Votes Matter ... or Do They?

[john62]

You just do what we do here in Australia, that is knife the Prime Minister in the back, always from their own party, and pick a new Prime Minister who is usually worse than the one before. I think we have had five Prime Ministers in about five years!

John

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl,

There's no way to shorten the election cycle, because that was done by one of the most democratic processes inexistence, the free market.

If we added a recall mechanism, I guarantee the Congress would get even less done than it does now. Instead of trying to repeal Obamacare every month, the House of Representatives would have also have ginned up an excuse to recall the President every month. The President's 4-year terms would be rendered meaningless.

I will definitely agree that there's much too much money in the elections. I'm not sure how one would limit the total amount. Worse yet, it might not accomplish what we think it might. During the primaries Donald Trump spent almost nothing on his campaign, let alone on advertising. Since the Republican Convention, he hasn't spent anywhere near what Hillary Clinton has and look how close it has been. He's been able to do that because he's so telegenic.

My concern is, if you succeeded in limiting the total amount each side could spend we might only succeed in creating a huge advantage for people who are very telegenic despite a complete lack of substance.

Contrast Trump with Bernie Sanders who had such a compelling message that he raised about as much money as Clinton and if he had been working on building up a grassroots effort as long as Hillary has, he would have had a much better chance. As it was, he did a whole lot better than anyone expected.

It wasn't any fix that defeated him, it was simple demographics. Black Americans love the Clintons and Bernie Sanders hadn't laid any ground work to earn their votes.

Money comes to the Clintons because they are a proven experts at getting votes. Yes, those donors want access and more, but it's not like monied interests can buy elections. There have been too many contests won by the financial underdogs for that to be a lead-pipe cinch.

[crfriend]

There's no way to shorten the election cycle, because that was done by one of the most democratic processes inexistence, the free market.

I suppose you're right on that count, but one can always dream can't one?

If we added a recall mechanism, I guarantee the Congress would get even less done than it does now.

Congress is working just fine, thank you, and bills that need to get passed always do. It's just done quietly.

Instead of trying to repeal Obamacare every month, the House of Representatives would have also have ginned up an excuse to recall the President every month.

I really love all this chicanery about Romneycare. Trust me, the powers that be love it because it's a cash cow for them all at the expense of what's left of the middle class. Why should the billionaires running the "insurance" industry want to repeal it -- they're the ones profiting! It's theatre.

The President's 4-year terms would be rendered meaningless.

It largely is anyway. Presidents get overridden and ignored all the time.

During the primaries Donald Trump spent almost nothing on his campaign, let alone on advertising.

That was all about name familiarity and marketing hype. The problem is that there was -- and remains -- no substance beneath the veneer. Recall that crack I quoted a few posts back about "[...] well-spoken but not well-intentioned individual[s ...]". Save, of course, that Trump is not particularly well-spoken.

Contrast Trump with Bernie Sanders who had such a compelling message that he raised about as much money as Clinton and if he had been working on building up a grassroots effort as long as Hillary has, he would have had a much better chance. As it was, he did a whole lot better than anyone expected.

Sanders did well because his message resonated with a whole lot of people -- very similarly to how John Edwards' "Two Americas" messages resonated with a whole lot of people a few years ago. Folks undestand what's wrong with the place, it's just that they cannot vote for a candidate who will actually change things for the betterment of the bulk of the population because no such candidates are allowed on the ballot. Sanders was in the primary for comic relief; there was no way in creation he would have been allowed to progress to the national "election" (any more than Edwards did). That's the genius of the system that's in operation now, and it's self-perpetuating.

There have been too many contests won by the financial underdogs for that to be a lead-pipe cinch.

In this, don't look to the past; it's a brave new world now. Altogether.

[stevelous]

My vote here in the UK may only be one vote but it is my right and duty to cast my ballot. My vote has the same value as the vote cast by any other elector. I could have a postal vote but choose to go to my local polling station. Thus I help elect my local Councillor, my county Councillor, my MP and until brexit my MEP by a wierd PR system. While my choice of representative may not win if I pass up my vote they will not have the chance.

As for election expenses here every penny has to be accounted for and the accounts sent into the Returning Officer (the person who runs the elections on a constituency basis). There is also a maximum amount that can be spent per election. Although on a national basis we seem to be going down the spend,spend,spend route.

In short votes do count and if you want your choice to have a chance to win then vote and get others to do the same.

[Tor]

While my choice of representative may not win if I pass up my vote they will not have the chance.

What if one's choice of "representative" is No One? With the ballot you have, how is one to submit that vote in such a way that it will be properly counted?

Don't think I'm ragging on your elections system. I know of none that have a real No One option.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Tor,

And just what should be done with such throwaway votes as "none of the above?"

