Blog PostsDid You Consent?
By Mark E. Smith at May 17, 2010 |
|
Only 21% of U.S. voters, according to a Rasmussen poll, say that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed. The other 79% of voters, it seems, don't realize that they gave their consent when they voted.
Governments that wish to claim legitimacy, hold elections so that they can demonstrate the consent of the governed. The governed, when they choose to vote, are delegating their power, relinquishing their authority, and granting their consent, not to the candidates they vote for, but to whoever wins the election.
This becomes problematic in the United States where more than 80% of votes are not processed in a transparent way with citizen oversight, where candidates can be chosen by superdelegates of the political parties rather than by their base, where we have a two-party, winner-take-all system, and where, Constitutionally, the popular vote doesn't need to be counted, no less counted accurately, and is not necessarily the final say. The outcome of an election can be determined by glitches in the central tabulators, by insiders manipulating the results, by the media, by a winning candidate conceding and throwing the race to the loser, by the Electoral College, by Congress, or even by the Supreme Court. In a system where you cannot be sure that your vote is counted, where you know that the popular vote may not determine the outcome of the election, and where, as happened in 2008, the only two candidates with any chance of winning the Presidency were both pro-war, pro-bailout, and anti-environment, why woiuld citizens consent to be governed by whichever of them won?
Even worse, U.S. citizens have no way to exercise their will through their elected representatives. We have no right of recall when they betray us. We can petition them to remove themselves from office, but they have never done that. We might as well be petitioning a king or a tyrant. While it is true that we can wait until their terms of office are up and then try to elect different officials we will not be able to hold accountable, this does not give us the ability to exercise our will through our representatives, as the only time that they are supposed to represent us is while they are in office, which happens to be the only time we cannot hold them accountable.
The 21% who think our government has the consent of the governed very likely is made up of the hard right--people who favor wars of aggression, bailouts for the rich, and the destruction of the planet for private profit, so they consciously gave their consent when they voted and are happy with the outcome. The other 79% of voters seem to have thought that they weren't granting their consent when they voted, i.e., they don't understand what the act of voting means.
Given that approximately half of all those eligible to vote, don't bother, that means that only about 10% of Americans consciously and willingly gave their consent of the governed when they voted. The rest either didn't vote or thought that they weren't granting their consent by voting.
Our oligarchy is very experienced in getting out the vote. Before the primaries, each major party will have at least one candidate who represents the views of the majority of their base. Of course that candidate never gets the nomination and always throws their support to their party's nominee who is always someone they disagree with on everything. But by that time voters are hooked, so they hold their noses and vote for what they hope is the lesser evil, although anyone who has to hold their nose to vote should really question what sort of excrement they're voting for. But of course "lesser evil" isn't voting for anyone, it is voting against someone you think might be even worse. So both major parties will invariably nominate somebody they hope the other party's voters will vote against, thus ensuring a large turnout which will enable the two-party system to maintain its iron lock on U.S. electoral politics. Yet third party voters, and I was one myself for a few years, also fail to realize that they're granting their consent of the governed to whoever wins, but think they're voting for their candidates and against the major parties--despite knowing that their candidates cannot win.
There are other time-tested ways of getting out the vote, such as putting hot-button emotional issues like God, abortion, gays, or guns on the ballot, or offering local incentives like single-payer health care or legalized marijuana. The price paid for these these votes, of course, is consenting to torture, wars of aggression based on lies, bailouts, and continuing environmental destruction nationally and globally. In other words, if I vote for single-payer health care in California, I am simultaneously consenting to crimes against humanity by the federal government. Even if I only vote for the health care initiative and leave the rest of the ballot blank, the federal government can point to the voter turnout and claim legitimacy once again by showing it again has the consent of the governed, which was demonstrated when people voted, no matter who or what they voted for or against.
But there's a lot of resistance to withholding the consent of the governed. Most voters believe that if they don't vote, the bad guys will win--never noticing that when they do vote the bad guys win anyway. They think not voting in rigged elections for candidates they can't hold accountable, is apathy, and that people who care enough not to delegate their power to officials they cannot hold accountable are apathetic. They think that the oligarchy doesn't care about the turnout, and will continue to govern even without the consent of the governed--that the political parties spend millions of dollars getting out the vote because they don't care if our allies see that they only have the support of 10% of the population.
