By Tim Baldwin
Frequent elections are intended to enable citizens to control public officials and advance policy preferences in government. On these assumptions, the Constitution’s advocates in 1787 argued that liberty would exist longer in our union because human nature teaches that people presumptively act in their best interest and do not willingly harm themselves.
But can elections today accomplish their intended purposes for the whole of society? If 50 percent of qualified voters regularly vote; only two political parties have a chance of getting elected; and 51 percent of those voters determine which candidates govern us, the conclusion is, a small minority control election outcomes. Couple this with the reality that individuals have virtually no influence on politicians, but foreign governments, corporate conglomerates and lobbyists have enormous power, as a Princeton University professor recently demonstrated. Politicians know this and act accordingly.
There is thus little wonder why so many citizens are disenfranchised with elections. Naturally, this downward spiral leads to political corruption and citizen indifference. As James Madison said, “An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should … be founded on free principles.” In truth, direct elections, by themselves, do not secure liberty for each and all. To be even partially effective, elections must have substantive impact, not just formal. Think about it.
By Joe Carbonari
From the day before our midterm election, I wonder: Will it help to get our economy unstuck? Will it lead to cooperation? Will we have elected office holders that recognize that they have a responsibility to all of us to work together, to move forward? Or, will partisan bickering continue to win out?
Locally, I expect that we will be fairly solid. The Flathead has some good candidates who are likely to take responsible leadership roles. The more fringe candidates seem largely non-threatening and offer proof that everyone does get to vote, and they remind us of the danger of those votes that are flippantly or by manipulation cast.
Which brings me to Mailergate, seemingly an attempt to manipulate a piece of our election and then to measure the effect that the manipulation had, so as to more widely sell this election “service” in the future. Entrepreneurially adventurous; ethically challenged. Our Supreme Court make up and subsequently the nature of the decisions made by it, manipulated.
I don’t like it. It reminds me of the Dark Money boys, and I look for their involvement in this charade. They tend to think themselves intellectually cute, but they are playing with our votes. It is reprehensible, it destroys trust in our institutions, and it is destructive to our democracy. It is neither conservative nor progressive. It is unethical and wrong. It must stop.