Home Pharos Fiction Site Map Updates Search

 

                                                                                                                        Back Next

Halexandria Foundation
Communications
Sacred Mathematics
Connective Physics
Synthesis
Chronicles of Earth
Justice, Order, and Law
Daath
Extraterrestrial Life
Creating Reality
Tree of Life

 

The Perils of Democracy

New -- 1 April 2005

Updated -- 20 June 2005

Updated -- 11 November 2006

 

Democracy is quite possibly one of the most over-rated concepts in the modern lexicon of government and collective rule. The fact that it might still remain one of the better possibilities in how a people devise that illusive means with which to tolerate one another -- without constant struggle, strife, and screaming among themselves -- is only marginally relevant. The basic gist of the matter is that leaving major decisions to the uninformed, fickle, and prejudiced common man and/or woman with respect to how a collective of people live among themselves -- and in relation to other collectives -- has never been a really good idea.

For more information, visit the Halexandria Forums,

An equally critical point is that the informed, influencial, fickle and prejudiced elitists have no intention whatsoever of having equally fickle and prejudiced commoners tell the elitists what to do. Woodrow Wilson wondered about the ability of democracy to cope with entropic times, when "voters of every blood and environment and social derivation mix and stare at one another at the same voting places." The former President also said, "They give us so many elective offices that even the most conscientious voters have neither the time nor the opportunity to inform themselves with regard to every candidate on their ballots, and most vote for a great many men of whom they know nothing." [24]

Admittedly, Wilson was speaking as effectively an 19th Century aristocrat. More recently, however, Walter Lippmann has said, "There has developed in this century a functional derangement of the relationship between the mass of the people and the government. The people have acquired power which they are incapable of exercising, and the government they elect have lost powers which they must recover if they are to govern. The unhappy truth is that the prevailing public opinion has been destructively wrong at the critical junctures." "Mass opinion has acquired mounting power in this century. It has shown itself to be a dangerous master..." [25]

"There have been men inside the government who judged correctly because they were permitted to know in time the uncensored and unvarnished truth. But the climate of modern democracy does not usually inspire them to speak out." [25] In more recent times, the lost of free speech and civil rights occasioned by the Bush Administration has made things even worse.

"With exceptions so rare that they are regarded as miracles and freaks of nature, successful democratic politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bambozzle, or otherwise manage to mainpulate the demanding and threatening elements in their constituencies. The decisive consideration is not whether the proposition is good but whether it is popular -- not whether it will work well and prove itself but whether the active, talking constituents like it immediately. [25] [emphasis added]

In essence, government rule is almost exclusively the domain of the clever, wealthy, powerful, and oft times devious individuals among us. It is the rule by an aristocracy -- an aristocracy with or without titles, with or without nobility, and/or with or without ostentatious badges of office. It is the epitome of the bastardized golden rule: Dem wid de gold makes de rules. In effect the State of the Union is one of Preemptive Rule.

So, you might ask, why in the world would an aristocracy -- acknowledged or otherwise -- trouble themselves with a democracy? Surely the inconvenience of periodically listening to the trials and tribulations of the masses would be enough to try the most patient and understanding of the most empathetic elitist.

It should be pointed out, for example, that the Frenchman (gasp!) who inspired the framers (Jefferson, et al) of the American Constitution's ideals and structure -- a nobleman named Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu [another strong gasp] -- was not seeking a leveling of society. "He proposed a system of checks and balances whereby the fiats of whims of France's Bourbon throne were limited by established laws and the counter-vailing powers of a vital, widely dispersed aristocracy." "It was from the warier sage of La Brede that the Constitution's framers learned how to fashion a lasting government." [23] [emphasis added]

In more recent times, President Bush recently "bore witness to a quintessential American faith, 'If people,' he said, 'are given a right to express themselves in a ballot in the ballot box, in the public square, and through a free and open press, it'll lead to peace.' To borrow a line from Hemingway, it would be pretty to think so. In fact, history teems with elections that have led to neither peace nor democracy."[23] In fact, there are the examples of Germany in the 1930s, and today's Haiti, Russia and Pakistan. Clearly, elections do not bring peace. So what is their appeal to the elitists who tolerate them?

Democracy has in its purview a wonderful means of reducing the likelihood of anarchy, revolution, and various off-with-their-royal-aristocratic-heads scenarios. The really good news about democracy -- and from the viewpoint of the ruling elite, about the only good news this form of government offers -- is that it provides to every member of the voting populace the illusion of self-direction in one's earthly destiny, their pursuit of happiness, and any and all of their attempts to find the ultimate meaning of rampant ego-gratification.

This all imporant, pervasive, and wholly credible fantasy that one can control one's life and the lives of others, that one can provide welfare and status among all of one's fellow creatures -- even if clearly many of the others are almost certainly of another species all together -- is very psychologically beneficial. It makes the average mind positively hum with delight and warm feelings. And it reduces the likelihood of armed revolution.

