Tuesday, October 15, 1996
VOTING:
Unless you have bucks, your check on the ballot does not
matter"If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to
complain."
-Anonymous moron
Contrary to current propaganda campaigns, voting is almost
completely useless. If marking your ballot had significant
consequences, then I would heartily endorse it. But the political
effects of voting are negligible in the long run.
Essentially, voting is now like getting a coupon for your choice
of chocolate-chip ice cream or cookies ‘n’ cream ice cream. The
difference between the two is minuscule: a slight difference in
texture and taste of the brown chunks in the identical vanilla ice
cream on identical cones.
If one likes neither flavor, one may choose to leave their
coupon unredeemed or burn it in symbolic rebellion. My choice will
be to vote for Ralph Nader of the Green Party. I consider this
analogous to trading in my coupon for the 1/20 of one cent cash
value. I’m just voting for him as a symbol. He is the only
candidate I know of (and I haven’t done much research) who has
dedicated his life to service.
I have heard one interesting alternative to our current
one-choice-per-ballot voting method: instead of choosing one winner
and multiple losers, the voters rank the candidates in order of
their preference.
This strategy eliminates the "I’m not going to vote for a third
party candidate because it’s a waste of a vote" syndrome. You’d get
many votes, although some would be worth more than others.
This might also help to eliminate some of the combat and dueling
of the campaigns, with victors and victims. Perhaps you could use
your "big vote" (highest priority candidate) to vote for the
Democrat or Republican, and then vote for less probable candidates
with your subsequent votes, giving them something of a chance. I
would certainly applaud voting reform, but I fear its effects would
only seem a drop of clean water in a poisoned ocean.
Thinking that you can change the country by changing the
president is like fixing your burnt-out car engine by changing your
dangling pine tree air-freshener.
We would still have the same economic system, governmental
system, wealthy elites, manipulative media, population, internal
strife, ad infinitum. Don’t be fooled by the eMpTyV nonsense about
"your vote is your voice"; you have every facet of your life in
which to declare your views and try to change the world around you.
I think it’s pathetic that people vote or even mildly
support/campaign for a certain candidate, and they consider that to
be their voice.
If you are sincerely trying to make your country a better place,
don’t put your efforts into making the government fix everything.
Go feed a homeless guy, donate time and/or money to charity,
organize local organizations to try to solve problems. Community
service is certainly a noble task. Before our society got so out of
control, if one did not help one’s own community, then one’s own
community would have failed. Perhaps this still holds true and the
failure just takes longer to manifest …
If you still feel that your voice is best felt in the political
arena, than go further than the punch cards: talk to people,
debate, protest, write letters to your newspaper, your congressmen
… oh, who am I kidding. We’re doomed.
Voting validates the current dysfunctional system, and changing
the one who holds this system’s reins doesn’t help much. Let me
explain my general understanding of how our government works.
Wealthy individuals and corporations (through selective funding
of campaigns) choose candidates who will do what the companies want
them to do, candidates for both the Republican and Democratic
parties (in roulette, if you bet on both red and black, you can’t
lose). The candidates then fabricate issues and vaguely debate
policies that are usually trivial and meaningless in the grand
scheme of things (i.e., debating violence on television while
taking no action against non-fictional violence in the
country).
The half of the country that bothers to vote ratifies one
candidate or the other. These candidates jet to the capitols,
congratulating the voters on their wise choice and vow that
everything will be different, now that they are in office.
After they arrive, their actions are generally obscured to the
point that the citizenry has no idea if they are indeed
accomplishing any of their "important" goals. The news media knows
that the people don’t care enough about politics to watch the long
and complex policy debates, and, therefore, its coverage is
minimal.
If you are an average citizen, you get to vote for these
"representatives," but if you’re rich, you have a chance to vote
much more often.
I offer the story of Alan Cranston and the $10,000 breakfast
(this story will be fudged a bit for creative flair, and to cover
my own memory holes). This tale was told to me by my U.S. history
teacher in high school. Before his career in education, he was
assistant to the minority whip in the U.S. House of Representatives
(or some such position fitting his weaselly demeanor).
