Problems with Democracy

Chruchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried." One of the supposed benefits of democracy is the idea that by allowing all citizens to have their say, policies will better reflect the people's interests. This is intuitively true when we compare modern democratic republics to the autocracies of Europe in past centuries.
Nevertheless, when we examine the political process in modern America, several practical problems emerge related to the psychology of the people.

Voter Turnout
While in theory every individual has the right to vote overall turnout since 1964 has never been above 65% of the voting age population. Midterm congressional elections usually draw only about 35%. Therefore, election results do not necessarily reflect the people's interests as a whole.

Some would argue that individuals who choose not to vote had the opportunity to have their say, and therefore it is not the fault of democracy as a system. Others may suggest that refusing to vote is, in itself, making a political statement. While I concede both of these points to some degree, we currently do not know to what extent they are true. For example, the fact that election day is held on Tuesdays means that some individuals probably do not vote because of work or other obligations.

A friend of mine has been following the 2008 presidential election with great interest. He has a clear preference for one of the candidates, but when I asked him about it he told me that he is not going to vote. To him, and I think many people, voting is a hassle. "What's the value of a single vote?" one may ask. In the 2004 election one vote constituted 0.0000008% of the popular vote. To go to a polling place during a work day and potentially wait in line for hours to cast a single vote, seems like a waste of time. The problem is, millions of people may think this way. The 2000 final tally giving Bush a win in FL (and therefore, overall) was 537 votes (larger than the margin of counting error). In 2004, the election was decided by a difference of 118,000 votes in OH. I should mention that in OH, individuals in particular precincts had to wait in line for 4-10 hours (in the rain) to cast a single vote. While people are willing to wait in such lines for concerts and next-generation iPhones, I wonder how many people thought it was not worth their time for a single vote. My point is that while one person's vote has a miniscule impact, the fact that millions will use this fact to justify not voting could have an enormous impact. It is of relevance to both 2000 and 2004 that registered Democrats seem to have somewhat lower turnout than Republicans.

Incumbency
High congressional incumbency rates suggest a couple of points. One potential issue is name recognition and comfort with the familiar. This, in itself, is not necessarily bad. However, if elections are about voters getting their say to represent their interests, it is curious that they believe the best person for the job is already in office 80-95% of the time. An alternative interpretation is that most areas simply are lopsided in voter affiliation. Perhaps a district that is 60% republican will seldom vote for a democrat. Even if we took this to be true, it says something about the influence of voter party identification on the ability for incumbents to hold on to power. Thus, it would seem that identity rather than job performance could determine the outcome of many congressional elections. This might be a plausible explanation for why the congressional job approval rating is just over 20%, as most districts will undoubtedly reelect these individuals in November.

Manipulation of Public Perceptions
The most damning and perhaps obvious practical problem with a democratic system as it exists today in the US, is the role of propaganda. I'm using Webster's 3rd definition:
Propaganda: "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause."

Setting aside the negative connotations of the term, propaganda is obviously the purpose of political campaigns. The content of propaganda can be true and useful for voters to make informed decisions. Propaganda can obviously also mislead. Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on political advertisements this year. What is the content of those 30 second ads? Do we really learn more about candidates' policies? In the last week, McCain has put out ads stating that Obama is in favor of "comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners." Is this true? Well, no. But that does not matter to the McCain campaign as long as the ad is effective in raising Obama's negatives. The tactics do not need to be so direct either. Beginning with Tony Schwartz's "Daisy" cartoon, designed to play on the fears that Goldwater would have been trigger-happy with nuclear weapons, all presidential campaigns market their candidates to some degree as heros or champions and their opponents as incompetent or untrustworthy. In the 2008 campaign, such imagery has been perhaps more blatant and direct, but thematically no different.

Selling candidates as consumer goods (but with greater passion) degrades candidates, showing what is both necessary to be elected in the age of visual media, and the depths to which these candidates will sink for a win. In the past 50-60 years advertisers have learned a great deal about what works. Simply stated, billions of dollars are spent on ads because they affect behavior. Period.

Many of us are annoyed to sit through commercials, but are not really angered by them. After all, it is up to us consumers to choose to purchase products in the end. We have free will, right? Well, if effective techniques are used to bend our perceptions, attitudes, and desires so that as a group we probabilistically behave in a particular way, our will is constrained.

Thus, autocratic rulers of the past controlled their subjects directly. It ultimately did not matter what the people wanted. Today, with elections, the power is given to the people to choose their leaders. Only, now, with effective campaigning, and "issue ads" the views and desires of the people are molded. I know this sounds quite dark. I would not go so far as to say we are entirely controlled by the ads on television. But if they were not a determining factor in election outcomes, why else would it be essential for candidates to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising?

Summary
So maybe Churchill was right. I can't think of a just system in which the governed have no say. However, the idiosyncrasies inherent in the psychology of the people, and the manipulation thereof, seems to hinder our ability to realize some of democracy's noble ideals.