Democracy can provide the common individual with that all important sense of self-responsibility (as well as self-will). It comforts one with the sense that one's importance in the grand scheme of things is relevant to anyone other than one's self, and that one's opinion(s) carries any weight whatsoever outside one's most immediate environment. Furthermore, it allows one to save others and lead them on the path of alleged righteousness -- however such righteousness is pathologically or otherwise envisioned. Democracy can therefore provide proof of one's inherent god-like qualities which are just yearning to be fleshed out and demonstrated. Democracy is intended to keep the masses content... or at least in a non-bloodthirsty mood.

It has always been understood that leaving important matters of collective rule, destiny, war and peace, choice of decision makers and so-called leaders, and so forth and so on... leaving such grave matters to the tyranny of the majority has been conclusively proven to be a wretched idea. Only when one includes an overwhelmingly majority commitment to the ideals of sovereignty and a republic can majority rule even be tolerated. But sad to say all democracies -- no mather the initial intentions of their creators -- inevitably forget the dignity of man and impose instead the indignities of "do it my way or else."

This becomes ever more noticeable when in the quest to commit any and every heresy in order to get your candidate elected -- that is to say, to justify every crime with the ends justifying the means argument -- any adherence to democratic, republican ideas is very quickly an unacceptable infringement on the right to take away everyone else's rights. It has been said, in fact, that democracy is in some respects a lot like Christain Ideals. It's not that it's been tried and found wanting; it's just that it's probably a very good thing, but has never really been tried.

There has, for example, never been a true democracy... that is to say a government where everyone -- emphasis on everyone -- gets an equal say -- emphasis on equal. A true democracy would also allow anyone to cast their vote, no matter that they're as dumb-as-a-fence-post and/or pathologically insane. Democracy's legacy can be extended such that even such dumb/pathological insane individuals can be elected to the top leadership positions in the government -- there now being more cases of such insanity than anyone might care to acknowledge.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of individuals who are not getting to vote or to have an equal say in how "their" government is run. [A good example is the U. S. Congress where the congressional leadership have votes which are more equal than the average congressman.] The question is: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Question: Is it okay for your neighbors to have a veto power over your right to plant a tree in your yard? Keep in mind that your tree might provide unwanted shade on your neighbor and falling leaves in his space in the autumn. If your answer is yes, then consider a similar question: Do your neighbors also have the right to veto your sexual preferences with another consenting adult? We will assume here that your groans of ecstasy enjoying such sexual preferences are not sufficiently loud as to cause undue disturbances, or that the earth moving in your fantasies is having any deleterious effect on the local environment.

This type of question -- of what constitutes legitimate law when statutes go far beyond common law -- is the essence of democratic rule. Basically, are people with different views on life, philosophy, spirituality, sex, and so forth... justified in imposing their views on you -- especially when manifesting your views does not directly -- or for that matter, even indirectly -- affect them?

In a democracy, yes. It's majority rule. Period. Too bad if you're in the minority and are unable to convince enough of the majority to defect to your point of view. If you're not a part of the majority -- or of the elitist class who don't bother with limiting themselves by laws and rules -- your freedoms are a figment of your imagination. Fundamentally, there is little or no freedom in a democracy run amuck.

Let me rephrase that. There is little of no freedom in a democracy run amuck.

[Okay, so it's not another way of phrasing it, but I, for pursoses of emphasis, did get you to read it again. If this in any way bothers you, take a vote on it.]

The good news -- for those who are willing to hear it -- is that there is no democracy anywhere in the world. In those nations in which democracy is alleged to exist, goverment rule is in reality essentially a rule by an aristocracy of the rich.

Why is this good news? Because there is at least the potential that upon occasion those with great wealth and power will try to act for the common good. Perhaps they get bored and figure altruism might be fun for a while. Or as was remarked in the wonderful film, Chariots of Fire, those who are among the elite may realize they have a special and unique responsibility to those who are not among the elite. They may even be taught that they should at least set a good example. The good news is that there are historical examples where this ideal actually worked -- even if it's been somewhat absent of late. The bad news is that many elitists with a modicum of principles have failed to instill in their children anything other than selfish greed. As one elitist of the latter class has remarked, "One of the best ways of helping the poor is to avoid increasing their numbers by becoming poor oneself."

Nevertheless, for good or evil, all of the so-called democracies are fundamentally elitist ruled. Those with wealth and power dictate the rules. Admittedly, it has been said that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. And such benevolency is what potentially derives from an aristocracy. The problem is that the benevolent dictatorship only works when each succeeding dictator is genetically unrelated to his or her predecessor, i.e. it's not an inherited job. In other words, as has been amply demonstrated throughout history (including very recent history), passing the responsibility torch to the kid can cause horrific problems in the next generation of so-called "leaders".

This is especially true when the newly annointed leaders take narrowly defined morality as their basis for government. On the one hand, as Ralph Waldo Emerson has pointed out:

"Emancipation is the demand of civilization. That is a principle; everything else is an intrigue. The end of all political struggle is to establish morality as the basis of all legislation. It is not free institutions, 't is not a republic, 't is not a democracy, that is the end -- no, but only the means. Morality is the object of government. We want a state of things in which crime shall not pay." [26]

This statement might survive a moderate's interpretation, but ruling by a set of morals -- and in this day by a stricter and narrower moral base -- is the recipe for inquisitions, civil war, and revolution. A common morality (e.g. the Golden Rule) which all religions can enthusiastically support might well form the base for an emancipated rule. But religious beliefs which have nothing beneficial in the social contract among people only add to the tyranny of democracy.

