Five Things to do between elections
People usually think of elections as the way to fix
things. They hope they can get the right
people elected, and then things will be better.
The problem is that a lot of things that ordinary people think are
problems, politicians find them good, just, and even necessary.
Politicians, who make the rules, find it is too easy and
tempting to bend and play the rules.
They confuse something being legal with something being right. As long it is legal, it is okay. A lot of these things you can’t really expect
politicians to change or correct.
So, if things need to be changed, in most cases it will
depend on people banding together, signing petitions to get referendums or
constitutional amendments to change things that politicians won’t, or otherwise
put pressure on them to make the necessary changes.
And these changes should be done between elections, because
every law that tries to fix something ends up in court, so that anything that
can affect an election’s outcome won’t be valid in the next one.
I have identified five issues that I believe need correcting
and that will take public initiatives to bring about any change.
1) The first change
is the end of the two party system.
Wait. That sounds too extreme. But actually there is a problem here that
stifles our entire political system.
A two party system makes an election simple. The winner not only has more votes than the
loser, but he/she also has a majority of the votes cast. A clear winner.
But enter an independent candidate.
Now the winner may have the most votes of all the
candidates, but he may not have a majority of the votes cast. In a three way contest, the winner could have
as little as 34% of the vote. In fact,
independent candidates are discouraged from running, because they are generally
seen as taking votes from mostly one of the parties, and thus almost giving the
election to the other party.
It is not right for any candidate to win any election
without getting a majority of the votes cast.
The Presidential election is an excepetion in that there it is the
states that elect the President and not individuals.
Independent (or third party) candidates are needed to
provide more choices. Frankly, I only
vote Republican now, because there is no other alternative to the Democrats.
So what we need are either runoff elections for every race
without one candidate winning a majority of all the votes cast (expensive), or
an option on the ballot for second choice candidates if there are more than
two. This is especially important in
primaries, where it is often tough to choose between candidates and there are
often a lot to choose from.
Far too often voters feel they cannot vote for the candidate
they really want, because it would be considered a wasted vote. They are told to vote for the candidate most
likely to win rather who they really want.
This would enable us to finally vote our consciences.
2) The second issue
is gerrymandering. Every ten years the
majority party of a state is allowed to redraw the representative districts of
the state to reflect shifts in population.
So the majority party takes this opportunity to draw boundary lines that
dilute the voting power of the opposing party and thus keep more of the
majority party in power.
This is broadly accepted by politicians, because the other
party can and will do the same when, or if, they ever get in power. So what is wrong with this, if everyone does
it?
With the advent of the computer, strategists are able to
know quite a bit about the people who live in any particular place. They know the voting patterns for every
precinct in the country. But they also
know the ethnicity, religion, educational level, wealth, age, lifestyle,
homeownership, and private vs. public employment as well.
We may assume that all gerrymandering in the past has been
to dilute the voting power of the opposition party. But depending on what issues are pending in a
state at the time of redistricting, what is there to prevent drawing boundary
lines to dilute or maximize the voting power of any other identifiable group? It need not be just Republican or Democrat.
No. This is
wrong. If you think it is right, I am
not sure if any words will be able to convince you. But I think most people will see this
immediately. There is an initiative now
in Illinois
to put an end to this. And, no, it did
not start with the legislators.
I live in a town of 30,000 people. For a while, our town was represented by 4
different Congressmen. This is wrong.
The most logical, fairest way is geography, keeping those in
the same communities in the same districts as much as possible. Politicians should not have access to
personal information when determining legislative boundaries.
3) The third
issue is the repeal of the 26th Amemdment. This is the Amendment that lowered the voting
age to 18.
The only reason that the voting age was lowered to 18 was
that, at the time, our nation had a military draft, and we were fighting a war
that wasn’t really a war, because we didn’t declare it one, and so we weren’t
really trying to win it.
So we had 18 year olds fighting and dying, and if that is
the case, they should he allowed to vote and have a say in how our country is
being run. Now we have 25 year olds still
on their parent’s medical insurance and living at home.
