[WS:] Elections do not purport, falsely or otherwise. People who watch or participate in them do. Back in the old country, my mother insisted that I voted and when I objected that it would be a waste of my time because everyone knew that elections were rigged, she would reply that this was not about choosing candidates but fulfilling civic duties. She was not particularly patriotic but she had a strong sense of social responsibility (too strong to my taste on some occasions, but that is another story.) She believed that people should fulfill their responsibilities to others whether they gain anything from it or not. That voting was a waste of my time - a minor inconvenience to be sure - did not matter to her. Voting was a social obligation of a good citizen that should be taken seriously even if the outcome was obviously rigged.
As I said the centrality of the concept of choice in the Anglo-American culture is largely alien to me. I am not overly fatalistic (as many of my old country compatriots are), but I tend to believe that "choice" is more often than not a code word for weaseling out of one's social responsibilities and doing what is right. It is also a code word for blaming people instead of helping them (hey, you "chose" to be poor, so it is your problem.) Likewise, the concept of "choosing" leadership of a complex organization, let alone country, also strikes me as suspect. If I found myself on an airliner on which passengers would vote who is going to be the pilot, or in a hospital in which patients would vote who is going to operate on them - I (and any other rational person) would run away from these places as fast as I could. Why is electing country leadership any different?
It is my hunch that the concept of choice again is used to obfuscate and pull a quick one - namely to obfuscate the notion of responsibility and accountability. It is about "choosing" the leaders instead of finding effective means of holding them accountable. As soon as we make our "choice" we should shut up and follow the program - just like the guys who "chose" to be poor in the previous example.
I honestly believe that we as society would be much better off if the leaders were appointed by random selection and upon accepting appointment subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."