Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Fans find reality not reported by Enquirer (2007)•Open Letter to John Pepper about Disney Characters (2006)
•More Lack of Coverage from The Cincinnati Enquirer (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Voting without an Open Discussion is not a Free Election
Posted by Media Release
Dear Editor,
As an American historian teaching in the local university, I write to remind you of what I’m sure you already actually know: third parties and “minor” candidates have always provided the electoral system with new ideas that would otherwise not be on the agenda. This was the case with the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, farmer’s rights and worker’s protests.
Do not be fooled by short-sightedness about who can or can’t win the present election. (That’s not really your decision anyway, is it?) While the Republicans provide a case where the third party did displace one of the “major” existing parties, the Greenbackers and Populists produced the ideas and people who made the Progressive reforms at the turn of the century. The New Deal, in part, took the form it did to head off the million Socialist voters of 1932 and the legion of American citizens joining the Communist Party during that decade. Things began to change with the decision to redbait and purge consideration of Vice President Henry Wallace’s Progressive ticket in 1948. Aside from some non-electoral independent movements for civil rights, peace and women’s rights in the 1960s and 1970s--and notwithstanding some intentionally one-shot protest campaigns--our politics have not permitted the rise of any serious third party movements.
The two-party system has responded to this virtual free pass by becoming increasingly inbred...and even stupifying. Despite some notable qualitative drops in the quality of American politics over the past thirty years, the current election has, thus far, marked an all time low.
This election is being conducted in a way that simply denies the right of the American people to cast their ballot as a mandate for they want. Most of us do not want further war in Iraq or anywhere in the region. Most want health care to be a human right here, as it is through the entire industrial world beyond the US. Most do not want continued giveaways and bailouts to companies and individuals whose primary qualifications for such benevolence has been their contributions to our elected officials. And let’s not forget environmental considerations and global warming, on which the people are far ahead of the two-party politicians Voters in the U.S. have every right to hear Ralph Nader and other candidates that agree with them on these, the real issues of 2008. And they have every right to cast their ballots as a mandate for action on these issues
It is fortunate for the U.S. that we are not in eastern Europe seeking admission to the European Union, because we do not meet its standards of representative democracy. Under the standards of representative democracy of the European Parliamentary Union, it is a basic human right for citizens to have the right to form their own parties, have equality of access to the electoral process, and have their votes freely and fairly counted. The de facto disenfranchisemehnt of political dissidents in the U.S. has the potential of becoming something of an international scandal, particularly as this country asserts its authority to be the arbiter of what is and is not democracy anywhere in the world.
In closing, I urge you to live up to your responsibility and tell the American people about their alternatives. Report on the campaigns of Nader, Cynthia McKinney and other third-party candidates. Give them a fair hearing. Please also urge the Commission on Presidential Debates to include other voices in the debates.
For the health of an ailing democracy, please do your job.
Sincerely,
Mark Lause
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
08 Oct 2008 at 06:56 am | #
Dear Which Editor?? Who was this sent to?
I fully support opening up debates but I think any attempt to do so through the Commission on Presidential Debates is the wrong way to go. They are made up of Rep/Dem who won’t change the current process.
I have said this before. The place to focus attention should be on the chairman of the fcc to change exemption in the equal time rules. Removing the exemption for equal time on debates and conventions which go beyond reporting the news. At the very least these candidates should be given rebuttal time. That way if the 3rd party candidates don’t have a chance to be included in the debates they can at least be heard.
08 Oct 2008 at 01:54 pm | #
Amen Brother!
09 Oct 2008 at 10:06 am | #
He sent it out to City Beat and they refuse to write about third parties. They didn’t cover the Nader event and they refused to print letters to the editor about the fact that they didn’t cover it.
09 Oct 2008 at 02:43 pm | #
The debates suck but I don’t think they would improve with more voices. The primary debates actually have voices from a wide spectrum including Kucinich for the Dems and that Texan Libertarian gynecologist for the Repubs. Too many voices leaves too little time.
Along with the blessings of having a long enduring Constitution like political stability and probably having time for prosperity to develop and become widespread come some drawbacks like having some hidebound and possibly somewhat outdated election rules. And probably the biggest hindrance for the development of a viable, enduring third party is the rule that the prez must receive a majority of the possible electoral votes to win. If a hypothetical three parties split the electoral votes, no winner is declared and the vote goes to the House of Reps. Given the choice of having the prez possibly being determined in this rather indirect method (via the House) but having more than two parties or having just two parties but still having a direct vote on prez, I think the current system will prevail. Though our Constitution may have some flaws, I doubt there is a major groundswell to throw out the baby with the bath water and enact major changes.
