Why I Don't Prefer Direct Elections
When I was still in college, under a Christian umbrella, I, along with several brethren from various Christian organizations, ran for University Student Council. The student leadership then in our University saw us as a credible threat, so we were told by various witnesses that a wide smear campaign had been launched specifically by them against us. The different lies about us of course reached us, and although our supporters knew the truth, the vast majority of students who had previously been unbiased voted for them, as I personally witnessed much later the reasoning of some of my schoolmates on why they voted for our opponents; they believed the lies that were told about us and used them as if they were truths beyond a shadow of a doubt. (I plan on telling this story in more detail at an article dedicated to it.)
On the other hand, I know of a person who ran for a key position, that although would partly affect things I did, I was not a voter for. This person was doing something which ethically was dubious, which I became aware of, and could have been ignored had he not ran for this position. However, since this fact was held in high secrecy, he could actually win because of the other things he did, which of course were not kept secret. With the need to unhide the truth (see my other article, “Informed Decisions – Why One Should Speak Out”), I wanted this secret to be revealed as I thought it was unfair for the voting population to vote lacking information that might be necessary in their decision. I believe that whether the information should affect their vote or not should be the voters’ decision, but instead I was hushed by big brother (seemingly with Jack Nicholson screaming in the background, “You want the truth! You can’t handle the truth!”).
These two examples alone exemplify why I don’t support direct elections. The problem is voters, to whom we entrust choosing the leaders of an organization we belong to, are not properly informed, or may even be misinformed. Some voters don’t even care about searching for the truth, or verifying if their information is true. (See my other articles, “Due Diligence” and “Liar, Liar”) Some have very bad bases on why they vote for people they vote for. (See my other article, “Campaign Strategies and Traditional Politicking”.) Some even just flat out sell their votes, tragically, for less than a day’s wages. (Then again, for people who don’t have jobs, whether they can’t get jobs or are just too lazy to work, they feel any amount in the present is worth more than their future.)
This may be trivial for us, if their votes don’t affect us, but if we belong to the same organization, you may agree with me when I say that it is unfair that the vote of a person who performs due diligence has the exact same weight of a vote cast haphazardly. And what’s sad is very few votes are cast with due diligence while so many votes are cast from bad bases.
In the Philippines (to which I am a citizen of), some people have suggested that only tax payers be allowed to vote. This is under the assumption that the poorest people in the Philippines are the worst voters, who vote for empty promises, the worst bases, or even with the smallest gifts (that have greater consequences in the future). It may also be why many politicians pander to the poorest class; they are easiest to deceive (according to that assumption), and they constitute the largest portion of our population. Another reason for this suggestion is that politicians keep giving (or at least promising) to the poorest class, but in the process heavily taxing the middle class (taxing, in all senses of the word). They argue, why should the politicians keep focusing on the poor and yet burdening the middle class when it is the middle class who supply their salaries (via taxes), and in the process, the lower class keep squandering benefits from these politicians (for example, free housing, which allegedly some of them sell). I know that this argument is selfish and many of the assumptions are mere generalities. I personally agree that if we did segregate the tax payers with the non-tax payers, the government may just as well totally ignore the poorest class, burying them further into poverty, which is something I would not want to happen. I believe the government must take care of its entire people. Also, I do not believe the middle class will cast better votes, per se.
My original argument, which states that direct election does not work because many people are uninformed, not doing anything to be informed with important facts, or are allowing themselves to be misinformed, may be eradicated if we only allowed those who are truly informed to vote. But who are truly informed? How do we determine which people are informed enough? Any method we may come up with will be susceptible to bias or abuse. Some people might say, allow only the most intelligent people to vote. Plato actually considered a rule by a council of philosophers (lovers of wisdom) to be the best. Am I proposing that the best kind of election would be an election where only the most intelligent are allowed to vote? No. Intelligence does not consider ethics, and the most intelligent are not necessarily the most ethical people, and they may cast votes based on selfish reasons. Allowing only the most ethical people to vote would not work either, as even the most ethical people may be deceived, as many ethical people are not necessarily the smartest. Besides, how do we determine which are the smartest or which are the ethical? Such methods will still have a margin of error.