So here we are at election time once more, and people are debating who and what they'll vote for. I won't vote. And after the election I'll have to put up with all the voters voicing their disappointment when the oligarchy retains power through their consent. I'm old and grouchy and sometimes I really want to slap them--particularly that 79% of voters who cannot understand that when they vote, they are granting their consent. But it wouldn't do any good. They simply lack the ability to understand what they're doing--that's why they're voters.
Consent?
By Lapinel, Elliott at May 24, 2010 20:50 PM
1) I don't think voting is necessarily a sign of consent.
2) If all of the anti-war movement decided to stop voting, and this decision did not influence others to change their political views (I don't see why it would), the effect would that a more violent government would be elected. You write "...thus ensuring a large turnout which will enable the two-party system to maintain its iron lock on U.S. electoral politics". If it were true that my vote increased the two party lock, then all things being equal it would be a reason for me not to vote, but I don't know of any reason why my choosing not to vote will have that effect. Most likely, one effect will be that some may assume that apathy is increasing, but what that apathy meant will be ambiguous unless they took polls, which often aren't taken or reported. If I vote for a third party however, it will be clear why I chose not to vote for either of the choices.
You might ask how you yourself would analyze the different possible statistics, either you see less people voting, or you see more voting for left-wing third parties. What could you conclude? If no polls are taken, and non-voting increases along with extreme right wing movements that also refuse to vote, but for separate reasons, you might assume that 'my' lack of a vote was part of that right wing movement.
Further commentary on 1): If it is participation that = consent - why? and what level of participation signifies consent? Does speaking with someone who consents itself signify consent?
Reply this comment
Re: Consent?
By Smith, Mark E. at May 24, 2010 21:25 PM
You don't think voting is a sign of consent, Elliot? How else can governments claim legitimacy other than by holding elections to demonstrate the consent of the governed?
There is no more violent government than that of the United States, so if you fear is that if you didn't vote, a more violent government would be elected, the only thing you have to fear is your own fear. If you can name a more violent government, then I'd say that your fear might be justified, but right now our government, under both Democratic and Republican Party administrations, happens to be the most violent government in the world.
Some type of electronic voting machines, from optical scanners, DRE's, to central tabulators, are used in 80% of U.S. voting districts. When those machines are programmed to allot a certain percentage of the vote to one major corporate candidate, and a certain amount of the vote to the other major corporate candidate, the rest of the votes are usually allocated by the computer program among the third parties. It may be clear to you that you're voting for a particular third party, but the computer program couldn't care less. Those of us who won't vote in elections where we cannot be certain that our votes are counted accurately, care deeply about electoral integrity. It is the voters who continue to vote when they don't even know if their votes will be counted at all, when they know that in presidential elections the popular vote doesn't determine the outcome, and when they know that we don't even have proportional representatition and that in our winner-take-all system, no third party candidate can win, who are apathetic. When you vote you are delegating your power, granting your authority, and giving your consent of the governed to whoever wins, NOT to whoever you vote for. Casting a protest vote is saying, "I don't like the fact that only pro-war, pro-bailout, anti-environmental candidates have any chance of winning, but I have enough faith in the system to grant it my consent of the governed anyway."
Analyze what you're doing when you vote. You know that you can't vote directly on the federal budget or on decisions like foreign policy and wars. You can vote for those who will make those decisions, except in the case of President and Vice-President, since our Constitution prohibits us from voting for those offices directly and interposes several layers of bureaucracy capable of overturning the popular vote if the oligarchy doesn't like it (the names of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates are on the ballot fraudulently, as you are voting for the slate of Electors of their political party, not for the names on the ballot), but you can't hold them accountable once they're in office. If you manage to get a third party candidate elected at the local level, the feds can simply defund local governments, and if you get a third party candidate elected at the federal level they'd be so greatly outnumbered as to be complerely powerless. They couldn't get committee assignments without the consent of the major parties. They couldn't bring anything to the floor for a vote without the consent of the major parties. The system is rigged, Elliot.
