![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stealing elections?
Nov. 4th, 2006 11:29 amAn article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (a Democrat) in Rolling Stone Magazine lists some reasons why he believes the 2004 US Presidential election was taken from the Democrats and provides some arguments to back up his claims.
Farhad Manjoo rebuts some of Kennedy's claims in this Salon article (which, curiously enough, is currently sponsored by The West Wing) while agreeing that many voters were disenfranchised due to the long polling lines, delays and machines breaking down.
Without getting bogged down in an analysis of which article (if any) is right, I wanted to focus on the policies adopted and compare them to those practiced here. Obviously, voting here is compulsory and is secret, yet at the same time, the PAP is able to target for upgrading certain precincts (especially in opposition-held wards) where a majority of the voters voted for their candidate.
The PAP talks about how they don't want a political process in Singapore that's like the US in featuring attack ads, excessive political humour and satire in the mainstream, and a general lack of respect for the process as a whole. Yet at the same time, by redrawing election boundaries and having an overwhelming presence with only a few token opposition parties contesting in "safe" seats, a generation of young people is growing up who have never voted and who have never had the chance to ask hard questions of their MPs. A generation of MPs is also emerging, many of whom have not been tested in elections because there was either no contest in the GRC they were standing in or because the minister(s) in their team pulled them through on their existing track record. Most worryingly, the youth of tomorrow may not even be interested in seriously exercising their vote, because they may feel that it doesn't matter.
In this light, the policies are indeed eerily similar. We don't explicitly disenfranchise people by making the voting lines move slowly or by rigging the machines (although I wonder if that's entirely true?). Yet, at the same time, we do take race into consideration - remember James Gomez and that whole fiasco about the "minority candidate representation form"? And we also engage in gerrymandering and rewarding those who support the ruling party.
It really makes me wonder what the political future of Singapore is going to be like, 10 or 15 years down the road...
Farhad Manjoo rebuts some of Kennedy's claims in this Salon article (which, curiously enough, is currently sponsored by The West Wing) while agreeing that many voters were disenfranchised due to the long polling lines, delays and machines breaking down.
Without getting bogged down in an analysis of which article (if any) is right, I wanted to focus on the policies adopted and compare them to those practiced here. Obviously, voting here is compulsory and is secret, yet at the same time, the PAP is able to target for upgrading certain precincts (especially in opposition-held wards) where a majority of the voters voted for their candidate.
The PAP talks about how they don't want a political process in Singapore that's like the US in featuring attack ads, excessive political humour and satire in the mainstream, and a general lack of respect for the process as a whole. Yet at the same time, by redrawing election boundaries and having an overwhelming presence with only a few token opposition parties contesting in "safe" seats, a generation of young people is growing up who have never voted and who have never had the chance to ask hard questions of their MPs. A generation of MPs is also emerging, many of whom have not been tested in elections because there was either no contest in the GRC they were standing in or because the minister(s) in their team pulled them through on their existing track record. Most worryingly, the youth of tomorrow may not even be interested in seriously exercising their vote, because they may feel that it doesn't matter.
In this light, the policies are indeed eerily similar. We don't explicitly disenfranchise people by making the voting lines move slowly or by rigging the machines (although I wonder if that's entirely true?). Yet, at the same time, we do take race into consideration - remember James Gomez and that whole fiasco about the "minority candidate representation form"? And we also engage in gerrymandering and rewarding those who support the ruling party.
It really makes me wonder what the political future of Singapore is going to be like, 10 or 15 years down the road...