Also I tend to be a believer in the conservative explanation of why our political system has produced rather enviable results when compared to the world and especially the supposedly more modern political systems of the European Parliamentary Union. Limited government is of vastly more importance than that mythical Civics class ideal of democratic elections which tend to take on a rather mean, nasty, and lowdown appearance in the real world. (Have you been watching this year’s election?)
11 Oct 2008 at 11:29 am | #
trey, other countries like France have many candidates and parties and that hasn’t destroyeds them. As a matter of fact, they seem to be doing better than our country in a lot of different ways. There’s plenty of time. Election season starts earlier and ealier, but we rarely see any substance because the two corporate parties agree on a majority of issues, they only disagree about who should be running things.
It’s not that election rules are out dated, it’s that the corporate duoploy keeps erecting higher barriers. Third parties had a much easier time in the past. Of course the electoral college should be dumped. There’s nothing in our constitution about having just two parties. We should adopt Instant Run Off Voting and it would do away with this so called spoiler issue. It is the two parties that spoil our democracy.
You’re going to have to explain this because that is absurd. We have one of the lowest voter participation rates, we have stolen elections, we don’t have international observers, we wouldn’t meet the standards to join the EU based on our elections alone. We don’t meet the criteria for the Carter Institute to oversee our elections. The two parties control the debates, gerry mander, we have a corrupt campaign finance system and private partisan corporations secretly “counting” our votes.
12 Oct 2008 at 12:23 pm | #
I should have been more precise above but I am differentiating between the elections and the overall distribution of power in the country. I was just stating the standard conservative belief (which admittedly is under much fire presently)that one of the main reasons the U.S. has been comparitively successful in measures like standard of living, military might, etc. is the long tradition of smaller government and more power left to the individual than in Europe. You may be right that Europe has better, more fair elections but my guess is that even superbly run elections still leave the voter feeling pretty powerless. But small government, some argue, lets the individual feel in greater control of his/her fate.
“there’s nothiing in our constitution about having two parties” It doesn’t overtly state it but do the math as I described above and its dang close to saying it. I discovered this while arguing with another 3rd party advocate and I’m rather proud of it. (I’ve also read George Will and others talk about the general nuances of the Constitution and specifically the immense obstacles opposing the emergence of 3rd parties.) As I said above if a hypothetical 3 parties split the vote and the electoral college, it goes to the House. This rule will only become apparent to the average voter after it occurs and once it does the voters will become aware that the Constitution basically gives them the choice between having 3 or more parties and having the prez possibly decided in the indirect method via the House or having just 2 parties but with the voter’s knowing they will be directly electing the prez. I think at least 75% of the country would prefer the 2 party system. If you address this, please address the actual flesh and blood reality of what the Constitution says about national elections (which I note above) and not a theoretical wish about what an ideal election would look like. I haven’t checked the Constitutional Amendments before writing this but I can only recall a change in how the VP is elected (a minor change) and a change in how Senators are elected (a natural change from being indirectly elected by the state legislature to being popularly elected)as changes to the actual voting system. So I believe there is a long history of not screwing with the Constitution is this area (too many constituencies like it how it is) and I doubt its easier said than done to speak of large scale change.
21 Oct 2008 at 12:40 pm | #
Trey, I didn’t see this comment before. The US has a low standard of living, we’re not even in the top ten. We’re not even close and with the $3 trillion war (in Iraq alone), the trillion dollar Wall Street bail out and business as usual bail outs for the auto industry etc. we will see our standard of living continue to decline.
We aren’t in the top 30 for health care. We have the most adult and child poverty in the industrialized world. The average American worker works longer hours and makes less money than workers in Western Europe. You must beliving in the 60s still to think we have the highest standard of living.
The US is the only military super power but we have moved from being the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation. We waste money on the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about.
We have many personal freedoms but not many civic freedoms. How many seats go unchallenged? How many parties do real democracies have? How many votes go up for referendum?
Republicans are always yapping away about small government. Well, we have yet to see a Republican actually give us smaller government. There’s a difference between reducing waste in government and slashing services for vital services in education, health etc.
What math? It doesn’t say anything about two parties. Actually if you look at what the founding fathers said about parties and factions, it was that they were a terrible idea. Your beloved Republican Party was a third party.
Many people want election reform in this country. The electoral college is out dated and undemocratic. We should move to a popular vote and to Instant Run Off Voting like many real democracies have.
Over 80% of the country thinks we’re heading in the wrong direction. Congress has managed to get lower approval ratings than Bush. We don’t really have a two party system. We have a one party system, the business party, with two factions, Democrats and Republicans.
Change isn’t always easy. Getting rid of slavery hasn’t been easy, getting women the vote wasn’t easy and taking back our country from the corporations won’t be easy, but that doesn’t mean that things don’t change in the world. Sometimes things seem to change over night. Think of the late 50s, nobody saw the massive changes of the 60s coming.