|
Democracy?
The problems during the Bush-Gore Presidential election in Florida
created much discussion about the Electoral College.
Many had decided it was time for one person, one vote,
and they called for a national discussion regarding the
subject. Ultimately, however, such a move would have
required amending the Constitution - something which would require the help of politicians
whom seem too polarized to accomplish much of anything
these days.
Would one person, one
vote accomplish meaningful change?
Doubtful.
Only 50% of
eligible voters are voting, essentially allowing less
than 25% of the voting population to determine the
presidency of the most powerful democracy
in the world. In fact, during the election in question, voter turnout in the U.S.
ranked 139th
out of the 172 countries with democratic elections, at 54.5%.
So, one person, one vote
would inspire people to vote because they know their
vote would count? Count for what?
Please. In 1960, voter
turnout was only 63.1%. This is unacceptable for the
world's democratic leader, if the U.S. can even be
called that. The problem isn't one person one vote, it's
too many people not voting.
During the last
election, thanks to gerrymandering by our elected
representatives, 98.2% of incumbents were
reelected.
Will one person, one
vote change that?
Real change is needed. Perhaps, the
one person, one vote would help, but a polarized
two-party political system isn't going to make that
happen.
Just Vote. Your vote
can count.
Think your vote won't
count because of the Red Zone-Blue Zone divide?
Vote for a Third Party candidate.
The most
important thing is to get more people than ever to vote.
Ultimately, neither Republicans nor Democrats care about the number of voters,
rather, only the number that vote Republican or Democrat.
The strength of political power, not democracy, is the
focus of most politicians.
Protecting the status
quo is the easiest way to political power. As
Ralph Nader’s website points out, “..the top 1 percent of households exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95
percent. In fact the nation’s 400 richest families increased their wealth on average by $940 million each from 1997 to 1999 – an increase of $1.28 million every day”.
Furthermore, according to a Business Week by Gene
Koretz, this trend has been around for decades, where “income inequality in the U.S. has grown sharply, far out-pacing similar rises in other industrial countries,” disturbing many economists.
In fact other studies have shown the upward mobility “decreased in the 1980s, and slipped even more in the 1990’s."
This is what our
politicians have accomplished?
We are currently in yet
another war, a war where "the people" and
their 5% stake in the Union sacrifice their lives to
protect the status quo, i.e., the rich constantly and
consistently getting richer.
Why?
This has continued because of the belief in the American
dream. That somehow, someway we'll achieve some sort of
affluence, but statistics simply do not support this
view. If you were not born rich, it is almost guaranteed
you will not ever be rich, and at the current pace, you
will be lucky to be as secure as your parents.
Is that
the American Dream?
Frederick Douglass once said, "Find out just
what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which
will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till
they are resisted with either words or blows, or with
both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the
endurance of those whom they oppress."
Democracy provides a
new force of resistance for change, and it's as simple as
voting. In fact Democracy is the American Dream. Its up to
us, the people. The citizens must force change. We must
demand more than 5%.
Voting is resistance.
90 Percent of the vote
now! Forget organizing for parties, just focus on
getting the vote out. The more that vote, the harder it
is far the two-party system to marginalize and control
us.
90 Percent Vote!
>>What
do you think?
90percentvote.com News
(more) |
