COVER -> RECOMMENDED DAILY REQUIREMENT: The G21 Readership Poll
DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT (CONTINUED) - [EDITOR'S NOTE: On 10 November, 2000, three days after the US Presidential election, The World's Magazine polled our readers for their impressions. The following questions were asked:
1 - Do you think the flap over the Electoral College - v - the popular vote will lead to a change in the US Constitution?2 - Should there have been a recount in Palm Beach because of the massive confusion over the ballot?
3 - Is Gore right in supporting legal action for contested Florida contests?
4 - Should Presidential elections be based solely on the popular vote? If so, should there be a minimum threshold for victory, for example 51% of the popular vote?
On the next two pages, find the thoughts of our worldwide community. Responses are listed in the order in which they were received. --- RA]
FROM Ric Williams, Austin, TX, USA:
1 - Off the top: No. And it shouldn't. Popular voting would take away the smaller states say in the executive branch of government. Three branches. We should have a say in how all are determined. We do that through states. The bigger states would have more say in how the president is chosen if there is just a popular vote. I'm a "Yellow Dog" Democrat--I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Republican--but I do appreciate ideological differences. The rub makes the pearl. But to take away the electoral college shows a lack of insight into the wisdom of the framers of the constitution. For liberals to press for a popular vote is to give power to a future Ronald Wilson Reagan who doesn't have Alzheimer's. The will of the people I would hope is to maintain a civil discourse based on principles that have sustained this Republic longer than any other on the planet, a set of principles that recognized the nature of human relationships and the concomitant polarized views. The framemakers took the long view of the ebb and flow of liberal and conservative issues (and study history if you don't think that these issues were very much alive for them). This crisis will pass. What we do need to do is modernize the damn voting machinery. Fix the machinery, don't throw out the Constitution.
2 - Yes. Count it and then give it to Bush. I hate the monied mediocrity but maybe his venality will galvanize the lib'rals.
3 - Yes. A Presidential contender should support the right of citizens to seek redress for grievances.
4 - No.
| SURVEY SIDEBAR
RIC WILLIAMS: This from a review of a book on Originalism in the Constitution Reviewed by Thomas C. Mackey, University of Louisville. Published by H-Law (January, 1997) The last part of the second paragraph is good. "One group, led by Alexander Hamilton (Madison's co-partner and his more than occasional foil in Rakove's account) believed that the states formed the key evil in the polity and that, once the federal government took life after ratification, the states would decrease in importance. Another key group, led by Madison, believed that local attachments to states would last long and die hard, if they died at all. As Rakove explains, "But whereas Hamilton was rash enough to predict that the functions of the states must decline in importance relative to those of the Union, Madison better grasped just how provincial American governance would long remain" (p. 200). How then did the Founders expect to settle the tough questions regarding the relationship between the states and the central government? For Rakove, it was "politics" (in the broadest sense); as he nicely sums it up, "Whether the politics of the American republic would prove more 'federal' or 'national' ... was a function of neither the language of the Constitution nor any grand principles that the framers implanted in their regime but of the various ways in which Americans weighed the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing their interests within the compound federal structure the Constitution both created and acknowledged" (p. 201). Historical context and careful attention to the sources (old-fashioned techniques of historical inquiry and not the pre-determined agenda of social history, in other words) reshapes our interpretations and casts new light on the issues, people, and controversies we thought we knew.
That sort of intellectual honesty guides Rakove in his arguments because he well understands that historical neutrality is not possible, especially not in constitutional history. When Rakove's hero, Madison, employs originalism in the First Congress, the approach fails even him. Resort to originalism was itself a political action and not any sort of "neutral" middle ground in the search for understanding and compromise. Madison utilized originalism, as Rakove makes clear, "not by the prior conviction that it was the most appropriate strategy to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution but by considerations of partisan advantage." Madison's use of originalism "merely demonstrated that neutrality could rarely be attained when the Constitution was so highly politicized, or when politics was so highly constitutionalized" (p. 365). It is the politics of the moment, the decisions of relative political advantage, that suggest constitutional arguments and positions. Madison struggled unsuccessfully against that understanding of American constitutionalism, but the politicized Constitution and the constitutionalized politics he helped to create overwhelmed him and his earlier visions for American constitutionalism. That is a lesson worth knowing and a story (a history) worth telling.
