of our winner-take-all elections and our two-party system is that the power, resources and money of this country of ours are being directed by people who don’t represent us at all. Our political system is out of control, and it is in the control of interests that don’t give a damn about America.

Our Constitution can be amended to establish a parliamentary democracy here. As conditions worsen in this country and our frustration grows, we should remember that we do have the power to change the rules of the game.

Kerry Millay is a professional mental health counselor and freelance writer who resides in Surry.