Carl,

I couldn't be more against Trump if I tried. In fact, you made my point, if we limited the total amount that could be invested in an election campaign, it would only serve to give an advantage to a non-entity like Trump.

I voted for Hilary instead of the Bern only because I realized she pass what she was proposing and I'm not sure that the Bern could get ANYTHING passed.

Jeb Bush was, on the Republican Party's side the Establishment's choice, he had a warchest to prove it ... AND he got exactly nowhere.

Demonstrating, yet again, the powers that be don't have the power that both you and them credit them with having.

And yes, financial underdogs have won their share of political victories recently.

Is it nonetheless a fact that if you're going to bet, bet on the better funded candidate. Just as in a street brawl, you want to bet on the larger combatant, unless the smaller one has a weapon, but neither case suggests anything resembling a Conspiracy.

[crfriend]

[...] but neither case suggests anything resembling a Conspiracy.

That's the beauty of the modern landscape -- conspiracy is not required any longer. An act is declared legal by fiat and the deed happens. Conniving behind closed doors, as happened back in the Nixon times is simply obsolete. "We want to hold people indefinitely and without charge? No problem. It's legal. Torture? Sure that's legal too." and away we go.

Now take a hard look at the economic system and how it shapes power. The middle class has been the target of unrestricted class and financial warfare since the very early 1980s; nobody really noticed it at first because it took time to gather steam, but as with any acceleration, unless it is checked it runs away very quickly. Few notice the freight train that wasn't tied down quite right when it starts to roll, but by the time it's going about 10 miles an hour it's almost impossible to stop unless the locomotive is still attached and manned. Now, to continue the analogy and pointing up where it breaks; the runaway cut of cars has a terminal velocity beyond which it cannot go -- a classic exponential curve has no limit as it runs away to infinity -- and this is what we're now seeing in the US economy. The top 0.01% of the population controls better than 50% of the real wealth and the top 0.5% control close to 60%. It's lopsided even at the very top. And wealth brings power and access (not to mention avarice and unbounded greed); so the acceleration continues. The endpoint is where the top 0.005% are fighting it out over who gets the last scraps and everybody who's left and doesn't have two nickels to rub together get cut out of the system altogether to starve or revert to law-of-the-jungle.

People see this. If the didn't Bernie would not have received the support he did (just like Edwards before him). But not enough people do because the media is focused on distracting people from what's going on. It's still going on, mind, but the attention is drawn to the circus action and not the office politics where the money is being made. So, no "vast conspiracy" is necessary here; just a little bit of showmanship. A little bit of observational expertise is helpful as well as the ability to put two plus two together and arrive at the correct number of four. (For the computer geeks in the community I wrote "plus" there for a reason; we happen to know that two and two is two.)

[Tor]

I'd have two ways the NotA could be cast, the second a subset of the first. The first would simply require new candidates and a revote. The second, which would take effect if a separation of the two NotA variants would have it win, would outright abolish the office for that term, or if it won twice in a row, would permanently abolish the office.

The reason for the subsetting and partial separation only is because both say that none of the candidates are suitable to hold the office, differing only in opinion as to how important the office is altogether. A revote where NotA wins again should abolish the office for the current term, but not count towards permanent abolishment of the office.

Well, for that matter, it would be more accurate to say I would consider this an interim step, but one which might improve matters more gracefully than some other options.


On the Powers That Be, I've heard enough from people I know telling me what they have personally experienced or witnessed that I can't just discount the "conspiracy theories". If you include what comes just one step removed through people I trust it becomes even harder to discount.

[Sinned]

It was on our local news that there is a third candidate on the horizon - independent Evan McMullin. Seems to have some support in Utah and surrounding states but don't know much more about it than that.

[stevelous]

While my choice of representative may not win if I pass up my vote they will not have the chance.

What if one's choice of "representative" is No One? With the bamllot you have, how is one to submit that vote in such a way that it will be properly counted?

Don't think I'm ragging on your elections system. I know of none that have a real No One option.

I will go and 'spoil' my ballot, these are recorded. I used to know a local politician who is sadly no longer with us, his attitude was that only when spoiled ballots beat the candidates people would listen. I agree with him and I want the Representation of the Peoples act to be changed for a 'none of the above' option to be included. We might then get voter turnouts in the high 70%'s not the low 30%'s.

[PatJ]

While my choice of representative may not win if I pass up my vote they will not have the chance.

What if one's choice of "representative" is No One? With the ballot you have, how is one to submit that vote in such a way that it will be properly counted?

Don't think I'm ragging on your elections system. I know of none that have a real No One option.

The solution is that a new election is held - the candidates on the ballot where "No One" or "None of the Above" won are disqualified from running for election on the second attempt. Political parties seems to work at maintaining the status quo - so - the only way to force them to change is at the ballot box.