Speaking with someone who consents does not signify consent, but casting a formal vote to grant your consent of the governed to whoever wins an election, when you know that we have a hierarchical form of government and that only major party candidates can win at the highest levels, particularly when the only candidates with any chance of winning are both pro-war, pro-bailout, and anti-environment, is formally consenting to be governed by a pro-war, pro-bailout, anti-environmental government. When you know a card game is crooked and you gamble anyway, you are consenting to get taken. That's your right, but don't call those of us who won't play in rigged games, apathetic. We care enough to use our common sense instead of listening to the election hucksters.
In 2000, everyone in the country saw that the popular vote didn't determine the results of the election and didn't even need to be counted.
In 2004, just in case anyone had missed it in 2000, it was once again made perfectly clear that the popular vote doesn't need to be counted and does not determine the results ot the election.
In 2008, millions of votes went uncounted, but since the only two candidates with any chance of winning were both pro-war, pro-bailout, and anti-environment, it didn't matter who won, as the outcome, war, bailouts, and continuing environmental destruction, was predetermined. When the results are predetermined, it is not an election, it is merely asking for a vote of confidence in the current agenda. Third parties and hopey-changey political hucksterism serve only to get out the vote for continuing crimes against humanity, looting the treasury, and corporate profits at the expense of people and the planet.
Once a nation has the social consciousness to recognize and reject an oligarchy, it can oust them by means of voting if they have honest elections where the votes are actually counted, where the popular vote determines the results of the election, and where the results can be verified, or by boycotting elections until those criteria are met. Our elections do not meet those criteria.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Consent?
By Lapinel, Elliott at May 25, 2010 17:08 PM
Hi Mark,
"How else can governments claim legitimacy other than by holding elections to demonstrate the consent of the governed?"
They can CLAIM legitimacy however they want, heh heh. If I understand correctly, you don't believe they have the consent of the governed as it is. (They don't have my consent to stay in Iraq, even though I voted. I don't see how not voting would change anything.)
"When you vote you are delegating your power, granting your authority, and giving your consent of the governed to whoever wins, NOT to whoever you vote for."
I am familiar with the claim, (I think they might have told me that in high school, I can't remember), but what evidence? For the sake of argument (though I still need an explanation), let's say I am consenting. Doesn't the fact that force is involved make that consent meaningless? You can't say a woman consented to being raped if you gave her a choice between rape or death for example, not even if you increased the pageantry of the choice. (Not trying to be hyperbolic). Furthermore, if I am consenting, why does symbolic value of my vote outweigh my own statements in public to the contrary. One more point: if I am consenting, what then? If by accepting moral culpability I ammeliorate an evil, I will do it (and in my opinion the idea doesn't even make sense in the abstract). If someone says, I am going to murder this woman unless you give me permission to rape this woman in your name, I will "give him permission", but the idea is absurd. In that example I only "give him permission" in some abstract sense, I do not help him rape the woman.
"There is no more violent government than that of the United States, so if you fear is that if you didn't vote, a more violent government would be elected, the only thing you have to fear is your own fear"
The comparison should be between the U.S. under Obama or McCain, not between the U.S. and other states. I think things would have been worse under McCain. Would we have invaded Iraq if a few more people voted for Gore and avoided letting Florida courts pick the President? ... can't say for sure, but I think we would have had a better chance of avoiding war. I think Bush speaks for himself.
"Casting a protest vote is saying, "I don't like the fact that only pro-war, pro-bailout, anti-environmental candidates have any chance of winning, but I have enough faith in the system to grant it my consent of the governed anyway."
Hmm. You still haven't explained why it is giving consent though. I prefer my protest vote to say "I don't like the fact that only pro-war, anti-poor, anti-evironmental candidates hae any chance of winning, and therefore I am indicating my lack of faith in the system by voting for someone who I know can't win.
