|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Bush has a Mandate? Whatever. |
Current rating: 4 |
by Scott Mylxine
Email: mylxine (nospam) hotmail.com |
25 Nov 2004
Modified: 06:48:45 PM |
|
The media went into overdrive to pat Bush on the back for his victory over Kerry earlier this month. But the whole process is flawed. And everyone knows it. What's my proof? Over six out of ten people stayed home on what was supposed to be one of the biggest election turnouts in 4 decades. |
So Bush won the election. As the phrase goes, no matter who you vote for, the government always wins. That said, I'm just going to remind everyone that Bush's 51% isn't really that many people.
Or at least as many as they want us to think. Same would go for Kerry if he won, but he didn't.
The United States had a population of 294,000,000 people in 2000
George Bush got 59,000,000 people to vote for him, which accounts for 20% of the population.
John Kerry got 55,000,000 people to vote for him. That's 18% of the population.
Maybe all of the third parties combined got 1% or 2% at the most.
That still leaves over 60% of the population who didn't vote. And that gets written off like they are all apathetic and that only those who cared about the election were the ones to vote.
1/3 of all black males are either incarcerated or on parole or in some kind of supervision by the state or are ex-felons. Many states do not allow ex-felons to vote. Like this one. There's a "rights restoration" program here, but it takes years to get voting rights restored and even then, only 20% are approved. The Real Paper (remember that?) did a story once called "Locking up the Black Vote" which talked about 1/3 of all black men in this county cannot vote. This area is like 20% percent black. Probably half men. That might even up to 3-4% locally cannot vote. That doesn't even count the other races here.
That's just one factor. What about 17 year olds who were concerned that they might be drafted in the next 4 years. They have no voice.
People see the political process, especially nationally, as something that goes on with or without them and many chose not to participate. The way our national political discussion are framed, it's the presidency that matters most. Most people vote in those elections. But when people see that whether it's Democrat or Republican that they end up getting the short end of the stick. Like the lower-class Democrats who voted for Clinton only to get the "Welfare Reform Act". Or the Gay Democrats with the rainbow flag "Clinton/Gore" bumper stickers who had to see Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act. Or the whole "Don't Ask Don't Tell" thing in the military. Or all the people that voted for him for universal healthcare, only to get nothing and what seems harder and harder healthcare to afford.
And what about the current allegations that Kerry didn't spend all the money he recieved for contributions. Because I responded to one e-mail to Kerry asking for suggestions (I told him to stop forgetting his anti-war days and get the hell out of Iraq). To the Kerry campaign, that signaled something in their computers that flooded my email box with tons of messages asking for contributions to help him beat Bush. Then, weeks after the election when the Dems have finally stopped smarting from Bad Tuesday, that Kerry didn't spend 15 million dollars in contributions. What was he waiting for? That money could have went to beat Bush. It could have made a little difference in countering all that Swift Boat for Truth junk. Instead, now the money is going to some unnamed Democrats in upcoming elections. And we're all stuck with Bush. Whether that would make a difference in anything, we'll never know. But I do know for sure that if there were ever an inkling to give a dollar to a presidential campaign, it's gone now. I'm sure that sentiment is true for a lot of people.
Now for the flipside. The Right. What about the conservatives who voted for Bush the first time because he said that we needed a small government and they agreed. What did they get for their vote? Patriot Act, an unnecessary war (quagmire) in Iraq and unending wars against "terror" (and civil liberties). Those Pat Buchanan-type conservatives people are pissed about that stuff.
Or what about the Muslim community that overwhelmingly voted for Bush in 2000 because he spoke out against secret detention policy that came into play after Clinton signed that terror act in 1995 after Oklahoma, which didn't go after right-wing militia types as much as it did Arabs and Muslims. One of the people responsible for delivering Bush his Muslim vote in Florida is now behind bars under suspicion of terrorist links in a real shady case that has more to do with civil liberties and freedom of speech issues than terror issues. The Muslims I've talked to about the vote haven't been incredibly keen on Kerry and it was a very tough call. They didn't want Bush, but didn't like that there only choice was Kerry. It shouldn't be that much of a surprise that Nader seemed like he might be a challenge in states with larger Muslim/Arab communities.
But why throw your vote away, huh?
The way the electoral process is framed in debates is that our vote is our voice. And that's not true at all. There's no way to tell what 51% of the eligible voters anywhere are thinking in totality. I don't think 1% of the Kerry voters thought the way I did. And if I had a voice, Kerry wouldn't have gotten my vote.
It would be more realistic if we talked about elections instead of in civics class patriotism talk about "Every Vote Counts" (because that's not true) or "Your Vote is your Voice" or "Make Democracy Work" or whatever. If we just said "This process is very flawed, but you should still vote because one of these very wealthy people who you really have very little in common with might not be as bad for you as the other one. But in actuality, you will be adversely affected by either one of these men at one time or another and they probably won't keep all of thier promises for various reasons."
Maybe then, people would stop looking at our electoral process as a real voice (at least as it stands now. There are better ones, like the IRV, or even parliamentary type) and start looking at these things in more realistic terms. Then people might not be as disappointed when the candidate they vote for loses or lets them down, as they inevitably will for most people.
There is a reason why over 60% of the country didn't vote in this last election. And I don't think it's as simple as they didn't care.
And I certainly don't think that anything that happens in an american election can be seen as a mandate. Even if 51% of the entire population voted, it still leave 49% out in the cold. In this case, it's only 20% of the population of the country that backed Bush enough to vote for him. But still with that, people did that for probably as many different reason as 18% of the country decided to vote for Kerry.
That's why I have a problem with anyone saying that they have a mandate, whether I voted for them, voted against them, or just stayed home. It's impossible for any of these jokers to speak for anyone but themselves.
Mandate, schMandate. The whole process is flawed. |
This work is in the public domain |
|
Re: Bush has a Mandate? Whatever. |
by Bill
altpensacola (nospam) att.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Nov 2004
|
"The whole process is flawed"
Excellant article Scott.
And if you think your vote counts, you must also have a lobbiest in washington and a government contract. Otherwise, your vote counts LAST. |
