With President Bush’s approval ratings hovering in the 20s for a majority of states and in the 30s only in southern states the end of the Republican era seems a given. Even though the general election is still over a year away public discourse is already focusing on the next President, with a plethora of candidates for the electorate to study and choose from. On July 21st the Financial Times called this election race “peculiar” stating: “(…) the race for the US presidency is already one of the oddest that anyone can recall. To call it wide open hardly does it justice. Although the contest is well underway, plausible heavyweights have yet to announce; the incumbent is a liability to his party; for Democrats and Republicans alike, the front-runner divides rather than unites; the eventual winner may be a woman, a black man, a Mormon or conceivably even an independent.”

There are dozens of declared candidates who have already thrown their cards in and even more undeclared candidates waiting on the sidelines for the opportune time to confirm on Larry King or Leno. In fact we have a twofer; the greatest number of candidates ever in a race that has started far earlier than in any other Presidential election. With approximately a year to go before both the Republican and the Democratic Conventions the election calendar is still in flux. For fear of being irrelevant in the process many states moved the date of their primary elections up. This means that in 2008 the interval between the nomination of presidential candidates and the general election will be the longest we have ever known: almost a full nine months of “serious” election campaigning. The argument could be made that this will allow voters to better study the issues and provide candidates with more time to spend in each state ultimately allowing the American people to make an informed choice. However the counter to that is the real risk of voter ennui and consequently their disenfranchisement.

The role of the media is ever increasing. Newspapers and networks highlight the front runners choosing what we see and omitting unsexy details that may be essential to making a good choice ultimately influencing candidate choice. Media focuses not on the issues but on the process, the game of politics keeping score for us and as such framing the elections, chewing up the huge amount of information and presenting it to the readership in sound bites. This is all necessary however it does also frame and shape elections, subtly or not so subtly influencing our choices. After all common marketing studies show that if product A gets more advertising than Product B clients are more inclined toward product A, influenced by name recognition and one of the reasons why a political incumbent is more likely to get re-elected than a relatively unknown.

This holds especially true when you take into account that US companies, trade associations, unions and other advocacy groups spent a record of almost US$1.4bn on lobbying activities in the second half of 2006. Such expenditures have raised concerns about the power of lobbyists on the decision-making process and in early 2007 the House of Representatives passed changes to its procedures with the Senate also making proposals to increase transparency. Worries about transparency are ever increasing and there seems to be no solution in sight given that administrations will always protect and defend themselves from close scrutiny.

All of this is neither new nor surprising. However with the advent of internet debates such as YouTube and CNN last month and candidate presence on internet social networking sites one could think that there would be a change, something similar to the MTV “Rock the Vote” phenomenon. Not only would voters become more engaged in the political process but the process itself would become more direct, less filtered. Take for example the July 23rd debate where candidates faced questions not from journalists but from “YouTubers” via video. However CNN chose from amongst approximately 3,000 videos submitted. So though ostensibly the internet gives equal footing to all candidates, some are more equal than others. This is video from the people, by the people filtered through the 4th estate for the people. Though reassuring on its surface the process added nothing other than the hope viewers were given in thinking that their video could be selected.

The same holds true of candidate social networking. While it undeniable that modern political campaigns are justified in pursuing broader online efforts it seems silly to have reputable news organizations tracking the number of “friends” each candidate has accumulated in the social networking world. In 2004 Howard Dean successfully leveraged an online presence into a candidacy and the role of the internet in the political process was legitimized. With the birth and phenomenal success of YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and others in the years since the last presidential election it was evident that candidates would adapt and build networking features into their own sites eager to engage in dialogue and fund raising efforts with their supporters.

However, referring again to Howard Dean in 2004, it is possible to question the ultimate effect of online support. Dean was a Democrat front runner for the Democratic nomination yet failed in his bid despite strong internet fundraising and blogger support. Therefore online support is not necessarily an indicator of how well a candidate will do in real life polls no matter the size of their online entourage. Especially when one takes into account the many MySpace and Facebook users who are not of age to vote or are college age students (who statistically have the lowest voter turnout). In addition being on a candidates “friends” list does not necessarily mean a person will actively support, campaign, fund-raise or even vote for said candidate.

Early campaigning and a longer election process does not ensure a more informed choice - that responsibility lies with the voters becoming engaged in the process and believing that every vote counts. With the nomination process possible over by February 5th voters run the real risk of becoming uninterested in the general election which would lead to the very real possibility of low voter turnout. In summary for all intents and purposes the democratic process is not only alive and well but thriving. In reality it is in danger still. While we are lulled into complacency believing the internet is opening up the election process and ensuring a democratic election, public discourse is in fact foundering and the democratic process evermore skewed.
None of the candidates so far has presented a new direction for either party instead each has presented a series of recycled clichés sprinkled with a few individual characteristics. Granted some are dominant and remarkable but none provide a unifying vision for the future and sadly none so far are the leader America so desperately wants and needs.