Inside a GOP Effort To Rig The 2002 New Hampshire Elections
WASHINGTON - A former GOP political operative who ran an illegal election-day scheme to jam the phone lines of New Hampshire Democrats during the state’s tight 2002 U.S. Senate election said in a new book and an interview that he believes the scandal reaches higher into the Republican Party.
Allen Raymond of Bethesda, Md., whose book Simon & Schuster will publish next month, also accused the Republican Party of trying to hang all the blame for a scandal on him as part of an “old-school cover-up.”
Raymond’s book, “How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative,” offers a raw, inside glimpse of the phone scandal as it unraveled and of a ruthless world in which political operatives seek to win at all costs.
McClatchy obtained an advance copy of the book.
The 2002 New Hampshire Senate race, in which GOP Rep. John Sununu edged Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen by 19,000 votes, was among several targeted by Republicans seeking to win control of the U.S. Senate.
Raymond said those who’ve tried to make him the fall guy for the New Hampshire scheme failed to recognize that e-mails, phone records and other evidence documented the complicity of a top state GOP official and the Republican National Committee’s northeast regional director.
Both men were later convicted of charges related to the phone harassment, along with Raymond and an Idaho phone bank operator. Defense lawyers have since won a retrial for James Tobin, the former regional director for both the RNC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
A lawyer for Tobin didn’t respond to phone messages.
GOP committees have paid Washington law firms more than $6 million to defend Tobin and to fight a Democratic civil suit against the party. Raymond, himself a former RNC official, said in the book and an interview that he believes that the scandal reaches higher.
“Any tactic that didn’t pass the smell test would never see the light of day without, - at the very least, the approval of an RNC attorney,” he wrote.
Paul Twomey, a lawyer for the New Hampshire Democratic party, said that phone records obtained in the civil suit showed that Tobin made 22 calls to the White House political office in the 24 hours before and after the jamming.
Twomey said Tobin refused to testify about the calls, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Asked about Raymond’s book, RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said that “it would be hard to find two less credible individuals” than Raymond and his co-author, Ian Spiegelman, who lost his job as a New York Post gossip columnist for sending a threatening e-mail accusing a source of trying to plant a fake story. The RNC also distributed material emphasizing that Raymond had a reputation for bare-knuckled politics and dirty tricks.
Raymond, 40, who served three months in jail last year, said he earned a graduate degree in political management at New York’s Baruch University solely to make money off politics, and it made no difference to him whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.
He soon climbed the GOP ranks to get jobs with the RNC and the GOP’s senatorial committee, before borrowing $250,000 from a group headed by former RNC chairman Haley Barbour in 2001 to set up a consulting firm specializing in phone bank services.
One of his tactics, Raymond said, was angering union households with calls in which people with Latin-sounding voices talked favorably about a rival candidate’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement. And he used the voice of an angry black man, posing as a Democrat, to stir up “fear, racism, bigotry” in white neighborhoods.
Shortly before the November election, New Hampshire Republicans hired his Alexandria, Va.-based consulting firm, GOP Marketplace, for $15,600 to barrage Democrats’ phone lines on Election Day with 800 hang-up calls per hour amid the tight Senate race between Sununu and Shaheen.
The tactic was aimed at disrupting efforts by five Democratic offices and a firefighters’ union in Manchester, N.H., to shuttle voters to the polls. The state Republican Party chairman, John Dowd, halted the calls after the first hour, saying he feared that the operation was illegal.
Raymond said it was Tobin who first phoned him 2 1/2 weeks before the election and asked if he could jam Democrats’ phone lines, connecting him with Charles McGee, the executive director of the New Hampshire GOP.
However, he said, when he phoned Tobin after Sununu’s 19,000-vote election victory to tell him that a Manchester, N.H., police officer was looking into the scheme, Tobin responded, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Raymond said he was seething with anger in the ensuing weeks as he read news reports of McGee denying knowledge of the scheme.
In early 2003, Raymond recalled, the state GOP wrote to demand its money back.
“They were going to throw me under the bus,” Raymond wrote, “but first they wanted to check my pockets to see if there was any cash there.”
Raymond and McGee pleaded guilty to harassment charges. Their cooperation with investigators led to Tobin’s conviction.
Raymond predicted that political dirty tricks “will only get tougher, nastier, more brutal” in coming elections.
As for his three months in a Pennsylvania prison, he wrote: “After 10 full years inside the GOP, 90 days among honest criminals wasn’t really any great ordeal.”
© McClatchy Newspapers 2007
The fact that broken and corrupted electoral system remains unchanged should tell us how possible it is to have legitimate national elections in ‘08. Just as in the last electiosn, un-owned candidates are locked out of prescripted “debates” and media coverage as the only candidates we hear are the ones deemed “viable” by the corporate elite.
Liberals will continue ride shotgun in this scam condemning any progressives who dare run as Dims and epecially those that run as independents.
So much for democracy.
can beat ‘em, cheat.
gotta love those “soft-on-corruption” republicans.
in other news: dick cheney is busy setting fire to evidence and rep. wexler’s hearings aren’t coming quickly enough.
www.wexlerwantshearings.com
Is this news? Anyone with half a brain knows the elections are rigged all the way back to the 2000 Presidental election.
Doest matter–the democrats support Bush so they dont care if an election is rigged. If they did care they would have fought the 2000 election and wouldnt have had Kerry say: everyone get behind Bush and support him.
The republicans would never have been so gracious if the shoe was on the other foot.
This just in: Bush & Cheney announce that every citizen who forgo at least 400 hours overtime pay in 2008 gets a free Hummer!(the vehicle… get you mind out of the gutter!)
Blah, blah, blah, global warming is not a real threat, blah, blah, Britney Spears did some stupid thing or other…
Did they stop paying attention yet?
I think so…
There will also be a 5 dollar/barrel gasoline tax, and fuel conversion kits have been declared illegal.
Give up, liberals! It’s hopeless. You’re stupid. Out-manned, out-brained, out-spent, out-schnitzled, and carrying around the concrete blocks to boot of so-called progressives who’ll tell everyone in earshot that your candidate ain’t no different than the others anyway. Why bother? Besides, the Republicans who will remain in power give you something to blog about from 2008 to 2016 and what’s better than that?
