As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
An Unevolved Democracy
Mendham:
Logic:
An Unevolved Democracy
     By . . . on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
An Unevolved Democracy (writen in 1990)
I realize that I cross the proverbial line for most patriotic Americans when I dare to claim that their revered Constitution is at all imperfect, let alone fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, my respect for the truth compels me to take many more steps past that line and state quite emphatically that our system of government is an unethical sham and undeserving of description as any form of democracy--particularly a "representative" democracy. The ugly, cold fact is "We the People" are prisoners of a party-controlled, money-corrupted, geographically perverted majoritarian dictatorship where the essential principles of "one man, one vote," "fair and proportional representation," and "real choice" have no meaning. The evidence of this reality is as obvious as a naked emperor to anyone with an honest eye. For example:
* The Senate gives 53 times more representation and power to an individual living in Alaska (pop. 570,000) then it gives to an individual living in California (pop. 30 million).
* The more geographically integrated a minority (philosophical, religious, or ethnic) the less hope it has to achieve any, let alone fair and proportional, representation in government.
* To vote for a third party or alternate candidate you must risk throwing your vote away and potentially sabotaging the candidacy of your next best choice.
The first, and I would claim most important, role of government (especially for governments that are going to label themselves a democracy) is to provide a fair and equitable mechanism for the distribution of government's power. The goal must be to consolidate, as representatively as practicality permits, the whole population, in all its diversity, into a manageable number of truly representative voices and to give those voices their earned seat at the table of government control. Our system fails to satisfy this fundamental requirement because it relies on old short cuts that in a changed world have become unacceptably unfair.
One such short cut is to elect representatives regionally or geographically. In today's highly mobile, integrated society, the use of this sloppy and intrinsically flawed election mechanism does catastrophic damage to the credibility of our system of government. If ours is going to be a truly great nation, people must stop tolerating a system that sees its citizens as possessions of a territory rather than as possessors of a unique and distinct personality. People aren't where they live, they are what they believe, and their beliefs deserve a fair voice and, if need be, a fair fight. Having open truly national, federal elections would make real the unfulfilled promise of fair representation and give new hope to the tens of millions of citizens who have lost all reason, and often their will, to participate in the election process.
The present system uses arbitrary state and gerrymandered district lines to tie residents to representatives they didn't vote for. However, we can have a system where every member of the House and Senate would be required to earn the support and vote of all (100%) of their constituency--a system where no citizen loses an election because no candidate is able to steal their right to representation by winning a narrow majority. As an added bonus such a system would virtually eliminate the nationally destructive, regional competition that now takes place for control over our modern country's porkishly large military and infrastructural budgets.
Another short cut that critically flaws our election process is the establishment of a non-transferable vote. To have any real meaning or usefulness, the right to vote must come with the real freedom to vote your true preference. By allowing voters to indicate a second or third choice on their ballot and directing their vote accordingly. Voters would be free to vote for third or no-party candidates without fearing that they might be throwing their vote away, or that their honest vote might deny the more favorable of the remaining candidates a chance of winning. This would, in turn, reduce the choking hold the two major parties have over the system and give all candidates a clear view of the actual sentiments of the electorate.
By combining open, truly national elections with a transferable vote we can have "representation without segregation," and our government can be made to honestly reflect who we are, rather than what we are made to seem through the fog of compromise and disenfranchisement. All that is required is the application of a little computer technology, and the willingness to give "the people" real control over the process.
The following is a simple outline of how an open national election might work. No doubt substantial time and thought will have to be given to the design of any new system, but there is little point in describing and debating details until popular support for the overall direction is achieved.
Example of a congressional election:
1. Ballot would provide voter with ten slots or "choices" to fill (1-10).
2. All registered candidates (virtually anyone) would be given an ID number (Ex. DR-1367) to make ballots computer friendly and readable by voting machines.
3. Election takes place - voters fill as many slots as they desire in order of preference.
4. Votes are "given" to voters first choice candidate.
5. Candidates with 300,000 or more votes are elected.
6. Excess votes over the 300,000 required to elect are "liberated" and go to voter's next choice. (Votes left with elected candidate are his or her constituents.)
a) If next choice is already elected or "disqualified" vote go to next choice.
b) If there is no next choice vote is "put aside."