"Mr. Trump" has been running on the thought of changing that status quo, but I have yet to hear any viable ideas about implementing change come from him. "Mrs. Clinton" seems to be that status quo type of candidate that always seems to get elected.

I have never voted for a "third party candidate" before, but this year may be the year. Some will say it is throwing my vote away, but if enough people do the same, the political parties might start to take notice that they need to find those candidates who will carry out the will of the people and not the will of special interest groups.

[Gordon]

I will be voting for someone other than Trump or Clinton. I just don't agree with either of them.

[Jim]

I will be voting for someone other than Trump or Clinton. I just don't agree with either of them.

As the vote in Washington state does not seem close, it's a good place for a symbolic vote.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl,

I agree with your economic analysis, however that is not what you have been saying about politics. You have been saying it was figured out in advance by some shadowy group of masterminds manipulating us in an incredibly invisible and diabolical manner.

Nor have you shown any line from point A, the destruction of the middle-class by Reagan, his minions and the folks who have followed in his footsteps and point B, elections not mattering because the puppet masters are pulling our strings and we just don't know it.

Finally, there is plenty of incredibly necessary legislation NOT getting passed. Starting with approval of our next Supreme Court Justice and running through to a Cap and Trade plan for greenhouse gas emissions and a carbon tax. The Republicans won't hear of it. In the meantime our judicial system is grinding to a halt and our planet is going to hell, literally it seems, it is indeed getting too hot.

Tor,

Your None of the Above plan sure takes a cavalier approach to elected offices. I'm sorry, they all have a role/ place in our system of governance. Is it perfect, not even close, but so far overall the American Experiment has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination.

I'm sorry, life is compromise, as my first landlord explained to me. Your proposal would make the perfect, which is never achievable, the enemy of the good enough.

Sure, we too often have to choose between the lesser of two evils. That is certainly how the majority of the electorate is feeling this year about the Presidential Election. But guess what? while the majority of the electorate doesn't like or trust Hillary, the current President is right, no one else has been better prepared for the job in the modern era. And while Trump prides himself on his negotiating skills -- bullying refined to an art -- Hillary is actually adept enough at negotiating with the Republicans to get controversial bills passed. It will be interesting to see how she does as Pres.

But I digress, in this life, we are often faced with the need to choose between two less than ideal choices. Why should it be any different in the political realm.

I hope this isn't too blunt, but you NotA proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. At least one that it can actually solve.

[crfriend]

Nor have you shown any line from point A, the destruction of the middle-class by Reagan, his minions and the folks who have followed in his footsteps and point B, elections not mattering because the puppet masters are pulling our strings and we just don't know it.

Reagan didn't destroy the middle class in the United States, he merely released the brakes on a train that would later run away. The real damage didn't start accruing until a decade later.

As far as complete control goes, we can start with William J. Clinton who was our final "renegade" president and who dared to challenge the economic elites in the shape of attempting to reform health care in the US [0] -- and immediately got embroiled in a made-up non-scandal that effectively crippled the government (note that during this time legislation that benefited the super-wealthy continued to pass quietly, just as it does today). After that, we got a political appointee, and now the thing is completely under control so no more renegades can possibly cause trouble. [1][2]

Finally, there is plenty of incredibly necessary legislation NOT getting passed. Starting with approval of our next Supreme Court Justice and running through to a Cap and Trade plan for greenhouse gas emissions and a carbon tax. The Republicans won't hear of it. In the meantime our judicial system is grinding to a halt and our planet is going to hell, literally it seems, it is indeed getting too hot.

Ask yourself this, "Would any of those bills benefit the folks at the top of the economic pencil (can't really call it a "pyramid" any longer)?" You will likely come to the conclusion of, "No." and therein lies the crux. "Follow the money." Those bills, whilst very important indeed, would slow down the acquisition of wealth; that is why they languish.


[0] There is a not-so-subtle difference between health care and health insurance; there's vastly more money to be made in the latter which is why the elites seek to conflate the two. With health care you actually help people who are suffering; with insurance you merely rake in the profits and if somebody gets helped in the process it's a "nice to have". Yes, health insurance is that big of a deal: Romneycare is the biggest wealth-transfer scheme yet seen by the eyes of man.

[1] Sanders could have been a renegade, but was nothing but spectacle, sadly -- a charade, part of the circus. He never had a chance.

[2] Trump is not a problem and can be dealt with in any number of ways. What bothers me is what his more frothing supporters decide to do -- especially if it involves violence, and I've seen speculation that it might. Violence would be a losing proposition, though; the government has vastly more fire-power than a bunch of hicks with "assault weapons", and won't hesitate to use it. It'll be interesting to see how they "spin" the act of the US government opening fire on its own citizenry. Comparisons to Syria or Russia I'm sure will be made. I sincerely hope this does not happen, but I can very easily see it happening so.