I, for one, don't. This ain't that America. We're becoming a minority-majority nation with the values of Latinos and Chinese to address. Even the old Black-White imbroglio is rapidly becoming moot. IF the Constitution is a living document, as some would assert, then it has to morph to accept this new reality. RA |
FROM Steven Crook, Taipei, TAIWAN:
Dear Rod,
I'll skip questions 1, 3 and 4, if you donĚt mind. Regarding question 2:
People who follow British politics will recall the fate of Gerry Malone. Before the 1997 general election, Malone, a Conservative, represented Winchester in the south of England - usually a rock-solid Conservative constituency. However, such was the scale of the Conservatives' defeat in 1997 that he lost, by a margin of just a few votes, to the Liberal-Democrat candidate. Both men polled more than 25,000 votes.
Malone demanded - and got - a couple of recounts before the result was officially declared. He still lost - by two votes. His Liberal-Democrat opponent went off to London, and began serving as the town's Member of Parliament.
Malone decided to launch a court challenge. He proved - to the judge's satisfaction - that the number of dubious votes exceeded the margin of his rival's victory.
The judge invalidated the original result, and ordered a fresh election in Winchester. This surprised many people, who thought it would open the floodgates to election-related lawsuits.
They needn't have worried, because what happened next suggests no one will go to court to overturn an election result any time soon.
Opinion polls in Winchester showed most people considered Malone a very bad loser. He behavior was "unsporting," to use a now unfashionable term.
Other MPs have lost their seats by tiny margins, taken it squarely on the chin, spent a few years earning a living in some another way (often becoming a better person as a result of the experience), and then returned to the House of Commons. Malone couldn't wait, it seemed. He was punished for this: in the by-election, the Liberal-Democrat's margin of victory expanded from two votes to 15,000.
Could the same thing happen to Gore? I don't know enough about American voters, and much more is at stake. The result in Winchester would not have changed the balance of power in London. Bush vs. Gore is quite different.
Steven Crook
Taipei, Taiwan
FROM Rolf Wenschler, Berlin, GERMANY:
This poll is another example of how you Americans continue the myth that your news is all the news that matters. There are crises throughout the world and your Web magazine wants to focus on the silly results of one of your circus elections!!!
Maybe most of us don't care if it's Bush or Gore because the press has already told us that there won't be that much difference, from a truly international point of view in US policies.
Focus on issues that matter!
FROM Ron Diener, Lizard Lick, NC, USA:
"Botched presidential election?" Says who?
I guess I have failed to understand that the President of the United States is "declared" by television broadcasters. I did not realize that the exit polls had become normative. In fact, the air waves were more full of misinformation than at any time in my memory, as we crossed the bridge to the twenty-first century and became the center of the new information age.
I was under the impression that the fifty statewide election results would be canvassed by the fifty Secretaries of State and that they would certify the outcome of the election in each state. Then the appointed Electors would be told who to vote for, who would proceed on a designated day - some weeks after the election - to Washington, D.C., where they would share the information and thereby declare a winner of the presidency and inform the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to go ahead on schedule with the swearing-in of the winner.
Why should television news get the story straight on the 2000 election results when they foul up most of the other news.?
- Television broadcasters refuse to accuse President Clinton of murder and terrorism and perhaps genocide for his actions against the people of Iraq.
- Last week I heard a genius on CBS say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. When did Iran move from the Middle East? The United States of America tried to turn Iran into a totalitarian dictatorship, but the people threw off that yoke and declared an Islamic republic, with representative government and democracy.
Al Gore is accused of being a poor loser. Nothing is lost yet. The election is not certified. Anyhow, if your supporters had spent millions of dollars and hours trying to get you elected, do you suppose they would be pleased to watch you roll over and play loser at a time like this? And if you think Al Gore is being nasty now, wait until the count is in his favor and Bush starts acting out.