Cheating has been the way of the American oligarchy ever since the beginning. They will do whatever they think that they can get away with. They are highly skilled in the art of deception, and always cloak their dastardly deeds with fair words.
Thanks to the insane greed of those bastards, the USA is the #1 obstacle to world peace, a major cause of extreme poverty in the world, and the biggest & most neurotic bully the world has ever seen.
Most people can’t believe it, much less see it - but there really is a major war going on right now between forces of darkness and forces of light. Those who control the US military and state department are definetly not “the good guys” in this battle.
On a PBS program about Nader last night, a clip of Pat Buchanan showed him declaring that he believed that US democracy was “consumer fraud” already in 2000. It’s nice to see confirmation from someone with a totally different perspective.
Hey, if we’re the #1 obstacle to world peace, maybe it’s for the best if we do go under.
Forget your health care and public schooling and social security, middle-class liberals. They’re luxuries the rest of the world can’t afford. Vote Republican and destroy America, for the good of the human race!
Another tactic used to disrupt elections is to try to break up the meetings and gatherings of the opposition. Been around a long time. Both the fascists and the communists used it. Whenever there was a place where people would gather, they’d send in some loud obnoxious thugs. Maybe they would just yell and scream and break up any discussions that were threatening to those who wanted power. Or maybe they’d start a fight. Anyway, the one thing they were deliberately trying to do was to break up any place where opponents of the power-hungry few would gather to meet and discuss.
You still see the tactic today with the deliberate trolls who come on these sites.
Screw the dirty tricks. Lets get back to the good old days: “Last Man Standing”. They could hire thugs and kill each other and the last one left alive gets the office. Instead of campaign adds they can run footage of successful hit-n-run attacks and successful sniper shots against their opponents. On primary day, the political gangs could all gather in the Times Square with axes, knives, truncheons, and chains and, like they said in Gangs of New York, “Let’s settle things for good and all!” Now that’s entertainment. Of course politicos wouldn’t fight themselves, they’d hire Blackwater & CACI.
barely human,
I would agree with you if I could convince myself that a Republican-run US would “go quietly into that good night.” Fat chance. No, a Republican president would flail away in desperation, recklessly starting wars and bombing other nations almost indiscriminately, trying by any means necessary to save the power of the US corporate oligarchy.
Oh, yeah, Barely Human, almost forgot. I don’t have to vote Republican. All I have to do is Vote Dem and watch the computer flip my ballot to the “right” candidate.
Wow, Gangs of New York, what a great system.
Of course, that would mean that any group of citizens that wanted to maybe change the world a bit would have to subject themselves to open assassination attempts and then go battle with clubs and chains all the other gangs.
Gee, that would pretty much mean that no citizens at all would be involved in politics, and the corrupt and the greedy would run everything. In fact, that just sounds like about the lowest form of warlord and gang rule imaginable.
If you really like that idea, I think you can go find it in Somalia. Enjoy!
The Republicans are basically building a gated community that they can lock themselves into. Their policy is to grab everything they can, then fight off the rest of the world for as long as they can. What they won’t do is go peacefully into the dark night.
See what I mean about the trolls. Of course, there whole goal its to make sure that anyone who gets down this far has completely forgotten that the story is about a former Republican political operative who’s going public with the dirty tricks used to rig elections (so they don’t represent the will of the people) and that this has the backing of the high ups in the party.
Or, that you really aren’t supposed to note the part where he says he’s completely apolitical and he’d have done the same job for the Democrats. Which of course means that there is someone just like him who is doing the same job for the Democrats.
Whenever there’s the rule of a greedy minority, the message they have to constantly send out is that everyone else should just give up. Its too dangerous to oppose them. Its too scary. Its too violent. Its inevitable. That message comes in many forms. Sometimes its as blunt as the police raiding homes at 3am with sirens and flashing lights and hauling away one opponent and scaring an entire neighborhood. Sometimes its as subtle as sending trolls out to some blogs to try to distract and break up discussion that might coalesce around an idea like freedom or democracy.
But its the same dark and evil forces. Just different tactics to suit the occasion. As long as the people’s politics stays tightly contained in the controlled corporate parties. Its like workers in a factory where the government or the company controls the union. Its a rigged game to make sure that the energy that injustice creates can’t be formed into something that might create justice.
First time I’ve heard about ANYONE getting busted for this. Guess the ruling crass wouldn’t want to scare off any future operatives.
barely human wrote: Vote Republican and destroy America…
Y’know, that may not be such a bad idea. It would hasten the inevitable train wreck, and subsequent rebirth of the Republic, one that will learn from past mistakes and errors.
This book is already part of the Clinton campaign’s arsenal and will be used when needed. Tricky Dick Nixon could learn a few things from the Clintons who are without peer in dirty smear politics. Just ask Obama. He has had quite an education.
Sorry, one last…in the Nader program on PBS covering 2000 & 2004, lots of Democrat sourgrapes whining, “Ralph lost the WH for poor old Al,” and “Ralph lost the WH for poor old JK.”
Not a word I saw about about how THEY FAILED US as Dems and the Repugs stole the rest. Democrats message to all of us, “You progressives MUST vote Dem and we can ignore you because you have nowhere else to go and we will DESTROY ANY progressive who poses an alternative BECAUSE OUR CORPORATE MASTERS COMMAND IT.” Thank you Todd Gitlin. Thank you Eric Alterman. Go screw yourselves. You’re bought and paid for and anybody who wants to know, knows.
Perfect storm. Find a shady spot and watch the Republic burn to the ground as we become “The Former United States of America.” After the Great Shattering there may be opportunities. Much like our ancient ancestors those cute little lemurs and tarsiers (big brown eyes, curious long fingers, and prehensile tails) had a chance to grow after the dinosaurs became fertilizer.
Only after the dinosaurs were dead, did our life form have a chance to fulfill itself. You know who the dinosaurs are. You even know all our current equivalents for the Krakatoa that killed those dinosaurs. Yeah, it’s December, time for a cruise through the new Arctic Northwest Passage.
Time for the 2nd Age of Man. Gaia’s going to give us some help.
Jesus you guys, don’t take me seriously. I’ve been a part of the Conspiracy since I was a child, long before I even realized there was a conspiracy.
The “Comentary” geography here dependably presents a wide and varied vista of social and political despair. It makes me imagine what it would be like to have been on the Titanic as it sank and to have had the ability to hear what all the passengers were thinking as though their thoughts were belted out loudly. Such voices of blame, anger, regret, sorrow, hopelessness, despair, self-contempt!
