Tag: Democracy

By on

The problem with the present party system is that both parties nominate people that some party members don’t like. Republicans are locked into only Trump supported candidates while ignoring any candidates who might hold differing opinions. The Democrats are a quibbling bowl of mush. The candidate is either a party stalwart who the partly elders foist on the members as the only electable candidate (See Joe Biden) or a left wing ideologue (See Bernie Sanders) who would have trouble winning a state that wasn’t located on either coast.

In almost 50 year of voting I have rarely ever voted for the person in the general election who I voted for in the primary. It’s almost always my second or third or even fourth choice. I am a party man so whoever gets the Democratic nomination almost always gets my sometimes less than enthusiastic vote. But I think they should know that it was less than enthusiastic.

I am not sure if it would change things but it might be helpful to know how genuinely popular the candidate is. Polls might point to this but actual voting would be confirmation of the weakness of the person and is the only accurate way to get this information.

So when you voted instead of seeing:

  1. Jenny Jones Republican
  2. John Smith Democrat

You would get an additional drop down box for each candidate:

  1. I am voting for candidate who I think will be a great President.
  2. I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

The candidate would get the vote for either option but if a candidate got a lot of I am voting for the lesser of two evils votes it might (might is the key word here) remind the candidate that yes they did win a lot of votes but that a lot of his voters are doing so as a last resort. I imagine a candidate who won and got 70% lesser of two evils might behave differently than a candidate who wins and gets a 10% lesser of two evils.

By on

Anti-Israel Protesters blocked the Golden Gate Bridge causing a traffic snarl in the Bay area. Google employees who disagreed with their company’s contracts with Israel stormed and occupied the suites of top executives. Other than bringing publicity to their cause, these demonstrations seem largely ineffective at changing minds. The major sentiment for people on the other side of the protest is irritation. Why are these people fucking with my day?

There is this notion, particularly on the left, that these brave souls are sacrificing themselves for the greater good. Take it to the streets and when the people see this massive show of popular sentiment, they will join the fight. That this rarely happens is beside the point. There is always the dream that this time it will work.

Demonstrations, contrary to popular thinking, are anti-democratic. Just because I can get 100,000 people marching for my cause, everyone else who isn’t marching must agree and you must do whatever I ask. The problem is that there was million or more people who failed to show up. What exactly is their position? At best, they might agree but don’t think it is important enough to take it to the streets or, at worst, they disagree and find you an irritation. Their opinion is unknown. The only way, at least in a country with democratic processes, is an election. Until then,why should any government change their position based on a couple thousand people stopping traffic.

The underlying fear in large demonstrations is the threat of violence. There are many people in the streets, some of them might be willing to resort to violence, governments might then decide to pacify the crowd by changing their position. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent for any government, left or right, to take.

For example, January 6. A small number of angry demonstrators occupied the congress because they were disappointed in how the democratic processes turned out. They too felt that their numbers had to be acknowledged, that by showing their numbers to legislators that the government will change its position and give the protesters what they want because if you don’t, there are millions of other Americans just waiting for the word from these patriots and this could mean violence all over the country. Indeed, I think the January 6 rioters actually thought they were going to ignite a revolution and were genuinely surprised when nothing happened. Instead, the vast majority of Americans decided to stay home.

Demonstrations are also exercises in moral superiority. You bastards aren’t listening to me so I am going to annoy you until you change your mind. Yelling at people, I have found, rarely gets people to change their minds. In fact, I would bet, it makes a lot of people stand firm on whatever position they have, particularly if that opinion differs from the demonstrators.

Take to the streets if you like. It is your right but I think a better way to spend your time, energy and money is peacefully changing people’s minds and winning elections. I know it isn’t as satisfying as storming the barricades and being joined by the masses you have inspired but, let’s face it, is much more likely to happen through elections than demonstrations.

By on

Billionaire Elon Musk wants to limit the vote to people with children because children give parents a special interest in the future, so hence are better voters. He provides absolutely no proof that this is true other than parents have children and, because they do, they care more about the future than single people.

I am confused. When has voting ever been about the future? It is almost always about the now. Like how are we going to spend tax revenues now, how are we going to protect people from crime now, how are we going to educate people now, do we want to send troops to Afghanistan now — I could go on but you get my point. Politics is about how we live now and, though the future looms big in the background, what people in the present are actually worried about is what is going on now. Telling people that yes things are miserable now but it will payoff in thirty years for your children isn’t exactly a rousing campaign slogan for parents either.

The good news here is Musk ‘s proposal is dead upon arrival. Voting rights for women and minorities are enshrined in the U.S Constitution so that involves a constitutional amendment to change. I suppose he could introduce a Constitutional Amendment taking away the vote from single people but we all know it is a long an arduous process through 50 state legislature. Furthermore single people still can vote and, presumably would vote against the idea along with their friends that maybe parents.

Musk isn’t being serious. He is stirring the pot and it is interesting which pot he has chosen to put his spoon. Conservatives and Libertarians are going after limiting the vote. It’s not just making it difficult anymore, it is making it impossible to get your hands on a ballot in the first place. The implications are shocking, at least, shocking to me. He is saying that there are people who are more worthy of full citizenship than others and, if you want to know who he is thinking might be cut from the voting rolls, Musk has thrown is some ideas for your consideration.

