We are treated to examples of very very close elections where a very few votes made the difference, sometimes just one: that is NOT an indication that your vote counts. Quite the opposite, your vote is more like a lottery.
Consider, in a contest where the outcome is 4000 to 4001: the ONLY vote that counted, if any counted at all? Just the one. The other 8000 were like packing peanuts in a Fed Ex box.
When the result reflects your vote, when there is some proportionality, THEN your vote counts. When it's just another bean in the jar? Nah.
Such closely contested elections are anathema to democracy, a simple two party winner take all. The signs indicate the real need for a third or fourth party to reflect the wide variations in opinion, being dumbed down to two parties heading towards a one party system.
We see that the assault weapons ban has NO supporters in congress: Mr. Daschle who dearly wants his job is nowhere to be seen. Scattered about are the remnants of something like a Shriners convention, except, it was the NRA, and they didn't wear funny hats.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Of course I don't find such arguments at all helpful. Here we are faced with a Bush second term and turning people off from voting does not help the cause in his defeat (unless you are turning away the Christian wrong). In an election that is decided 4000 to 4001 there were 8001 important votes. I understand the problems of a winner take all system and I think they should be addressed. But saying people’s votes don't count this close to a very important election is only feeding into Karl Rove's plan.
Karl has eaten Jerry's brain.
Post a Comment