The Greg Gorden article underscores the perenial need to monitor our government, representatives and laws and not to trust them out of our sight. That means we must maintain a transparent and representative government. As Arundhati Roy has pointed out in her essays, maintaing a democracy is not coming out of your hole once every four years to vote for a president. It requires constant and participative involvement and vigilance of what is being done by your society and government.
“Raymond…said he earned a graduate degree in political management…solely to make money off politics, and it made no difference to him whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.”
Republicans are clearly the winners in the filthy-politics arena, although the Dems, God bless their little tiny corrupt hearts, are trying. If it wasn’t obvious to him from day one which gang to run with, it’s no wonder he didn’t have enough sense to keep himself out of jail.
CoMarc thou hast written, “Gee, that would pretty much mean that no citizens at all would be involved in politics, and the corrupt and the greedy would run everything. In fact, that just sounds like about the lowest form of warlord and gang rule imaginable.”
Isn’t that what we’ve got? Isn’t that how we got this country (genocide) and built it (forced human labor)? We were a “nation of laws” then too, it was all legal. Aren’t the Euro version of these guys called Royalty? (e.g. psychotic warlords and jumped-up roadhouse thugs?) After you strip away the plastic illusions of “progress”, isn’t this the History of Government for 3000 years (or more) among our Aryan Ancestors in the Global North?
We are merely the Last Aryan Empire. I don’t have to go Somalia to see warlords and gang rule. We got it right here. Now in fairness Denver, Atlanta, Memphis, Akron, Newark, & Flint are not yet smoking rubble and tanks have not yet begun to role down our city streets. Not yet. You have a couple years. They’re coming. Sorry. It is now gravity.
Peace
Remember Kerry’s boast in 2004 that he had hundreds of lawyers on standby to stop Bush from stealing the election?
Remember everything that happened in Ohio?
Kerry did nothing.
It was the Greens and Libertarians that had to fund a recount, and document all the vote fraud there.
The democrats stood by and did NOTHING while another election was stolen.
Why should we vote for them EVER AGAIN?
keyinside:
“Why should we vote for them (the democrats) EVER AGAIN?”
You shouldn’t. It might deprive you of the obligated opportunity to learn so much more –over time, you know– to really like about your empowered conservatives. Why buck a trend when blaming the wrong party is so easy and fun?
If we keep sliding down the slope into the dark ages,maybe one day the leaders will be determined at the end of pistols or swords. Wouldn’t that be interesting!
The U.S. dollar is officially now worth less than the Canadian dollar. A few years ago I can remember getting around $140 Canadian for $100 American dollars before going there on vacation. Thanks to the Rethuglicans (and their Democratic enablers in Congress), the U.S. is going down.
After all of this, how anyone could consider voting for a Republican is beyond me. Furthermore, how the Republicans can believe they can get away with rigging elections anymore is pure arrogance on their part. It helps, I guess, that they get light sentences when caught, e.g. 90 days.
I haven’t heard of anything the Dimocrats have done to prevent more rigged elections by the Rethuglicans. The electronic voting machines credited Bush instead of Kerry when a voter pressed the Kerry button; the button for Bush lit up instead. Kerry clearly won in the Exit Polls, but like a good little compliant Dim he conceded defeat the very next day and didn’t put up a fight.
We have a TWO party system.
Two for the corporations and none for the people.
This gives us the illusion of a democracy.
I’m impressed by how far the GOP and RNC will go to protect James Tobin.
Raymond and McGee are nothing but foot soldiers/mercenaries to the RNC.
Use them up and toss them out. But James Tobin, he’s the establishment.
He’s got connections.
Keep your eye on the guy with the ball.
He’s still making plays.
James Tobin, President Bush 2004 NE campaign chairman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tobin_%28political_operative%29
also see DCI Group, where he is an employee. DCI Group, who dat?
Think Al Gore, Penguin Army YouTube spoof, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore%27s_Penguin_Army_video
There’s more democracy in Burma or Zimbabwe than there is in the United States.
Sorry for cross-posting this, but the Democratic Party also knows a lot about rigging elections and using dirty tricks to disenfranchise voters and keep candidates–who dare to compete with the corporate Democrats–off the ballot. For so-called “Democrats,” they sure have a lot of contempt for democracy, and this is just one example:
DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUED FOR ANTI-DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN TO ILLEGALLY REMOVE THIRD PARTIES FROM BALLOT.
“After the Democrats’ defeat in the 2000 election, Defendants and their co-conspirators decided to try to prevent Mr. Nader from running for president if he announced his candidacy in 2004. Defendants had already settled on a strategy to accomplish this goal when Mr. Nader made his announcement on February 22, 2004. “Our intent was to drain and distract him,” The Ballot Project president Toby Moffett later explained to the Hartford Courant. Defendants agreed and conspired to launch a nationwide legal assault on Mr. Nader’s campaign, which would drain the campaign of money, time and other resources, in a deliberate attempt to use the sheer burden of litigation itself as a means to prevent Mr. Nader from running for public office. Defendants reached this agreement with wrongful intent, before they could possibly have any reason to believe litigation against Mr. Nader was warranted or justified, and before there was any colorable or potential legal basis for such litigation.”
This is just the tip of this ugly iceberg. To read the entire text of the complaint go to: http://www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com/
More info on Democracy Now!:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/31/ralph_nader_files_lawsuit_accusing_democratic
And some people thought only Republicans did this stuff. Right.
Daniel David,
keyinside made a really good point, why do you respond with sarcasm? In the 2000 election, the Congressional Black Caucus needed just one vote from one senator to challenge the Florida result. How many Democratic senators came forward? None. Those were your guys, your party. Then we found out that Florida went to Bush, mainly because black voters were illegally disenfranchised. Having learned that lesson, Kerry promises to never let it happen again. What happened? Just as keyinside described. Then we find out that Ohio went to Kerry. Do you understand how we become cynical?
I’ll bet Afghani and Iraqi people(s) can’t wait to have all this PLUS cable TV….
re bidelo 3:14pm
Q: “why do you respond with sarcasm?”
A: because that’s what’s left after all the sophistry and spin has been refuted.
