Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

Saturday, October 7, 2017

political ramblings from last fall

I was cleaning out files on my computer, and I found this. It is a blog I started (and never finished) shortly after the presidential election (November 2016). I tried to flesh it out a bit, but it’s just several snippets on the topic of politics. So...enjoy? 

____________________________

I fear that we who think of ourselves as liberal, progressive, even moderate will close our eyes to the real takeaway from this election. After our shock and anger and sadness fade, after we assuage our pain with platitudes of love and family and community, we’ll simply move on without examining this whole election. All these calls for love and respect – I worry they will in reality equal doing nothing. They are simply another version of the “thoughts and prayers” that conservative offer whenever some mass shooting occurs: ultimately meaningless.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

We ignore things. We worry and complain about them when they come up – the problem of the Electoral College, for example – and then we forget about it, until 4 or 8 or 12 years later when it comes up again. We know it’s a problem, a fixable problem, but we don’t fix. We don’t even make and attempt to fix. When Hillary Clinton’s supporters had to keep trying to convince people that even though they may not like her, they should still vote for her, is that not a big red flag? When the Democratic party possibly fudges the primary votes in favor of a candidate, is that not a big red flag? Apparently not, because mostly we ignore all that, too. Instead, we prefer to blame anybody who supported or, god forbid, actually voted for a third-party candidate.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Donald Trump was right, in a sense, when he said the electoral system is rigged – just in a more complex way than he meant. Our government, on most levels, is monopolized by an entrenched two-party system. An us-versus-them/all-or-nothing/winning-at-the-expense-of-right-and-reason system. And these parties have no obligation to be “fair” because they make their own rules. But the big thing that keeps them in power is they have the infrastructure to get their candidates on the ballot, the money to advertise, and they’ve convinced the population that other parties aren’t serious options. The inclusion of any third-party candidates in mainstream political discussion, much less in an actual debate, is rare. All of our “institutions” in this country tell the same story about candidates outside of the Democrat and Republican parties: that they’re unrealistic, no chance of winning, at best (or worst) steals votes from the serious legit candidates.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

I suspect that many voters weren’t paying attention to every speech given by the candidates, nor to all the specifics of any party’s platform. A lot of people just voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton, because of what she represents to them, which is:
- an entrenched political elite out of touch with the average person
- a political class who speaks in “talking points” and bases decisions on focus groups
- a politician who tells you what you want instead of asking you

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Significant government reform – real changes in what gets done and what doesn’t – may be simply be impossible without first getting the influence of money out of government. Campaign finance reform – that’s a good starting place. Publicly-funded election campaigns mean that candidates aren’t beholden to their major donors whenever those donors’ pet issues come up. And, I suspect, directly related to campaign finance is the way lobbyists work. Companies and organizations with money to throw around in support of their agendas hire people to wine and dine and chat up our representatives, to the point that they’re no longer OUR representatives. I think our justice system is in on it, too, when they rule that corporations are “people” and that money is “speech.” I want to say it’s insane, but it’s much worse than that – it’s devious; it’s evil; it’s repugnant. 

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Electoral College


I’ve been anti-Electoral College for a while now. 

If you’re not sure what I mean, it’s that problem every four years during American Presidential elections where certain states are “swing states”. Certain states don’t get much attention, aren’t really part of the national campaign because they’re a solid “red state” or they just don’t have enough Electoral College votes to matter much. 

That has just never made sense to me. Maaaayyyyybe there was a time when it made sense, if the average voter just didn’t know much about the national issues, so they elect someone local who they know and perhaps respect, then those people go and elect a president. But today that’s just ridiculous and it leads to some weird election campaigning strategies. I’ve often thought, “Why not just let it go? Get rid of the Electoral College. It’s a leftover, antiquated idea.” 

We’re reluctant to let go of things, though, even when they’re not really working anymore. Like religion – it’s not really working so well for us anymore, yet a lot of people are reluctant to let it go. Then again, maybe religion IS working. I guess you’d have to figure out the actual purpose of religion to know the answer. 

Here’s a better (?) example: the whole “gay marriage” resistance that we’re seeing these days. For the sake of argument...suppose there was a time when it “made sense” that people of the same gender couldn’t marry. Well, marriage has actually changed in the past 50 years or 100 years or whatever, and it’s not because of some “gay agenda” to redefine marriage. As society has changed, straight people in marriages have changed what marriage is to the point that it’s something more and more gay people saw as something in which they want to participate. It’s no longer “the husband does this and the wife does that,” but it’s become more of a “we’re in a loving and committed relationship and we want to symbolically and legally join our lives” kind of thing. So we need to let go of that older idea of what a marriage was, because it just isn’t working for us anymore. 

(Was that a better example? You be the judge.) 

Anyway, the Electoral College doesn’t seem to work for the entire country anymore. I suppose you could say it’s working for some people – people in those swing states, whose vote is worth more, is more important that votes from people who live elsewhere. If you have a choice between two states in which you could vote (let’s say you attend college in another state), the perceived value of your presidential vote shouldn’t be a determining factor for where you decide to vote. If it’s possible to clearly win the popular vote but lose the election, there’s something wrong with the voting system. 

Well, since we’re so reluctant to let things go when they’re not working for us, how about this: instead of simply abolishing the Electoral College, why don’t we tweak it a little? In election coverage, nobody talks about winning the “Oregon vote” or the “North Carolina vote” unless it’s to do with the Electoral College, or to demonstrate how backward a particular state might be. (Yes, I’m talking about you, Mississippi.) But people definitely talk about other votes: the black vote; the women’s vote; the Latino vote; the elderly vote. Maybe that should be our electoral college. So whoever wins the “black vote” gets all the black Electoral College votes, etc. We’d have to figure out all the different categories, and the categories might change every four years. Each person still only gets one vote, but if they fall into more than one category, they can decide. So your half African American, half Latino, elderly, bi-sexual grandmother would get to decide where her vote is going. Non-disabled, cis-gendered, white men aged 21-60 don’t get an option, they have to vote “white dude” – call it “reparations”. 

What do you think, America? I say we give it a try, and see what happens.