Spring Break
Are you sure that you really wanna vote?
Bryan Murphy
Issue date: 11/3/08 Section: Election Special
Almost every aspect of our political process is creaky and outmoded. The net result is the disenfranchisement the American people on the widest scale possible - by voting, not only are you influencing nothing, you're supporting the continued existence of a dangerous and outmoded system.
America uses a "first-past-the-post" plurality voting system to elect most of its state and federal politicians and bureaucrats. This voting rule stipulates each member of the electorate receives one vote, and that whichever candidate receives the highest proportion of the vote wins - whether or not that candidate has a majority.
Not enough good things can be said about plurality voting. The system gives every candidate with a serious desire to win a strong incentive to make their policies as mundane as possible so as to appeal to the widest possible electorate, while also discouraging the emergence of more than two parties. The entrance of any lesser-known third party candidate will serve only to draw support from the better-known primary party candidate with whom they are most similar, thus causing participation in the democratic process to seal the victory of the most dissimilar opposing candidate!
The plurality system has multitude other advantages; the system manages to single-handedly disenfranchise tens of millions of voters every presidential election. If your candidate loses 49 percent to 51 percent (or even 51 percent to 49 percent, cough - Al Gore - cough), one might expect that the democratic system would encourage restraint on the part of the winner - who evidently wasn't that popular to begin with. But no, what do you think this is, a parliamentary system? Look at George W. Bush's negative margin of victory in 2000. That certainly encouraged him to act in moderation. It was as if the majority of American citizens who went to the polls that day hadn't even voted.
It doesn't have to be this way - plurality voting is perhaps the easiest voting rule to conceive, but even "American Idol" uses a more sophisticated and representative democratic methodology than our federal elections. You'd think some politician would be talking about this, but hey, "Change We Can Believe In" doesn't necessarily have to mean actual, legitimate change, does it? It could also mean making superficial promises to pander to the lowest-common denominator, which is certainly a lot easier to believe in.
Here's the final word: if you didn't vote, good job. If you did vote, pray you don't make the same mistake four years from now, OK? Our democratic system is, at its very core, corrupt; our archaic policies encourage pressure-group-pandering, stagnant dual-party partisanship and the disenfranchisement of the American people. As Gandhi put it, the best method of action is non-participation in anything you believe is evil - so stage a bit of peaceful protest yourself tomorrow, and stay away from the polls.
America uses a "first-past-the-post" plurality voting system to elect most of its state and federal politicians and bureaucrats. This voting rule stipulates each member of the electorate receives one vote, and that whichever candidate receives the highest proportion of the vote wins - whether or not that candidate has a majority.
Not enough good things can be said about plurality voting. The system gives every candidate with a serious desire to win a strong incentive to make their policies as mundane as possible so as to appeal to the widest possible electorate, while also discouraging the emergence of more than two parties. The entrance of any lesser-known third party candidate will serve only to draw support from the better-known primary party candidate with whom they are most similar, thus causing participation in the democratic process to seal the victory of the most dissimilar opposing candidate!
The plurality system has multitude other advantages; the system manages to single-handedly disenfranchise tens of millions of voters every presidential election. If your candidate loses 49 percent to 51 percent (or even 51 percent to 49 percent, cough - Al Gore - cough), one might expect that the democratic system would encourage restraint on the part of the winner - who evidently wasn't that popular to begin with. But no, what do you think this is, a parliamentary system? Look at George W. Bush's negative margin of victory in 2000. That certainly encouraged him to act in moderation. It was as if the majority of American citizens who went to the polls that day hadn't even voted.
It doesn't have to be this way - plurality voting is perhaps the easiest voting rule to conceive, but even "American Idol" uses a more sophisticated and representative democratic methodology than our federal elections. You'd think some politician would be talking about this, but hey, "Change We Can Believe In" doesn't necessarily have to mean actual, legitimate change, does it? It could also mean making superficial promises to pander to the lowest-common denominator, which is certainly a lot easier to believe in.
Here's the final word: if you didn't vote, good job. If you did vote, pray you don't make the same mistake four years from now, OK? Our democratic system is, at its very core, corrupt; our archaic policies encourage pressure-group-pandering, stagnant dual-party partisanship and the disenfranchisement of the American people. As Gandhi put it, the best method of action is non-participation in anything you believe is evil - so stage a bit of peaceful protest yourself tomorrow, and stay away from the polls.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
not true
posted 11/04/08 @ 6:43 AM EST
i know a 1000 people in ny who won't vote because we're a blue state and their vote won't count. what if every republican in ny decided they didnt care if they counted, they wanted to vote? and every democrat decided they didnt care, they were confident it was going to go blue? we'd go red. (Continued…)
Post a Comment