Why all this PLUS cable TV when they have superfine Afghani hash?
threadjack
bidelo,
Indeed, keyinside made a good point, one, in fact, that has been made over and over and over at CD. And, that point being made does not diminish the fairly good chance we see for Republicans to get away with it again.
I’m frankly tired of the “give up” nonsense that is the essence of supporting fringe candidates who cannot win or no candidates at all, just in order to somehow feel better. There are real issues, and real peoples’ lives and futures at stake in the 2008 election. The “drop out and pout” stuff just isn’t rational nor is it cerebral heroism on some “higher level” that no one really gets.As for sarcasm, I didn’t used to do it much. But take a good look at CD posts and see what’s in vogue here.
As for good ole hazmat (12/19 3.39p), he/she has been zinging ‘em over ever since I arrived at CD. Shall we believe that the Supreme Court, Social Security, Medicare, the agencies, the constitutional trespasses of the last seven years, foreign policy, tax giveaways to corporations, the Congressional agenda, and the power of Executive Order are all “sophistry and spin that has been refuted”? Only refuted in the minds of the “choir” that this bunch of cynics preaches to.
Greg Palast wrote of election fraud in “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” regarding the 2000 election cycle. There have been numerous reports about what happened in Ohio in 2004 and you can bet it will continue. Anyone remember the rebublican “operative” in the Florida recount banging on the doors? Our Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts was there, training those bastards on how to throw the election to Bush… and see how he was rewarded.
It’s going to take a whole lotta fight to stop these guys and that means not electing blue dawg dems — we need more progressives in ‘08.
Daniel, I understand the need for pragmatism, and you are brave to be the virtual lone voice for it on this forum. But look at it from the progressive’s viewpoint. A lot of us trusted Kerry that he would stand up if Florida happened all over again, like he said he would. We didn’t much like his expedient pro-war vote, but we held our noses and voted for him anyway. But when push came to shove, he rolled over like a pussy cat. That’s where pragmatism got us: Mr. “electable”, the unelectable, who enabled Bush to get a second term. Why wasn’t he thinking of “real issues, and real peoples’ lives and futures” at that time? You become cynical. Once bitten, twice shy, as it were. Are we to vote for Hillary or Obama or whomever in 2008, just to see it happen all over again? Or are we to make a big dent in the status quo to force the Democrats to listen to us for once?
According to Karlheinz Schreiber, Franz Strauss gave money to Schreiber money to travel the world and elect Conservatives.
He helped get Mulroney elected.
I wonder about Reagan/Bush.
I wonder about Magaret Thatcher the iron lady.
Ron Paul had a monumental donation on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Did anyone see it covered in your local paper, your local station, anywhere?
Does the establishment think we’re stupid? The fact that no one is covering Dr. Paul is evidence enough of what’s going on here.
Huckabee was invited to talk to the CFR in the past. In fact, they printed his speech in their publication. Does that tell you anything?
If anyone looks to the media for their information on a candidate, they should do us all a favor and stay home.
where is helix? I want to know helix’s ideas for improving the system. Maybe they have been posted before, but not in my recollection. Specific ideas for what ought to be done.
Maybe it is just too obvious. All votes should have some sort of paper record. Individuals from the community should be at the voting location to make sure everything is done properly. Plus, there is no rush..is there? Why do we need the results in hours. Lets take a few days if that is what it takes. Raise questions if things don’t seem as they ought. If the vote isn’t fair, then don’t expect anything else to be.
bidelo,
You’re right that John Kerry was a disappointment, and was even “selected” by the wrong people (Iowa momentum) for the wrong reason (supposedly being more “military” than Bush.) Oops. Wrong guy. Wrong priorities.
No risk of that with Obama or Edwards. Hillary? Gosh, who knows? She’s losing momentum and Iowa and South Carolina may un-select her.
I consider myself a progressive too, but not a believer that third parties can get anything done. I’m banking on the idea of putting the Dems in a total power position and then demanding the progressive agenda when they have no filibuster and veto threats to use as excuses for not passing the progressive agenda. They are insecure now, and acting so. If we can get them to a two-year period of total political security, I think (hope, at least) that public demand will rise up and carry the day.
The repulicans aren’t going to steal the next election because they don’t need to. I had an epiphany the other day that Hillary is the same candidate that Bush was in 2000. A candidate with a farmiliar name from 2 terms before, who has massive defense industry backing, breaks several fundraising records and is touted as the front runner from the beginning. Mitt Romney is the republican version of John Kerry, a former Massachussetts governer known for changing his opinions on issues after the fact. He even looks a little like Kerry.
My guess is that Hillary beats out Romney amid allegations that she rigged elections.
It’s Coke and Pepsi my friends. Republicans are Coca-Cola, the old establishment, the one that people who have always drank Coke will continue to drink. Democrats are Pepsi, the supposed “alternative”, the choice of a new generation. And at first sip, it does taste better, because it’s sweeter. But when you finish with the can, all your left with is rotten teeth either way.
Daniel David,
That’s putting a lot of faith into people that have proven that they don’t care about what people think.
That’s like saying, I will vote for Hillary because I believe, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, that she will be a progressive voice once elected.
Why don’t you believe in third parties? I think that one of our biggest political problems today is that we only have two parties. It allows those in power to force us to vote for the lesser of two evils.
A great big “Well, duh!” to this one. It has been obvious for years that the Republican party has ruthlessly pursued electoral fraud without opposition from the Democrats.
No wonder that in the face of evidence, all that Democratic partisans can offer is empty sarcasm and indignation.
“I’m banking on the idea of putting the Dems in a total power position and then demanding the progressive agenda when they have no filibuster and veto threats to use as excuses for not passing the progressive agenda.” — Daniel David
Daniel, The Dems honestly don’t give a crap what you or I or progressives want. They know that you “don’t believe in third parties” and have nowhere else to go no matter what they do. How many times do you have to get screwed before you get beyond your delusion that the Dims will aver respond to pressure from the left. As long as you have no alternative, they will take you for granted and as long as they are beholden to corporations for campaign financing they will represent corporate interests.
Honestly, I feel more frustrated by liberals than I do by no-nothing wing-nuts.
Thank you Jaded Prole, you said what I was trying to say, only better.
So, some Dem-bashers here call Democrats scum for (hypothetically) engaging in dirty tricks just like Republicans do, and some call Democrats wimps for not being aggressive like the Republicans.
