recipe for democracy

Basic ingredients: universal suffrage and fair elections.



What makes this a democracy? At this point, to think the 2004 elections were fair and correct, can only be ignorance, whether willful or otherwise. Here's a good wrap-up of the situation in Ohio.



If you saw the movie Unprecedented - and if you didn't, rent it now! - you'll vividly recall the heartbreaking scene where Congressperson after Congressperson - all African Americans, by the way - were not allowed to object to the Florida vote count.



Who will object to the Ohio count?



Tomorrow, January 6, Representative John Conyers of Detroit will rise and object to the vote count in Ohio. He will not be allowed to speak unless at least one member of the Senate agrees to let him have the floor.



Who will let him speak?



It takes only one member of the House and one member of the Senate to stop the acceptance of the Electoral College vote and force a legitimate debate and investigation. Just two officials out of 535 can halt the final acceptance of the election. The law was written that way because nothing is more important than the integrity of the vote.



Will anyone rise from the Senate floor to second Congressman Conyers?



I ask again: If we don't have fair elections, what makes this a democracy?

Comments

  1. laura k6 January 2005 at 05:07

    Thanks Tamar! I was a behind the curve on this - which was a good thing, since I spent a fair part of my day encouraging people to write to their senators and get the word out about this.

    Re appalling and unconstitutional election: yup.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eraserhead6 January 2005 at 06:42

    A few things. We are not a democracy. The framers of the constitution were very weary of democracy's. That is why we are a representative republic. We elect people to represent our districts in our states.We do not, as individuals, represent ourselves.We have someone(whom we hope will represent our needs) do it for us. So, if we elect jackasses with no back-bone and lots of special interests to represent us.............this kind of shit goes on.

    As a more conservative person than yourself, I do think we( you, I, and the other people who are not knuckle draggers and actually care about our government )are not being accurately represented by the people being thrown in front of us to vote for. So despite different political outlooks, I think we are on the same page.I am outraged daily.

    I am also curious, why is a representative of Michigan standing up to object to the vote in Ohio? That is not being very "representative" of his state. I think the people of Ohio and their representative should be doing the objection.

    My two cents. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  3. laura k6 January 2005 at 06:45

    I can assure you we are not on the same page. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. laura k6 January 2005 at 07:17

    P.S.: representative democracy can still be a democracy. Democracy does not have to be direct by definition. A truly representative democracy would be fine with me. I'm hoping Canada comes closer to that.

    The founders of the US weren't "weary of democracy's" [sic]. There wasn't one around to be weary of. They were sick of being controlled by the crown and wanted greater independence (and profits), but tired of democracy they were not.

    Unless... wait a second. Unless you mean wary, not weary. They were frightened of giving too much power to the people - and justifiably so, since they were a tiny minority of wealthy, educated landowners. The ridiculous electoral college is one remnant of that fear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eraserhead6 January 2005 at 08:00

    "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John Adams

    "The general object [to which we´ve gathered together in this convention is] to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." ---Edmund Randolf at the Constitutional Convention

    On democracy James Madison wrote: "A common passion
    or interest will, in almost every case ... [combine to destroy] ... personal security or the rights of property ... [and insist on] ...reducing mankind to a perfect equality ... in their possessions, their
    opinions, and their passions."

    Sounds pretty down on Democracy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. laura k6 January 2005 at 08:10

    Oh here we go. Why do you guys bother reading this blog and posting here?

    I could go through my Bartlett's and come up with all kinds of quotes, too. Grabbing a quote out of context says nothing, proves nothing. Like quoting the bible, one can find something to support any point of view.

    As for personal freedom and the former USSR... all I can do is roll my eyes. You're trying to make a point about the lack of personal freedom in a representative democracy, so you use a totalitarian state as an example?

    Gee, you sound a lot like someone who is not supposed to post here. And you accused me of living in the past! Please go back to your own pasture where you belong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eraserhead6 January 2005 at 08:17

    I will quit for today. I know, I know, opinions are like assholes....

    I read your blog because I enjoy it. I like reading other points of view. I have also followed your experience with the immigration issue. If only Switzerland would take me.

    As a fellow dog lover, I think your dogs are cute.

    Anyway keep warm. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  8. laura k6 January 2005 at 10:51

    Thank you, E'head, that's very kind. And if you read my comment re representative democracy, we are mostly in agreement.

    I certainly agree that the authors of the US Constitution were not great fans of democracy. And the winner-take-all system that creates the tyranny of the majority, as I like to call it, is highly flawed. I personally don't think that's down to representative democracy - it could be solved with more proportional representation. (And throw out the damn Electoral College!)

    But anyway, thanks for reading and for your comments. It was the recent "anonymous" commentor that was bothering me, because I think I know who he is. Persistent bastard. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. laura k6 January 2005 at 12:55

    "Perhaps if people like you and I were more willing to set aside ideological differences to fight common problems, we might get somewhere.

    I think that so long as "the right" and "the left" refuse to unite against the oligarchs we will continue to lose."

    I don't think this is possible, or even something to strive for. We may agree on what the problems are (and I'm not sure we do), but our preferred solutions - or even the directions we would head in, the bases of those solutions - would be radically different. I couldn't unite with people with whom I feel little philosophical common ground.

    I'm not asking you not to post here. But I don't intend this blog as a forum for debate.

    I totally respect your right to your opinions and your right to debate them, but I respectfully ask you not to do it here.

    Thanks for reading, and good luck to you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

sharia

This morning I see that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, is banning the Muslim religious court known as sharia . This ends months of debate about whether sharia would be legal and binding in Ontario. I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this. In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province. McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration. "I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency. "There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." The announcement prompted t...
Read more

can of worms

I'm opening a sticky subject here, my need to understand causing me to throw caution to the wind. It's about Alberta. Alberta vs. the rest of the Canada. The Globe And Mail runs something about Alberta's gripes every day, and I try to follow along. If it weren't for wmtc's resident Albertan , and the ensuing arguments in comments, I would've had no warning. It's not something Americans know about. As is, observing for more than a year, I have only the smallest of clues. Here's what I know. Please pardon my ignorance and oversimplification, but I have to start somewhere. The province of Alberta is rich, because it has oil. The province of Alberta is conservative, relative to the rest of Canada. Hmm. Funny how those two go together. Because of its great oil wealth, Alberta revenue helps fund services in the rest of Canada. (These are transfer payments?) Apparently many Albertans resent this. They want to keep Alberta's money in Alberta. They don't...
Read more

low confidence

I'm excited about today's no-confidence vote . Only three months after moving here, we'll get to see a government fall, a campaign, and an election, in a system very different from what we're accustomed to. Even the expression "the government will fall" strikes us as oddly dramatic and revolutionary. My sense of current Canadian politics, for what it's worth, tells me that very little will change from the upcoming election. I'd be surprised if the Liberals didn't win. So it's kind of cool to see this happening without a lot at stake. On a semi-tangential note, have I mentioned I'm completely down with "Corner Gas"? Excellent show; I love the deadpan humour. (Great website, too; check it out .) So was that really Finance Minister Ralph Goodale ragging on Brent Butt's camera last Saturday night?
Read more