As has been already pointed out, the basic difficulty with having aristocracies rule is the potential for revolution by the masses. Such "fed up and not going to take it anymore" tactics have never been welcomed by those in charge. For example, when informed that, "The peasants are revolting!", the king in the Wizard of Id replied, "They always have been." If there's anything worse than a revolting electorate revolting, an elitist probably can't tell you what it is.

But seriously, modern aristocracies have learned their lessons from history and have avoided revolutions by convincing the masses that they -- the aristocracies -- don't even exist. The rulers have promulgated instead the idea of a democracy, and then proceeded to ensure that democratic principles would not in any manner restrict the acts and mannerisms of the elite aristocracy.

Notice how this works. Those in charge avoid taking titles like Lord, Earl, Duke, and so forth. They then claim direct descent from the common man, and quickly proceed to act like Lords, Earls, Dukes, and so forth. However, at the same time the common folk are elevated to the grandiose position of voter, given the critically important sense of controlling their own destiny, and then taken down the yellow brick road to the slaughter house -- the latter now having undergone a Martha Stewart transformation to look like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

For example, the American aristocracy in the latter part of the 18th Century allegedly threw off the shackles of one aristocracy, and then set up a democracy whereby the common man could voluntarily join in the revolution (and parenthetically risk being shot, hung, or maimed). It was a risky business for those early revolutionary aristocrats -- and many paid for it dearly. But in the end the American experiment became one whereby the elite, untitled aristocrats -- those with wealth and power -- could now claim to be the servants -- the very well paid servants by the way -- of a democratic republic. Yea.

It was a really cool idea. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We have given you a republic. It remains to be seen if you can keep it."

Alas, we now find ourselves in modern times when the ideals of a republic are almost wholly lost. One of the basic reasons for this loss is because of having a democracy. More significantly, true republican ideals have been lost because of the failures of the ruling aristocracy to assume any responsibility for their rule, and instead to use the darker ingredients of democracy to rule without accountability, remedy or recourse.

The fascinating part is how the current aristocracies have managed to pull it off. One might call these Machiavellian tactics or ruling techniques the Perils of Democracy. [Okay, I'm going to call them that!] In order to make some sense of these perils, we might... will... group them under five headings -- i.e. this essay is not a democracy(*):

1) There is the determination of who is qualified and/or allowed to vote -- my personal preference being only those born in the years divisible by twenty.

2) Then there is the near impossibility of actually conducting free, fair, and honest elections. More energy is perhaps expended in ignoring the possibility of fairness and honesty than in any other endeavor.

3) It's also useful to have a compliant mainstream and alternative media coverage which does not even remotely convey fair, unbiased, and complete coverage of an election, its candidates and issues. There are a few notable exceptions, but the exceptions seldom have a major impact.

4) Then there is the very important technique of strictly limiting the number of real and viable choices among alternatives, and of course...

5) There is the dependence upon the inability of the average voter to have the slightest clue about what's really going on or of being able to discriminate in any rational way as to what might be the better candidate or preferred action on any given issue.

[(*) Actually the number (at last count) of the Perils of Democracy now number 43,236, with appropriate species, phylums, classes, and other crazed rankings provided as a means of organizing this vast proliferation of horrors.]

[Are you picking up on the slightest hint of sarcasm or cyncism here?]

It should be noted at the outset that these perils are not largely unknown, even if not routinely recognized by the voting citizenry. In fact, the most astounding realization of all those associated with the concept of democracy is the number of people who not only think democracy is a really good thing, but who think that it really works well. These are perhaps the same people who, as Douglas Adams would have observed think digital watches are a really cool idea.

On the other hand, in a development which gives some hope that a significant number of elgible voters have begun to reach a level of intelligence and discrimination to qualify as knowledgeage voters, polls are now indicating that substantial numbers are now suspecting that democracy might not be all that it's cracked up to be.

For example, polls taken prior to the 2004 Presidential election in the United States indicated that roughly a third of voters were very or somewhat worried that their vote would be counted accurately, as opposed to those who were not very worried or not worried at all. [1] With respect to the 2000 fiasco "More than half in the poll, 54 percent, say they think the vote count in Florida was not fair and accurate, with Republicans [the winners] overwhelmingly saying it was and Democrats [the losers] overwhelmingly saying it was not. Independents say by a 2-to-1 margin that it was not fair." [2] One can perhaps ignore the blatant favoritism of the Republicans and Democrats, but the Independents seem to have a less obvious bias, and thus their vote might constitute something whicht might warrant closer consideration.

Meanwhile, monitors from as many as 55 foreign countries [3], were routinely prevented from obtaining adequate access to the polls in the United States even when the U.S. was promulgating increased viability of democratic ideas everywhere else in the world.!

It is noteworthy that the United States loves to arrogantly assume it can tell other countries about the flaws in their electoral systems, but tends to be very shy about discussing its own grotesque failings. And while other countries may have much to learn about elections from the United States, it is extremely unlikely that anyone anywhere has ever experienced anything remotely resembling a truly free election.