My point in this article is to point out that direct elections are not the best way to select people for specific positions. Plato actually considered this form of government the second worst, topped only by a dictatorship. Actually, many Greek writers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Herodotus, considered this kind of election oligarchic. Their point can be seen in Philippine politics. We claim that the Philippines is a democracy, and we show this by allowing anyone to vote and run for public office. However, how much democracy are we really enjoying? Democracy means rule of the people, but how many typical people are we really seeing in politics? We see dynasties, we see media personalities, we see the same kind of people over and over again. What happens to the people who truly want to serve and have a good track record, but do not have enough machinery or enough funding for their campaign? They lose to people who have resources. That is what those Greek writers meant when they said elections are oligarchic. Elections favor the rich; or to put it more accurately, elections favor those with resources. Which is why even if there is less reason to vote for a candidate than another candidate, with enough resources, a lesser candidate can put on a better façade, and with cheap tactics such as slogans, advertisements, catch phrases and affiliations (which again I discussed in “Campaign Strategies and Traditional Politicking”), the lesser candidate can still win. It’s about releasing information that will help you (even if it’s empty or even if it’s untrue) while effectively hiding your garbage. A simple strategy that has deceived voters for years now, and voters don’t even care to improve themselves, for the benefit of those who will be affected by their vote (which is selfish).
If we wanted to be truly democratic, a better choice would be sortition. Sortition is a method of selecting people for key positions practiced by no less than the archetype of democracy, Athens. Sortition is selection by some form of fair lottery. That means every single person in a lot has an equal chance of holding a position as any other individual in that lot, and nothing can bias it. That is a true rule by the people; that is true equality. Many groups practice sortition. An important constitutional right of Americans, the U.S. jury system works on sortition. The people who will acquit or find you guilty of a charge (in the U.S. and other countries with a jury system) are chosen randomly (although they are screened after). Even in the Philippines, there are laws that state (such as with S.K.) that if two candidates are tied by the end of the elections, the tie is resolved by a coin toss. I actually know someone who tied with his opponent for S.K. Chairmanship and lost the position at the coin toss. This is an example of sortition. During the first year of the College where I work for, we were going to choose three Senior Faculty Representatives among us College Faculty. Our Director from the School of Management suggested that we use software that will just choose randomly among us; his point was all of us (who weren’t all that many) were qualified and any one of us could do just as well as any other among us. I agreed with his suggestion. Had we gone through with it, that would have been another example of sortition. Of course, I am aware that sortition has many flaws, which is why a hybrid would be better than pure sortition. For example, when randomly drawing, some people can be automatically excluded, such as those under age, or convicted felons still serving time. The pool can be further refined by specifying fair and important qualifications. So, if the Philippines would practice sortition, assuming you’re a Filipino citizen, and you meet all the other criteria, you could be the next President! Okay, I’m not really suggesting the Philippines abandon direct elections in favor of sortition. I am just pointing out that direct elections are not the best way to select people for positions due to the problems it actually causes, and other methods exist and are used that are even better.
Even the U.S. does not practice direct elections. They use an Electoral College. Granted, the way things work in the U.S., it is greatly similar to a direct election, but if we look at the process in purest form, it is not. Americans do not vote directly for who they want to be President and Vice President. Rather, they vote for an Elector for their state, who in turn will vote for them. States have different numbers of Electors, depending on factors such as population. And although states have the Constitutional freedom to choose how it will choose Electors, the process of choosing Electors is usually by direct election. Before, Electors could vote for whoever they want (or ideally, who they believe is the best), but eventually, laws stated that Electors must state who they will vote for before the elections, and penalties can be given for those who do not vote as promised (which is why I said it becomes greatly similar to direct election). The Electoral College has many other details, advantages and flaws, but it’s off-topic with what I focus on now. (Had the U.S. used direct election, Al Gore would have been president at 2000; George W. Bush became president instead because of the Electoral College.) Personally, if the Philippines would use an Electoral College, I would be in favor. However, I believe the choosing of Electors would have the same flaws as direct election, and we’d just end up in square one.
Many agree that the problem with Philippine politics is the politicians. I believe we should stop looking at the candidates, but rather point the finger at us voters. If the voters would vote intelligently, perform due diligence and cast well informed votes, I believe we’ll have better people in position. But since I have no control over the will of people, I can only say that direct elections are not the best way to choose people for positions.
