American democracy survived this year’s tumultuous elections, though pre-election prognostications and election result-deniers had lots of people nervous. England’s Winston Churchill stated in 1947 that “(I)t has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;” Churchill added on by saying “but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, and that public opinion expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”
The people “rule” through their votes, but elections in Hawai`i tend to bring mostly intra-party squabbles, without major interparty battles of divergent philosophies. A democracy is surely strengthened when there’s healthy, multi-party, non-social media debate over issues and action plans “…if elected”. As I suggested last week, leaders gotta lead. But do they?
Some local elections are pretty much concluded with a primary election win over a same-party opponent. Some seats are walkovers- no opponent in either the primary and/or general election. In Hawai`i, the need for winners to truly act on published promises and pontificated platitudes is often unnecessary as said politicos don’t have much (or any) competition to worry about. Sure, some candidates really are that good, or the opposition that bad, and too many eligible voters don’t vote or even register, a resounding victory for “ainokea”.
In the November 8, 2022, local contests featuring two or more candidates for Governor, U.S. House and Senate, and our local State House and Senate, 51 out of those 67 contests (76%) saw the winning candidate receive at least 60% of the votes. Winning by 20% or more might be considered a relative trouncing, or anti-climactic.
How much pressure is there on those elected to lead, be bold, take risks and affect change? It’s easier, safer, and maybe smarter (job security) to simply meet, administer, and manage. Not making tough decisions on long-gestating issues apparently isn’t an issue with voters numbed by perceived minimal alternatives, at best.
I’m not pushing any particular party or stance, but rather suggesting that perceived or real pressure on candidates might encourage bolder efforts while they’re in office. And I get it; over 90% of incumbents get re-elected- name recognition, funding, et al. We simply need more quality competition to give more people more reasons to vote here.
Think about it…