The end result inevitably becomes: "In the shadow of the 2000 Florida election debacle and fresh legal battles leading into [the 2004] vote, fully 63 percent of registered voters say they have only some or no confidence that their votes will be counted, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll." [4]

Wooooo... This is not a vote of confidence, a mandate, or even a suggestion that things are totally peaceful across the breath and depth of the land. It might also suggest that the ruling aristocracy consider that perhaps the masses need to be thrown a bone or two over the course of time.

But Americans and other curiously demented fantasy believers still go to the polls. This is really quite phenomenal when you think about it -- especially if one reads and comprehends the remainder of this treatise. If one has been sufficiently informed to think of their vote being important, then surely they have had their doubts -- to the point of throwing up their hands and wandering away.

Nevertheless, for those willing to rush in where used car salesmen and crazed politicians fear to venture, there are the Perils of Democracy to consider in more detail.

Who Votes

Who is qualified/elgible to vote? On the one hand, there are the questions of maturity (age?), intelligence or knowledge, social standing, gender, and so forth and so on. Age is always a fun question considering that a bright teenager might be capable of making better choices than the average senile senior citizen -- which is why nursing homes and old age homes become so popular with "helpful" operatives during the voting season. There is also the obvious fact that senior citizens as a group are more likely to vote -- i.e. with twice the income and five times the net worth of their juniors, they have the time and resources to make their vote count. Thus we have welfare benefits for senior citizens that puts the under twenty generation in the category of underprovided and generally ignored recipients of govermental largess -- i.e. some voters are more equal than others.

The list of means of limiting voters is a long one, and thus the long term tendency to increase the numbers and classes of eligible voters. But even assuming that a class of people finds the means to join the voting elite, there is a constant effort by others to deny and/or intimidate -- in general, disenfranchise -- those possible voters who are most likely to vote for the other side.

For example, Secretaries of State in a host of states have routinely done whatever it takes to ensure that their party would win -- including the simple expedient of removing selected people from the list of registered voters. One might have suspected as much when Florida's Secretary of State in the 2000 presidential election was also a co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney election effort and that in 2004 the Ohio Secretary of State was also a co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election effort. Thus the person authorized to rule on the legitimacy on an election is a leader in the election effort for one candidate. This does not lend itself to enthusiastic support for the legitimacy of voting results.

Another technique by various and sundry Secretarys of States is to grant spots on the tickets to any third party candidates who might siphon off votes from the opposing party's ticket, while at the same time denying a spot on the ballot for someone attempting to replace a candidate of the opposing party who has died. In 2004 in Colorado for example, independent candidate Ralph Nader could always find a spot on the ballot (and thus potentially pulls votes from the Democratic candidate), while at the same time, a replacement candidate for a voter killed in a freak accident was denied an opportunity to be chosen by the voters. [5]

While there may also be clerical and administrative errors [yeah, right!], "There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U. S. Commission on Human Rights. [6] Black voters, for example, have been sent flyers claiming that anyone with unpaid utility bills or outstanding parking tickets or behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations -- a technique that has been used repeatedly in every election cycle. Meanwhile voter registration drives have been conducted by biased workers who then discard anyone registering in the opposing party -- and then the supposedly registered voters find themselves showing up on election day and being denied the right to vote. In other words, racial and other profiling is alive and well in the United States.

Then there are such clever techniques as telephone calls claiming presidential candidate John Kerry was in favor of making gay marriage legal, former Army General Normal Schwarzkopf backing the Democrats, and the elderly being told they were ineligible to vote. [7] Changing voting locations arbitrarily and then ignoring provisional ballots was and is yet another technique. [8] In fact the much heralded provisional ballots in 2004 were the biggest joke of the election year follies. They simply weren't counted. Which is a shame inasmuch as at least 1.5 million voters were disenfranchised in 2000 and the provisional ballots were an intended remedy. [1]

Even absentee votes tend to get little attention unless the Secretary of State figures that it will push her or his candidate over the top (as they were used by Katherine Harris in Florida in 2000, for example). But the horrendous reality is that "as much as 15% to 30% of the total vote may not be counted on election night even when nearly 100% of the precincts have reported." [1] This not only makes it tough for the Media Networks to call an election with any sense of accuracy, but it also suggests that concession speeches are inevitably premature. One might suggest that John Kerry's rush to concede to George Bush in the 2004 presidential debacle was all the more questionable, if not certainly one of history's greatest betrayals of one's supporters.

When it comes to discriminating or challenging prospective voters, "Republicans take the more restrictive view, Democrats the more inclusive one. Reason: poor voters, who tend to vote Democratic, move more often than wealthier ones and are thus less apt to know their appropriate precinct." [1] The same applies to the IQ levels, making potential Democratic voters excellent targets for Republican operatives.

An excellent summary of the many potential problems are included in the cleverly entitled, "What Could Go Wrong" from CBS News -- although it might be fairer to change the title to All the Ways Things Went Wrong.

Vote Counters

But assuming that individuals run the gauntlet of voter registration and polling places and actually casts their votes, what are the odds the voter will have his or her vote counted? How about close to none? The skepticism of voters in this regard is amply warranted.