Actually, there is no doubt that the Democratic Party has historically engaged in ballot-stuffing and personally, I’m all for efforts to stop people like Mr. Nader from splitting the Left and delivering elections to the Republicans. In fact, I’d be for formalizing the two-party system as a runoff system by banning third parties - while making party officials as well as candidates directly elected by the people.
But anyway, the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that in recent elections it is the Republican Party which has used a variety of tricks on a massive scale - purging voter rolls, manipulating the number of voting machines at polling places, imposing ID requirements that unfairly burden poor people, deploying police to intimidate voters, bad ballots (Fla 2000), these and other fraudulent phone calls, on and on - while the Democratic Party has engaged in little if any of this.
And if you want to crack down on dirty tricks and have a proposal to do so, guess which of the two parties is most likely to support your idea. Guess which party the overwhelming majority of support for paper-ballot laws comes from, for example.
As I watched the “FOX ATTACKS! Edwards and Obama” YouTube video http://foxattacks.com/senators?utm_source=rgemail, I had the distinct image of Rupert Murdock looming above his flock of newscasters like a giant puppeteer, pulling their strings and speaking words out of their mouths. His intent being to get Hilary Clinton elected because he thinks he has more control over her than any other Democratic candidate. If she bends to his will, he can get her elected. If she opposes him, he can assassinate her character and destroy the possibility of her becoming the first female American president.
Watching the current Fox attack on Edwards and Obama you have to wonder how else powerful business and political interests and the mainstream media are trying to limit and focus our voting options. Have they already succeeded in freezing out candidates like Dennis Kucinich, the candidate who most opposes special interests?
Are Republicans, the mainstream media, big business and the Democratic leadership alike (unconsciously?) conspiring to limit the public’s exposure to candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul by not asking them questions in political debates, and in some cases, refusing to include them in debates at all? We know the mainstream media pays little or no attention to these candidates other than to talk about Kucinich’ UFO experience, his wife or Ron Paul’s fund raising ability.
Can we, the vast majority of Americans, allow a few powerful undeveloped souls, who are overly ambitious and self-serving, control decisions and events in our country in ways that benefit them at the expense of everyone else? It’s time for us to stand up for ourselves and vote our own conscience.
Which candidate best represents the will of the American people? We need to ignore the will of the few who would control it all and think about what’s going to work best for all of us, including nature because nature can survive without us but we can’t survive without nature. “United we stand, divided we fall.”
What’s going to work best for ALL of us?
Speaking of GOP election theft,If you have not read this book yet, I encourage you to do so:
‘Armed Madhouse’ by Greg Palast
www.gregpalast.com
It will make you sick
The Constitution should never have been amended from the original that had the winner president and second place vice president.
There might be some entertainment value in that scenario.
“I’m banking on the idea of putting the Dems in a total power position…”
“In fact, I’d be for formalizing the two-party system as a runoff system by banning third parties…”
And now it’s the Left foot’s turn to walk us one step closer to totalitarianism!
And he is still making money from politics. Don’t buy his book. What another unethical republican like that is news.
You know what I would like to see? Every contributing writer on Common dreams all calling for impeachment of the president at the same time. One goal.
If the GOP top dogs would invest as much energy in responsible good governing as they do in electioneering (both fair and crooked), America’s democracy would not be in the current sorry state.
I come to these questions from a little different perspective. Take a look at the prison system in America. It costs a small fortune to run. Then look at the population under lock up, it is made up of various gangs. These same gangs are also on the outside in your major , middle, & smaller urban area’s. If you follow the way the media defines them, you would think that they never get along. Nonsense! They cooperate all the time. You are starting to find these same groups in many of your smaller rural areas. These groups come out of our prisons with a greater understanding of the political power structure.
I find this phenomena interesting in view of current individuals running for office. Now none of these ex- felons can vote, they could care less about these Dems and Repubs.. Who speaks for them?
Now lets look at those in poverty in the United States and who speaks for this group! Well let me tell you that some of these same gangs are controlling neighborhoods of high poverty. In many cases the police, because they are under maned, and outgunned, have uneasy understandings in these areas.
One must look at the matrix of the new America, and not dispair, but rather keep your powder dry.
How much longer can this economy continue in its current frenzy, and its march to the bottom. The day of reckoning will be upon us. Just make sure you are able to be self- reliant.
Elizabeth Kucinich (watch all 10) addresses the voting situation in this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ag1WsN2_mU&feature=PlayList&p=565163A062A561C2&index=0
pfutrell, thanks for the link. Elizabeth would make an awesome first lady.
So why is Sununu allowed to stay in the Senate with this type of criminal activity that put him IN it?
If all of these guys went to jail because this was done, and the margin of Sununu’s win was probably because of it, he should resign or be indicted himself if he was a part of it. It’s hard to imagine that he wasn’t given his past connections.///
Say, COMarc!
Re: your comment, 19 December, 12:43 p.m.
Some of those lousy trolls infest foreign sites, too.
Ever read The Scotsman online? There, they attempt to shift the ‘conversation’ by making personal attacks on ‘liberal’ (i.e., anti-Bush) posters - particularly Americans. Funny, they never realize how transparent the ploy is.
Nader2000:
“So, some Dem-bashers here call Democrats scum for (hypothetically) engaging in dirty tricks just like Republicans do, and some call Democrats wimps for not being aggressive like the Republicans.”
Once again, you misconstrue what is a rather obvious point.
I call the Democrats “complicit.” I do not use minimizing, playground-style language like “wimps.” The integrity of the vote deserves better than such a cheap rhetorical maneuver. In a political context, the term you chose too closely resembles the Republican reflex to label all dissent as “whining.”
In [u]The Betrayal of America[/u], Vincent Buglosi makes clear the Gore campaign’s anemic and inept handling of the case in the Supreme Court’s treasonous decision in Bush v Gore. That was, of course, in the wake of the 2000 election and fraud.
Since then, as others have pointed out, the Democrats have gone along with Republican electoral fraud, notably in Ohio, while reserving their energies for keeping Greens off the ballot.
Also, it isn’t the Republican manner of aggressiveness that I wish to see. Rather, the nation, the Constitution, rationality, and decency all need to see the Democrats oppose electoral fraud. This is a matter of substance, not style.
Something so basic is not hard to understand.
