As Democrats face tough midterm elections, many are focusing on Voter ID laws such as the one recently upheld by the Supreme Court in Texas, which are intended to disenfranchise Democratic voters. If voting didn’t matter, they argue, why are they trying to steal your vote? Well, it matters to THEM…even if not necessarily to you.
Coke and Pepsi
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
14 Comments. Leave new
This may be an even better analogy than intended. (or not 😉
Pepsi started out as a copy of a popular brand. Since then, Coke and Pepsi have been accused of collusion, splitting the market, and price fixing.
Sound like a couple of parties you know?
I think more instances like the following should be inflicted upon the GOP. I nearly laughed my but off!
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-candidate-runs-voter-id-problem
I tried to add another “t” – butt it didn’t take! 🙁
Cole and Pepsi fight with one another and both destroy the health of only those who imbibe them.
The R’s & D’s fight with one another and both destroy lives of those who voted for them and those who didn’t.
When the votes are 50%+1 counted by computer machines with proprietarily-secret programming, the above brand of voter “disenfranchisement” is just a distraction. Whether he be “D” or “R,” in the end, ONLY the corporate-sponsored candidate wins.
Preznit BarryHO was chosen before any candidates were ever even voted for. The backroom selection process has always been in charge.
DanD
Ted,
Voting is predicated on the voters being informed. Very few voters are. However, voting is still fair because, all things being equal, Them should be able to obtain the same caliber of deception-ads as Us. That is, both sides’ lies and distortions about the other sides’ candidates should cancel out. “Oh, he has a DUI from nine years ago? Well, she got caught shoplifting six years ago.” Etc. Also, the candidates have political histories. When Hillary Clinton runs for president, the GOP will win the campaign with a single ad: “What has she actually done?” It will chronicle ALL the time Hilary Clinton has been in a position of power and influence, and how she has, pretty much, done nothing.
As pointed out earlier, the votes are pretty much controlled by the people running the voting software. My only hope is that someone in a position to manipulate one of these machines programs the software to generate a 100% return for Bozo the Clown, or Adolf Hitler, or Justin Bieber, thus proving that the machines can be hacked. 100%? Yes. Because that will let everyone who voted (unless they wrote in Hiler, Bieber, or Bozo) know for sure that the election was rigged. It would only need to happen in one spot. Ideally, two or three spots in different states, so that everyone will figure it out.
The vote is, of course, pointless. Why is it so important however? Because it gives all of us something to focus on. Why march to city hall with pitchforks when every four years there’s a vote? But for the ritual to work, there’s got to be a lot of effort pumped into it.
Ever notice, ever four years, the ads basically boil down to “Should my opponent remain in office, it could, very well, end the Republic”? It’s never, “Yeah, don’t forget to vote.”
Alex-
1) Only people with outrageously unrealistic expectations think their vote doesn’t matter. That is, as I’ve always said, the problem with “progressive” thinking- “Oh, I didn’t get everything I wanted right away, so my vote is unimportant.” Ironically, “progressives” will make NO progress on the issues they claim to care about until they dump that attitude; and if they do not dump that attitude they will get the crash they claim to want (which, if it would not affect the rest of us, would be a great teaching tool to show them how wrong they are). Of course, once they get that crash, they’ll realize just how much they DON’T want it. . .
2) I believe you made the same silly wishful thinking predictions about Obama. And you were just as wrong then as you are now. If Hillary runs, she will run away with the Democratic nomination and then stomp whatever idiot comes out of the GOP clown car into the ground. Guaranteed.
3) I do agree with you that voters are uniformed. I have always said that the founding fathers biggest mistake was assuming that voters would continue to stay as informed and engaged as they were at the founding of our country.
They should’ve built in some safeguard against a time when a large percentage of the voters were not just ignorant, but proudly, willfully, ignorant…
Whim,
I think you should reconsider that. I live in a heavily blue state. I can either vote for the blue candidate, the red candidate or the other color candidate.
If I vote blue, I’m doing pretty much nothing. The blue candidate’s going to win anyway. If I vote for the red candidate, my vote, again, does nothing because the blue candidate has a 99%+ chance of winning. Ditto, if I vote for the other color candidate (the Greens or the Communists or the Nazis or whatever fringe groups are out there).
It isn’t an “I didn’t get what I wanted” it’s a “the election is mathematically already decided.” And if you go through the rest of the states, it’s the same thing for pretty much all of them. It all boils down to about 10 swingstates. THOSE voters actually make a difference (example: Gore/Bush voters in Florida. A couple hundred more or less either way and the whole thing would have gone the other way.)
Yes, in the smaller elections, for the smaller offices (Board of Alderman, for instance, or Selectman, or the like), my vote has greater importance, but those people are all under the control of the two parties as well.
The Progressives’ only hope for getting change is the stuff that goes on BESIDES the vote. Canvassing, getting out and talking to people, holding protests and the like. Look at the minimum wage protests. Notice how little coverage the papers gave them? Where were the Progressives? As you said, probably sulking because they didn’t get everything instantly. Definitely, Progressives need to get their asses out of the OWS mindset and start doing something that works.
Hillary getting the nomination? Maybe. But I think she will get crucified in the campaigning. Her main selling point (that she’s a woman) just isn’t novel enough, and, worst of all for her, would have to be used immediately after an 8 year presidency that was indistinguishable from any of the white presidencies of before. No one’s going to naively gush, “oh, she’s a woman. You know it’ll be different.” Obama showed that a black man can be just as criminal as a white man in the Oval Office. I just don’t see how the Dems will fire up the base. “Vote for Hill. The white female Obama who’ll behave, just like he behaved, as a white male Republican.”
Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, could run. Although she’s a woman, she never seems to have used it as some sort of bonus aura (“I cast spell of enlightenment, and because I’m a woman, I get a +2 throw.”)
The Founders’ safeguard for the vote was to only let it be available to land-owning white men. We find that deplorable now. But what we have now hasn’t changed much: rich people (mostly men, mostly white, none of whom rent) are in charge of who gets nominated, supported, and elected.
@ alex_the_tired –
Damn! I couldn’t have said it better! You might be as intelligent and well-informed as I am! 😀
@alex, re: “The Founders’ safeguard for the vote was to only let it be available to land-owning white men.”
Can you document that statement? The only relevant docs are the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation.
While many of the founding fathers individually believed that’s the way it should be – that’s not what they collectively wrote. Moreover, it made sense at the time – landowners were much more likely to be well informed. With no mass media or automated printing processes, one had to extend some wealth and effort to become informed about the larger world. The typical working stiff simply didn’t have the time or resources.
Unfortunately for the masses, some sort of ruling/leisure class is a historical necessity in order to create a civilization out of chaos. TODAY, we have the kind of wealth where everyone can be fully informed and engaged – but as you noted, we no longer value those qualities.
(other than that one nit, I wholeheartedly agree with your post)
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
@derlehrer
Yep two hundred years of expanding the franchise – a continual upward swing – right up until the Roberts’ court.
:: sigh :: still, two hundred years ain’t a bad run.
«Voting is predicated on the voters being informed.» Quite the contrary, Alex, it is predicated on (a majority of) the voters being uninformed. Otherwise, it would, as has often been pointed out, illegal….
Henri
Alex and Whimsical
You’re both missing the important fact which makes voting in this country worthless – what matters isn’t who is elected, what matters is who owns everything. Nothing will change until that changes, plain and simple.