Leadership in companies is not chosen by direct election. How many of us have heard of a CEO who came to that position because he was elected by the employees of the company? No, leaders of companies are appointed, because of their abilities. Selection for such a critical position should not be left at the hands of likely uninformed or unobjective people. At most, if an election will occur, only selected people get to vote (majority stock holders, or members of the Board). And it is these critical decisions which can influence the success or failure of a company. Even in Athens, which practiced sortition, chose not to apply sortition to choose its military leaders, but rather they were selected based on their abilities. In Mensa Philippines, Mensans only vote for those they would like to become members of the Board of Trustees. It is this Board which subsequently chooses and appoints people to specific positions, such as the Presidency. In an organization I advise, the new leaders thought the way they were chosen for leadership was laughable because no elections were held. Rather, I approved of the method; the incumbent basically just appointed successors. I approve because I know that they would choose the best ones to lead the group (I knew they wouldn’t use it to merely create dynasties or for other negative reasons), and again I know of the flaws of a direct election; if it was via direct election, it may just end up as a popularity vote, and I have seen horrible accounts of “leadership” of winners simply because of a popularity vote. I have lead many groups, all of which because I was appointed to leadership. Before 2006, I have never won an election. The only time I had ever won a vote was when I was voted out of The Weakest Link (see my other article, “Time and Chance”).
Before I end, I would like to point out that I am not a Communist, nor something similar to that. I understand the appeal of Communism, and I understand that it is an idealistic form of government that is hardly realistic, and we have witnessed that with formerly communist countries. Please also note that I am not merely bitter at direct elections because of personal experiences. I hope I have made it clear that my arguments against direct elections are objective. Besides, late 2006, I won my first ever election when I was elected Board Member of Mensa Philippines. Isn’t it interesting, that I can only win an election when voters are limited to members of Mensa.
To end this, I will tell you what I believe is the best form of government: Theocracy. That means a rule by God (the one true God), where leaders are Godly people chosen by God. Of course, I don’t mean God opens up the skies and speaks to us. What I mean is Godly people are chosen to lead the country. Pastors and other church leaders are appointed, not elected. How Godly people will be selected is a good question too. The realistic answer would be, chosen by Godly people, for Godly reasons, but how to determine these Godly people will be the recursive question. However, if we choose untrue Godly people, we’ll end up with church politics, as I too have witnessed that. I know that my suggestion may be religion-insensitive, but it’s not about religion, it’s for the sake of the people. As a Christian, I believe, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord...” (Psalm 33:12) And whether you believe that or not, I repeat something I have grown to love to say, it’s not about what you believe in, it’s about knowing the truth. I know this last suggestion of mine to support Theocracy is too idealistic (or too biased) to many people, but nonetheless I will still say it is the best form of government. Although I believe we can apply that “small” scale while still in this world, I too doubt that we will ever achieve that for the whole world while still in this earthly realm, so I will still vote given the chance, but will still push for other options of selecting people for key positions, with selection via true Godly / Christian reasons my best option.
- A. L. E. -
(Originally written: 2007, February 27, 9:20 pm)
On the other hand, I know of a person who ran for a key position, that although would partly affect things I did, I was not a voter for. This person was doing something which ethically was dubious, which I became aware of, and could have been ignored had he not ran for this position. However, since this fact was held in high secrecy, he could actually win because of the other things he did, which of course were not kept secret. With the need to unhide the truth (see my other article, “Informed Decisions – Why One Should Speak Out”), I wanted this secret to be revealed as I thought it was unfair for the voting population to vote lacking information that might be necessary in their decision. I believe that whether the information should affect their vote or not should be the voters’ decision, but instead I was hushed by big brother (seemingly with Jack Nicholson screaming in the background, “You want the truth! You can’t handle the truth!”).
These two examples alone exemplify why I don’t support direct elections. The problem is voters, to whom we entrust choosing the leaders of an organization we belong to, are not properly informed, or may even be misinformed. Some voters don’t even care about searching for the truth, or verifying if their information is true. (See my other articles, “Due Diligence” and “Liar, Liar”) Some have very bad bases on why they vote for people they vote for. (See my other article, “Campaign Strategies and Traditional Politicking”.) Some even just flat out sell their votes, tragically, for less than a day’s wages. (Then again, for people who don’t have jobs, whether they can’t get jobs or are just too lazy to work, they feel any amount in the present is worth more than their future.)
This may be trivial for us, if their votes don’t affect us, but if we belong to the same organization, you may agree with me when I say that it is unfair that the vote of a person who performs due diligence has the exact same weight of a vote cast haphazardly. And what’s sad is very few votes are cast with due diligence while so many votes are cast from bad bases.