“And if you want to crack down on dirty tricks and have a proposal to do so, guess which of the two parties is most likely to support your idea. Guess which party the overwhelming majority of support for paper-ballot laws comes from, for example.”
If Florida and Ohio, among other things, are an indicator, then the evidence is against you.
Have a bipartisan day.
A two party system is not even politics. Free enterprise + Democracy = votes for sale. Never worked, never will, as long as the market determines everything.
Daniel David, you wrote: “Give up, liberals! It’s hopeless. You’re stupid. Out-manned, out-brained, out-spent, out-schnitzled, and carrying around the concrete blocks to boot of so-called progressives who’ll tell everyone in earshot that your candidate ain’t no different than the others anyway. Why bother? Besides, the Republicans who will remain in power give you something to blog about from 2008 to 2016 and what’s better than that?”
Ha, ha, DD, but one reason for having the Dems in power is that they’re obviously more timid than the GOP and therefore more likely to listen to the people. As H.L. Mencken once said, “The only good bureaucrat [or politician] is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.” As the Dems have shown, they don’t have much fight — that’s good for the people who own the government. Also, with our impending economic collapse, Dems are more likely to use the government to help the citizenry; as Herbert Hoover demonstrated and the current crop of Republicans confirm, making happy talk announcements about the great economy doesn’t serve to make things better for anyone.
Keyinside, yes, I also recall those promises to ‘fight for every vote’ and not only did John Kerry have the money for court challenges and refuse to follow the advice of his people in Ohio who were begging him to challenge the results, but he’s since lied about it. He told Mark Crispin Miller, author of The Bush Dyslexicon and How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them), that he knew Ohio was stolen, yet when Miller mentioned this in public, Kerry denied he had said it. Once Kerry may have been a hero, but too many years in Washington and politics turned him into an equivocating creep.
Bidelo, a slight correction to your comment: Florida, and the election, went to Al Gore, if the all the Florida ballots had been recounted according to state law, as ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore, the lawsuit that put Bush in office, was the US Supreme Court illegally over-ruling the recount decision of the Florida court, decidely not allowed by the Constitution which says that elections are to be settled by the state electoral college vote or the Congress. In November of 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, most American newpapers buried in the back pages (or didn’t print at all) the story that, according to a state-wide recount of the Florida vote as ordered by the Fla. SC, Gore won the state. Only Reuters and the BBC did full stories on the results of that recount. Incidentally, ironically, Sen. Al Gore voted to put Antonin Scalia on the US SC — that came back to haunt him.
BTW, Lillulu, around the country some state and local Dems have been getting laws passed for a paper trail on computerized voting equipment, the MSM just doesn’t cover those stories much. I think we should go back to easy-to-read paper ballots with an ‘X’ or checkmark; CVE with ‘proprietary codes’ that can’t be read by anyone but the manufacturer have no place in democratic elections, and the Dems should have made an issue of this nationally.
As Jamaz and Sinnerjizm have pointed out, Greg Palast has some great articles on the theft of both the 2000 and 2004 elections, as well as Mark Crispin Miller: http://www.alternet.org/story/31217/
To all those saying “I don’t believe in third parties, I want to put the dems in unassailable majorities and then demand a progressive agend.”
You are deluding yourselves.
You will not get universal healthcare, you will not get free college, you will not get peace in Iraq, you will not get campaign finance reform, nor will you get any of the other issues you want advanced.
If you vote for candidates who are incapable of giving you what you want, don’t bitch when you don’t get it.
It seems to me one of the biggest problems are with voters in this country! Leaving all the Republican dirty tricks unmentioned. Voter’s don’t seem to mind all the corruption. Because they continue to vote the same corrupt mess right back into office. They don’t call the people who are guilty of fraud to account for their crimes. Or question an election like the 2000 one but just quietly accept it. When the Republican’s bully their way in they are let get away with it. Because most voters allow themselves to be slapped down by Republican attack dogs. They go along their merry way deluding themselves that there isn’t any difference between the parties anymore. When we all know subconsciously there is a big difference. If the Democrats cheated the way the Republican’s are there would be no end to the hell that would be raised. I solved the problem quite a few years ago. I don’t ever vote Republican even if the candidate looks half way moderate. Because in order to get along in the Republican party they have to toe the party line. Eventually they all become tainted by the corrupt RNC if they get anywhere in the party. If not they get steam rolled out of the party like our former Lieutenant Governor who was moderate. If all the people complaining would put Republican’s on their ‘do not vote for under any circumstances’ list. It wouldn’t take losing many elections for these people to get their act straightened out. But, I realize that won’t ever happen as long as people keep equating Democrats with Republican’s and keep voting for them! It will continue to be the same old mess until there is no longer a Democracy period. Because the Republican’s will continue to cheat as long as they are let get away with it.
re 12/19 3:57pm
the first time i responded to one of this person’s posts (to the effect of “you must elect democrats”), i challenged him to identify any positives that had come as a result of the 2006 elections which did just that. his reply bounced away from that to say simply “elect more democrats.” at that point i realized what i was dealing with: someone with a product to pitch, a REALLY short list of talking points, and the impervious hide of an old-school shoe-leather salesman.
others such as RichM, seriousprofessor and CoMarc have refuted his arguments, such as they are, categorically and eloquently and REPEATEDLY, and for their troubles have been called cynics, dreamers and fools. a fair observer would judge them the winners of each exchange, but no matter. he’s relentlessly on message and he’s here to stay, and no amount of facts will deter him from his job trying to keep us all in line.
we get it. he wants everybody to vote his way (and then go home and hope for the best, i suppose). but some of us aren’t going to do that, for reasons we’ve clearly stated and which we find sufficient, so he preemptively blames us, and not those in actual positions of power, for all the evils we’ve witnessed and for all those yet to come.
rational discourse and respectful exchange having failed utterly to alter these dynamics, what’s left but the occasional zinger? how else does one deal with one of the jehovah’s witnesses of politics?
“how else does one deal with one of the jehovah’s witnesses of politics?”
There’s nothing more subversive than a good example.
I refuse to approach this as a black and white issue. I won’t vote for only Democrats, no matter which Democrat, or to never vote for any Democrat, no matter which Democrat. As I’ve said before, I’d vote for Kucinich, probably Edwards, possibly Obama, but absolutely not Clinton. There are good Democats and bad Democrats, and if we want to improve that party, don’t support the bad ones.
