Do political commercials prove democracy does not work?

Do political commercials in the USA prove that democracy does not work?

It has already begun, a nauseating birage of negative campaign adds to show you how dispicable the candidates are, each candidate attempting to unsdermine the character and credibility of his opponents. It is like watching a soft-core version of the old TV series 'The Untouchables' which showed how mobsters and gangsters would do almost anything to win. When I watch these commercials trying to win in a no-holds barred version of 'The Untouchables' I keep thinking why are they so upset by adult or pornographic material being broadcast when the obscenity of these political power hungry and Machevelian characters is nothing more than an obscene charade having nothing to do with democracy, the Republic of the United States or what the United States originally stood for?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness......"

Next time you watch a political commercial, ask yourself how we have gone so far down and away from the noble minds that conceived and created this republic?

[Scott]

I'm not sure what they say about democracy, but the effectiveness of these negative, ad hominem political ads seems to me to indicate a general irrationality, ignorance and perhaps even stupidity in the general public opinion. One thing I believe to be the case that does make democracy not in the interests of the many of which negative political ads may also be a symptom is this: The bipartisan league of wealthy special interests that control all the front-running politicians from both major parties decide via campaign contributions whose ads you see and would definitely choose the candidates on each side that argue over irrational, negative non-issues or petty wedge issues rather than represent real change because the current pseudo-democracy is working very well for the wealthy, controlling few.

In the end there is no ideology without it's flaws, Democracy being no exception. the general opinion dominates, but if there is a dominant class it is suppression of the few. In the end ideologies are more like what do you value most? Do you want a king and nobility class to decide what you do? Even if they cared a lot for the future progress of the country everyone else would not get a good life. In the end Democracy serves its purpose well, even if there are flaws. But I do agree that it could be better, but such takes time (before even considering such we would actually need to find something that serves the purpose better, and no philosophic thoughts seems to be successful at the moment :p ).

I don't know as much about U.S politics as I do Australian politics but over here it seems that there aren't that many advertisements as the U.S during a political campaign. That the political commentators on T.V and radio really hold the keys to the powers of negating political individuals. From what I have observed it seems that the better the commentators are the less advertisement is present. This means that there must be a good mix of Left and Right commentators here in Australia. I think another reason there is less political advertising in Australia is that their is the compulsory vote law, which makes people more serious about their politics and less prone to believe in political sensationalism.

I didn't the U.S was much of a democracy anyway. If (from what I've heard) most of the people don't vote in America, then the election of political representatives seems to favor the politically zealous over the politically indifferent. In Australia we do have a few "donkey voters"; people who scribble on a ballot ticket with a picture etc. But donkey votes make up less than 15% of the total votes, This means that the vast majority of the Australian public wants to pick a candidate over the other.

Another major difference that in my view makes the Australian democracy far better than the U.S democracy is that we have more distinctive political parties. From what I've seen of the Republicans and the Democrats is that their campaign goals are far too vague and pose no real policy visions that enable voters to realistically envisage, yet this may be due to the fact that Australia's government has a far more greater responsibility to it constituents, through common socialist organisations, such as public transport, social welfare, protectionism, medicare etc. The only real socialist institution that is topical in U.S politics is the military. However it is very difficult for people to understand the military, as personal experience of it is restricted to a single few minorities. Where as an institution such as public transport (in Australia) enable people to have a greater understanding of it (because the vast majority use it or come across it every single day of their life.)

You might want to give it a thought, if a required vote is really a good idea. It may cause people to vote and inform themselves, but will they inform themselves enough?

In Denmark there is sure a lot of people really into politics, but the amount that actually knows what is best for the country is probably below 1%

i.e. Some people I have met and talked with, even thought they were supposed to vote for what is most beneficial for them. (which kinda undermines the idea of a democracy since it turns into a suppression of the minorities)

When I say that below 1% knows what is best for the country, it is because it is very hard to find people who actually care for the future of economies and such in Denmark, most simply think about what is at close hands such as elders, schools, public transport, health care and so on. Meaning getting people to think, mostly means getting them to think wrongly, since they are not educated to think past the simple basics of a country and what they want. Of course this is no real problem because even if a governments policies would utterly destroy the country, the moment they end up in power they simply change all their policies to what the other parties ideas were, becoming unpopular by voters but staying in power.

In short (bit harsh as well but not to far from the truth) Denmark is a self claimed democracy, that in reality is a government taking somewhat sensible acts within the acceptance of the citizens. And simply once in a while runs a popularity contest of who is supposed to be in control, who ever controls the country is almost irrelevant. (only slight differences happens, but is a safe way of assuring our future, since we are not the largest and most influential government)

A question may actually be if a Democracy even is possible rather than flawed at all. (Personally I think it seems more like a joke to call it Democracy, in reality it is just a country with a government that does not abuse its people. Many other governmental types have done the same)

I think so the question does not have to relate political commercial with democracy. Commercialization of politics and the working of democracy is two different thing. It is right the that the commercialization of politics proves that there is flaws in election system or law or legislation but' I think so that this does not prove that democracy does not work. It has although some of pressure on politicians also than how it can be said that democracy does not working. Democracy is all about the having control over the government and ensure the betterment of our own as well as country, I think so. Democracy do this at least in very little extent. This means that democracy is working as per me.

Anything comical works other than sarcasm...except dating on line. Sarcasm dose not work with politics, but it works with dating on line, and that is comedy. Democracy only works with comedy, it is fundamentally connected to democracy, without it, democracy would not work. It is this freedom to express ourselves truly, other than in politics, that makes democracy, what it is. I guess.