In the Philippines (to which I am a citizen of), some people have suggested that only tax payers be allowed to vote. This is under the assumption that the poorest people in the Philippines are the worst voters, who vote for empty promises, the worst bases, or even with the smallest gifts (that have greater consequences in the future). It may also be why many politicians pander to the poorest class; they are easiest to deceive (according to that assumption), and they constitute the largest portion of our population. Another reason for this suggestion is that politicians keep giving (or at least promising) to the poorest class, but in the process heavily taxing the middle class (taxing, in all senses of the word). They argue, why should the politicians keep focusing on the poor and yet burdening the middle class when it is the middle class who supply their salaries (via taxes), and in the process, the lower class keep squandering benefits from these politicians (for example, free housing, which allegedly some of them sell). I know that this argument is selfish and many of the assumptions are mere generalities. I personally agree that if we did segregate the tax payers with the non-tax payers, the government may just as well totally ignore the poorest class, burying them further into poverty, which is something I would not want to happen. I believe the government must take care of its entire people. Also, I do not believe the middle class will cast better votes, per se.
My original argument, which states that direct election does not work because many people are uninformed, not doing anything to be informed with important facts, or are allowing themselves to be misinformed, may be eradicated if we only allowed those who are truly informed to vote. But who are truly informed? How do we determine which people are informed enough? Any method we may come up with will be susceptible to bias or abuse. Some people might say, allow only the most intelligent people to vote. Plato actually considered a rule by a council of philosophers (lovers of wisdom) to be the best. Am I proposing that the best kind of election would be an election where only the most intelligent are allowed to vote? No. Intelligence does not consider ethics, and the most intelligent are not necessarily the most ethical people, and they may cast votes based on selfish reasons. Allowing only the most ethical people to vote would not work either, as even the most ethical people may be deceived, as many ethical people are not necessarily the smartest. Besides, how do we determine which are the smartest or which are the ethical? Such methods will still have a margin of error.
My point in this article is to point out that direct elections are not the best way to select people for specific positions. Plato actually considered this form of government the second worst, topped only by a dictatorship. Actually, many Greek writers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Herodotus, considered this kind of election oligarchic. Their point can be seen in Philippine politics. We claim that the Philippines is a democracy, and we show this by allowing anyone to vote and run for public office. However, how much democracy are we really enjoying? Democracy means rule of the people, but how many typical people are we really seeing in politics? We see dynasties, we see media personalities, we see the same kind of people over and over again. What happens to the people who truly want to serve and have a good track record, but do not have enough machinery or enough funding for their campaign? They lose to people who have resources. That is what those Greek writers meant when they said elections are oligarchic. Elections favor the rich; or to put it more accurately, elections favor those with resources. Which is why even if there is less reason to vote for a candidate than another candidate, with enough resources, a lesser candidate can put on a better façade, and with cheap tactics such as slogans, advertisements, catch phrases and affiliations (which again I discussed in “Campaign Strategies and Traditional Politicking”), the lesser candidate can still win. It’s about releasing information that will help you (even if it’s empty or even if it’s untrue) while effectively hiding your garbage. A simple strategy that has deceived voters for years now, and voters don’t even care to improve themselves, for the benefit of those who will be affected by their vote (which is selfish).
If we wanted to be truly democratic, a better choice would be sortition. Sortition is a method of selecting people for key positions practiced by no less than the archetype of democracy, Athens. Sortition is selection by some form of fair lottery. That means every single person in a lot has an equal chance of holding a position as any other individual in that lot, and nothing can bias it. That is a true rule by the people; that is true equality. Many groups practice sortition. An important constitutional right of Americans, the U.S. jury system works on sortition. The people who will acquit or find you guilty of a charge (in the U.S. and other countries with a jury system) are chosen randomly (although they are screened after). Even in the Philippines, there are laws that state (such as with S.K.) that if two candidates are tied by the end of the elections, the tie is resolved by a coin toss. I actually know someone who tied with his opponent for S.K. Chairmanship and lost the position at the coin toss. This is an example of sortition. During the first year of the College where I work for, we were going to choose three Senior Faculty Representatives among us College Faculty. Our Director from the School of Management suggested that we use software that will just choose randomly among us; his point was all of us (who weren’t all that many) were qualified and any one of us could do just as well as any other among us. I agreed with his suggestion. Had we gone through with it, that would have been another example of sortition. Of course, I am aware that sortition has many flaws, which is why a hybrid would be better than pure sortition. For example, when randomly drawing, some people can be automatically excluded, such as those under age, or convicted felons still serving time. The pool can be further refined by specifying fair and important qualifications. So, if the Philippines would practice sortition, assuming you’re a Filipino citizen, and you meet all the other criteria, you could be the next President! Okay, I’m not really suggesting the Philippines abandon direct elections in favor of sortition. I am just pointing out that direct elections are not the best way to select people for positions due to the problems it actually causes, and other methods exist and are used that are even better.
