November's Choice

| | Comments (2)

November 7, 2006 is the day when many Americans will go to the polls, (and more not), to deliver their vote for either incumbents, challengers, or no one. For a great many, it will be one of the most difficult election choices in a long time: for others, the easiest. I commend and respect those who find the choice difficult, but vow to make it nonetheless. For those who will find it the easiest of decisions, shame on you for abrogating your homework.

Those who will find November's choice easiest will be of two kinds. Those loyal to their party who vote straight ticket, and those who have never chosen to vote and will make the same choice in November. I will say it again, shame on you for dodging your citizen duty and responsibility to cast an informed decision based on the issues and how your representatives represented those issues. I won't belabor the point, a paragraph is all such Americans deserve.

For the rest who make the choice to not vote or, to vote for a challenger or incumbent, and find it a tough decision to make, I applaud you, respect you, and I am proud to call you a fellow citizen of these United States of America. Some of the issues facing voters this November are dire and as consequential, as has been seen in America in decades. Many will be surprised at what some of these issues are, for they do not dominate the news and headlines and, will not be discussed in candidate debates or campaign handouts. The reason will be obvious when they are seen. Here is a sampling:

A) The Legal bribery system of American politics. Lobbying your Congressperson is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Lobbying means communicating your thoughts, ideas, and preferences; your support for or against certain policy issues and decisions. The true cost of lobbying is a phone call, an email, a postal service letter, or far more expensively, a trip down to your Congressperson's local or D.C. office to sit and speak with them in their office. These are the real costs of lobbying. Everything else is a bribe. Promising $10,000 in campaign donations for favorable legislation is a bribe. Such promises are hard to prosecute however for they often take the form of the following sentence communicated to a Congressperson: "When you vote for this legislation, you can count on our continued support". One cannot craft a law to criminalize this legal form of bribery without impaling the Constitution's First Amendment regarding freedom of speech.

Nevertheless, what Americans can do is elect persons who forthrightly and convincingly reject such bribes of their own choice and, out of a sense of love for our democracy and ethics in government. Our government was originally designed to run by the consent of American voters and for the benefit of the majority of Americans present and future while protecting the Constitutional rights and liberties of individuals from the majority. The government is the embodiment of the majority elected by a majority of votes either popular or electoral. When government favors wealthy individuals supporting their reelection over the voter's benefit and the future of Americans to come, corruption has taken over, and cheats the American people of their democracy.

B) Nation of Laws or Nation of People? This issue has never been so clearly defined as today. From executive power exempt from separation of powers, to illegal immigration, to highway speed limit enforcement, this issue is constantly in our face. In fact, it is so in our face, that like the air we breathe, we completely fail to notice that it is there. Upon the founding or our nation, our people rejected the King and his magistrates who made up the laws according to their whims and personal needs. We found such rule of and by people of King George to be onerous, unfair, unjust, and utterly lacking in any regard or empathy for the King's subjects in the Colonies. This was at a time when we were part and parcel, a nation of people, those people being the King and his magistrates and commanders.

In signing the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers resolved to create a nation of law, not of men: a nation in which one law would apply equally and fairly to all over whom it held dominion. They resolved to create a nation in which limits and consequences are established for those who govern, and who would be subject to the very same law as the cobbler or baker down the street. They sought a nation in which all voters had a say, and no voters say would be more equal than another's would. Yet today, wealthy lobbyists do have a say far more equal and loudly heard than everyday voters. A nation of laws, fairly and equally applied by the powers of government was their goal. And toward the fulfillment of that goal, they set out to divide government powers among 3 branches of government, each having oversight and check authority on the other two branches to prevent excesses and abuse of power toward the nation's people.

Presidential Signing Statements used as legal defense of the President's non-existent power to interpret Congressional legislation is a serious constitutional issue, especially when the Executive interprets Congress' laws as they deem necessary for their choices and decisions. This is but one of many examples in which the Constitution of this United States is being disregarded and dispensed with, in the name of reshaping our country from a nation of laws, back to a nation of men in power, which we fought a bloody Revolutionary War to overthrow.

Illegal immigration is a blatant example of lobbyists and business interests bribing those in power to ignore and selectively enforce our laws in their favor. Our politicians and the Justice Department have unfairly and unconstitutionally applied our nation's laws according to the personal desires of those in power and their wealthy bribers. Our politicians should have held the Justice Department accountable for failures to enforce and observe ALL of our nation's laws. But for campaign donation support from wealthy business owners in the agricultural and service sectors, they chose not to. No matter how you slice it, this is legal bribery, and it should not be tolerated by the voting public.

C) The only political items lower in the polls these days than President Bush's approval ratings is Congressional approval ratings. This is not new. Congress' approval ratings have been poor for decades. In 1980, polls held approval ratings for Congress at 34% -- 1990: 36% -- 2000: 56%. Currently they are back down to lows around 29%. So, the issue is, why do American voters believe voting the same will change these results? Doing the same thing over and over again does not change the outcome. If the history of America's disapproval of Congress is so bad, why does it not occur to voters that they must vote differently to get a different result?

Voting incumbents back into office at the rate of 94 to 97% has proven over the decades to only disappoint voters as evidenced by the polls. There is another choice. For voters: vote for a challenger. This different strategy holds far more hope of improved Congressional polls than voting the same politicians back in again, and again. For those who have not voted in the past, get your ass up, register, and vote this November for a challenger.

About half of the people eligible to vote in November, will not, historical records show. Why not change that statistic? If even 10% of voters who traditionally do not vote, showed up in November and registered their dissatisfaction with Congress by voting for a challenger, a statistically huge number of incumbents would lose. And that would have a huge impact on incumbents who survive the election as well as the freshman coming in, as they ponder whether they will be next in 2008 to get the boot.

It will change how Congress governs. Logic dictates the way it will change will be in favor of dissatisfied voters demanding responsibility, accountability, and ethical behavior by their representatives. These are but a few of the many issues facing voters in November. But if the corruption, abuse of office, and lack of accountability to the voters are to change, something dramatic must happen.

We are 5 1/2 months from our next election. To see improvement, change must occur. For change to occur, voters must vote differently than they have. Voters could not possible choose a more powerful action to change and reform government for the better, than by turning out in record numbers to vote against the politicians now in office. Forget pipe dreams about Congress voting to limit their own careers. That won't happen. Shut out the straight party ticket voters fearmongering, they knowingly or not, want to keep things as they are. Only voters can end politician's careers by voting for a challenger. Doing the same thing over and over again will produce the same result again and again.

Change your vote, vote for change!

2 Comments

What about those of us who've done their homework way in advance? The only vote I have of significance nationally is for or against Curt Weldon. I would vote for the yet to be found corpse of Jimmy Hoffa before that *** ** * *****.

Stash, you are not alone. There will be many uncontested races this year. One way to vote against an incumbent under those circumstances is to write in a candidate. Especially if you can get thousands of others to write in the same candidate, Jimmy Hoffa would do nicely. It will make news and that helps to spread the anti-incumbent awareness grass roots movements like Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Contact

Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on May 25, 2006 4:44 PM.

November Election Potential for Rout. was the previous entry in this blog.

Mock Elections - Mock Democracy is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Offsite Links