The American media have begun the countdown to the 2016 Presidential Election. The major political parties are apoplectic about “stirring up the base” and “getting out the vote.” The demagoguery, the flag waving, and the wildly cheering crowds will gain momentum, reaching a feverish crescendo at the Party Conventions. There the baton will be passed to each Party’s nominee to carry that enthusiasm all the way to election night. There is no more anticipated or celebrated event than an American Presidential election. All of the speeches, the fundraising, the public debates, the folksy camaraderie, and relentless polling have only one goal: to win your vote. The voter’s dilemma, however, is more than determining who or what deserves his/her vote.

In an “absolute democracy,” every issue and every office would be determined by a plebiscite, i.e., a majority of legal citizens must vote on what and who will govern them. For example, in ancient Greece each citizen exercised the right of self-government by voting in the Athenian public forum. Although the Grecian model may have inspired democracy, it was rejected by our founding fathers. Our system of government, though instigated by the Declaration of Independence and defined by the Constitution, was voted into existence by representatives of the colonies in the Continental Congress. As one might expect, they chose a “representative democracy” with checks and balances built into an equal, but separate, tripartite system of government. That system was designed to steer America’s course in concert with the will of future generations and with the collaborative wisdom of elected officials toward a more perfect union, albeit free of any form of tyranny. America’s future would depend upon how Americans evolved this union. Whereas the Greeks had slaves and denied women full citizenry, Americans would eventually move beyond these limitations. To this day, we Americans continue to develop a more perfect union, inspired by these same founding documents. The realization of Lincoln’s phrase, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” rests solely upon the voting authority of the people and the fair, honest, sensible custodians of our tripartite system of government. And those custodians are accountable to the electorate—with the exception of Supreme Court Justices who are accountable solely to lady justice and the Constitution. Though amendments to our Constitution are rare, we citizens regularly define the course of America through our representatives in Congress and the President. We cast our votes and trust our elected officials will represent our interest. This trust is critical in determining our vote. But it is also at the heart of the voter’s dilemma.

You may well question who you should trust when casting your vote. Do you vote for the candidates who support your priorities or at least most of them? Should you vote the “Party line” where you believe your priorities are generally advocated? Perhaps you are a single issue voter and will vote for any candidate that, for example, will build an unsurmountable wall across our border—or for any candidate that will keep immigrant families together and grant them a path to citizenship. However you choose to vote you know you must accept the will of the majority if we are to have a stable democracy. It is that acceptance that bodes a cautionary tale: you must not vote for any candidate incapable of representing and serving the general welfare even if you agree with him/her on a particular issue. Such a candidate seeks something other than the public service demanded by our system. Most likely, his/her goal is to win office for its own sake, not yours. To some degree, all candidates attempt to manipulate voters by advocating for issues they support. “Speaking the voters mind” is the job of a politician. But the politician who rides a single issue into office in order to cater to special interest or to reward large campaign donors does not serve the general public. He/she not only violates your trust, but undermines a representative democracy (reference “The Weirdness of American Policy”). In this instance, you may feel like your vote does not count. And that feeling is the voter’s dilemma most of us face.

It appears that 63% of the electorate agrees with this last sentence since they did not show up for the last Federal election. Currently, both political parties seem to be attracting the most electoral fervor around candidates who claim, on one side, that our political leaders are “stupid, bought and paid for” or, on the other side, are subservient to “the billionaire class.” There is more than a kernel of truth in this sad assessment. Campaign fundraising competes with the time our elected officials devote to serving the public interest; and well-paid lobbyists control much of the public agenda in Washington. On the other hand, there are well intentioned office holders who are truly dedicated to our welfare and America’s future. Unfortunately, their voices are often lost in the media blitz where only the most outlandish make the news. Our system of government is deteriorating because we are losing control of both the public forum and our electoral voice. Congress has been high-jacked by single-issue minorities, who garner the broadcast news megaphone with claims of injustice and alleged “unconstitutional” behavior of the majority. In some cases, they even quote the First and Second Amendments to suit their purpose without regard to legitimate Constitutional interpretation or Supreme Court rulings.

Congress also has fallen under the sway of the moneyed class a/o corporate America whose lobbyists now write much of the legislation that is allowed to reach the floor. Matters of general interest, such as immigration reform or background checks for gun purchases, are tabled and never appear in the Congressional record. Some of our elected officials actually believe they can hide from the electorate their true allegiance by not appearing in the voting record. These officials should be exposed by the fact-checking, truth-verifying members of the media. But, instead, their behavior has become the norm. Their game-playing mechanisms to hold onto power go almost unnoticed; and their distortion of the public agenda in favor of loud minorities or the financial elite has become “business as usual.” The irony is that Americans have already voted against these miscreants while still losing the public forum. The current majority party in Congress actually lost the popular vote. This irregularity owes to another form of game-playing called gerrymandering. Americans have already shown their preference for specific issues in the polls—some have even represented their issues at the very doorsteps of Congressional offices and in Congressional committee meetings. But their voices still go unheard on the floor of Congress. So what does it mean when neither the vote nor the voice of the American majority is heard by its elected representatives? What does it mean for the state of our democracy and the viability of our system of government?

My answer to that question is simple: our system, if not broken, is frayed. If the 2016 election is not a turning point for America, then when and how will we revive our democracy? If we feel our vote no longer counts, then we are doomed to live with the dysfunction we all see in Washington. Being so disillusioned is a lot like living in the dark and liking it. But only mushrooms flourish in the dark. Maybe this disillusionment comes from the fear that even greater voter turnout cannot fix what ails our system. That fear is based upon an irremediable cynicism and is another form of the voter’s dilemma.

Our popular vote today is heavily influenced by an easily distracted media, by a barrage of mind-numbing slogans, and by political pandering more than by reasoned debates and open dialogue on substantive issues. This negative influence is paid for by well-healed, self-interested agents and is promulgated by a portion of the broadcast media more invested in ratings and paying sponsors than in journalistic integrity. The common denominator here is money. My previous blogs on this subject (reference “American Revolution 2016” and “The Shining City on a Hill”) addressed one way for Americans to recapture control of the Washington agenda. I urged reform of our electoral process and public financing of Federal elections. So far only one candidate has proposed public financing of elections. Obviously, I would like to see more candidates join him in that proposal. My intent here is merely to promote more dialogue on this topic. Consider taking #the2016pledge. Perhaps we can begin to resolve the voter’s dilemma and make our votes truly count.