Even the U.S. does not practice direct elections. They use an Electoral College. Granted, the way things work in the U.S., it is greatly similar to a direct election, but if we look at the process in purest form, it is not. Americans do not vote directly for who they want to be President and Vice President. Rather, they vote for an Elector for their state, who in turn will vote for them. States have different numbers of Electors, depending on factors such as population. And although states have the Constitutional freedom to choose how it will choose Electors, the process of choosing Electors is usually by direct election. Before, Electors could vote for whoever they want (or ideally, who they believe is the best), but eventually, laws stated that Electors must state who they will vote for before the elections, and penalties can be given for those who do not vote as promised (which is why I said it becomes greatly similar to direct election). The Electoral College has many other details, advantages and flaws, but it’s off-topic with what I focus on now. (Had the U.S. used direct election, Al Gore would have been president at 2000; George W. Bush became president instead because of the Electoral College.) Personally, if the Philippines would use an Electoral College, I would be in favor. However, I believe the choosing of Electors would have the same flaws as direct election, and we’d just end up in square one.
Many agree that the problem with Philippine politics is the politicians. I believe we should stop looking at the candidates, but rather point the finger at us voters. If the voters would vote intelligently, perform due diligence and cast well informed votes, I believe we’ll have better people in position. But since I have no control over the will of people, I can only say that direct elections are not the best way to choose people for positions.
Leadership in companies is not chosen by direct election. How many of us have heard of a CEO who came to that position because he was elected by the employees of the company? No, leaders of companies are appointed, because of their abilities. Selection for such a critical position should not be left at the hands of likely uninformed or unobjective people. At most, if an election will occur, only selected people get to vote (majority stock holders, or members of the Board). And it is these critical decisions which can influence the success or failure of a company. Even in Athens, which practiced sortition, chose not to apply sortition to choose its military leaders, but rather they were selected based on their abilities. In Mensa Philippines, Mensans only vote for those they would like to become members of the Board of Trustees. It is this Board which subsequently chooses and appoints people to specific positions, such as the Presidency. In an organization I advise, the new leaders thought the way they were chosen for leadership was laughable because no elections were held. Rather, I approved of the method; the incumbent basically just appointed successors. I approve because I know that they would choose the best ones to lead the group (I knew they wouldn’t use it to merely create dynasties or for other negative reasons), and again I know of the flaws of a direct election; if it was via direct election, it may just end up as a popularity vote, and I have seen horrible accounts of “leadership” of winners simply because of a popularity vote. I have lead many groups, all of which because I was appointed to leadership. Before 2006, I have never won an election. The only time I had ever won a vote was when I was voted out of The Weakest Link (see my other article, “Time and Chance”).
Before I end, I would like to point out that I am not a Communist, nor something similar to that. I understand the appeal of Communism, and I understand that it is an idealistic form of government that is hardly realistic, and we have witnessed that with formerly communist countries. Please also note that I am not merely bitter at direct elections because of personal experiences. I hope I have made it clear that my arguments against direct elections are objective. Besides, late 2006, I won my first ever election when I was elected Board Member of Mensa Philippines. Isn’t it interesting, that I can only win an election when voters are limited to members of Mensa.
To end this, I will tell you what I believe is the best form of government: Theocracy. That means a rule by God (the one true God), where leaders are Godly people chosen by God. Of course, I don’t mean God opens up the skies and speaks to us. What I mean is Godly people are chosen to lead the country. Pastors and other church leaders are appointed, not elected. How Godly people will be selected is a good question too. The realistic answer would be, chosen by Godly people, for Godly reasons, but how to determine these Godly people will be the recursive question. However, if we choose untrue Godly people, we’ll end up with church politics, as I too have witnessed that. I know that my suggestion may be religion-insensitive, but it’s not about religion, it’s for the sake of the people. As a Christian, I believe, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord...” (Psalm 33:12) And whether you believe that or not, I repeat something I have grown to love to say, it’s not about what you believe in, it’s about knowing the truth. I know this last suggestion of mine to support Theocracy is too idealistic (or too biased) to many people, but nonetheless I will still say it is the best form of government. Although I believe we can apply that “small” scale while still in this world, I too doubt that we will ever achieve that for the whole world while still in this earthly realm, so I will still vote given the chance, but will still push for other options of selecting people for key positions, with selection via true Godly / Christian reasons my best option.
- A. L. E. -
(Originally written: 2007, February 27, 9:20 pm)