The real monster and ultimate threat to any remote resemblance to a fair election in the United States is the electronic voting machine -- especially those without a paper trail. The latter accounts for the means by which 30% of voters in the U. S. cast their ballots. Such machines cannot do recounts -- other than simply repeat the exact numbers as before.

Keep in mind that 30% would represent the potential for the votes of more than 30 million voters to go astray in the 2004 US election.

Actually it's even worse than this as voting machines have the clever characteristic of being able to manufacture votes out of thin air. Thus this represents not just a question of President Bush winning by a slim margin (3 million nationwide in 2004, and 527 votes in Florida in 2000), but numerous senators and congresspersons being elected or re-elected with margins of 2%, where the level of accuracy is plus or minus 30% or 40%!

If this doesn't get your attention, consider the fact that at the time of the 2004 U. S. election, 80% of all votes in America were counted by only two companies, and that these two companies were and still are controlled by avid Republicans who had publicly vowed to do everything in their power to re-elect George Bush and Dick Cheney. This fact and a host of other factors are encapsulated at http://miamedia.com/votergate/20facts.html, which has done an excellent job of explaining in a nutshell why expecting an honest vote count in the United States is now utter fantasy. This also implies that the RNP will be able to establish a permanent ruling dynasty in American politics limited only by the possibility of revolution or a large comet slamming into Washington, DC. Frankly, I'm betting on the comet.

Not that other countries are really any better. It's just that the U.S. serves as such an excellent and forebodingly bad example. Nevertheless you really must check out the votergate website (highlighted above) -- complete with all their links to sources. Just keep in mind before you do, however, that it gets worse. Much, much worse.

The votergate website, however, only suggests the spectre of possible malfeasance -- the sort of massive preponderance of evidence or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt nature of the problem. There is thus the need to supplement their concerns with hard core, concrete examples -- one of the best of which is the vote counting in the 2004 U. S. election. This was the case where the number of votes counted -- with large majorities inevitably showing up in one party's column -- which wildly exceeded the number of voters who actually showed up at the polls!

The Associated Press reported that in one voting precinct in Gahanna, Ohio -- the all important swing state of Ohio! -- 4258 voters supposedly cast an electronic ballot for George Bush while only 260 voted for John Kerry. While it is possible that over 94% of voters in the precinct supported George W. Bush, it is hard to reconcile these results with the fact that only 638 voters were counted at the polling center. In effect, Bush/Cheney received an absolute minimum of 3,880 wholly fraudulent votes in this one precinct alone. Effectively, Bush received ten times the actual possible votes.

Furthermore, when this discrepancy was pointed out to the Secretary of State of Ohio -- who just happened to be co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election effort -- his response was that it didn't make a difference in the race (and thus could be safely ignored, certainly as long as it took to declare Bush-Cheney the winners). Furthermore, the 20,736 voters who cast ballots in all of Gahanna's districts exceeded the roughly 20,130 citizens of voting age -- "an amazing feat worthy of biblical notoriety." [9]

It is probably noteworthy that while the Republicans leadership may be suspected of malfeasance in promoting this and various other fraudulent voting schemes, the Democratic leadership deserves nearly as much credit for not screaming bloody murder at the outrage. The fact the Democrats, John Kerry and the like, are not challenging the vote counting idiocy can only be attributed to the idea that the Democrats are not so different from the Republicans. [Certainly, in the past voter fraud to elect a Democratic President has become an established fact.] There is also perhaps honor among thieves.. Think of it as there being certain requirements for individuals to continue as members of the elite aristocracy. Not rocking the boat unduly is one of those requirements.

Meanwhile, exit polls have been conducted for decades by the Media in order to get a jump on predicting a winner. As such they have been honed and improved so as to maintain a level of accuracy that justifies the time and expense and which will later lead to Media credibility. [Pardon the oxymoron] Beginning in 2000, however, exit polls -- where voters were asked how they voted just as they exited the polling place -- have fallen into disrepute. Does this mean the mathematically and statistical techniques have suddenly gone astray -- or is the culprit simply that the alleged vote count is at considerable odds from what the voters thought they voted?

In Florida in 2000, numerous voters thought they voted for Al Gore for President, but had actually voted for Pat Buchanan because of the confusion occasioned by the infamous "butterfly ballot". The key, of course, is that the exit polls were right on -- at least in determing how the voters thought they had voted.

In 2004, many exit polls were again right on -- at least in states using paper ballots. But in key states, the kind which turned the election in favor of Bush, the exit polls were in stark contrast to the final tabulated results. It is worth noting that in some cases the difference did not change the outcome of the state's vote for president -- even if it might have made a critical difference in senate, congressional, and or local races. But in BOTH Ohio and Florida it swung the election in favor of Bush.

Basically, John Kerry should have won both Ohio and Florida based on the exit polls -- which are inherently more likely to count votes accurately than any number of Republican National Party-controlled voting machines. This would have given John Kerry the presidency with little or no question.

Additional information on this subject can be seen at: The Blue Lemur's article. It should be noted that all exit polls predicted a Kerry victory, though early polls were not considered reliable, http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=386. A second source of information is at Rense.com who has noted that "EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results. In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit polls result match the actual results reported within the margin of error."

