The day after I voted in an election that didn't count — I was one of 1,690 Missourians who voted for Michele Bachmann — I received a letter from Lee Enterprises, the company that owns this newspaper.

The letter informed me of another election — this one for the board of directors, the men and women largely from outside the company whose collective wisdom helps guide it. More important, the outside directors represent the shareholders.

That's me. I'm a shareholder. As I have written in the past, I started buying stock when Lee first bought the company. As an employee, I got a special deal. I could buy the stock at a 15 percent discount.

Unfortunately, the stock did not do well. When I started buying, a share cost about $45. It is now a bit more than a buck.

Oh well.

Despite my poor returns on that investment, I take some interest in the company, so you might expect I'd be excited to exercise my rights as a shareholder and vote. But here is the thing about the election for the directors. There are four spots open. There are four candidates.

This is not unique to Lee Enterprises. This is the way American businesses do business. Except in rare instances when some large shareholder — for instance, a pension fund — mounts a challenge to management, the elections are essentially rigged. Four openings? Four candidates.

I am reminded of elections of yesteryear in communist countries in which the revered leaders got 98 percent of the vote.

The odd thing about the rigged corporate elections is that our corporate leaders generally portray themselves as capitalists. They profess a belief in free enterprise. They oppose socialism.

Often, they oppose unions, too.

When my union has an election, it is almost always contested. Bear in mind that our officers are not compensated. Members of the executive committee get $65 for attending each monthly meeting, but that's it. Yet the elections are contested.

In contrast, the directors who win the rigged elections are paid pretty well. Their pay varies depending on how many meetings they go to and whether they chair committees. Last year, compensation for the Lee outside directors ran from $70,200 to $101,200.

That is not out of line for outside directors.

In other words, these are wonderful positions. Who wouldn't like to make that kind of money for a part-time job?

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Board of Education. Any Board of Education. People campaign for these positions despite the fact that they typically offer no compensation. A lot of work, a lot of responsibility, but no compensation.

Yet people spend money on campaigns. I get fliers in the mail in which candidates express their thoughts on this and that.

Why can't corporations push for something similar?

Maybe a candidate for the board could email shareholders. That would eliminate the cost of mailing. A couple of weeks before the election, the company could send out an email and ask shareholders if they'd like to hear from candidates. Or maybe the company could have some kind of message board.

The candidate could enumerate her qualifications. She could discuss her thoughts. Does she think the company is going in the right direction? Does she have faith in the management team?

If a director is running for re-election, he could discuss his view of the recent past. What has the company done right under his guidance? What has it done wrong?

Maybe a company would be required to have a minimum of three candidates for each opening on the board.

I am not sure how the company would winnow out the applications. After all, there would be lots of them. Maybe an applicant would need shareholders to sign an online petition.

But somehow, American industry ought to be able to figure out a way to bring democracy to capitalism.

We certainly don't have it now. As I look at my letter, I see the names of four men — three outside directors who don't work for the company and one executive who does. But there is no information about any of them. I know I can look up their backgrounds online or request a paper proxy statement. But that won't tell me what they think about the company.

It is all a mystery. The only thing that is clear is that all four will win. It's an election out of the Soviet Union. It is another example of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us.

Of course, I am a sucker for an election. I proved that Tuesday. And this time, I am guaranteed to be voting for a winner. Four of them. I wish I felt better about that.