Anyhow, according to this fellow, it seems that Sen. Alan
Cranston would often break the fast with "concerned citizens,"
a.k.a. wealthy corporate representatives or lobbyists. There was a
price tag attached to these morning meetings: one campaign check
for $10,000. While munching their pancakes and slurping their
coffee, the constituents would tell their representative how they
felt on a given issue, like, "Sen. Cranston, we feel that the
Environmental Protection Act is bad, because it means that we have
to pay money to store our toxic sludge, instead of dumping it in
the reservoir for free, like we used to," or something like that.
Sen. Cranston would nod sagely at his dining companions, and thank
them for their input. He would then leave for a hard days work, and
"take their opinion into consideration" when voting on the bill
discussed.
I imagine that he voted on the side of the contributor more
often then not. Bribery with side of hash browns.
Viva Democracy! We get to vote on who gets bought! (I imagine
it’s only fair to vote for the poorest candidate so that they can
better support their family.)
But you see what this means? We get one vote for one person, but
if you’re wealthy, you have the opportunity to vote with your
dollars on every bill that’s proposed.
Malcolm X said that the ballot is stronger than the bullet;
unfortunately, even stronger than the ballot is the wallet. Your
vote is not your voice, your dollar is.
The advice that I’d give to any activist or activist group in
America: 1) Make a lot of money (through legal or illegal means).
2) Start bribing government officials.
Honestly, I’m surprised that corporate bribery is needed at all.
I imagine that any company could simply threaten the government
with their power and get whatever they want.
PREZ: I’m sorry Mr. CEO, but we’re gonna hafta pass some
environmental legislation cuz I wanna get re-elected and the people
are really hankerin’ for environ-
CEO (interrupting): We’re thinking of moving all of our
factories overseas.
PREZ (stunned): Pardon me?
CEO: We’re thinking of moving all of our factories overseas. Lay
off tens of thousands of workers, lose you millions in taxes, you
know the whole capital flight nine yards. Oh, I’m sorry, I
interrupted you. What were you saying?
PREZ (looking at shoes): Nuthin’, massah.
All of these scenarios assume that our elected government wields
real power, when in reality I am uncertain what degree of control
these statesmen actually have over policy.
In his farewell address, Dwight Eisenhower warned the public to
beware the "military-industrial complex." This statement has long
been puzzled over, and many feel it refers to the National Security
Council.
The Council is made up of various above-the-law organizations,
the CIA, the Department of Defense (interesting doublespeak, naming
the department in charge of making war on other countries the
"Department of Defense"), and perhaps others. The primary goal of
the National Security Council has been to support the U.S. economy
by subsidizing high-tech industries through military contracts. To
justify these military expenditures, we needed an enemy, and this
slot was filled perfectly by a hyperbolically exaggerated Soviet
Union. It has become harder to maintain this illusion of threat
since the end of the Cold War, but attempts are constantly being
made: terrorism, the drug war, etc.
To you this may seem another loony conspiracy theory, but the
logic holds up surprisingly well. I’m still doing research on the
subject, but as you might guess, relevant information isn’t all out
in the open. If you can help, please e-mail me.
This column barely scratches the surface, folks; it delves as
deep as the cut a butter knife makes in an armored tank. If you
want more information, e-mail me at: jsexton@ucla.edu.
I also appreciate counter-arguments, criticism, facts which
agree or contradict what I have said here, praise, discussion,
etc.
We can discuss these issues instead of simply agreeing or
disagreeing. Don’t just read, think.
Today’s recommended reading: selected political essays from Gore
Vidal’s "United States," any anthology of Tom Tomorrow’s comic
strip "This Modern World," and do not fail to see the beautiful,
satirical, pseudo-documentary "Bob Roberts" by genius Tim
Robbins.
See ya at the polls … or not.
Jake Sexton