A staff report of the House Judiciary Commitee Democratic Staff, entitled "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio", has also weighed in with just how corrupt the 2004 election was. This is admittedly a biased report, but it does have the saving grace of being a reasonably responsible indicator of the sort of things that can go wrong.

On the other hand, from the point of view of the aristocrats, e-voting machines have the decided advantage of ensuring that the elitist-preferred candidate is elected.

Media Bias and/or Incompetance

How does a voter actually obtain accurate, honest, fair and unbiased information on candidates and issues? Undoubtedly the same way that one obtains first class accomodations on weekend excursions to Saturn's largest Moon, Titan. Both require divine (or a benevolent extraterrestrial race with advanced technologies) intervention. Coverage by the mainstream media of third party candidates, for example, is virtually non-existant -- with spoilers such as Nadar and Perot being the only slight exceptions.

(6/15/2005) As Jon Stewart has said [17]: "I don't put any stock in political commentating. Political commentators at this point are mostly rewarded by the extremity of their viewpoint. Most of the analysis you see on television doesn't reflect the general sense that the public feels about a situation. It's two sides advocating, with no arbitration."

But the really horrendous examples are Fox News and the Sinclair Broadcasting Group which make the concept of ridiculously unfair and wholly biased pale in comparison to reality. These groups are, to put it simply, blind advocates of one political point of view and would in a fair world have their broadcasting licenses summarily revoked. On the other side, of course, are well-publicized episodes of such incidents as CBS reporting on some evidence showing George Bush to be the draft dodger that he is. [BTW, the fact that the "evidence" was later shown to be questionable if not outright fabrication does not take away the fact that there is still a preponderance of other evidence which shows that George Bush was failing to show up for National Guard duty.] It should be noted, however, that in the CBS case, a head or two may roll because of the crummy reporting -- Dan Rather's in particular... in due time -- but Fox and Sinclair will go blithely on without the slightest hint of admitting to any wrong doing.

(6/15/05) Keep in mind that on February 14, 2003, a Florida Appeals court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization -- in this case, Fox Television News. The ruling basically declared that it was not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast, but that honesty was only a "policy". Apparently, the thinking is that Free Speech includes the right to lie, distort, and/or deceive.

Then there are the preference polls -- which of course don't even have to purport to be honest. Some biased pundits like to point out that the end results of the election was very nearly what the polls taken just prior to the election would have indicated. However, wholly unlike exit polls which have developed a notable credibility over the years, polls before the event can be wildly off. For example, in the final days of the 2004 U. S. Presidential... free-for-all polls continued "to diverge widely, showing everything from a 3% Kerry lead to an 8% advantage for Bush." [10] Not only are such polls inherently flawed from a technical viewpoint, but they also assume the pollsters are not intentionally skewing the results.

In terms of technicalities, Joe Klein has written: "Take polling, please. The vast majority of Americans -- as many as 90%, pollsters have told me privately -- refuse to answer questions when the wizard calls (although the number [was] marginally better this hot election year). People who use cell phones exclusively, mostly younger voters, are unreachable." Furthermore, "volatile times make for less accurate polling." [11] You just never know who will respond to a poll, and then actually show up to vote.

And if there is any final concern about the media's responsibilities, the sheer lack of coverage on the fraud and potential fraud in the last election should pretty well put that one to rest. Just consider the list of potential incongruities suggested by Peter Coyote. No mainstream media wants to ask these questions? Well, perhaps one of the reasons is that the news was no longer "hot", i.e. John Kerry's rush to concede eliminated the prime motive for the mainstream media to question the election. Which brings us to:

Dweedle Dee and Dweedle Dum

Flip/Flopping Kerry and Dumb as a Fence Post Bush are among other things: cousins, Skull and Bones fraternity brothers, and blood-kin of the American Aristocracy. There was also the phony show of Kerry's goose hunt and Bush' macho flight-suit posing. [12] Small wonder that Kerry betrayed his supporters by conceding before thousands of votes were even counted. His alleged reason was that he did not want to place the American people in a state of uncertainty for possibly weeks on end, and instead chose to place them in the hands of an out-of-control, pathological idiot and his gang for another four years.

An interesting point is that a lot of people who voted for Bush -- the legitimate votes -- did so because they didn't like Kerry. This is a perfectly reasonable position akin to the Democrat's call-to-arms: "Anybody But Bush!". And yet the difference between the two is very nearly two peas in a radiated, mutant pod -- a point emphasized by Kerry's fraternity brother gesture of conceding without a fight -- and in direct contradiction to all of his previous promises.

In essence, the presidential elections in the United States are designed so as to eliminate or reduce any remote possibility of a real choice. It's just one elitist, powerful and wealthy aristocrat against another. This is by design... design by the elitist, powerful and wealthy aristocrats who control the country.

Incredibly, there is the assumption by 70% of the American populace that the loss of the election by one's chosen candidate will over the course of the next four years, have a "major negative impact on the country." [1] Typically, this concern is overblown. The reality is that the country is in dire circumstances in the hands of the RNP or DNP, whichever.