"...but don't call those of us who won't play in rigged games, apathetic"
To be clear, I wasn't calling you apathetic. I was just pointing out that many of the people who don't vote don't do so on a principled basis (my roomate for example so HARD to get him to listen, he heh), and one can't tell on which basis someone votes or doesn't vote just by looking at the numbers. So to the extent that voting is an important way of examining public opinion, not voting can mean different things. As you point out, one COULD (I say could, but I guess you say this is an inherent position) mean by their vote for a third party that they have an overall positive view of the government. One examining the evidence available to them COULD argue that apathy is increasing if less people vote - one couldn't know that for certain, but it could be a logical thought.
"Once a nation has the social consciousness to recognize and reject an oligarchy, it can oust them by means of voting if they have honest elections where the votes are actually counted..."
I think our system is honest enough that if 70% of the population was strongly commited to the principles that you are commited to, we would have a new government. (or no government, heh heh).
It's important to keep in mind though, that not everyone in the U.S. either agrees with all of those principles, or is very conscious of their own beliefs. (Some might agree when you discuss it with them, but that doesn't mean they will go out and protest, or vote, based on those ideas).
So we can't base our strategy on what those people will do (though we should keep trying to change their minds), but rather with other anti-war peoples (same strategy that pro-war "should" be following). Then our choice becomes Obama or McCain (etc.) Now, there are enough anti-war to make that much of a difference, and I think that difference is important. It should be part of our strategy.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Consent?
By Smith, Mark E. at May 26, 2010 00:50 AM
When they had a successful election boycott in South Africa, Elliot, the Apartheid regime tried to continue to claim the consent of the governed, but it was obvious to the world that since only 7% of those eligible voted, they did not have that consent. Governments like the U.S. and Israel were then no longer able to claim that they weren't racist but were merely supporting the legitimate government of South Africa, because without the consent of the governed, they were obviously no longer legitimate.
Nobody is forcing you to vote. Voting is not mandatory in the United States. Nobody is going around forcing people to vote at gunpoint as was done in Zimbabwe. And even in Australia where voting is mandatory, nobody is prosecuted for not voting--you just say that you didn't feel well or forgot.
Your statements that you do not wish to grant your consent are not outweighed by the formal granting of your consent when you vote, it just demonstrates that you are being hypocritical. It's like saying, "I don't believe in using armed violence to settle disputes," and then shooting your neighbor when you have an argument..If you really don't want to grant your consent, nobody is forcing you to do so.
Both Obama and McCain were committed to expanding the Bush war of aggression in Afghanistan, so it didn't matter who anyone voted for, as only those two had any chance of winning and both had the same pro-war agenda. Now if you want to get out your micrometer and ask who is the greater and who is the lesser evil, Obama has spent more on bailouts than Bush, done more to harm the environment than Bush, torture has increased and is more pervasive under his administration than under Bush, and he expanded the Bush wars beyond what Bush himself had done. If you're in favor of genocide, and base your vote on your hope that one genocidal maniac might only kill a million innocent people, while the other might kill slightly more than a million innocent people, you are still granting your consent of the governed to a government engaged in genocide.
The Florida courts did not pick the president, the Supreme Court did. And once you know that the popular vote does not necessarily determine the outcome of an election, you are consenting to let them pick another president any time that they wish. The Supreme Court was granted supreme dictatorial power by our Constitution, so any decisions made by those unelected justices, no matter how unconstitutional, unprecedented, irrational, or illogical, cannot be appealed. That's the system you're consenting to when you vote.
If you had some way of knowing that your protest vote would actually be counted, and that it wouldn't be counted as a vote for the candidates you were voting against, it might make sense for you to cast protest votes. But since our Constitution doesn't guarantee us the right to have our votes counted, and the voting mechanisms used in over 80% of U.S. polling places make it impossible for anyone to verify that the votes were counted accurately, your protest vote was probably either uncounted (many states don't require that absentee ballots be counted and there is no chain-of-custody for ballots sent through the mail or any possible oversight once they are received by elections officials), or was flipped by the central tabulator program to a candidate you voted against.
If you're playing cards and you have reason to believe that the deck might be marked, it is okay to call for a new deck. You don't have to play with a marked deck. In fact, you can refuse to play until and unless there is a new deck. If the game is rigged, nobody is forcing you to gamble. When you're gambling not with just your own money, but with our national treasury and our military power, it might be a good idea to first make sure that there are honest elections.
