Who "wins" an election?

In another of what I hope are rare politically oriented essays, I feel the need to talk about the language we use when we talk about our process of electing our political leaders.  I am not advocating any particular political point of view (though I have strong opinions).  My goal here is to consider the problem of terminology that seems to be rampant as we discuss our options for political leadership.

Far too many people have abdicated their responsibility to take an active role in selecting people to run our government.  They prefer to understand our Democratic process as a spectator sport where citizens sit idly in the stadium and root for someone to win; cheering or jeering as their team strikes a blow or is set back by their opponent's actions or comments.  People refuse to see that there are no opponents!  There are only other choices for selection, each with their own points of view, strategies, and experiences.

This sports analogy of the election process is damaging.  This perspective of the process as a tournament is, however, actively reinforced by the narcissistic candidates it attracts.  These people believe the job is their prize to win.  It is further bolstered by the media who, as a class of theoretically trained professionals, should know better but seem too lazy to actually consider the appropriate language and terminology to describe the process (presuming they understand the process for what it actually is).  I'll set aside how the system of rewards in the news industry further contributes to the problem. 

My question is simple, why do we continue to speak about an election as a competition rather than a selection?  Even the Academy Awards changed their language years ago from "...the winner is..." to "...the Oscar goes to...". The candidates for elected office and the American media need to take a lesson.  They need to come to the realization that treating our selection process like a sporting event is hurting our ability to obtain qualified candidates and leaders.  

When the media reports election results by saying "...the Democrats have won the state of New York..." they don't get it.  The media should use appropriate, precise language like "the citizens of New York have selected the candidate put forth by the Democratic party".  The important difference in those statements should be more than evident to any trained, professional, political reporter.  Unfortunately, professional reporters are no longer the norm.  We are left with rumor-mongering gossip columnists who have little inclination for accuracy in fact or precision in language.

I don't want to hear about Republicans beating Democrats or how a candidate is going to win a state.  That is simply not how this works.  It's like talking about how the steak sandwich won my appetite over the chicken sandwich.  The steak sandwich did nothing to entitle itself to the claim of a victory.  It was simply selected from a set of alternatives because of its preferential attributes and seemed to me to be most inclined to do what I needed a sandwich to do with the minimum of downsides.

Let's be clear.  The Constitution of the United States says "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...".  Amendment 17 of the Constitution says "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...". With respect to the president the Constitution says "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.." and goes on to describe how Congress will "chuse [sic]" the President in the event of a tie.  As far as I am aware nowhere in the Constitution includes the phrase "the winner is the person who...".  Our government is to be selected, not claimed as a prize.

A candidate for public office does not "win" anything.  They are selected by the people to perform a service for the people.  A college football player does not "win" a place on an NFL team.  Sure, they make have worked hard to prepare, to be the best in their class, but in the end, they are selected or not selected. Likewise, a politician is a passive recipient of an honor that comes with a serious responsibility. To claim otherwise is at best a lazy use of language and at worst a demonstration of dangerous ignorance.  Perhaps, if we clean up the way to talk about the process, it can become what was intended.

We, the citizens of the United States of America, select our leaders.  Our candidates do not battle one another to determine a winner. Maybe addressing the way we refer to the process could be a first, small step toward re-engaging the electorate and restoring some dignity to our election process.