Former U. S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Cambell demonstrated that the distance between Republicans and Democrats can be vanishingly small. He did this by being elected as a Democrat, and then upon arriving in Washington, D. C. promptly changed his party's affiliation to Republican. Then Ken Salazar followed in his predecessor's footsteps by being elected as a Democrat (even with Bush carrying the state in the presidential election), and then promptly endorsing -- even hugging -- the Bush nominee for Attorney General, a fellow Mexican American who among other things had advocated torture and considered the Geneva Convention's ban on such interrogation techniques as "quaint". There are now a lot of Democratic supporters who are asking Ken Salazar for their campaign donations back. Good luck, guys!

Finally, there are the limitations on who one might vote for caused by gerrymandering -- the art of redrawing such things as Congressional districts so as to eliminate one party or the other from any realistic opportunity to challenge an incumbent. This technique leads to the result that control of a U. S. Congressional district almost never changes from one party to the other. This has prompted concern by California Governer Arnold Swatzenegger and the radical suggestion to redraw congressional district lines more in line with politically unbiased reasons. Good luck, Arnold!

In all respects, the American voters are simply given NO real choices when it comes to candidates for high public office. And in this manner, who gets to vote, whose vote is counted, and who's ahead in which poll becomes increasingly irrelevant. Good luck, world.

Dumbfuckistan

Why, you might ask would a population of allegedly free citizens elect a President who is as dumb as a fencepost? Or for that matter why would roughly 50 million votes choose the moron over the moderately intelligent? The answer apparently is that in order to qualify as being a citizen of Dumfuckistan (i.e. that collection of "red states") one must choose someone to be President who is as equally demented and misinformed as the population that elected him. In this way, the President is truly representative of the majority of those who elected him. This should make a lot of people feel warm and fuzzy all over.

Admittedly, there were likely many millions of voters who actually voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils. These are the people who were more worried about Kerry than Bush (and perhaps the fact that Kerry might be around for another 8 years in lieu of Bush's 4 more years). Considering Kerry's subsequent traitorous action in rushing to concede the election -- and thus avoid the press and exposure of the wholesale fraudulent nature of the fiasco -- one would have to conclude that these voters might have had more going for their choice than might otherwise have been expected.

The fact remains, however, than many thought George Bush was just doing a peachy job of leading the nation into a quagmire to wildly exceed that of Vietnam. One report that speaks volumes is from PIPA, a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland [14]. This report suggests that George Bush's rank and file supporters are even more benighted that even the most supercilious coastal elitist Democrat would imagine.

"Analyzing data from a series of nationwide polls, the report finds that a majority of Bush supporters believe things about the world that are objectively untrue, while the majority of Kerry supporters dwell in the reality-based community. For example, Bush backers largely think that the president and his policies are popular internationally. Seventy-five percent believe that Iraq was providing "substantial" aid to al-Qaida, and 63 percent say clear evidence of this has been found. That, of course, would be news even to Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier this month told the Council on Foreign Relations, 'To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.'"

Why is it that so many of the rank and file Bush supporters have strongly held views that not only contradict reality, but even contradict Bush's own stated views? The report makes one suggestion, while simultaneously alluding to some rather disturbing thoughts.

"The analysis says that the roots of this denial could lie in the trauma of 9/11 and people's desire to hold on to their image of Bush as a 'capable protector.' It offers no guidance, though, on how ordinary Republicans might be coaxed back to reality.

"And while 'The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters' may be perversely satisfying to Democrats in its confirmation of blue-state prejudices, it carries a pretty disturbing question for all rational Americans: How can arguments based on fact prevail in a nation where so many people know so little?"

As H. L. Mencken once observed [13]:

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters...he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is cruelly hard...

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

It may perhaps be comforting to know that Mencken's vision has now been realized.

Adding fuel to the fire are MRI results of Republican versus Democratic patterns of thought. Using brain scan technology, reserchers have actually found differences between a small group of Republicans and Democrats. [15] For example, "At a subconscious level, Republicans were apparently not as bothered by what Democrats found alarming."

Will Rodgers was once asked if he thought that politicians were all a bunch of scallwags and bums. Will, famous for his positive upbeat humor, answered that he thought the politicans represented the majority of their constituents remarkably well. Which may say something when one considers the subject of Presidential IQs [16]. Bush, for example, sets new lows in apparent IQ -- about 9 points below the median (but well above idiot, imbecile and moron). Bill Clinton was exceptionally high as well as Jimmy Carter, and curiously enough, Richard Nixon. All very, very strange.

Of course, from the viewpoint of the aristocracy, it's more the degree to which a politician can be controlled than in his or her representing great leadership. From their position, therefore, dumb is good.

What to do?

(6/15/05) One option was to emigrate out of this demented mess. But is Canada any better? [18] Another possibility is to apologize to the rest of the world. [19] One might also accept the Revocation of Independence envisioned by John Cleese. [20] Or even take the advice allegedly of Pat Buchanan, to wit, that it was Bush and the Neocons who caused the horrific mess in Iraq, and thus they must clean it up, themselves, in full public view.