So sit back and enjoy the show, folks. Elections are messy most of the time anyhow. Enjoy them for what they are: Entertainment.
And mark down that the media - once again - got it all wrong: the turnout, the "winner" and how presidents are elected.
Ronald E. Diener
Lizard Lick, North Carolina
FROM Diamond D, Higganum, CT, USA:
1 - Do you think the flap over the Electoral College - v - the popular vote will lead to a change in the US Constitution?
I really hope so, it will only benefit the people if the electoral college could be placed second to Instant Runoff Voting, as the means for determining the president. This would mean that the result would never be like this again and the leader would always be the best person for the job.
2 - Should there have been a recount in Palm Beach because of the massive confusion over the ballot?
a recount? who knows. how about should there have been international observers? yes. MoJo rocks.
3 - Is Gore right in supporting legal action for contested Florida contests?
yes and no.
yes - Bush obviously had ole' Jeb fiddling around FL for him, so, that is an abuse of power and should be exposed. no - it is tricking folks into thinking that the popular vote actually matters. As our publisher so cleverly noted, the real loser here is the American People, and every citizen of Earth, seeing as how our Government and our Corporations control most of the planet directly, economically, or illicitly.
4 - Should Presidential elections be based solely on the popular vote? If so, should there be a minimum threshold for victory, for example 51% of the popular vote?
No, the popular vote is flawed
check irv out
(snip)
(This petition was created for the state of WA. Please work to apply similar actions in your state.)
Forward this message freely:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Friends in the state of WA,
We are being told that we can't vote for who we really want in the presidential election without "wasting" our vote. There is a simple way to fix this problem, albeit not in time for this election: (IRV) Instant Runoff Voting.
Find out about this simple solution to the two-party problem and sign the petition in support of it at http://www.petitiononline.com/WaIRV/
You can also find out more about electoral reform in general at http://www.fairvote.org
--
*Central CT Green Party*
http://www.votenader.org
http://www.ctgreen2000.com
http://www.ctgreens.org/centralct/
*CGAN*
http://cgan.netfirms.com
*
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Mario Savio
FROM Felicity Ussher, London, UK:
Caspar and I reckon you should give Clinton an extra 6 months and then re-run the entire election.
is this an option?
FROM Yona Riel, San Francisco, CA, USA:
personally i think it's time for a mega merger rod. i mean everyone else is doing it.
bush could plant oil drills in our backyards and gore could pull em out.
bush could cut down the trees in yellowston[e] and gore could put em back. (opps, well maybe not).
anyways, every year there are botched ballots. it just makes a difference this year. interesting that gore's true personally doesn't come out till after the elections. i as well as anyone else i know do not want to see another president bush. on the other hand gore ran such a stupid campaign he deserves to lose.
basically the real questions are: how do we have a real democracy in which real presidential candidates can run. and how can we stop (the) america(n) media from dramatizing everything like it's a x-files show and then selling it to us for more money than some countries spend on food.
i actually hope gore gets his way. knowing him he will not stop until he does. meanwhile i sure hope his campaign to be 'the real' president is better than his presidential one. otherwise we will still be wondering 4 years from now.
yona
 |
There you have it. The People (from around the planet) --- at least some of those who read this little Internet publication --- have spoken. Mixes signals? Yeah, I could agree with that.
You also have to take the demographic of G21 readers into account. THE DIFFERENCE between us and the Mouthpiece Media is that we don't pretend "objectivity" about the issues. All media outlets are biased. We just accept our bias and try to move on from there with clear analysis while welcoming challenges. Dialogue is our forté.
Whether you have agreed with the opinions of your fellow readers or not, we hope you'll feel free to continue this discussion on American democracy by submitting e-mails to our VOX POPULI page.
Or maybe you'd be more comforable joining our Mailing List and participating in the next poll. You are in charge.
Have a Great Weekend!
Rod
This week's Poll: If I could live anywhere, it would be ...?
RDR RECOMMENDED SITE OF THE DAY: Looking for some FUN. Waltz on over to ROMP and play around.
