Does YOUR Vote Count?
Not Much
adrien rain burke
The electoral college was an elite scheme designed to save us
from rule by lowest common denominator candidates and demogogues.
California - the biggest state in the union, and arguably the most
influential, is counterintuitively of little interest to presidential
candidates.
There is a blessing in this, of course. The barrage of horrifying political
attack ads may be lessened a little by the fact that California is
considered "safe" for the Democrat.
But it also means that Californians' enlightened perspective need not be
"pandered" to during political campaigns. In other words, in spite of our
numbers, in spite of our wealth as a state and our undeniable cultural
influence, we are safe to ignore in the most important race of all.
It also means that California's Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and
others not voting Democratic, are voiceless in presidential contests.
Our electoral votes are presumed spoken for, however far either political
party may stray from California's interests and attitudes.
If we could eliminate the electoral college system entirely, and the
winner-take-all element in particular, California's numerous, and highly
aware, voters would be very important in the scheme of things, and the
nation's politics would be greatly affected by California's political will.
The electoral college was deemed essential to slaveholding states at the
inception of the republic. That being no longer an issue, and I can see no
reason why we should not have "one person, one vote" now.
There may also have been, in the beginning, more than a little distrust in
the will of the people - or rabble, as the aristocrats who then governed the
world preferred to call them. Self-government is no longer a risky
experiment, but an accepted principle in the world. The training wheels we
once were thought to need are superfluous now - indeed, they are a hindrance
to the expression of the popular will.
But the archaic, and arcane, electoral college is not the only barrier to
democracy. Money (never insignificant in any form of governance) has assumed
overwhelmingly importance- and that has endowed corporations with
exceptional power. First - and contrary to all reason - the Supreme Court
declared in the nineteenth century that a corporation is a "person" and then
- in the same spirit during the 1970s - the Court ruled that money was
equal to "free speech."
During the same time period that the franchise was hesitantly extended from
its original province of landowners, first to poor men, then to black men,
and finally to women, the principle of government by the people was steadily
eroded by the growing influence of wealth at every level. The ruling that
afforded personhood to a scheme designed to aid business partnerships in the
pursuit of limited taxes and other legal liabilities, was a brazen betrayal
of the principle of equality given such prominence in our founding
documents.
A corporation is not a democracy and not democratic. In fact it may be quite
despotic both in its treatment of employees and in its dealings abroad. And
it is by necessity, amoral. A corporation's officers can be sued by
stockholders for choosing a purely ethical course of action over any short
term financial gain. And if money is equivalent to free speech, as the
Supreme Court ruled, then the assumption of equality under the law is a lie.
The corporation may put its "$peech" into the support of a political agenda
which neither its employees, nor its stockholders, nor its consumers agree
with or benefit from. A real person has but one voice; the corporation's
dollars equal the power of millions of individual citizens.
Originally, corporations were formed for a fixed period of time and for a
specific purpose (presumably in the public good) and were designed for
eventual dissolution by the "sovereign" - which in this case would be the
people. But corporations can't be dissolved by the people now. The
legislators who purport to represent us cannot win without their support -
and it is very clear that the corporation and not the people, is sovereign.
So a corporation is a "person" enjoying limited liability (which is the
original legal purpose of incorporation) for its actions, a "person" which
cannot be jailed, or condemned to death, and which does not necessarily have
to die in the normal course of things.
Money is so dominant in today's elections that I have considered dropping
out of the voter rolls altogether. Why participate in a fraud? To vote is to
collaborate with the disingenuous illusion, to pretend that what we have now
is representative, or democratic, or a republic - and that can't be proven.
We vote in the service of an insidious chimera.
Now I will drop the bomb. Money - which now is accorded the tribute due a
sainted heifer - should be excluded from the public debate and from
political campaigns. Yes, excluded. The public airwaves legally belong to
the people, and requiring those who benefit from the use of them to cover
campaigns and poltical issues as the news that they are, without
compensation, is perfectly reasonable. It would also take much of the ugly
animosity out of the process, resulting in a more civilized society.
Additionally, the abolition of the fairness doctrine has done great violence
to our civic discourse; it has robbed us of the right to be informed and to
challenge the assumptions we are constantly handed by a biased
establishment.
Once again, those who run the media never openly acknowledge that their use
of the public airwaves is, in law, conditional. Why would they? They control
the debate and if they admitted limitations they would limit their hegemony.
The public might begin to make unprofitable demands of them in exchange for
their fabulously profitable use of our common property. For the big media,
political campaigns are primarily a money-making opportunity - with ever
bigger bucks required for any candidate or party to bring their views into
the public debate. A fair and free airing of issues, interviews with
lesser-known candidates of modest means, and fair treatment of third
parties, would seriously cut into their profits.
The system unapologetically favors those who can afford to puchase public
exposure. Meanwhile, the media giants feel free to foist their own political
agenda on all of us, without regard to balance, and with no interest in
impartially airing alternative points of view. They do not speak to the fact
that the American people own the American airwaves, and, since the media are
the main source of information for most people, most people are purposely
kept unaware of their proprietary rights.
In order to restore anything like a democratic republic, the richest people
in the world would have to be deprived of the power their riches now
purchase, rendering the wealthy politically equal to the rest of us. Is it
outrageous to demand that we should be equal agents in a nation founded on
the proposition that we were all "created equal?"
In theory, it's simple, but money can buy anything - and does. The most
profitable trades in the world are illegal, immoral, or at least
questionable: illicit drugs; weapons; oil; and what is euphemistically
called "human traffic." Those who achieve dominion through money will pay
any price to keep their supremacy in the all-important field of opinion
management - and to silence any questioning of their ascendancy.
We, the people, on the other hand, demonstrably can't pass, and can't
preserve, any law that runs counter to the wishes of the ruling class - an
especially pernicious reiteration of the cliche that a free press is only
available to those who own one. Repeatedly, I have watched the Big Money
shout down perfectly reasonable initiatives for the public good. The
precious initiative process in California is now itself big business - pay
your million (or is it millions now?) to the right company, and they will,
with the help of underpaid signature gatherers, get it on the ballot.
Another million or five to hopelessly confuse voters on the issue, and it
will win - guaranteed.
When one is buying time to air one's views, one need not be troubled by the
constraints of truth. Certainly the television and radio stations who are
pleased to sell you that exorbitant airtime are unlikely to arouse your
displeasure by arguing effectively with a well-heeled client's wishes! Truth
in advertising may be ultimately enforceable, but the courts are slow, and
the election season is (only by comparison!) short, and a costly advertising
blitz always trumps the small voice of reasonable people attempting to use
the initiative process to accomplish anything that the wealthy minority
opposes. Whatever penalty is imposed on rich liars somehow never equals the
financial benefit derived from their lies.
The fact that certain political ends were achieved through sheer perjury
never gets much attention afer the ends have been achieved.
So the initiative process, which should provide a balance to the obscene and
lavishly-funded system of undemocratic influence known as "lobbying," has
been bought, too, and serves the very same interests the paid lobbyists do.
We who have no lobbyists, no billions to invest in molding public opinion,
and few sources of unbought information, have been cheated of our say in the
running of our nation.
What can we say of this corruption of self-government?
The term "filthy rich" comes to mind.
The real question is what can we do?
30
HOME
