OT: Voting results in NH

[Paul Lussier]

In a message dated: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:28:29 +0900
Derek Martin said:

>Democracy died a long, long time ago.

And Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with our form of government,
which is a Constitutional Republic.  The two are very, very different!

>You're also overlooking the fact that this election was a PRIMARY,
>and the participants were Democtrats.  The Republicans have an
>incumbant, so they don't need a primary.  New Hampshire is still
>predominantly a Republican state. Most of the voters in NH need not
>cast a ballot.  They have no one to vote for.  If they are committed
>to the Republican party, there is no choice in the matter for them.

Which is, IMO, the reason one should *never* permanently ally themselves
with any given party.  Always retain your independance, and register
as such.  If a primary comes up, you have a vote.  I as an independant,
were I a citizen of NH, could have voted in the primary, and would
have probably voted for old Al.  Not because I like him, or because I 
even have the feintest notion he might win or make a decent president,
but simply because it would be one more vote cast and _against_ someone
whom I'd rather not see as President.

In other words, a vote can be used as much to vote *against* someone
as to vote *for* someone.  It is our right *and* responsibility to vote.
Do so.

>> Democracy and your freedom are the casualty of a system that no
>> longer can be called 'representative government'. 
>
>The only sense in which our government ever was such a thing is that
>the decisions that are made represent the interests of those who make
>them.  That's still true today. 

Again, our system is _NOT_ a Democracy.

>Anyone who thinks their opinion is represented in our government is
>deluding themselves.  If your elected leader's opinion truly
>represents your own opinion, you are the victim of a happy
>coincidence...

I think it largely unlikely that any person's views ever 100%
co-incide with any other person's views.  However, our system is
mostly a popularity contest.  You vote for that candidate whom you
think most closely matches your views and whom you think will best
lead our nation in the direction you'd like to see it go.

>At best, our government is a democratic replublic, where we elect
>leaders to make our decisions for us.

It's a Constitutionally limited Republic.

>Their votes represent our desires only insomuch as they need to
>in order to prevent sufficient discontent to incite open rioting and
>other forms of political instability.  Beyond that, they represent the
>people who have money and power, just as they always have.

I don't completely agree, though nor do I completely disagree.

The votes cast by members of congress are usually in-line with the
party they represent (usually Democrat or Republican, occasionally
others).  They will always vote the way their constituency prefers
_IF_ their constituency makes that preference known, for it is that
constituency and _only_ that constituency which places them in that
office and which has the power to remove them from office.
(take the recent change of Governor of Cal. as a perfect example!)

Absent a loud cry from their constituency, a member of congress will
fall back on the position of their party to decide which way to vote.
Very occasionally there will be a member of congress who crosses party
lines and votes their conscience (e.g. Joe Lieberman and his vote to
support President Bush in going into Iraq)

>The candidates are virtually indistinguishable,

I disagree with this completely. I think there is a huge difference
between the various candidates currently vying for the Office of POTUS.
You can't possibly say there isn't a difference between Lieberman and
Sharpton, or between Mosely-Braun (who has since dropped out) and Clark!

Even between the top 4 candidates there is measurable difference.
If you are unable to see it, then I contend that either you haven't
been paying attention, or you're blind.

>no candidate ever keeps their promises.

I would re-phrase this to:

    No candidate is able to keep all of promises made
    on the campaign trail.

I don't think anyone alive realistically votes for a candidate based
on the expectation that the promises made during the heat of a campaign
will be kept.  In most cases, those campaigning are making promises
they'd most like to keep, but once in office, discover it impossible
to do so for a variety of reasons mostly beyond their control.
(this is not to negate the fact that there are completely empty
promises made with no expectation by the candidate they'll ever
even try to fulfill them, obviously this happens all the time).

By way of example, I'm thinking of Pres. Bush Sr.'s campaign promise
of 'No New Taxes', which obviously wasn't kept.  Many automatically
attribute this to an empty promise.  However, if one investigates what
actually happened, it turns out that Congress all but forced him to
sign the bill levying taxes, and even if he didn't, Congress would
have simply over-ridden his veto anyway.  The levying of taxes was and
is completely beyond the control of any President.  But because he
promised it, it is assumed he lied just because taxes were levied.

>I will not vote because I will not contribute to the
>mass dilusion that my vote is valuable.  My vote is utterly worthless,
>and so is yours.
>
>Yeah, maybe I'm a cynic. Or, maybe I'm just awake...

No, I think you're a cynic and no overly well informed.

Consider this:

  The US Census Bureau reports that there were 926,224 persons over the 
  age of 18 in NH in the 2000 Census.


  The Associated Press reports that about 200,000 people voted in the NH 
  primary yesterday

This means that 726,224 people did not vote for one reason or another.
If everyone who is eligible to vote were registered as independant,
then they could have voted in the primary.  As you stated, NH is still
largley a Republican-oriented state (yet they still chose a Dem. governor
w/ Jeanne Shaheen?!).  Consider the consequences of a state which largley
votes Republican, but is registered as Independant.  If even 50% of the
population likely to vote Repulican in the upcoming election turned out
and voted in the Democrat Primary for the candidate they felt most
unlikely to challenge their incumbent candidate, then the Democrat
Party would be placed in quite a quandry.  On one hand, the person
receiving the most votes would have absolutely no chance of winning
the election, but on the other, that's whom the public wants them to run
as their candidate in the election.

Granted, all this is based on the assumption that the average person
pays attention to politics, cares, and uses the vote which they have 
been provided.  However, I think this example clearly demonstrates 
2 things:

  1. We the people have the OPPORTUNITY to make a difference
  2. Our vote is only meaningless because we have CHOSEN to 
     make it so.

If you want to make a difference:

  1. Follow what's going on
  2. Use your vote responsibly
  3. Actively participate in the political process.