7. In order from least votes to most unelected candidates are "disqualified" and there votes passed to next choice-see 6a and 6b.
8. Repeat 7 until all votes not belonging to elected candidates have been "put aside"
9. Give votes put aside to the elected candidate that is listed highest among the voters choices. Allow elected candidates to consolidate these extra votes into groups of 300,000 and appoint their representative.
10. Voters are informed to which candidate their vote went.
11. Everyone wins!
In conclusion, Benjamin Franklin said that necessity is the mother of invention. If this is so, I would contend that an open mind is its father, for without an open mind, the fertility that necessity provides is likely to go wasted. Progress requires more than a willingness to accept change; it requires the willingness to make changes. The Wright Brothers wouldn't have invented the airplane if all they were willing to do was to hurl insults at a flightless automobile, and glue some feathers on its hood. If we are going to have a democracy that truly serves the people and one deserving of their pride, we've got to do more than complain and make cosmetic changes to what already exists. We've got to break the prejudice hold tradition has on us and see what we now have, for what it is, and make the fundamental changes fairness and progress requires. We're not still using Thomas Jefferson's description of a well-appointed bathroom, so maybe we shouldn't still be using his conception of a well-constructed democracy. |
| By 07. 07. 193... on Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 1:17 am: |
I agree with everything said here... And I have to add a few more words now to meet the minimum to post! Well, I guess that means you want more feedback... (I wish we had this feature on YouTube).
The two party system is a fraud. Reps and Dems are largely the same, but they bicker at one another in public to put on the charade of a functioning, lively political system. In reality, they all work for the almighty dollar, which is owned by the uber-wealthy bankers of the world. If it sounds like a conspiracy... well it is! But it's really quite out in the open if we just go and look for the evidence.
I think we need to put the money back in the hands of the people. That's a free market. Right now the money is loaned to us by the bank. Even the government is paid by the bank. They own us all. That is our biggest threat; not a free economy of property owning people. The threat is property, people, government, and nation owning bankers. |
| By 07. 07. 3....... on Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 12:14 pm: |
| It's obvious we wouldn't be voting for the same representative, but it would be truly spectacular if we both had a real right to representation. |
| By 07. 213... on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 1:42 am: |
| great info. Plain as pie our votes are being managed by a cynical system that is determined to tightly hold onto power by creating the illusion(spin) that we are voting for different candidates. But factually the same two families, titular heads of the same two political parties, have been swapping the presidency back and forth for what will soon be 24-28 years. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-?Clinton. Think about it. It should send you running to the bathroom. |
| By 07. 213... on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 1:46 am: |
| Add to that we are not a democracy by any illusion. We are a corporatocracy, a giant political action machine by committee, a vested interest lobby feast. Working people have not the time or energy to get involved full time and many lack the cherished desire to sell out for the power trip. Taken a step further, the federal governement has taken leave of the very people and is currently functioning as an off-th-shelf autonomous entity. Its actually an entity run by people who turn a deaf ear to us. I say this as a simple analysis of domestic policy and accomplishments have been null in the 7 years of Bush and in many ways the 8 years of Clinton and 4 years of Bush 1. Its true! |
| By 07. 07. 213... on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 1:54 am: |
| It would take a centrist party to take back the country which has been hijacked by people who are anything but our friends. They are narcissists for lack of a more generous designation. Spin is their tool. Essentially they are self congradulatory pandering psychopaths. They are well paid for that and given a lot of perks. Then again being a true patriot would land one in court on a whole variety of charges. They can even shut you down if you use an occasional "wrong" word. If you get mad they put you in solitary in prison(seg units), or worse send you to anger management, unemploy you, fine you into bankruptcy, or run a dirty tricks campaign on you, or simply disappear you on no charges at all. If they don't like the votes they simply let the courts decide(supreme court). Or they can play with you, turn you, criminalize you, marginalize you, and make you look pathetic. |
| By 07. 07. 1... on Sunday, April 19, 2015 - 7:38 pm: |
|
