Mock Elections - Mock Democracy
Many Democrats and Republicans argue a democracy cannot lead to tyranny by definition. But, I would counter with the following current facts and reality demonstrating how wrong they are:
Elect means 'to choose'. Hence democratic elections MUST by definition provide voters with a choice. However, the reality is the voters in America have no choice in vastly increasing numbers of so called elections. Here is case in point. From the Boston Globe on Massachusett's coming elections:
RESULTS are in from the candidate filings with city and town clerks statewide, and the winners are: the incumbents. And the losers are: the voters.Only 14 of the Senate's 40 seats, and only 58 of the 160 seats in the House, are being contested this year, raising the question of where democracy has gone.
If you think of it, to "elect" means to choose. If there's no choice, how can there be an election? And
if there's no true election, where's the democracy?
And where democracy is weak or absent, tyranny, like a wolf and a stray lamb, is not far off and following the scent!
Jon Rowland writes of tyranny:
Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive.
I argue that gerrymandering districts and driving costs to campaign for election into the stratosphere are the oppressive tactics being used by our current politicians to try to maintain their power. And it appears to be immensely effective with an average of 94% of incumbents being reelected, just as it is becoming ever more oppressive according to polls, and moving us closer to tyranny.
Comments
So much of politics is about the money, it's scary. Many people think they could do a better job than their elected representative, yet so few seek office. This isn't how a democratic republic is supposed to work. We really need to get back to the basics.
Posted by: Stephanie | June 5, 2006 1:56 AM
What recourse does the voting public have to the elections where a candidate is running "unopposed".
Posted by: Steve Smith | June 5, 2006 8:52 AM
Polls show most Americans believe Congress is corrupt.
The voters have right under their very own noses the remedy to that, but instead, keep re-electing the very same, irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, incumbents that use and abuse everyone, and then wonder why Congress is corrupt.
No wonder politicians have such a disdain for voters.
No wonder politicians ignore the voters.
No wonder politicians do what ever they want, and even if they break the law, there's a good chance they'll get a pardon.
No wonder they think they are above the law.
No wonder they hide money in their Freezer.
No wonder they have sex in the Oval Office.
No wonder they are extremely irresponsible with regard to intelligence used to start a war.
No wonder they vote themselves raises.
No wonder they keep votin' on pork-barrel, graft, and corporate welfare.
No wonder we haven't been attacked again by terrorists...they moved to the U.S. and became just as lazy.
No wonder our congress sells out its citizens by forcing them to accommodate illegal aliens.
No wonder we tolerate these 99 blunders
No wonder our list of pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity.
We let it.
Posted by: d.a.n | June 6, 2006 6:56 PM
I'm afraid not much Steve, unless they have a paper ballot and can write in a name.
I think this is why the major parties like voting machines. Voters can't write in candidates with them.
Posted by: Ron Brown | June 12, 2006 10:38 PM