By D. H. Corax
That our current
political situation is unhealthy and unsustainable no one of sense could fail
to see. That the roots of our government’s uncontrolled growth, the ways it has
come to loom larger and larger in the once freer land it coldly leeches of
vitality to strengthen itself are numerous and varied, no one of honesty could
fail to admit. It is not my intent here to provide solutions for all aspects of
the problem. Rather, I hope to focus on one of those roots, and thereby help to
make it at least marginally harder for our elites to spit on our laws, degrade
our culture, displace our people with hostile foreigners, and saddle our sons
and daughters with massive debts in the process. The root at which I wish to
take aim is our two-party oligarchy.
As of now, it is
simply not possible for a third party to effectively challenge the oligarchy’s
shared rule at any level of government. At least partially, this sad reality
owes its continued existence to an illusion. As is so often the case with
governments throughout the ages, the mirage of popular support creates actual
(if passive) support. Stalin infamously had a policy of sending the first
person to stop clapping after one of his speeches to the Gulag. So all wore a
mask of joy on their face and clapped like mad, leaving each man in the crowd
plagued with doubts as to how many were foolish or complacent enough to be
clapping genuinely, and whose claps belied deep frustration and rage. Thus a
crowd easily large enough and hostile enough to overwhelm Stalin’s guards and
kill him on the spot was rendered completely innocuous.
While our
Demopublican elites are as yet far from enjoying Stalin’s repressive, absolute
power, they are protected in what substantial political power they enjoy by a
similar deception. Like the happy faces in Stalin’s crowd (if to a lesser
degree), a vote can conceal much dissatisfaction and frustration. After all,
there is no way to vote for some of a candidate’s policies but not others; he
is a package deal. And since there is no way to tell how many ballots for a
candidate were cast with enthusiasm and how many were cast in brooding
resignation of finding his opponent even worse, many a suited sociopath is
permitted to masquerade as the beloved paladin of all who voted for him.
This illusory support
then creates actual support by feeding a species of self-fulfilling prophecy:
the two parties tell us that only they are popular enough and able to command
enough support and votes to win and that a vote for a third party candidate is
both futile and a de facto vote for the oligarch you hate even more; and so few
vote for the tertium quid and he goes down in defeat, appearing as unpopular
and his cause as hopeless as the Demopublican prophets foretold, making their
future predictions about the futility of challenging them all the more
believable.
As Stalin’s potential
detractors or attackers feared finding themselves in physical exile in the
Gulag, so many an American voter fears finding himself in the social exile of
an unpopular or futile cause, far from the camps of the Big 2, who seem to
enjoy the nearly unanimous support of just about everyone who votes. And so our
oligarchs endlessly play the lesser-of-two evils game with us and get us to
hold our noses and swallow the rancid bilge water they carry for the crony
capitalists, sexual deviants, war mongers, and other wealthy riffraff that fund
them.
To weaken the
illusion and rock the thrones of our co-rulers a little I propose the following
idea. Call it the “no confidence vote.” It can be enacted at any level of
government (best to begin at the local and work your way up) with a law
requiring the following:
1. All polling stations must offer all voters the following options:
a. cast a full vote
for a candidate, etc., for an office
b. cast a vote of no
confidence for a candidate for an office, or
c. cast a general
vote of no confidence for that office.
2. Should the votes of no confidence reach or exceed 50% of the total cast for that office, no candidate may be elected to that office until another election (for all offices which failed to meet the 51% full votes minimum) is held in which the votes of no confidence fall below 50% of the total.
3. The interval between elections is set at the level of the law’s inaction and can vary, as can what happens to the office: the old occupants might continue or (my preferred choice) the office goes vacant and nothing new can be done but the bureaucracy continues its work as usual. (The latter option ensures that a tossed election won’t benefit the prior office holders but also won’t lead to a government shutdown, which the Big 2 could threaten us with to extort full votes for themselves.)