Who are the bad ones? Nietzsche wrote, “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.” Some Democrats use the Republican party against independents and third parties almost exactly like Republicans use the Islamofascists against the Democrats–as en excuse to do wrong in the name of necessity–and just as the Republicans have become like the Islamofascists, some Democrats are becoming like the Republicans. There’s even science to back this up: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060124_political_decisions.html
That kind of binary thinking is the problem. Two party stability prevents change.
Ban third parties but not the party caught fixing elections? That’s like shooting immigrants because your job was sent overseas. And that’s the kind of Democrat I will never vote for.
!! Welcome to a Tyranny/Dictatorship in the name of democracy !!
The definintion of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Trying to accomplish the sweeping political change needed in this country by voting for Democrats is insanity.
To the poster who said give them the presidency and a veto proof Congress I say two things: 1993, and when they repeat that performance, what then?
Hats off to a fellow reformed convict, Mr. Raymond! Not.
As much as I am into small “c” christian redemption, I
just feel a little queasy reading about how another crook
is parlaying his crimeways into the latest political tell all holiday read crap tome.
I am sure all the profits are going to a voter registration effort in the community he harmed in NH, right? Maybe I’m just naive.
There ought to be the equivalent of a Son of Sam law for political convicts. You remember Sam/David Berkowitz? He was the psycho-killer from the 70’s who terrorized NYC and, once convicted and doing hard time, was prevented from making any dough by telling his bloody crazed biography.
Well there should be a way to keep political cons out of the tell-all, book/movie deal racket, unless their pelf goes to those that they harmed.
Mr. Raymond isn’t just in this for the money, is he? Afterall, he did say he was a Repug for 10 years and would have been a Demoncrat if the price was right.
Sounds shifty…looks shady…smells fishy…
Yay, there’s 1 confession. Now we need some Diebold confessions for Ohio and other states. Heck, where I live, 1 democrat county amazingly voted for Bush in amazingly precisely the numbers that voted against cock fighting the previous spring. But was this ever seriously investigated? Naw. Republicans wouldn’t rig voting machines! They’re Christians!!
You want to stop election fraud. Make a law to deport their butts, and strip them of their citizenship. To hell with the 90 days.
Coffeelover,,,,,
What sort of a country do you live in? A guy confesses to have rigged the election, writes a book about it, and still walks free. Don’t you have any laws? Are you not mad that by rigging the election he has violated your rights?
Come to think of it, it really makes no difference if someone rigs the 2008 presidential election. By now you should know why. Because you’ve probably gone through that experience quite a few times. They prop up two candidates in your face, one Republican and the other a Democrat, and you are to choose one of them. What a “choice”. How about a choice to eat grass or die? And you call that joke free election?
Of course, you also have the choice not to vote for any of the two pre-arranged, usually rich, candidates. You also have the choice to vote for a third party, which is also no choice at all. Since when in your lifetime did a third party candidate end in the White House?
So, don’t worry about rigged elections because the entire system is rigged. If you haven’t noticed it by now, brother, you’re beyond help!
Ok…send in the rebel-clowns I see a theatrical preformance here.
“Since when in your lifetime did a third party candidate end in the White House?” The only answer is, “NOT YET. Maybe this time.” If not this time, we’ll try again and again until timing converges with effort and we make it happen. We are fighting to establish a multiparty democratic system in place of the corporate-imperialist duopoly, which owes its allegiance to Mammon, not the people of the United States. We will keep banging on the door of democracy until the duopolists are forced to let us inside and take our rightful seat at the table. We will continue to build the third-party movement because it is the right thing to do–and to fail to make every effort to change the present unjust system is to condone and help perpetuate its injustice.
Saila’s reasoning reminds one of comments like:
Q: Slavery is too rooted in American Southern culture to ever be banned. You’ll never change it, so why even try?
A: Because it is the right thing to do–and to fail to make every effort to change this unjust system is to condone and help perpetuate the injustice.
Q: Women haven’t got the right to vote because they have no understanding of politics– and men control the political system, so why bother demanding universal suffrage? You will never change the system, so why even try?
A: Because it is the right thing to do–and to fail to make every effort to change this unjust system is to condone and help perpetuate the injustice.
Q: The monied interests have all the power, and they will never accept an 8-hour day, the end of child labor and a minimum wage. This is the capitalist system, and it will never change, so why waste your time and energy when you are doomed to fail?
A: Because it is the right thing to do–and to fail to make every effort to change this unjust system is to condone and help perpetuate the injustice.
Q: Segregation is a fact in America. It will never change. The white power structure will never stand for integration. So why bother trying to change this racist system when “everyone knows” it is an impossible goal?
A: Because it is the right thing to do–and to fail to make every effort to change this unjust system is to condone and help perpetuate the injustice.
Just because something bad in society has not YET been set right does not mean that it cannot be successfully challenged and reformed. It is deplorable that someone visiting a progressive website like Common Dreams would use fatalism as an excuse for inaction in the face of injustice. All the questions above could have been asked by the vast majority of Americans at different times in our history, and the efforts of abolitionists, suffragists, labor organizers and civil rights activists were ridiculed by people like Saila who are enemies of justice and defenders of the status quo–in this case the corporate-imperialist duopoly.
P.S. Anyone who refuses to demand fair, legal and honest elections, just because we don’t have them now, is REALLY part of the problem. It is perverse that someone would actually WANT unfree, illegal and dishonest elections in this country–and be willing to work to keep them that way.
barelyhuman writes:
> “some Democrats are becoming like the Republicans. There’s even science to back this up: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060124_political_decisions.html”
The link is to an article whose title tells you everything you need to know about it: “Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds”
Gee, who else is adept at ignoring facts? Let’s see, there are independents, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, and oh, well, just about everybody, seems to me. Particularly just about everybody posting here.
> “Two party stability prevents change.”
Since “stability” is in some sense the opposite of change, I guess that’s a tautology. However, I am not aware of any argument that the number of parties being two is the cause of stasis, or that more parties (if that were a possible situation) would mean more change.
> “Ban third parties but not the party caught fixing elections?”
