Smug liberals (as represented by NPR) and smug conservatives (as represented by KVI) agree: the nailbiting presidential vote, and to a lesser extent the high voter turnout and tight senatorial and legislative races in Washington, are not only a wonderful civic lessons with which to indoctrinate the young (Every Vote Counts!), but also a marvelous tribute to American Democracy, The Best Governmental System In The World.

Oh, barf.

Not that the close election didn't have its virtues. It proved that when it gets down to the nub, most of our country does care who governs them. But mostly what it proved--in its entirety, not just on Nov. 7--is that the way we elect our political leaders is deeply, deeply flawed. Let's review:

* Out of a population of over 260 million, Americans were presented with a choice between two ideologically almost indistinguishable wealthy white Southern sons of political dynasties. Both campaigned as if they were owed the job. Nobody else, not even Ralph, mattered. Moreover, these two corporatist clones--sources of deep dissatisfaction even within their own parties--had their parties' nominations sewn up before any primary votes were even cast.

Who narrowed the field? The corporations that flooded both men's campaigns with up-front cash. Some democracy in action.

* Speaking of floods of cash: federal races alone cost some three billion dollars in hard and soft money this year. State races were another $1 billion. That's up 50% from the record set in 1996. Most of it came in big chunks of soft money, through PACs, or wealthy individuals like Maria Cantwell. Cantwell notwithstanding, this explosion of money--it's too extreme to be called a "trend" any more--almost always protects incumbents, no matter how nutty or incompetent. It also protects corporate interests, even through officeholders with no apparent need to raise money--or are you a member of Jim McDermott's $1,000 club?

* Speaking of incumbents--did you notice that farther down the ballot, we didn't even have a choice between Tweedledums? Of the statewide offices, only Secretary of State, Insurance Commissioner, and Commissioner of Public Lands were seriously contested. Our incumbent Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Auditor, Treasurer, and Superintendent of Public Instruction all coasted to re-election. In the state legislature, we have a special name-- "swing districts"--for places where your vote actually counts. If you live in Seattle (Democrats) or the suburbs (Republicans) you have no choice; only a couple of districts in the entire metro area were seriously contested. In the rest, candidates got 80, 90, or 100% of the vote. We used to laugh when the Soviet Union held elections like this. Now, we pat ourselves on the back.

* And it's an old canard, but it's true: in most elections, most people don't vote. They might not care, they might not like the choices, they might think that voting only encourages them, but for whatever reason, U.S. voter turnout, even in presidential races, is much lower than in every other Western democracy. [See also the exchange in this issue's "BackTalk" section on compulsory voting- ed.]

Of course, those democracies weren't designed in the 18th Century. Ours was. The Electoral College is getting the most attention now, but it's only the most visible way in which our leaders, true to the spirit of 1787, haven't trusted the citizenry--that is, landowning white males--to make truly independent choices as to who governs them. It's not as though we don't know how to do this better; one need only look at all those other countries. There have been hundreds of bills to reform the Electoral College since 1787. They've all failed.

Radical problems demand radical solutions. Here are a few relatively achievable ones, in no particular order:

1) Shorter elections. Please.

2) Abolish the Electoral College. Popular vote is good enough for every other office in the land; it should be for the White House, too. In theory, it keeps smaller states relevant. In practice, it means every state where one contestant is polling over 55% is ignored, and votes for the losers don't count. In this year's presidential race, the three most populous states (California, New York, and Texas), with some 70 million citizens, were ignored.

3) A constitutional amendment to specify that campaign contributions are not a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

4) Ban all political TV and radio ads. Recorded phone calls, too. That's right, ban them. We do it with tobacco ads, which are a lot less harmful. There are plenty of news sources now that can publicize the candidates' records, promises, and themes. All the ads do is jack up the cost of campaigns and give candidates the chance to lie so often that it becomes received truth.

5) Open up the process to third, fourth, fifth, and sixth parties. At every level of our campaigns, from ballot access to debates to funding, the two major parties have the decks stacked in their favor. It over-represents the status quo, the ideological middle, and the wealthy, and leaves everyone else unrepresented. And speaking of which...

6) Proportional representation. Our winner-takes-all system also creates losers--for no good reason. True democracy would bring everybody to the table.

There are plenty of other ideas. The problem isn't that ideas are lacking; it's that our present lawmakers have, ex officio, been well-served by our current system. Only a massive public outcry can lead to change--an outcry that's never going to happen so long as we keep congratulating ourselves on our oligarchy.