4. The announcements of returns must tell the following:
a. what number and
percentage of candidate-specific votes each candidate got
b. what number and
percentage of each candidate’s votes were votes of no confidence
c. what number and
percentage of total votes were general no confidence votes
d. what number and
percentage of total votes were some kind of no confidence vote
With a no confidence vote for a candidate a voter can in effect say to the Big 2, “I may have given you my vote, but only to prevent someone I despise even more than you from winning; if I’d had a better choice, I’d have voted against you.” Hence, a Catholic Democrat could show Obama that she hates his abortion policies and general decadence; a Republican could let McCain know that he loathes his warmongering, etc. The lesser-of-two-evils package-deal nature of the candidates remains, but the illusion of popular support it creates will be shattered. And should the general no confidence votes—which will likely bring to the polls many who, with Paleos and libertarians, previously had argued, “Don’t vote; it only encourages them”—help push the total of such votes to 50% or more, the lesser-of-two-evils game could be (at least for that election and seat) ended. For if the Big 2 are forced back to the drawing board, one of two salutary results will occur.
On the one hand, if
they hope to win next time around, they’ll be forced to toss some of the more
rank and sordid special interest garbage they tried to cram into the bottom of
the package they offered us, lest they again offend too many normal supporters
into voting no confidence. Should this happen even once, should the panderers
see their chances of winning disappear and their despicable sugar daddies see
their legal bribery go down the drain, both will be more hesitant to put as much
of their time and money on the line seeking and doing lobbying as they had
before.
The no confidence
vote turns the lobbyists’ and politicians’ greatest advantage against them.
They can afford to dedicate a large portion of their time and money to campaigning
and lobbying in hopes of a big payoff, while the average voter must devote
himself to making an honest living and (with nothing substantial to gain for
himself no matter who wins) puts little time and money into politics; but that
also means that the average voter has almost nothing to lose by helping to toss
an election with his no confidence vote, while politicians and lobbyists stand
to lose everything.
On the other hand,
there is another outcome which might finally occur: a third-party party victory.
If an election is thrown, if the returns coming in show moderate to high
percentages of no confidence votes for the Big 2 but almost 100% full votes for
the third-party candidate, the illusion of Demopublican popularity will be
shattered and those who only voted for them out of fear of wasting their vote
or joining an unpopular cause will likely reconsider their position. The
disgruntled but timorous man will say, “Well, I guess I wasn’t the only one who
hated his guts and all the crap he peddles for his Hollywood friends.” The
previously wavering will be emboldened to give his next vote to the third-party
man he’d liked but didn’t want to waste it on—for it’s no less a waste to vote
for the Big 2 if the election is tossed. The very possibility of actually
winning or showing their internal popularity will encourage at least a few more
parties to make the attempt.
Those which do will
find their power and influence magnified by the inherent logic of the no
confidence vote. For as a third-party candidate’s best chance of winning is by
having the election tossed, it will pay him to turn the big 2’s position of
dominance against them: As the horses to bet on, the Big 2 rake in the most
special interest cash, but that also means they have the most to hide.
Rather than spending
his meager war chest on ads for himself, which likely won’t generate much
support for him anyway, he will run ads pointing out as many unsavory
connections and promises the Big 2 made as he can in order to turn their normal
supporters’ votes from full to no confidence, thus possibly tossing the
election and giving him a better shot at victory the second time around.
This will at least
discourage Demopublican plastic men from disrespecting less mainstream
candidates the way they did Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. At most, it might
further discourage the Big 2 from taking the tainted money in the first place.
And even if they win,
the oligarchs’ confidence will at least be somewhat shaken by the number of no
confidence votes among the total that elected them. Phony “mandates” will be
shown for what they are. Nixon might have been less inclined to expand the
welfare state had he seen just how many of his “landslide victory” votes owed
themselves to McGovern’s unpopularity and the fact that Wallace had been gunned
down.
While the idea of the
no confidence vote will doubtlessly face the full onslaught of Demopublican
party men and their media toadies, it’s rhetorically fairly easy to sell: what
normal citizen, after all, would consider an election in which half the voters
don’t want the current candidates to rule legitimate? Cost and inconvenience
will be too great, its opponents will argue, but that seems rather weak when
pitted against the idea that if the Big 2 simply provide candidates of which at
least half the voters approve the first time around, there will be no
additional time and expense needed. Also, given that the current scramble for
special interest cash which the Big 2 now spend most of their time engaging in
will at least be reduced by the no confidence vote, it’s highly likely it will
actually reduce the cost of elections.
Well, that’s my idea,
for what it’s worth. It’s certainly not a full solution to our political
troubles, but it might make the situation at least slightly better and for the
life of me I can’t see how it could make it worse.
Of course this might
be rather moot if the whole thing had to be done via voting machines which
wouldn’t record the votes accurately anyway, but that’s another issue for
another day.
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us
sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment