Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
If you can't trust the election process [the basis of democracy] it doesn't matter if you can vote for the dogcatcher.
|
This IS a problem for the American system, though as Dis points out, it's not a flaw in the electoral system, so much as a flaw in the way elections are run and the lack of any meaningful oversight for that process. Nevertheless, it's a major problem, and one thing that Canadians can take to the bank, in terms of our system being "more democratic." Canadian votes don't all have the same weight either--a vote in a rural constituency typically counts for more than a vote in an urban one--but at least the electoral process has good oversight and is run efficiently, which is worth a lot in terms of determining how democratic a process is.
FWIW, true constitutional originalists frequently point out that the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, and that the framers' intention was never to create the most democratic system, merely the best one. That intention does show a little in antiquated institutions like the electoral college, and also in the complete lack of provision for neutral oversight of congressional redistricting--which is perhaps the biggest problem in American politics.
Why don't people vote in the U.S.? Simple. Most don't live in "competitive" districts, so they rightly judge voting for congressional representatives to be a pointless exercise.
Why are most districts not competitive? Because the district boundaries are grotesquely jerrymandered to protect incumbents and serve the interests of the powerful party in that state.
Why is there no oversight of this process? Because the framers didn't include one--either they didn't think to, or they thought it better for states to operate as miniature oligarchies within a loosely organized republic. The latter is more likely.
So--more democratic? Not so much, really.