But seriously, there is the distinct possibility that the 2004 elections in the United States may involve the first steps in a transformation of a Republic into a theocracy, "where the arbitrary dictates of a 'higher power' [Or someone's interpretation of such dictates) can overried law." [21] This horrific prediction is based at least on part by the means by which George Bush won the election. As Maureen Dowd of the New York Times as written: "...the president got re-elected by dividing rthe country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagrees to heel." She went on to say, "W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq -- drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or 'values voters,' as they call themselves to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage." [22]

If nothing else, the above addresses the horrific extent to which the Perils of Democracy are vulnerable.

Perhaps the best thing for all of us to do is to register to vote and then avoid voting like the plague. The idea is to try to ensure that the statistics show that people who are ready and willing to vote have recognized the democracy sham for what it is and are now refusing to continue the charade of a free and democratic country. This will likely cause members of the aristocracy to wonder if perhaps the people are not as docile as imagined.

At the same time, it's always a good idea to vote with dollars (i.e. be very, very selective which businesses one frequents, for example) and store up for the long, cold winter. This dollar voting thing might also apply to paying taxes. Any remotely reasonable way of avoiding taxes (avoiding, not evading) should be explored. Let the citizens of Dumbfuckistan pick up the tab!

And then the best idea... Become an enlightened being and rise above it all. It's just a matter of creating reality in a really innovative manner. After all, one entirely plausible reason for why George Bush was re-elected President of the United States in 2004 is that the "energy" -- the love AND hate he conjured up -- was so intense, he was a shoo-in. It's the same principle of why negative and positive advertising have essentially the same results. The "Anybody but Bush" actually helped Bush, much like really horrific television commercials still achieve better sales for products and services.

In the end, it's all about choices -- but not the ones ostensibly offered. Voting is a very private matter in its truest form. You make the choices that effect you. Everything else is a sham. Vote! But be very, very creative in how you do so.

For more information, visit the Halexandria Forums)

_____________________________

References:

[1] Nancy Gibbs, "The Morning After", Time Magazine, November 1, 2004.

[2] Many of the CNN.com webpages have since been deleted and or no longer active. This is one of them, but I have the original version on an e-mail file if you're really vitally interested. Just ask for "Court Voting" (26 Oct 2004).

[3] ibid -- "Voting Problems Predicted" (01 Nov 2004).

[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/01/politics/main652748.shtml

[5]James Thompson, "Office Politics", Rocky Mountain Bullhorn, October 28 -- November 3, 2004. (www.rockymountain bullhorn.com)

[6] Another webpage deleted. (See reference 2 above.) -- "Non Registration of Blacks to Vote" (22 Sep 2004).

[7] ibid -- "Fake Election Phone Calls" (02 Nov 2004)

[8] ibid -- "Where to Vote" (26 Oct 2004)

[9] http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000712.html

[10] "The Top Line of Polls," Time Magazine, 1 November 2004, page 20.

[11] Joe Klein, "The Trouble with Polls and Focus Groups," Time Magazine, 4 October 2004.

[12] Joe Klein, "The Fighter Jock and the Gooseslayer," Time Magazine, 1 November 2004.

[13] H. L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920.

[14] http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html

[15] http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/political.brain.scans.ap/index.html {Another site which has fallen through the cracks?}

[16] http://www.geocities.com/joyouspoetry/PrezIQ.html (This link can incur some pop-ups which are particularly disturbing. Be ready to disconnect from the Inter Net should you go there.)

[17] "10 Questions for Jon Stewart", Time Magazine, September 27, 2004.

[18] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3987697.stm.

[19] http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/11/17/notes111704.

DTL&hw=Dear+World+Sorry+About+Bush&sn=002&sc=519

[20] http://www.stephaniemiller.com/declarationofrevocation.htm

[21] Chris Floyd, "Pin Heads", The Moscow Times, March 12, 2004.

[22] Ben A. Franklin, Editor, "Mission Finally Accomplished -- Four More Years of the Political Right", The Washington Spectator, Vol 30, No 21, November 15, 2004.

[23] Tom Chaffin, "The Truth About Elections", Time Magazine, January 31, 2005.

[24] Woodrow Wilson, "Democracy and Efficiency," originally published in March 1901, republished by The Atlantic Monthly, October 2006.

[25] Walter Lippmann, "The Decline of Western Democracy", originally published in February 1955, republished by The Atlantic Monthly, October 2006.

[26] Ralph Waldo Emerson, "American Civilizaiton," originally published in April 1862, republished by The Atlantic Monthly, October 2006.

 

  Counting Votes         The (9) Supremes

Constitution for the United States of America         Justice, Order, and Law

State of the Union and/or Preemptive Rule

Forward to:

Redistricting         Privacy         9-11-2001         Homeland InSecurity

Nature of Law
         Anarchy         Revolution

New:

The Milgram Effect

Freedom of Religion        Holy War        The Rules of Holy War

Racism and Culturalism         Multiculturalism         Perils of Immigration

Free Speech         The (9) Supremes         The Halls of SCOTUS

An American Third Party         A Third Party That Knows How to Party

 

               

                                                                                      The Library of ialexandriah       

2003 Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved                     [Feedback]    

                                                                                                            Back Next