Well, that's if you care. If you're, for example, a paid political operative who only wants your party to win, or an apathetic voter who doesn't really care what happens, then you won't mind voting in rigged elections where the outcome is often predetermined and cannot be verified.
As for why people don't vote, the only poll that asked them, a Zogby poll commissioned by Paul Lehto, found that most said their reason for not voting was because they didn't feel that anyone on the ballot would represent them. But roommates sometimes don't like to get involved in arguments that can be avoided, so it is probably a good idea not to press your roommater. What may look like apathy to you, may not look like apathy to anyone who really cares about the outcome of elections. Voting in elections where all the vote don't need to be counted, where the results can't be verified, where there is no chain-of-custody of the ballots, where there is no access to audit logs, where canidates are sworn into office before all the votes are counted, where the vote count can be stopped and even overturned by the Supreme Court, and where there is no way to hold candidates accountable once they're elected, sure seems apathetic to me--only people who don't care would do it.
Any strategy based on participatory democracy and socialist principles would insist that the people have a real voice in government, not just a sham ritual vote that doesn't need to be counted. More than 70% of voters, 79% according to a Rasmussen Reports survey, don't think that our government has the consent of the governed. If they were concerned enough to withhold their votes and to stop consenting, we could demand honest, open, free, and fair elections--the sine qua non of any democratic form of government. As long as people are willing to vote in faith-based elections where there is no guarantee that their votes will be counted, they have no leverage to demand honest, verifiable elections.
In other words, if you're willing to keep gambling in a rigged card game and you don't ask for a fresh deck of cards, nobody is going to offer you one.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent?
By Lapinel, Elliott at May 26, 2010 04:40 AM
"Your statements that you do not wish to grant your consent are not outweighed by the formal granting of your consent when you vote, it just demonstrates that you are being hypocritical."
Still I must ask why you believe that voting signifies consent.
"When they had a successful election boycott in South Africa, Elliot, the Apartheid regime tried to continue to claim the consent of the governed, but it was obvious to the world that since only 7% of those eligible voted, they did not have that consent."
I see your point, but if everyone voted together that strongly similar changes would occur. An election boycott would not mean anything specific here. What would it mean?
"Nobody is forcing you to vote"
No but they are forcing me to accept the government, and other institutions whether or not I vote. To the extent that the system is rigged, it stays rigged whether you vote or not.
"it is okay to call for a new deck."
If only! But I don't think that not-voting will have that effect. It isn't fair to talk about the effect of EVERYone not voting, anymore than it is fair for me to imagine that the next election people will vote the same way I do.
"The Florida courts did not pick the president, the Supreme Court did."
ah, true. heh.
"More than 70% of voters, 79% according to a Rasmussen Reports survey, don't think that our government has the consent of the governed."
Are you implying that they have the same political goals as we do? I think that is highly doubtful. In South Africa it was easy to guess what the non-voters might be thinking, but mass non-voting here would not have that effect.
"If you're in favor of genocide, and base your vote on your hope that one genocidal maniac might only kill a million innocent people, while the other might kill slightly more than a million innocent people, you are still granting your consent of the governed to a government engaged in genocide."
This is really the key here. If someone was in favor of genocide, they would vote for someone who would kill the most people possible.
Which is more important, someone's life, or whether you gave consent?
Points of Disagreement: I don't think that Obama is worse than Bush as you described. Though - If he were, it wouldn't violate the reasons for voting, it would just mean that you should pick the Republican.
Also:I would like to learn more about how votes are counted, I'm sure there are many issues there. BUT, that does not mean that the problems with counting are the reason that we don't have a participatory society. It really comes down to the fact that the movement for a particpatory society is simply not large enough.
So we focus on building that movement, in various ways.
The real effect of the everyone who wants a particpatory society not voting would be horrendous. One could go through a long list of important things, education etc., that would be weakened as a result.
The real effect of the 70% not voting would be a total mystery. Who knows what those people mean when they say the government doesn't have the consent of the governed.
Also, keep in mind it isn't just the government that has power, it's private institutions.
Reply this comment