Feelings on the 2004 Election
It's time for me to make a simple statement on the 2004 post-election activities and let the issue of its merits rest, aside from updates on investigations that I’ll continue to post on Fantastiko.
Bush won the election using a severely flawed system. Had Kerry won, I would be saying the same thing (admittedly perhaps with less enthusiasm. We’ve talked about how this is the job of watchdogs and losers). Pretending that our system is good enough is a mistake because it could one day a) potentially produce a winner who does not accurately reflect the intent of voters (did this already happen in 2000?) and b) disenfranchise voters in a system that is already awash with apathy. We need to know that when we say that x-number of people voted for Bush-Cheney, x-number of people really voted for Bush-Cheney. It's important for me, you, President Bush, Democrats, Republicans and anyone else interested in preserving a democracy that isn’t dysfunctional. We need press coverage to highlight the problems and a substantial political movement to begin working on them. In the case of this past election, the close results have given us a golden opportunity to shine a big light on election problems and to motivate people to improve the system.
posted by The Decider @ 3:31 PM
3 Comments:
Nan-
You are absolutely right. The flaws in our voting system are hurting us in several ways. Domestically, they undermine the legitimacy of our elected government. In foreign policy, the flaws weaken our hand when we press other nations to adopt representative governments.
To get some real improvement, we need polical support for reform. If Republicans lead the charge, they risk weakening their president. If the Democrats lead, they will be painted as sore losers -- again. Both parties are happy to let sleeping dog lie.
I am led to believe that Florida's bolloting was far cleaner this year than 2000. Perhaps the embarassment of having equipment and procedures more consistent with a third-world country than with the world's only super-power drove them to improve. Perhaps, also, the 5% spread washed out errors.
This year Ohio is drawing fire from the Democrats. We need to realize that Pennsylvania was pretty bad too. It just went blue by 2% instead of red by 2%.
I think the only way this problem is going to be fixed is if citizens of states with problems force their local and state govenments to fix them.
Merry Christmas,
Chris
Chris,
I've saved a snapshot of your comment above. It's not often that we agree. It's a special moment for me :)
Happy Holidays!
Rocketman,
Yes! There is a ton of material on the Net regarding mandatory voting. It's an interesting topic and very complicated. Here are a few interesting links I've found:
A brief overview of the state of mandatory voting worldwide:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/votestats.html
and http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030228.html
An interesting site with a bunch of election issues, including an article on the impact of mandatory voting:
http://www.idea.int/vt/analysis/Compulsory_Voting.cfm
From Austrailia, which is the best example of mandatory voting, this guy put together an interesting set up links to articles and sites:
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/compulsary_voting.html
There's so much out there, I'm not sure how to begin talking about it before reading a good chunk of it. But for the record, I'm generally suspicious of policies executed in Argentina :)
It seems that a key question worth debating here is whether or not voting is a matter of preference or responsibility. I tend to think it is the latter.
Post a Comment
<< Home