The freak show called democracy

by Bee

I see . . .

... is beginning to gather full steam. Super Tuesday has narrowed down the list of sleazy salesmen/women contending for my vote.

Well, that's what I'd like to think.

I know . . .

this has not much to do with my vote.

Not long ago, I was railing about how too many choices foster waste and inefficiency.

Guess what, I've realised that when it comes to two very important areas of my life, I have very few choices. Close to none. One is with regard to the type of healthcare I, or my dear ones, will receive in this country (I am American). More about that some other time.

The other pertains to the Presidential election.

I examine . . .

my current set of choices.

There are two private entities that go under the name of 'parties' - the Democrats and Republicans.

In theory, I can vote for my favourite candidate from my party of choice. If he/she wins the nomination, he/she gets to run for President.

In reality, this "representative democracy" has layers and layers of intermediaries who actually vote on my behalf.

Popular vote doesn't really elect the President. Party Delegates select the candidate in each state, and some states have the 'winner take all' policy. That is a joke. A cruel one. (More about primaries here)

So, a candidate is picked from each party by these 'delegates' to run for President.
I cast my vote, and it's not what really counts, 'cos

1. Chances are the Diebold machine I cast my vote through is rigged.
2. The Electoral College is the real decider, they can override the public vote.

Who are these people who decide on my behalf? A bunch of old, mostly white, mostly Christian men? Like in our Supreme Court? I really don't know who these people are.

The electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body. The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership whose thinking may not be considered.

(Source)

In theory, they don't have to pay the voters any heed at all if they don't wish to. The idea of the Electoral College has it's roots in monarchies and the Church's ecclesiastical order. It's meant to provide a veneer of mass participation while shielding the system from the hoipolloi.

Talking of the candidates themselves, in 1800, Americans had to pick between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. That must have been some campaign.

In 2004, we had Bush and Kerry - two mediocre minds born into the political aristocracy.

Now, that the delegates from both parties have voted (in most states), let's examine the current line-up.

The Republicans:




Religious wingnut Mitt Romney has just withdrawn from the race. That leaves

1. John McCain who thinks "Chelsea Clinton is so ugly because her father is Janet Reno".

and

2. Mike Huckabee - the 'pro-life' warmonger who is obsessed with men kissing and endorses slavery.

As Susan Anthony said,

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

What do the Democrats have to offer?



1. Hillary Clinton

and

2. Barack Obama

both of whom have been too busy collecting funds from dubious sources and taking digs at each other to focus on real issues like healthcare, Iraq, the recession and poverty. Edwards tried to, but he's dropped out.

Too many Americans harbor the illusion that we live in a democracy simply because we have the right to vote.

But real choices are impossible. It requires big money to win political office and that comes from the deep pockets of corporate America - restricting our choices.

Most Americans, at least those that vote, seem incapable of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two teams in the same league, serving the same cabal running the corporatist plutocracy.

(Source)

I agree . . .

'cos I see it happening. 50% of Americans don't pay Federal Income tax. 25% pay 90% of those taxes, and most of them are in the middle and lower-income categories.

At the state level as well, the rich get incresed exemptions, while the poor shoulder the additional burden of all risks associated with public investement. Jeb Bush's Florida is a shining example of this.

As one reader here pointed out:

America was once a representative democracy.

It is now a political aristocracy...
Its politics are controlled by two parties, both of which protect their incumbencies by transferring labor's value from the 25% who pay taxes to the 50% who pay no taxes.
Two families have controlled its Presidency for twenty years now--which will increase to 28 years if Hillary Clinton is elected.
America is an oligarchy, where a permanent ruling class buys its lifelong incumbencies by redistributing income from a minority of voters to a majority of voters.

Undoubtedly, "the best democracy money can buy".

The media is absolutely complicit in this sham. They've used every trick in the book to marginalise the candidates who didn't pass muster with their corporate masters (like Ron Paul this year and Ralph Nader in 2004). They achieve this through character assassination, exclusion from debates, exclusion from election coverage, exclusion from statistics and cover-ups of vote fraud.

What happens if an independent candidate tries to break this stranglehold and dares to stand for President?

Ask Ralph Nader.

It is—not content with having all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and their allies in over fifty-three law firms, with over ninety lawyers, were engaged in filing litigation in eighteen states. They were to remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive litigation process.

Nader's volunteer lawyers won most of the cases in court, but the damage to the campaign had already been done.

I wonder . . .

I've lived and voted in three democracies. One was a "Third World" country in Asia, the other in Europe where there are elections, but the monarch is the head of state (which I think is plain ridiculous), and the U.S.A.

Which is the most democratic system?

In theory it is the "Third World" country I grew up in, which has a parliamentary democracy and no restriction how many candidates can stand. In practice, the system has its limitations, especially when it involves one billion people. But my vote was MY VOTE, with no intermediaries, and no restriction on how many candidates or parties could compete.

Looking at the American scenario, issues certainly don't seen to matter in the way votes were garnered on Super Tuesday.

Now we can stand aside and enjoy the freak show - the rigging, the accusations, the power of the mysterious Electoral College, the sidelining of real issues.

And we can go teach some more unwashed Third World heathens in Eye-Ran or wherever else lessons in democracy.