-- Updated April 29th, 2012, 4:20 pm to add the following --

Politics is only a reflection of how comical we really are.

Anything comical works other than sarcasm...except dating on line. Sarcasm dose not work with politics, but it works with dating on line, and that is comedy. Democracy only works with comedy, it is fundamentally connected to democracy, without it, democracy would not work. It is this freedom to express ourselves truly, other than in politics, that makes democracy, what it is. I guess.

-- Updated April 29th, 2012, 4:20 pm to add the following --

Politics is only a reflection of how comical we really are.

YOU WISH!!! And probably we would be better off. Unfortunately 'they' take it all seriously - big money and power involved. I used to think the best solution to the negative campaigns and the caricature like descriptions of each other was not to vote - Show them what you really think! But somehow unless you can turn off all the news and broadcasts over the air, etc. they will get to you and if you vote will it be because of the positive characteristics of a candidate or because of the negative smear campaign of his opponent?

Someone once described real democracy as mob rule. That may have been true once and may still be a characteristic of democracy - But we are no longer dealing with democracy; We are dealing with a contest of who is best at influence peddling and mind control - Can they manipulate you to vote for the candidate they want you to vote for - What he or she represents is of little importance to them - All they care about is winning the election - Ethics, morality and democracy are irrelevant!

As others have noted political advertisements, and advertisements in general do little to prove anything logically or informatively; they cater to emotions.

Advertisements work that is all this proves.

Democracy does work, but it of course requires work of everybody; which many in the USA simply have no desire to do for some reason.

I think that mandatory voting can be worth a try, if it can work in other democracies it may work for USA.

As others have noted political advertisements, and advertisements in general do little to prove anything logically or informatively; they cater to emotions.

Advertisements work that is all this proves.

Democracy does work, but it of course requires work of everybody; which many in the USA simply have no desire to do for some reason.

I think that mandatory voting can be worth a try, if it can work in other democracies it may work for USA.

Why should I be required to vote if I don't like any of the candidates? BUT if the ballot contained the right to vote "for none of these" indicating that you are unhappy with any of the candidates offered, I might consider the idea of mandatory voting. However this will probably never happen in the USA. Elections and politics is Big Business in America and power brokers will not want the unknown quantity of disaffected voters voting - It may be harder to manipulate the votes of those forced to vote. Remember my opinion is democracy in a real sense is today an illusion. This is a very Nietzschean world and democracy is a game to be won - not the political process of representative government.

Why should I be required to vote if I don't like any of the candidates? BUT if the ballot contained the right to vote "for none of these" indicating that you are unhappy with any of the candidates offered, I might consider the idea of mandatory voting.

Write in a different candidate, vote third party.

However this will probably never happen in the USA. Elections and politics is Big Business in America and power brokers will not want the unknown quantity of disaffected voters voting - It may be harder to manipulate the votes of those forced to vote. Remember my opinion is democracy in a real sense is today an illusion. This is a very Nietzschean world and democracy is a game to be won - not the political process of representative government.

We have to act as a people to make this happen we cant expect the powers that be to do this for us, they are looking out for them selves, clearly. We can change the way democracy works if we act as individuals democratically.

[Scott]

I also refuse to vote in national elections, so I would only support compulsory voting insofar as it meant that I had to cast a ballot but that I could indicate on the ballet that I am opposed to all of the people running. In fact, I would prefer that to the status quo in the USA since it would better help myself and others express our protest rather than have our protest incorrectly brushed off as mere apathy, laziness or ignorance as opposed to a willful decision to vote for nobody. I often vote third-party on the local level and I even worked for a major third party once, but especially at the national and in states that don't have fusion voting unlike my own I feel voting for a third party that has no chance to win simply helps give the illusion of consent to be governed by a broken and bought two-party system.

I also refuse to vote in national elections, so I would only support compulsory voting insofar as it meant that I had to cast a ballot but that I could indicate on the ballet that I am opposed to all of the people running. In fact, I would prefer that to the status quo in the USA since it would better help myself and others express our protest rather than have our protest incorrectly brushed off as mere apathy, laziness or ignorance as opposed to a willful decision to vote for nobody. I often vote third-party on the local level and I even worked for a major third party once, but especially at the national and in states that don't have fusion voting unlike my own I feel voting for a third party that has no chance to win simply helps give the illusion of consent to be governed by a broken and bought two-party system.

It seems that unless you are working to change the way we vote if would behoove you to vote third party nationally as well.

In USA voting third party is the same as protesting the status quo. Not voting is certainly consent, just like not moving out of the way of a kick in the nuts is consent to be kicked in the nuts. It's better to try and fail then not to try at all.

But don't let me tell you how to vote.

[Scott]

Not moving out of the way of a kick does not mean one consents to being kicked. Pointlessly voting on which foot you want the attacker to use to kick you might seem to imply consent to the process, i.e. accepting the pseudo-democratic process as fair rather than a sham, as it would be for pointlessly voting on a 'third-party' like being kicked with a soft fluffy shoe that has no chance of winning but only of creating further illusion of choice and consent. No, I think that insofar as I am behooved to do anything in that regard I am behooved to protest the sham democracy by refusing to vote.

I agree with Scott on this issue. And I still maintain that when you do not vote you are also making a statement.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

When you do not vote you are telling 'them' that you do not approve of the candidates and/or you are not even pleased with the selection process that anointed people who do not represent your interests and/or the interest of the electorate.