|
In 1992 I managed a Libertarian state representative campaign in Dallas. The candidate, Patricia Lee, received 28% of the vote in District 105. She did this on a budget of $400, by walking the district and sticking to three issues: self-defense, rolling back tax increases, and eliminating several superfluous state regulatory commissions. Many of the voters in Balch Springs and some Dallas working-class precincts overcame their conditioning to "vote the straight ticket" and attempted to dump the New York lawyer who was "representing" them. They failed, and Al Granoff (D) went on to vote for more gun control, higher taxes, and more intrusive government. In the mathematics of American democracy, of course, 28% equals zero. In fact, 49% equals zero. And, thanks to the fact that the incumbents get to draw their own districts, it is easy to arrange matters so that 60% equals zero. The incumbents simply pile all the "undesirables" (e.g. black Democrats) they can into a few districts, while distributing their own supporters into as many 55% districts as possible. And in the Presidential races, of course we have the wonderful Electoral College, where the votes from each state are all assigned to the majority-winner. So a candidate only needs 51% of the voters in 51% of the states to win… this brilliant concept can create a "winner" who only received 26% of the vote! So under ideal circumstances, we could declare that 74% = 0… truly a triumph of American idealism over mere mathematical reality. The rigged nature of American democracy allowed the Center for Voting and Democracy (http://www.fairvote.org/) to post their predictions of the results of over 330 Congressional races on September 30th 2002… with 100% accuracy. (You can see their early predictions for '04 at: http://www.fairvote.org/2004/index.html.) The main component of their algorithm is that incumbents can't lose (it's a little more complicated than that, but not much). Most developed nations do not use single-member districts. In fact, Canada and the US are the only major developed nations that don't use proportional representation in any national elections. This means that most developed nations do not have constant political fighting over redistricting. But more important, it means that they do not presume to decide to which "groups" an individual belongs before the election. In America, it is presumed that the color of your skin is your most important "political issue". Thus blacks are crammed into gerrymandered districts, supposedly to ensure that a few melatonin-advantaged politicians are elected (but more plausibly, to ensure that as few Democrats as possible are elected). But what if one is more concerned with economic or political issues than race? What if you are an African-American whose main concern is welfare reform or education vouchers? The American system says: "Too bad, darky, you'll stay on the plantation where you're put and vote for whom you're told." The original rationale for districts was to ensure that people knew their representatives. This was reasonable in 1800, when travel and communication was difficult and state rep districts only had a few thousand people. There may still be something to be said for the idea, as long as the example of New Hampshire is followed and the districts remain small. But when districts contain hundreds of thousands of voters, and people know their politicians primarily through electronic media, single-member districts confer no advantage. In countries without districts, or with multiple representatives per district, minorities are represented. Not just racial minorities, but whatever minorities people choose to use their vote on. So, for instance, in Costa Rica 10% of the Congress is Libertarian (http://www.libertario.org/). Of course in many European countries there are neo-Nazi parties, Communist parties, and Green-socialist parties. All representing terrible ideas, IMHO, but the terrible ideas of the voters. If there weren't any Green voters, there'd be no Green politicians. In America, conversely, the voters have no meaningful choices. The Democrats and Republicans differ only in the rhetoric with which they attract voters, not in their voting records. Republicans attract people who want economic freedom, and Democrats promise their supporters that they'll fend off the Moral Minority. But this is all pure symbolism. Republicans do not cut spending (in case anyone has forgotten, Republicans control Congress and the Presidency now, and are spending like Republicans), and Democrats do not stand for personal freedoms (when was the last time a Democrat voted against Drug Prohibition?). Republicans and Democrats are both loyal to the same liege lord: campaign contributions from subsidy-seeking special interests. US Greens and Libertarians offer clear ideological choices, but can never elect representatives in single-member districts. In fact, given the ballot-access barriers in the US, both minor parties have to spend millions just to get on the ballot as parties. This further limits their roles, restricting them to spoilers at most. This leads to bizarre consequences. If you are concerned about affecting the outcome of an election, your best bet is to support the minor party opposed to your personal viewpoint. If you support economic freedom, and think the Republican really will vote to increase taxes slightly more slowly, then you should support the Green. If you think the Democrat will oppose foreign wars, then you're an id… I mean, then you should support the Libertarian. A small contribution to the minor-party candidate that is against everything you believe in will be much more effective at changing the vote totals than an insignificant contribution to a PAC-funded Republicrat or Demopublican. It would seem difficult to argue for an electoral system that rewards those who campaign against their own true beliefs. There isn't much logic in arguing for a system that pretends to be democratic while actually institutionalizing an amoral, issue-free oligarchy. It would seem beyond belief that people living under such an absurd system should believe themselves superior to foreigners… but of course we do. Americans are told daily that our Imperial Legions are going forth to bring the blessings of democracy to the benighted heathen (actually the benighted Muslims, who certainly don't consider themselves heathen… but that's another can of pogonophores). So, do I advocate that everyone who loves freedom should donate to the Greens? Or that we should invite the Italians to conquer us and bring us the bounteous blessings of true proportional-representation democracy? No. The measure of a nation's civilization is not how efficiently its people can vote themselves loot from their neighbor's wallet. The measure of a civilization's legitimacy is how many areas of life it keeps secure from destruction by voting; in other words, how much of life is left to individual choice. The American oligarchy has instead defined its legitimacy in terms of "democracy". But it has no legitimacy. America is not a country of "one person, one vote". America is a country of "one 100-year-old incumbent, one vote". America can't bring democracy to the world, because we don't have it ourselves. Bill Walker is a Research Associate at the Shay-Wright lab at UT Southwestern Medical Center.
|