https://youtube/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY I promised a summary of the arguments in James DAngelos video (below); but I cant find where I promised to put it. This version of the link begins just past the midway point where he summarizes his evidence and proposes his solution. Summary of Argument: Democracy is a very admirable form of government (the rule of the People); but it is susceptible to two inherent forms of abuse/distortion which have the power to undermine and destroy it. Both are a direct inescapable consequence of the lack of an anonymous/secret ballot. For the system to work each individual must exercise their best individual judgment; untainted by either “Voter Intimidation” and/or our proclivity to “sell” our votes for an immediate reward; that can blind us to the longer term consequences of such conduct. “Voter Intimidation” is the long observed phenomenon (dating back to Aristotle) that, faced with the possibility of reprisal, a voter will often not vote their conscience or even their self interest. “Vote Buying/Selling” is also a phenomenon recognized in Aristotles time. Before widespread use of the “Australian Ballot” (first proposed in 1856) [britannica/EBchecked/topic/43932/Australian-ballot] became the norm, it was not uncommon for as much as 20% of all votes to be bought/sold; and an even larger, unknowable, percentage to be corrupted by intimidation. In an effort to increase “transparency” in government Congress adopted “Public Law 91-510: the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970” (the most relevant changes being in Title I, Sections 103, 104, 116, 120 &121) [https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-510/000062AF.pdf] This legislation did away with the, earlier, customary practice of not recording the individual votes when Congress met as “The Committee of the Whole”. It also opened up the deliberations and votes of all smaller committees as well. What could be bad about doing the Publics business; in public? Turns out that this opens the door to the double whammy of “Voter Intimidation” and “Vote Buying/Selling” With the government certified receipt of each representatives and senators vote the necessary market machinery for the sale/purchase of government power was installed. The rewards (ROI on “lobbying dollars” spent) available to the vote buyer is enormous. This, coupled with the still expanding costs of Media Advertising (particularly TV); has driven up the dollar value of a seat at the table. Which, in turn, has driven up the costs of campaigning for office in an ever increasing, self-reinforcing spiral. The consequence is, that our elected representatives spend ever more of their time courting deep pocketed donors; each of whom wants their quid-pro-quo. “Voter Intimidation” and Vote Selling. “If you dont toe the line; in the next election cycle youll have no TV advertising budget.” And we, with the dollars to make you or break you, know exactly how you voted; because of the increased transparency the Act created. Your constituency does not have the means, wherewithal and focus to to match our efforts; and we are prepared to to manipulate them emotionally (via advertising) to seal our deal “Voter Intimidation” and Vote Selling. Increasingly no one can stay out of the game. Ones competitiveness can be destroyed; by regulation that favors your competitor. One can be left behind when the gravy train leaves; with your competitors aboard. It is not just businesses. If you are a Labor Union or a not-for-profit out to “better” the world; you must also either pay-to-play; or pay to avoid becoming road-kill in the corridors of power. If you dont even have the ante; you are effectively invisible to the system. Democracy becomes Plutocracy. (For the evidence James DAngelo provides in support of this argument click the video link. I believe it to be overwhelming and compelling.) I wish I could be as sanguine as he about his proposed solution. It hangs entirely on the ability of the anonymous/secret ballot to destroy the sale/purchase value of of our representatives votes and deliberations. Not being certain that you are getting what you paid for; ought to destroy the quid-pro-quo value of the vote and cause the rest of the edifice of corruption to collapse of its own weight. This is predicated on the voter (Congressperson) taking the buyers money, voting their conscience anyway (against the wishes of the buyer); and then lying about it to the buyer. However, what mechanism prevents the voter from taking the buyers money, voting as instructed and then lying about it to his constituents? Ultimately I come down on James DAngelos side. The present arrangement is a death spiral. Virtually anything that can be done to turn this circus barge around is worth a serious concerted effort. But I am haunted by HL Menkens observation: For every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong. It seems to me that this kind of thinking is what gave us the problem in the first place. What do you think?
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 05:01:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015