I continue to maintain that the U.S. Constitution is a brilliant document. My research to date as well as my own common sense leads me to a very originalist interpretation. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have not read the Federalist Papers or other important contemporaneous documents. But again, the spirit of the law is clear to me. Unfortunately, it is also clear to me that step-by-step, it has been either been grossly misinterpreted or grossly abused.
Now, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this post talking about why the Constitution is so great. Nor do I want to point out the flaws which I perceive it to have. It is important to discuss two things.
First, its brilliance is, at its core, the boundaries upon which it placed the power of government. The checks and balances, separation of powers, and the vesting of (generally) unprecedented authority to the legislative branch show a stroke of genius from men who learned from history. Placing power in the legislative branch is so critical in that this is the branch of government which was best positioned - better yet, entirely designed - to serve as the voice of the people.
Second, its greatest failure, in my opinion, is to place limited ability to keep the powers in check. There are only two mechanisms: either the branches need to keep each other in line, or voters have to replace those in power. Over the years, these checks have proven to be insufficient in protecting the spirit of the original intent which, as I've asserted, is brilliant at its core.
This is ever so apparent today. We have repeatedly extended government power beyond its original intent. This week, we have, via Paulson's $700BB plan, entered into a deal to purchase equity in private banks through preferred stock. My point is not to argue whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (I do happen to think it's a bad thing), but to point out that it is grossly unconstitutional. This is a fact that has hardly been whispered.
Our Constitution is dead. We have entered into a more conservative form of social democracy. This is a popular form of government embraced in many places around the world. We look to the Constitution when it is convenient. However, the power given to our government officials, bestowed upon them via democratic elections, reigns supreme. Ultimately, the only check on power left is to the voting booth. The use of traditional checks and balances is used only as a tool for political gain. And our laws have been manipulated to better guarantee a duopolistic power structure amongst two ever-converging political ideologies.
In this system, our government can do whatever it wants - because they were elected by the people.
The road ahead is scary. But, it is justified by the vote of confidence which we'll collectively reinforce on November 4.
7 comments:
The road is even scarier if this is not a fair election. The attempts to defraud the American people by clogging up election boards with false registrations jeopardizes a very precious right for Americans to have their voice heard. Still scarier might be "mainstream media" outlets abusing the freedom of the press to openly campaign for one candidate. Scary indeed.
Voter fraud is clearly a problem and should not be tolerated. It appears to me to be practiced by both major parties.
The "mainstream media" is a two-headed monster. The major television news networks have certainly been leaning/promoting Obama (save Fox News). However, McCain supporters dominate the radio airwaves and are more blatant in their support.
The real tragedy is the near blackout of third party candidates on both TV and on radio. It is quite difficult to receive fair and accurate coverage of Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader - all of whom have sufficient ballot access to win an electoral majority. No small feat.
Yawn. Voter registration fraud is the latest non-issue being reported on by the supposedly left-leaning media. If I register Homer Simpson to vote, he can't actually vote unless he shows up on Nov 4. This is unlikely as he is a fictional cartoon character.
The much-maligned ACORN has been reporting instances of voter registration fraud for years. Actual voter fraud charges against ACORN were dismissed by US attorneys in 2004 and 2006. These cases contributed to the firing of attorneys by then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who later resigned over the ensuing controversy.
One problem with the media is that they are biased while claiming to be neutral. In that respect, I should say that I am an Obama supporter. The even larger issue with the media is that they overlook important issues in favor of irrelevant ones. As for that, anonymous here has merely contributed to the problem.
Republican and McCain voter here, let's just get that out of the way. So, it looks like given the politcial climate right now, my party's going to take losses on November 4. That being said, voter registration fraud or voter fraud (kind of splitting hairs there) is a serious issue that has to be dealt with by every party to ensure the integrity of our elections which in turn, fair elections are the very fabric of our democracy. If that integrity is not there, then you face a government for the people by the people, but certainly not "OF" the people.
It might be a bit naive to say that voter registration fraud is a non issue. Most fraud in any form is against the law. Mickey Mouse showing up to vote is not the main concern of this issue. However, that does speak to the fact that not every state has the same ID requirements such as the great state of Indiana. No, the problem lies in local election boards and secretary of state offices being clogged in mountains of pointless paperwork and research that has to be done (and paid for...guess who's picking up that tab?)
Someone being registered 72 times at different addresses puts that person's real vote at risk of being thrown out. The effort of purging all those obviously false registrations is enough of a distraction to keep deceased voters on the roles and those who are registered in more than one precinct to be allowed to vote in both with their ID. Each legally registered voter should have one and only one vote.
And yes, ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan is very forthcoming with his answers regarding their activities...
Out of the 13,000 workers responsible for collecting voter registrations how many have you fired for fraudulent activity? “It’s a good question, I don’t have the number but I can try to find out,” Whelan said.
Out of the 1.3 million voters registered by ACORN, is there any guess at how many are “Mickey Mouse” or duplicate registrations? “It probably won’t be after the election that we can tell you.”
Because state law requires you to submit every registration you collect, what percentage of the total voter registrations submitted does ACORN actually flag as being problematic before you send them in? “I want to not give a number that I can’t back up.”
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, registered voter in the world's largest democracy but not in the world's richest (and apparently most indebted). That's my disclosure and what follows is my 2 cents (likely to be centavos soon!).
Voter registration fraud and how it relates to Obama appears to me to be a non-issue as ryan points out with a yawn. But Obama's nonchalant dismissal of the issue as a non-issue is definitely not befitting of a presidential candidate. In the same vein, McCain's rather transparent attempts at gaining political mileage on the Bill Ayers issue are rather disheartening.
Anyway, what interested me most were Matt's comments about the "other" candidates and their "true" prospects. Coming from a country which has probably as many political parties as the rest of the world combined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India),
the two party system has always piqued my curiosity. Recently I attended the annual INFORMS conference and one the plenary talks was given by Michel Balinski. Incidentally, our thinner sniffer friend also was in attendance. So he may appreciate what I am to say.
There apparently is a fundamental problem with the voting mechanisms followed around the world today. These are variants of the Condorcet system. What would be preferable would be Borda or other positional systems (or a grading based approach proposed by Balinski if feasible). The first couple of pages of the paper here- http://ceco.polytechnique.fr/fichiers/ceco/perso/fichiers/laraki_393_PNAS.pdf, are worth reading (this was all Swahili to me a couple of days back!). I cant help but wonder how the third party candidates would fare if the US followed a Borda type voting approach especially given mainstream media's claim that America is divided completely and Democrats & Republicans hate each other's guts. Maybe the Libertarians make second place in enough voters' preference sets to be winners?!
Enuff said, it's Friday. Good blog btw. Will follow
You got to love it when INFORMS is discussing politics. I'll definitely read that. I'll see what else I can dig up from the archives using my membership!
I had planned on discussing voting systems on this blog at some point. It'll have to wait until after the election.
In the meantime, check out Duverger's Law and FairVote.org (featuring former Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic).
Srinidhi is right, a preferential voting system only really works with 2 candidates. Once a 3rd candidate is introduced, it motivates voters to cast a ballot that is different from their actual preference. This notion seems similar to Duverger's Law that Matt mentioned.
Balinski's "Majority Judgement" proposal seems much more resistant to manipulation than anything before it, and I would be very supportive if some manifestation of that eventually replaced the electoral college.
P.S. I personally think Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader all belong in a looney bin, but I do agree they deserve a fair shot at the presidency.
Post a Comment