But it aligns with Republican notions that if only the right people voted, that Republicans would win. And what do you know, married couples tend to vote Republican. Single men also vote Republican but less so than married people. Single women are the trouble for the Republicans and they vote overwhelming Democratic, so much so that it erases any advantage the Republicans get from the other three groups. Instead of working on changing the minds of single women, the Republicans have opted to change who can vote.

These ideas about limiting the vote are not isolated ideas either. It’s a topic that I keep seeing – particularly in Libertarian and Far Right circles. Columnist Michael Walsh proposed limiting the vote to men. He artfully never says women are incapable of rational thought but he quotes others to defend this notion. He describes how the ancient Romans felt that “women were never considered worthy of the vote. They were too emotional, too devious in their machinations, and certainly too weak to fight.” Really. Of course it is the Romans saying it, not Walsh. Really. Is it that surprising the Ancient Romans felt this way about women. Ancient Rome, you know, about two thousand years ago. Romans were also partial to slavery and viewed women as nothing more than vessels for the production of children. How much Roman wisdom does Walsh want us to incorporate into the modern American system? These attacks on the vote are also coming from all directions. The other day Seaford, Delaware tried to give the vote to non-resident business owners. This almost made it through the Delaware legislature.

This constant attack on the present franchise is worrisome. Take away the vote from women. Take away the vote from single people. Keep taking away voting rights until you get the electorate willing to vote your way. But it won’t be a functioning democracy. And what arrogance. The underlying assumption of these men is that they are more worthy than you and know what is best for you. That is if you’re single or a woman or both. Get it. I am waving my middle finger.

By on

My mouth dropped open when I read this Salon article where a town in Delaware is trying to give business owners who have business in town but the business owner lives elsewhere the right to vote. Proponents of the law admit that they are trying to give businesses more power in the decision making process of the town which sent my already slack jaw all the way to the floor.

What? I mean what? Really, what? I can’t even wrap my head around this pile of bull shit. Businesses should have more power than regular people. Why?

It is a shameless power grab, and nakedly transparent at that. Business owners could vote in their own home town and, if they own a business in the town of Seaford, there as well. People are actually saying this shit like this is a reasonable argument. Why would non-resident business owners need more power? More importantly, why do they deserve more power than every other citizen? And why is nobody making a bigger deal about this? For years, Conservatives have been trying to restrict the vote, now perhaps they have found a backdoor way around it — give the rich more votes and you would have the same effect.

I suggest that if the business owners can’t win the votes of individuals without ginning up their own numbers then perhaps there is something wrong with their position. Giving business owners an additional vote so they can win elections is just a smoke and mirrors trick to give the illusion of democratic decision making. It is, to say the least, the opposite of democratic and an incredibly dangerous idea to even consider if democratic institutions are to survive.

By on

Recently, two Facebook friends, from opposite ends of the political divide posted the same Bill Maher video showing how dumb Americans are. It is standard gotcha video. Someone asks bystanders trivia questions and, when they fail to answer correctly, mock them. It’s all good fun right except that Bill Maher believes it shows how dumb Americans are. That two people with widely different opinions posted the same video is even more troubling because Maher’s conclusion is maybe Americans aren’t smart enough for democracy.

There is a lot wrong with Maher’s thinking. Failing to answer trivia questions proves absolutely nothing. Most people, when taking geography and history classes, memorized the information for the test and then, quite reasonably, promptly forgot it. How important is it really to know the biggest city in the world? Or where Queen Elizabeth is from? If you exclude television game shows like Jeopardy or quiz night at your local bar, knowing trivia is a pretty useless talent and, more importantly, says nothing about a person’s intelligence. Why would anyone clutter their mind with such useless information? If people need it, they could look it up. But they don’t. I am 65 years old and I have never needed to know the biggest city in the world outside of my childhood education.

Then reaching a startling conclusion like Americans are too dumb for democracy based on the inability of few people to answer questions correctly is unfair. How many people were asked that got it right? This doesn’t seem to be of any interest to our video makers. There might have been dozens of people who got the right answers but we don’t see that. That isn’t funny, you can’t mock people who get the answers correct. If you are making a case for the stupidity of the American people then knowing how many people were correct is relevant to the discussion.

Even if every person did make mistakes, quizzing 50 people ( I am being generous here because I am pretty sure it is a much lower than that) on the streets is not a representative sampling of Americans. It is 50 people picked on the same street in the same town with broadly the same interests. Picked, it is fair to say, by someone with a vested interested in portraying them as stupid. To extrapolate from this small sample of people that your fellow countrymen are too dim for self government seems more than a bit unfair.

Educated people are not always good rulers. The great minds of early 20th century stumbled into World War I. These educated men sent millions of people to their deaths and continued the fighting long after the senselessness of the war became obvious. The Viet Nam war was started by the best and the brightest of their time. I am sure these great minds all knew the biggest city in the world and still managed to make horrible mistakes which largely affected people who may have not known what the biggest city in the world was.

Maher’s complaints are surprisingly anti-democratic. Even more worrisome is that people the left and from the right are posting his doubts about viability of democracy with such dumb people as voters. What, then, are our options? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? Monarchy? None of those options sound better to me. Does Maher think he will have any say in these other styles of government? And really who is Maher to pass judgement on his fellow citizens? Someone who knows the biggest city in the world? Well, whoop de do. Personally, I would much rather take my chances with the average American voter, even if it includes a percentage of dumb people, rather than a condescending smug asshole like Bill Maher.