Voting is considered a right today, but it is also a
privilege and a responsibility. Most
states bar felons from being able to vote.
So few political leaders would regard it as an inviolable right, one
that cannot be taken from someone.
But there is another, bigger question floating around.
Five Things to do between elections
(Part 2)
"A democracy cannot exist as
a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that
they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on,
the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from
the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of theAthenian Republic
Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the
Many of the biggest problems our
country faces are not ones that we can rely on politicians to fix. The reason is that they often benefit from
them. Ordinary people need to work
between elections to change many of these.
We need to do it between elections, because everything that tries to fix
a problem ends up in court, so any successes won’t materialize until after the next
election.
We mentioned a bigger issue with
regard to voting in the last article.
Is voting a right that belongs to
everyone (citizenship is assumed), or is it a privilege with restrictions? Only
two states allow felons to vote, so it is generally recognized that voting is a
privilege, not an absolute right.
Originally in our country the
basic principle was that voters should have a “stake in society.
The basic principle that
governed voting in colonial America
These restrictions were gradually
eliminated in our country, but our country is now experiencing something
unthought-of in American history. About
half of our country receives some form of government assistance. And just about half of our country does not
pay any income taxes.
As people receive more things from
the government, they become more dependent on the government. If it is a natural human tendency to go from
accepting help to expecting help, how are people in this situation able to vote
in a way that is best for the entire country?
Margaret Thatcher said that
socialism doesn’t work, because you always run out of other people’s
money. We are not officially a
socialistic country, but we are gradually relying on other people to take care of
us rather than taking care of ourselves.
So when these people vote, they
vote to benefit themselves at the expense of others. This will hurt our country in the long
run. The issue of 18 year olds voting is
the first step in insuring that voters are givers into the system rather than
just takers.
I would even say that voting
should be reserved for taxpayers period.
The fourth issue is voter ID laws. The only reason I can think of why people
oppose this is that they know their party is benefitting from illegal
votes. Do a google search for the things
that require a photo ID in our country.
1) buy
alcohol
2) buy
cigarettes
3) open
a bank account
4) apply
for food stamps
5) apply for welfare
6) apply
for Medicaid/Social Security
7) apply
for unemployment or a job
8) rent/
buy a house, apply for a mortgage
9) drive/buy/rent
a car
10) get on an airplane
11) get married
12) purchase a gun
13) adopt a pet
14) rent a hotel room
15) apply for a hunting/fishing license
16) buy a cell phone
17) visit a casino
18) pick up a prescription
19) hold a rally or protest
20) donate blood
21) buy an “M” rated video game
22) purchase nail polish at CVS
23) purchase certain cold medicines
24) cash a check
How do people even get along
without a photo ID? How have they made
it this far?
I don’t think it coincidental that
every state that had voter ID in the last national election voted the same
way. The outcomes of our elections are
far more important than any item in the above list, and there are huge incentives
to be less than totally honest here.
Demand voter ID laws.
One more matter. Consider this very common quote from John
Adams, our second President.
“ . . . we
have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human
passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and
licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale
goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Just as in our first quote, people in a democracy (or
republic) can vote the country broke for their individual gain, so too the
leaders in a democracy (or republic) can vote themselves privileges and
benefits that can ultimately harm the public good. Our government as set up requires a moral and
religious people, because the temptation for personal gain at the cost of
everyone else is enormous.
A good example of this was with Obamacare, which Congress
essentially exempted itself from and exempted others from in the attempt to
gain votes. Cities and states are going
broke over the benefits given to public sector employees.
When lawmakers make laws pertaining to themselves,
experience has shown that the public interest is rarely served. They make laws for the rest of us, but they
routinely exempt themselves from the laws’ effects.
There is an online petition going around today for a
Congressional Reform Act of 2013. I
think it is too encompassing, not allowing for unforeseen circumstances, but
the point is valid. Laws should apply
for everybody, including those who make them.
We can’t rely on our elected leaders to solve all our
problems, especially when they are the cause of many of them. Ordinary people need to do more, say more,
and act more to bring about these long needed changes.
