As I write, the "Big Contest" between Trump and Biden is less than a month away, and has seized The National Attention (along with the Covid-19 pandemic, which has sadly become a political issue).
Emotions run high: hyper-partisans on "each side" proclaim that if the "other one" wins, it will mean The End of America As We Know It.
In 2016, I participated in this madness in my usual iconoclastic manner, before I revived this blog (in May of 2019). I tried to be "realistic," and chose a candidate in the primary who was both a member of a "major party" and reasonably close to my own views (Bernie Sanders). After he won (by all rights) the Democratic nomination and then had it stolen from him by the DNC, I switched to a candidate whose views were even closer to mine, Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party). Most Americans believe that any "third party" choice is worse than futile, it is "a vote for (the worse of the 'two candidates')". I was not, and am not, convinced that this view is correct, given the facts that "third parties" (a peculiar term when there are a total of eight) usually get, combined, no more than two or three percent of the vote, and that about 47% of eligible voters don't vote at all. I adopted an unrealistic expectation that Jill could actually win, on the basis of two unlikely scenarios: getting potential voters to look at the website "isidewith.com" where, instead of preselecting the R or the D candidate, you enter your preferences and views without reference to any candidate, and the website matches those preferences with the one candidate who most closely represents your views.
While using isidewith.com to choose which candidate to vote for might be ideal, the dominant paradigm lurks deep inside us all: that there are really only two "viable parties" in this country, and that choosing a candidate from a "third" party constitutes "throwing away your vote" at best and "helping the wrong candidate win" at worst. This view is reinforced by both the "duopoly parties" and the educational and media establishments ever since before Lincoln was elected.
Other countries have other systems, and one radical change in our system might completely eliminate the fear engendered by our established "2-party duopoly:" a system (with several variations) called "ranked-choice voting." It's actually been adopted by in a few states for state elections. Every voter ranks all the candidates by number, their most-to least preferred, freeing them to vote for the candidate closest to their views without the fear that such a vote will "not count." When the votes are counted, the "losing" candidates are eliminated and those votes are transferred (for each voter) to their next-lowest-ranked choice until only two are left. Since no voter can read the minds of all the other voters, they have no way to assume that others don't also share their number-one choice, putting all the candidates on an even, fear-free playing field. No one's vote will be "thrown away" or "undercut" the votes for duopoly (R/B) candidates. Naturally, the duopoly will fight efforts to enact rank-choice voting tooth-and-nail.
On the basis of what could happen, given that four parties were on the ballot in almost every state (R, D, Green and Libertarian), I cast my ballot for the Green candidate, Jill Stein (isidewith gave me a 95% match with my views). After my electoral-system experience in 2016, despite all the rationality I demonstrated in "voting my conscience," I decided to "hold my nose" and support a duopoly candidate, fully recognizing that this approach is not a long-term solution to the "political problem" in a country which has no politics, only political theater. (Hint: it's the "challenger.") On the surface, it should be obvious to any American that "the will of the voters" has almost zero influence on what happens in Washington, or anywhere else in America. It's official: "...two professors from Northwestern University took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all" (Source: https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem).
Even if there was a strong correlation between public opinion and legislation (and the behavior of politicians), there's the matter of electoral fraud (not "voting fraud," which statistically is almost non-existent). The best, scariest and most entertaining documentation of such fraud can be found at https://www.gregpalast.com. This fraud is a symptom of the desperate and corrupt grip of the kleptocrat .01% on our "politics." Unless you're a member of their club, it's "heads they win, tails you lose."
From my experience as a voter in 2016 and my expectations of what will happen this year, you might think I'm in despair about the future of (real) politics in this country. You are mistaken.
My tale of woe above dates back to 2016, but since then, I've come to see a bigger picture, thanks to the work of a grandmother in Alaska and the team she has put together to fix our broken system. (Please refer to my previous post, "Not everything I knew was wrong" and the links near the end of that post.)
The bigger picture includes my fairly-recent realizations that not only is our "politics" not politics, our "money" is not money, but our "government" is not our government. Discovering what is false and what is real can truly set us free. While I believe that the worst American crises in recent history can be partially alleviated by removing President #45 from office, his inevitable replacement will not prove to be much of an improvement (compared to what could happen if the program outlined here is implemented). Please, if you have not already done so, go there and judge for yourself. This new paradigm will take time and effort to absorb and accept, but the rewards for doing so are immense.
The electoral reforms I wished for in 2016 (like ranked-choice voting and using a website like isidewith.com) are still good ideas, but the new paradigm presents a whole new ball game. The only way to win a rigged game is not to play. Time for a new "game." Discover what this new "game" is all about at theamericanstatesassembly.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment