The present text elucidates the flaws of the American election system. According to its author, there are three major criteria that determine the democratic value of elections: they are supposed to ensure equal representation of all citizens, the deliberation about public policy issues, and the control over the government’s actions. The author tries to show that the American election system does not meet these criteria, supporting his argumentative by references to the Athenian system.

The present text entails some implications that need to be discussed. One of the most important problems that the author elucidates, in my opinion, is the problem of the SMP system. In this view, I shall note that this problem is relevant not only to the American context. Thus, for instance, a brief research reveals that a similar problem has been actively debated in Canada and the UK. Interestingly, despite the fact that the SMP system is commonly regarded as less just or democratic than the PR system, governments do not eagerly change it. The author of the text approaches this issue from the standpoint of the US citizens; in the meantime, he fails to analyze the motives of the candidates. The latter, in my view, are naturally interested in preserving the SMP system which gives them a clear idea of which state to focus on in their campaigns. As a rule, it is simpler to define the values and needs of a limited population rather than to assess accurately those themes that affect the entire America.

If the PR system is adopted, candidates will have to approach the problem more complexly, they will have to address the citizens as a nation instead of sending targeted messages to Michigan or Illinois. I believe that this task is more challenging than it might seem at first sight. This has been very well illustrated by the recent elections which revealed a crucial lack of unity in the American society ready to split up into hostile factions. This leads me to another important implication that was incidentally mentioned by the author of the text. This implication is associated with the role of the media in shaping democratic institutions.

In the text, the author criticizes the American election system for its failure to ensure the deliberation about public policy issues. He aligns this with the fact that voters cannot judge adequately whether a particular candidate will defend their political views because the latter is most likely to translate some general populistic slogans with the help of mass media. In this view, the author rests the responsibility on the candidates who try to hide their true intentions under a mask of populism. In the meantime, I would likewise discuss the responsibility of the mass media which is commonly underestimated in this context. In my opinion, mass media, when it is regarded in the frame of the election, should play the role of a tool that translates a candidate’s message to all the voters.

In this context, its major aim is to be as specific as possible elucidating all the elements of a candidate’s program. However, what we currently see is an entertaining show that develops on the public TV and on the pages of popular magazines. It should be thereby admitted that the deliberation about public policy issues, bemoaned by the author, is no longer a priority. The voters are willing to learn some sensations and juicy details rather than to test the candidate’s views on political issues. One might oppose that this is the result of the generally populistic programs – the voters do not see any critical difference in the candidates’ messages so that they prefer to shift the focus on their personal lives. In my view, however, the problem is more complex – this is a sign of a general decline of the electoral culture, within which authentic democratic values are substituted by superficies that neither candidates nor voters resist.

Finally, I would like to oppose to the author in his attempt to draw parallels between Athens and the USA. In my view, this comparison is inadequate and the population size is the most evident argument for this: the free population of the ancient Athens would barely reach sixty thousand people, while that of a relatively small Evansville is more than a hundred thousand people. Therefore, the example when every Athenian could stand up and speak about acute problems is simply irrelevant to the modern reality. Most importantly, however, I believe that there is a critical contradiction between the role politics played then and now. Being a newly discovered phenomenon, politics became a significant element of the Athenians’ lives demonstrating their civility and progressiveness. People would passionately participate in political debates mastering their elocution and philosophical concepts. Democracy, in a sense, was their most valuable invention and they cherished it cordially as the French cherish fashion.

Modern Americans, in this view, seem to have run out of steam in their political aspirations. While, rhetorically, democracy is still their major value, they are not rushing for defending it as long as they feel comfortable enough or until their rights are violated extremely openly. I believe this is a natural tendency that is present all around the world – the more people learn about political systems, the less interested they are in them with their mendacity and hypocrisy. In this view, the present text offers some hope showing that there are still those who strive to preserve the authentic democratic values and have a clear idea of how to realize it.