Inspection- That $#@! Political On/Off, Either/Or, Switch
This edition has been written in as non-partisan way as possible because I believe having an actual, decent, representative form of governance should go far beyond party or political skew.
Let’s start here: I am not trying to “shame” anybody into voting for anyone. Do whatever the hell you want: that’s the freedom we’re supposed to have.
Our forefathers were wise… in some ways. Arguably not as much on others? (3/5ths?) They were not all that fond of political parties, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find most of them being strongly in favor of as much of a pure two party system as we have these days.
What our close to pure two party system has developed into, essentially, is an on off switch, or if you prefer, “an either/or switch.” I willingly admit, sometimes, there’s not a hell of a lot of difference between “either,” or “or.”
Stare as hard as you want, refuse to use it, an on/off switch will still be an on/off switch. Try to force it to be something else and the results could be even worse. And, these days, it’s intentionally set at either “stupid” or more “stupid:” as in using base emotions like fear, hate to win via smearing the other side. It really not able to to work well via respect, love, or honest debate and discussion. Like any switch it’s generally thoughtless, brainless and only “works,” if one can call it that, via manipulation.
It’s convenient in the sense that the switch does only one thing: the job those who belong to those two clubs of exclusivity desire. But it doesn’t work all that well for those who have to live with the results.
I simply don’t understand why every election season people moan and kvetch about the switch. It does no good, except to motivate people to do stupid things, like not vote, or vote for those who don’t have a chance in hell of winning. I know that last seems harsh. Reality can be. That is one of our biggest problems as a nation: those who might be able to actually solve the nation’s problems haven’t a chance in hell of winning. And those who will only make it worse have almost an exclusive opportunity to make these problems worse, offer a solution that makes it worse, then offer an even worse “solution” for a situation they helped create. And, to make it even more appealing, they get to profit off of their terrible solutions.
None of this is an accident. It’s the way the system our forefathers built has been redesigned.
And we’ve lost so much due to this on/off switch. If you thought Perot was right about that damn sucking sound, what did you get? More suck. If you thought Nader’s right about corporate influence, what did you get? You’re getting the drift: more corporate influence. I voted Anderson years ago and I too was unhappy with the results.
Each and every time the shtick spouted by those eager to punish parties for poor choices is, “Well, if they lose big, they’ll learn.” But “they” never do. People may yack for a while, but the winners go on and do what they planned to do anyway. Next election the “other” party’s candidate may spout similar popular talking points, but once the balloons have dropped, the inauguration party is over, the candidate simply chucks such promises. They served their purpose. Yet we know if we head in the other direction that party is even worse.
#8194;This is how the switch works, and if you ignore how the it works the switch directs the “train” so it will run over you. It’s really not Cruz’s, or Bush’s or Clinton’s fault that Trump won, Bernie lost. Super delegates, or no supers, the defects in the system go far beyond any of that. No amount of big pep rallies or imagined scenarios that keep the switch as it is will change how the switch is designed NOT to work.
We need to work on solutions after elections, not moan and kvetch about the switch late in the election cycle. One I favor is run off voting, perhaps you have another?
For those not in the know, run off voting is where we rank candidates, not just vote for one. Like Bernie? Choose him as number one if you wish. Jill Stein next? Put her as #2. Like Cruz? #1. Jeb next? And on it goes. At the bottom of the heap goes whomever you wouldn’t want on the most charbroiled day in Hell. If your candidate doesn’t get the most votes, then your vote goes to the next candidate on your list: the one who has enough other votes they can win.
”But wouldn’t that take too long, Ken?”
Yes, it will take long. But true representative governance is worth it. After the election let’s meet and plan to advocate for changing how we do elections. Otherwise we’re stuck with a marginally two way switch. And, historically, so often that’s been one hell of a big turn off, no matter which position the political on/off switch is in.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved