Whatever happens in the US tomorrow, or whenever the recounts and legal challanges are dispensed with, a few things are certain:
- America needs an electoral system that is capable of reflecting the will of the people. That means:
- Technology that is reliable and tamper proof. The open voting consortium has an answer to this.
- A voting system that reflects representatively the preferences of voters. That means proportional representation, a system like PR-STV. It means an end to the electoral college and to the disgrace of gerrymandering.
- Serious campaign finance reform, so that third parties have a chance, and so that politicians and voters cannot be bought. Public Citizen has a site devoted to explaining what is needed.
- America needs safeguards against extremist, undemocratic
and unconstitutional government, even if they have voted for the
government that produces it. The political system is designed with
safeguards, but they are no longer functioning: When Congess and the
President have the same ideological agenda, there are no checks and
balances. When the Supreme Court is selected by the President on the
basis of ideological position and not qualification, and makes rulings
that are political rather than judicial, there are no checks and
balances. When the government ignores or violates the law and the
mainstream media, in order to garner political favours for their
corporate masters, remain mute about it, there are no checks and
balances. When the government flagrantly introduces legislation that
violates constitutional rights of citizens, and violates the principle
of separation of church and state, there are no checks and balances.
The system is broken, and needs to be fixed.
- If Bush is re-elected, or even if he receives a plurality
of the popular vote, we need to understand why. This man is globally
despised, utterly inarticulate, blatantly dishonest, demonstrably
incompetent, and wedded to an extreme right-wing ideological agenda
that the large majority (72%) of Americans (being self-proclaimed
'moderates') do not agree with.
There are plenty of constitutional experts, consumer and citizen rights
groups, and even (arrgh) lawyers who could, given the right authority
and motivation, fix the electoral system and the political system to
solve the first two of these problems. Figuring out the American voter
is a job for the rest of us, and it's an important one. Here are my
thoughts on that:
Perhaps because I am a Canadian, and a liberal, I am reluctant to
believe American voters have been either brainwashed or 'dumbed down'
to the point they are consciously voting for someone who is clearly
working against the interest of the majority (the 96% who are worse off
now, by every imaginable measure, than they were four years ago). As
tempting as it is to blame the voters, that's just too easy: The vast
majority of people are not stupid, not totally ignorant, and not easily
led around by the nose with rhetoric.
I also don't believe, despite 'evidence' to the contrary, that
scare-mongering and negative political campaigns work. I think they're
an insult to the intelligence of the vast majority of voters, who
reject and bend over backwards not to be influenced by mud-slinging (except perhaps to be influenced against
the mudslinger). In June, Canadians were bombarded with negative
campaign ads, and they had no noticeable effect -- in fact it could be
argued that they backfired.
The most plausible reason for Bush's astonishingly strong support was
articulated yesterday on a CBC program moderated by Michael Enright: People vote for the 'mascot' that they feel best represents the full set of their beliefs.
People for the most part feel very helpless about what is happening in
the world, and about what is happening in their own government and
society. They are cynical about the process, believing, quite
justifiably, that the important decisions, no matter who is elected,
will be influenced by those with money and power, more than by what the
citizens believe or want. At the same time, they don't believe in
government by referendum either: They don't think it is possible for
the majority to be knowledgeable enough about the complex issues of
government to make critical decisions about these issues -- that's why
they vote, and they expect the people who they elect to understand
those issues and, knowing they're up for re-election, to accept the
responsibility to make decisions that consider the interests of the
citizens in their constituency. People want their decisions to be
simple. They don't trust politicians, and they don't trust the media.
They buy a presidential 'mascot' the same way they buy commercial
'brands': as a rough, simple surrogate for a careful, detailed study of
all the alternatives.
When Enright talks about 'mascots' he's not suggesting that the
candidates are stupid (that's another debate entirely), but rather that
they are icons, brands that symbolize, to a greater or lesser degree,
the voter's personal, complex set of beliefs and values. The medieval
word 'mascot' means literally a sorcerer's good luck charm, and
originally mascots were inanimate objects imbued with magical
qualities. Later mascots were human beings, and only with the recent
advent of sports teams did mascots become animals.
So many, perhaps most of the voters who will choose Kerry or Bush
tomorrow will do so not because they trust them or think their
platforms and positions are closest to their own -- most voters,
especially after 9/11, probably expect that many of the decisions a
president must make will be about events that have not yet occurred,
where the positions of either candidate would be purely speculative.
Rather, voters will pick the symbol, the logo
that more closely represents what they believe and value. And then
they'll hope the mascot they chose brings them, and their country, good
luck. That is, perhaps, the reason appearance and image counts so much.
People like their leaders, and their mascots, to be tall, strong, fast,
confident and handsome. It's human nature. Intelligence is less
important. When the choice is bewildering, you pick what looks good.
Just look at Ahhhh-nold, who, if they amend the constitution to allow
foreign-born people to be president, said today he would run for the
job.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
