![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcThe results suck. What is particularly sad is that they suck for whole swaths of people who voted for Bush: working folks being squeezed, families reliant on public education, even the religious who’ve not yet connected the dots between secular multiculturalism and true religious freedom (something most Catholics, Quakers and Amish get). Included are several family members who are unable/unwilling to the see Republican lies about free markets and deregulation for what they are: opportunities for the churlishly selfish and greedy to become more affluent and powerful, at the expense of (many) others.
I won’t be chopping up my US passport and I”m not renouncing my citizenship. Such sweeping gestures won’t support any efforts to change things--and they won’t make me feel any better either.
And, for the record, I didn’t move to Canada to escape the US. I moved there for a limited time, fell in love (with the place and a man,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
toneyvr), and was lucky enough to be given residence (and then citizenship).
But here’s the deal: the key to making the system fairer is election reform, beginning locally. Here’s a couple of key things that need to change:
+electoral commissions: every state should have a non-partisan (not bi-partisan), publicly funded electoral commission. It should coordinate and administer all aspects of the electoral process. Most legitimate democracies in the world use this approach. Saves a lot of pissing and lawyering after the fact
+electoral college: If you want to get rid of it, and go for a vote based on national popular vote, that’s great. But you can’t whinge about the results, which Bush almost certainly got this time.
+participation in the party system: Voting is a great start, but if you think the system is dysfunctional, take over your local riding/county party. Sign up all your friends, stack the meeting and get on the executive. Push the machine hacks out the doors--enough votes can do this.
+stop fighting over the centre-right: As things stand, most of the South is a write-off for Democrats, and shifting the party further to the right won’t win. Picking a candidate from a marginal Southern state might. John Edwards brought nothing, and gave up his (clearly now invaluable) Senate seat. Offer instead a legitimate alternative on social issues, with a reasonable economic platform
+Bush bashing is ego-stroking: Kerry spent too much time describing Bush’s term in negatives. More concrete positives for change could have made a different. In particular, no one’s ever won an election war bashing when US troops were engaged (including Vietnam). Clinton was great at this.
and finally,
+raise the discursive bar: Smugness and close-mindedness on both sides isn’t necessary, though some positions are clearly incompatible. Democrats who savvily tie in with middle-bar Republicans on some issues can often maintain their “liberal” ones on others.
I won’t be chopping up my US passport and I”m not renouncing my citizenship. Such sweeping gestures won’t support any efforts to change things--and they won’t make me feel any better either.
And, for the record, I didn’t move to Canada to escape the US. I moved there for a limited time, fell in love (with the place and a man,
toneyvr), and was lucky enough to be given residence (and then citizenship). But here’s the deal: the key to making the system fairer is election reform, beginning locally. Here’s a couple of key things that need to change:
+electoral commissions: every state should have a non-partisan (not bi-partisan), publicly funded electoral commission. It should coordinate and administer all aspects of the electoral process. Most legitimate democracies in the world use this approach. Saves a lot of pissing and lawyering after the fact
+electoral college: If you want to get rid of it, and go for a vote based on national popular vote, that’s great. But you can’t whinge about the results, which Bush almost certainly got this time.
+participation in the party system: Voting is a great start, but if you think the system is dysfunctional, take over your local riding/county party. Sign up all your friends, stack the meeting and get on the executive. Push the machine hacks out the doors--enough votes can do this.
+stop fighting over the centre-right: As things stand, most of the South is a write-off for Democrats, and shifting the party further to the right won’t win. Picking a candidate from a marginal Southern state might. John Edwards brought nothing, and gave up his (clearly now invaluable) Senate seat. Offer instead a legitimate alternative on social issues, with a reasonable economic platform
+Bush bashing is ego-stroking: Kerry spent too much time describing Bush’s term in negatives. More concrete positives for change could have made a different. In particular, no one’s ever won an election war bashing when US troops were engaged (including Vietnam). Clinton was great at this.
and finally,
+raise the discursive bar: Smugness and close-mindedness on both sides isn’t necessary, though some positions are clearly incompatible. Democrats who savvily tie in with middle-bar Republicans on some issues can often maintain their “liberal” ones on others.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 04:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 05:03 am (UTC)However, "+electoral college: If you want to get rid of it, and go for a vote based on national popular vote, that’s great. But you can’t whinge about the results, which Bush almost certainly got this time.", while sadly true, IMO, is also not completely accurate. The current campaign was built and geared around the electoral system. If the current election winner was meant to go to the popular vote winner, we would have seen a different campaign, different voter profiles, and possibly even different candidates. So while Bush would have unfortunately probably still won a popular vote contest - that's not possible to predict.
BTW, the current primary system (which in my mind seems somehow linked to the electoral system) should be fixed while we're at it. By the time my primary rolled around (Texas), I think the residents of just a few states (including Ohio am I right) had already "decided" that Kerry was the only viable candidate that would be challenging Bush.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:17 pm (UTC)I suspect if it went to national popular vote, Dems would focus on building support where it's already strong, and targetting populus marginal bands.
Really I think the US needs 2-3 more legitimate political parties, representing a real spectrum of choice. But my oxygen tank won't last for that to come true.
And then there's the whole personality/charisma/personability thing. Gore and Kerry both lacked it. Bush has some (apparently), Clinton too.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:20 pm (UTC)That old "faith without works is dead" thang, which I suspect you might've heard. And my personal Quaker fave: 'when you pray, move your feet."
Today may not be the day to move feet very much. But soon. Before it becomes too daunting, and fear and despair win.
Does that make any sense?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:22 pm (UTC)Though I am not clear how polarized this country actually is. I hear a lot about the "culture wars" and only evr saw the bicoastal vs heartland on last night's red versus blue electoral map ...
And, of course, I always fet over the "boiled frog syndrome" ... when will the barely noticed incremental changes add up one day to a (counter?)revolutionary paradigm shift?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 12:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:20 pm (UTC)Aren't you gonna move your kid back to Canada? ;) Funny how those who have the option don't seem to be so inclined...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:29 am (UTC)