American representative democracy is a wonderful system of government, but it works best when people understand just how it works.
Take political parties, for example. Political parties are essentially private clubs set up primarily to get members of the club elected to political office. Because of this, parties are extremely useful — in a democracy, there is strength in numbers, and so naturally it makes sense to gather together coalitions and alliances into a single, unified party.
American representative democracy is a wonderful system of government, but it works best when people understand just how it works.
Take political parties, for example. Political parties are essentially private clubs set up primarily to get members of the club elected to political office. Because of this, parties are extremely useful — in a democracy, there is strength in numbers, and so naturally it makes sense to gather together coalitions and alliances into a single, unified party.
Parties also serve as a type of political shorthand — if I say that I am a Democrat, you know immediately that I probably hold certain core values.
As useful and as widespread as political parties are, we need to remember that parties are not official parts of government. There is no section of the U.S. Constitution which describes how they are supposed to function.
Political parties operate according to their own rules. Superdelegates are completely legal, and they are not a new idea. There is nothing unusual about primaries where only party members, and not independent voters, are allowed to vote. Far too often this year, I have seen people complain about “rigged” or unfair elections.
Generally speaking, these complaints are largely unfounded. There are rules, and rules must be followed. But as long as everyone plays by the rules, candidates should have no reason to complain.
Then, there is the whole third-party issue.
American-style elections tend toward a two-party system. We don’t do proportional parliamentary voting, where second place or even third place finishes might still win seats. Here in America, the guy with the most votes wins; everybody else loses.
American third-party candidates are recipes for disaster. If candidate “A” gets 40 percent, candidate “B” gets 30 percent and candidate “C” gets 30 percent, it doesn’t matter that a majority of the voters (60 percent) voted for somebody other candidate “A.” “A” still wins.
This system encourages compromise.
Often, the voters may find themselves with two imperfect candidates. You might agree with most of what a candidate says, but disagree on other issues. It can be frustrating, but that’s typical.
A flawed candidate that you agree with 90 percent of the time is still better than a flawed candidate that you disagree with 90 percent of the time. Voting for a good, if somewhat flawed, candidate is still a better outcome than letting a bad candidate win.
American politics is more complicated than just “liberal” and “conservative.” There are many people in the “moderate” middle, although moderates do tend to be either “moderate-liberal” or “moderate-conservative.” In order to win any election, the smart politician must aim to unify diverse voices — and those differing viewpoints must learn to tolerate each other.
With a compromise, you may not get everything you want, but you stand a better chance of getting some of what you want.
“United we stand, divided we fall” applies to American politics quite well. This year is no exception.
James Fujita is a former GVN news editor. He works for the Visalia Times-Delta in California’s Central Valley. Fujita can be contacted at jim61773@yahoo.com
