![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Voting isn't the answer.
And I'm not saying this because I think Kerry isn't the answer. I am saying it because I think the system is too fucked for an election or a change of face to make better. The United States is not even a direct democracy. Everyone keeps talking about the power of the vote when the reality is that individual votes don't count. The electoral college elects the president, not us. Our votes? They're a lot more like an opinion poll than anything else. We vote for our state electors who, in turn, cast votes for the president and vice president. It is traditional for the electors to follow the will of the people, but it isn't required by law that they do so. The entire system was designed by the founding fathers as a safeguard against the people's inability to make the right decision. It was designed specifically to remove democratic power from the hands of the people and put it into the hands of smarter, educated men who could be counted on to make the right decision.
So what? One might say. The electoral college has always bowed to convention and voted with the people in the past. But honestly? Without any check to their power I think it's a pretty dangerous precedent to still have the electoral college alive and kicking today.
I also think the party system and the importance of money on elections is dangerous. John Kerry has proven himself just as willing as Bush when it comes to allowing himself to be bought by corporations. He's spoken out against soft money, but apparently had no problems taking it before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed. All of you should check out Open Secrets in particular their Presidential Election data to see the exact state of both Bush and Kerry's campaign finances. You should also read this article by Bill Mesler about the corporate financing of this election.
What this stuff boils down to, for me, is that Kerry is absolutely no better than Bush when it comes down to the things that count. Neither man is willing to make any significant changes to the status quo. And for some of you guys that might be okay, but for me it's not. Neither one will stand up to their corporate backers and admit that capitalism is destroying the planet and the lives of every poverty stricken person on it. Neither will recognize that change starts at home when it comes to nuclear disarmament and proliferation. Neither is going to address the serious problem of the prison-industrial complex, and neither Bush nor Kerry is willing to put people before profits when it comes to civil rights over property rights. And since I don't have a couple hundred thousand dollars to give either of those guys, my opinions won't ever be heard.
I think that if Kerry wins this election a lot of "liberals" are going to breath a sigh of relief that a democrat is back in office and take a few steps back from paying attention to politics for the next four years. This attitude is a problem. I've done my part to serve my country, now I can step back and let the people I voted for do their jobs.
Casting a vote takes 15 minutes. But what about the next 3 years 364 days and 23 hours?
- Mood:controversial
Comments
The electoral college is part of the compromise that made the constitution possible (I did a paper on this in high school). It's a joke, but the worst part is the states' decisions (not required) to make their presidential contests winner-take-all. They seem to think it gives them more power and value. The only advantage I can see is that because California is solidly Democratic, we're avoiding most of the crap political campaigning.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. A BIG ONE. (sorry for shouting, if the Naderites and cynics had believed that in 2000, things would be different. A few votes in the right places can change things).
It doesn't matter what John Kerry says about the war in Iraq. If he or Al Gore were president, we wouldn't be in this war. When the Democrats were in charge, we didn't have a deep deficit from giving tax cuts to the rich (like me). We didn't keep money from family planning programs because they might mention abortion. We didn't try to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or allow roads in wilderness areas. Clinton led the effort to ratify the Kyoto Climate Change treaty. We really supported removal of nuclear weapons. Kids in public schools weren't tested to death to prove that private education is better. It goes on and on. It might be a mess of a system but subtle variations do matter.
As for limited capitalism and representative democracy, they're not perfect by any means but they seem better than all known alternatives. Humans are often stupid, greedy and bad at thinking long-term. The problem with Communism is that it is predicated on enlightened altruism, whereas Capitalism is predicated on enlightened selfishness. All the attempts to make Communist societies quickly degenerated into statist totalitarianism, often of the worst sort. That tells me that we need new theories, not old ones.
The countries that seem to be doing the most good and least harm to me are the ones that combine the two appropriately, like Sweden and the Netherlands. Easier to do with small rich countries though.