The Republican and Democratic parties are too large, too loose and too diverse to hold them accountable as bodies for the actions of some people within them. If the RNC or DNC were directly implicated, it might be appropriate to take some action against them, but more likely, the correct way to respond to vote-rigging is to prosecute the individuals responsible and enact further safeguards to prevent it occurring in the future and detect it if it does occur.
My proposal to ban third parties would be to also require that the party organizations be run in an open and accountable way, with officers elected directly by the voters registered with the party. The party organizations would be banned from selecting candidates or interfering in primary elections, and party nominees would always be the choice of the voters in the primary election process. This would be in effect a final formalization of what is already almost a completely formal structure in which the general election serves as a runoff election, and the parties are just giant coalitions of the left and right halves of the electorate.
The deal would be to guarantee that everyone has a fair shake in the two-party system, in exchange for acknowledging that this system is the only game in town. So there would no longer be any question that progressives can vie for influence and leadership in the Democratic party without fear that they will be unfairly excluded. That is almost the situation today; my proposal would just be to formalize it by law.
I don’t want to sound too much like other unrealistic would-be remakers of the American political order, so I’m not pushing my ban-third-parties idea too hard, but I’m hoping it at least helps people to understand that the two-party system is not the cause of our conservative and corporate-dominated politics, nor is a third party the solution.
Saila- I don’t know what progressive democracy you hail from, but apparently you don’t have any insight whatsoever into how politics works in the USA, nor any useful advice to offer.
“The link is to an article whose title tells you everything you need to know about it: “Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds”
No, that’s not all you need to know about it, by far. I suggest readers of this thread read the article, rather than ignore it as you seem to be suggesting. I quote:
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.
Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.
The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.
“None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,” Westen said. “Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.”
Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.
The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.
The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.
“The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,” Westen said.
But you are correct that indepedents and third party diehards are almost just as susceptible (I say almost because they don’t recieve as much societal positive reinforcement in their conditioning). I agree that the automatic refusal to vote for any Democrat (or any Republican, for that matter) based just on party affiliation is an irrational decision. But the opposite automatism is just as irrational, and, as the article suggests, is the same kind of addictive emotional response.
However, I am not aware of any argument that the number of parties being two is the cause of stasis, or that more parties (if that were a possible situation) would mean more change.
Not aware of any argument? I suspect you are ignoring new data because of calcified beliefs. I’ve read plenty, and some of them make sense. Systems dynamics suggests to me that any fixed number of parties will eventually settle into a stable pattern which will resist changes to that system, although parties in the system will gradually change positions (e.g. the Republican party moving from its abolitionist roots to its current racism). I think multi-party systems in Europe and elsewhere are evidence that weak parties don’t hinder change as much, and are certainly proof that such situations are possible. Of course the abolition of all parties might be the best solution, as some of the founding fathers believed, but no, I’m not holding my breath for that.
If the RNC or DNC were directly implicated, it might be appropriate to take some action against them,
I’d say it would definitely be appropriate.
My proposal to ban third parties would be to also require that the party organizations be run in an open and accountable way, with officers elected directly by the voters registered with the party. The party organizations would be banned from selecting candidates or interfering in primary elections, and party nominees would always be the choice of the voters in the primary election process.
We don’t allow corporations to police themselves or each other–if the two parties were in complete control by law as you suggest, who would police them? Themselves? Each other? I suppose you think they do a good job of it now, but I don’t.
So there would no longer be any question that progressives can vie for influence and leadership in the Democratic party without fear that they will be unfairly excluded. That is almost the situation today; my proposal would just be to formalize it by law.
I believe the exclusion of Kucinich in the last debate proves you wrong.
I’m hoping it at least helps people to understand that the two-party system is not the cause of our conservative and corporate-dominated politics, nor is a third party the solution.
I don’t think the two-party system is the sole cause, but neither do I think one can argue that corporations have not paid for both parties and shaped their leadership. Thus, while not the sole cause, it is a protective mechanism. Weakening both parties and corporations is essential to the solution. And frankly, allowing two powerful political cartels to exist while not allowing citizens to form their own is, simply, political oppression. It would definitely work in preserving itself and it’s own power, but I would support taking up arms against it.
A question: What would you propose be the legal ramifications for those attempting to form third parties under your system?
Oh yes, I think the article I linked to and quoted shows how having only a single opponent is the best environment for political calcification, even on a neurological level. That’s why states with only one party have to scapegoat minority groups or attack other states, why some Democrats think Nader is actually employed by the Republicans, why Republicans lump liberals with Islamofascists, and why some progressives lump all Democrats in with the Republicans. These are attempts to create a binary, black and white, us versus them worldview. It’s a reaction of the more primitive parts of our brains, and when we’re in that war zone, we don’t have time to look at ourselves or change, except to destroy the enemy. This mindset is the problem, and the two party system plays into it perfectly. The more players there are, the less likely we are to get stuck in a vicious circle.
Diversity is crucial in politics, just as it is in biology.
Nader2000 writes:
“My proposal to ban third parties…”
One more time: being compelled to vote for candidates whose positions are opposed to yours makes a farce out of electoral politics.
I’ll stick with freedom of assembly, thanks.
I think the real question is why don’t half the people vote? Most likely because there is nothing adversive that will be removed (negatively reinforcing the behavior of voting) and nothing positive will be achived. (no reward) It means the voter does not have the ability or motivation to make voting have positive consequences. In this process we are asked to be corporate citizens, well not really asked, told. Corporations determine pretty much everything, what you eat, where you live, how you work, and pretty much how you view your world. There is little wonder that people have a hard time thinking for themselves.
Scientists can do the research but someone has to frame the guestion and interpret the results. I think the study mentioned here demonstrats that people take a defensive posture when viewing political canidates. That issues have already been decided by someone else and they don’t have to use thier brains to come to that conclusion.
bildad December 20th, 2007 8:06 pm,
bildad, you supplied too many examples, but unfortunately none was relevant to the point I had raised. Suppose every one does his best to prevent the election from being rigged. What do you then get in that honest election: Someone like Hillary or Juliani, right.
What I had said was forget about the rigged election because the system itself sucks. I will give a relevant example. Suppose one of your family members is having a surgical operation, and you’re insisting that all surgical instruments should be sterilized. I say forget about sterilization because the guy performing the surgery is only a cab driver.
The two-party system sucks because they tend to melt into one party. I don’t think you need me to give an example. Well, on second thought, I think I should give you an example: Just look at the two-party system in the U.S.