madmark.myfastforum.org

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

Myth America: A Stand-up Tragedy

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/myth-america-a-stand-up-tragedy/

Really excellent article by Mickey Z and well worth a read. My comment on the site is awaiting moderation, so I'm posting it here so that it won't get lost if it isn't approved:

Great article, Mickey Z. And you do make it clear why people shouldn't mistake elections for democracy and why people shouldn't vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. But you don't explain why people shouldn't vote. I can do that.

When a government can claim to be democratically elected, it is considered a legitimate government. Those who oppose it are criminalized and other countries will use the excuse of its legitimacy to support it, no matter how criminal it is. That was America's excuse for supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa -- it was the legitimate government and those who opposed it were rebels. But then the Apartheid regime held an election and almost nobody voted. There was a successful election boycott. Yes, the Apartheid regime tried to install the "winners" even though they'd only gotten a handful of votes, but nobody considered the regime to be legitimate after that. When people don't vote, the government obviously isn't democratically elected and doesn't have the support of the people, the consent of the governed that a government needs in order to be considered legitimate. Once that happens it is the opposition that is legitimate. They are no longer rebels and criminals, they are freedom fighters opposing an illegitimate government.

A revolution against a legitimate government is risky at best and even more so when that government happens to be a military superpower spending billions on crowd control gear and training for "Homeland Security." But a revolution against an illegitimate government is a different story. It loses the support of any country that calls itself democratic. The opposition then gains that support.

When Batista held an election only 10% of the Cuban population voted. It still took the force of arms to oust him, but Castro and his small, tired, ragged band of revolutionaries knew that with the support of 90% of the Cuban population, they could do it and they did. And it didn't take very much force or very many arms.

Right now most Americans of every political stripe disapprove of our government. But almost half intend to vote. Even those casting protest votes and those who know that our elections are rigged and will be stolen as usual, don't seem to realize that the mere act of voting legitimizes the government no matter how you vote or who you vote for. When people vote, a government can claim to be a democratically-elected, legitimate government, even if it has to rig the election to do so.

In our case there isn't much election rigging necessary. Our Constitution never granted us a federal right to vote and it prohibited us from voting directly for President and Vice-President. The framers didn't trust ordinary people with power, so they made sure that the final decision about who led the country would rest with the Electoral College, which nowadays means the political parties, with the candidates themselves, with Congress, or with the Supreme Court.

In 2000 the Supreme Court stopped the vote count and selected the President. They were able to do this because the popular vote is merely symbolic anyway.

In 2004 John Kerry selected the President by conceding to Bush. He reneged on his promise to ensure that the votes were counted because the popular vote is meaningless and has no bearing on the results of the election anyway. If the people happen to vote the way our rulers want them to, they think they "won," and if they don't, they think they "lost," but Constitutionally they never had any say in the first place. So in 2004 the President was selected by one vote: Kerry's.

Remember when the Congressional Black Caucus got up a petition to reject the fraudulent Florida electoral vote in 2000 but couldn't get a single Senator to sign it because Al Gore had personally told the Democratic Senators not to sign it? Well guess what? If the Republicans got up a similar petition to reject the electoral votes of some large blue states as "fraudulent," they'd have no problem getting Republican Senators to sign it. Fraudulent or not, the electoral votes of New York and California could be rejected and McCain would win the "election."

That the method I'm predicting will be used to steal this year's election. But there are many more. Our Constitution never gave us the final say. It never even gave us a way to hold our elected officials accountable. We just have to endure whatever they do during their term in office and then try to vote them out in the next rigged election, as if that was possible. Imagine is our credit card laws were as unjust as our Constitution. When you reported that a credit card was stolen, you'd be told that you could not cancel the card, the thief would be able to continue running up unauthorized charges on your card for the next four years, that you'd be responsible for every penny of those charges, and that after the four years were up, you could apply to have the card cancelled but the final decision would be made by the thief. When a politician steals an election, only Congress can remove them from office, we can't. And we're responsible for everything they do during their term in office.

In a democracy we would have honest elections and the popular vote would be the final vote. In a republic we would have to delegate our power to our elected representatives, but we would be able to hold them accountable. When Rep. John Olver was presented with petitions from 80% of his constituents asking him to support impeachment, he said, "Spare me! I'm fully aware that the overwhelming majority of my constituents support impeachment. I will not." Is that a representative? Who is he representing? Obviously not the people who voted for him.

The Democratic Party worked so hard at supporting the Republican agenda for the past seven and a half years that they only have an 11% approval rating among Democratic voters. But many Democrats are going to vote for them anyway because the Republicans are more evil. Oh yeah? If the Republicans are so evil, why won't the Democrats impeach them? Why do the Democrats vote for everything the Republicans ask for? Because Ralph Nader has a gun to their heads?

Third party and independent voters want to vote in protest, knowing full well that their candidates can't win. They want to help grow their political parties so that they can eventually achieve power within the system. Not within this system they can't. We don't even have proportional representation. And our votes are counted secretly inside rigged voting machines. Often the programmers code the software so that it uses third party and independent votes to smooth the spread when it reallocates the votes. So third party candidates find themselves getting a lot of votes in districts where they have few registered voters and very little active support, and very few votes in districts where they have many registered voters and a lot of active support. All those protest votes are doing is demonstrating to the world that Americans still believe in this system and trust it enough to vote in its rigged elections.

If we want change, we have to stop supporting the status quo. It is self-defeating to rail against an illegitimate government with one hand while voting to legitimize it with the other. Elections indicate the consent of the governed. If we want to withdraw our consent, we have to stop granting our mandateauthority to this illegitimate government by voting in its rigged elections. Votes can be flipped, but turnout can't be faked.

I don't know if it is possible to organize an effective election boycott within the next seven weeks, but it our government keeps going in the same direction we might get lucky, the economy might crash, the dollar will be worthless, and all those who want to show how much they love the Constitution that never gave them the right to vote and the country that returns love with abuse, won't be able to afford the postage stamp for their mail-in ballot or the gas to drive to the polls.

If you vote, you are consenting. Read my little essay, "Consensual Political Intercourse," http://noinnovember.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2142198%3ATopic%3A761 and ask yourself if you really want to keep consenting. I will not.

And don't fall for the scams of people telling you that by just donating money to their proposed lawsuits, you will be able to prevent another stolen election or steal back your vote. Those are the same people that wrote articles and books and produced videos about the stolen elections of 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. They all admit that the November election will be stolen. They are planning to write more books and produce more videos about the stolen election of 2008. I call them the election prornographers because they tell people to vote in rigged elections and video the stolen election, and then they sell the videos. There is nothing sexy about a book or film that documents the American people getting screwed by their government. You can't steal back your vote. Once you cast it, your job is done and the people you've delegated your authority to don't need you any more. And the only way to prevent another stolen election is not to vote in it.

If you vote, you are giving your consent. Don't turn around and complain afterwards about something you consented to, and don't ask me to take up arms against a government that you voted to legitimize. I may be a radical but I'm not a fool.