by guest blogger,
Veri1138
Democracy. One person, one vote. A concept that millions have died for,
in revolutions and war. Democracy, a concept that has its modern roots
in Ancient Greece, written about and then codified in Athenian law. Rule
of the people. As opposed to aristocracy, rule of the elite.
Increasingly, the lines between democracy and aristocracy, are blurred
by modern government. We elect people who, in ideal circumstances,
represent the majority of voters who cast their ballots for political
candidates. We call our 'democracy', a representative republic.
Nothing is further from the truth. Our politicians are elected by a
minority of voters, with an even larger population of eligible voters
who have only, silently, given tacit consent. Tacit consent by eligible
voters who did not directly consent to party rule by either majority
party. Yet, those who remained silent by not casting a ballot, have
consented - in some way - to the policies of both parties, that govern
America.
"The people lay down the conditions which the king is bound to fulfill.
Hence they are bound to obedience only conditionally, namely, upon
receiving the protection of just and lawful government…the power of the
ruler is delegated by the people and continues only with their consent."
-George Sabine, A History of Political Theory, p381, paraphrasing
Theodore Beza from 1579 A.D.
A government's legitimacy and moral right are obtained by "consent of
the governed" who, by voting or not, confer that legitimacy and moral
right upon whichever politician is elected by the majority of eligible
voters, of whom are comprised of voters and non-voters. If an eligible
voter does not vote then he or she still consents to be governed, even
if that non-voter does not agree with his rulers. Silence confers
legitimacy and moral right upon whichever politician of whichever party
manages to garner the majority, thereby winning the election of those
who do vote.
Dissent is only registered by those who actively participate in the
electoral process, by voting. Voting is an active voice against those
who would rule. Not voting is tacit consent, a passive voice of those
who may not agree with the policies of their political leaders, yet by
the very act of not voting, provides tacit consent by their silence.
In the US 2012 presidential elections, President Obama was re-elected
with fifty-one percent of the popular vote. Republican presidential
nominee, Mitt Romney managed to persuade forty-seven percent of voters
that he should be President, yet failed. Roughly one to two percent of
voters registered their dissent with both candidates by voting for
neither, instead choosing to vote for third-party candidates, or by
marking 'none of the above', or writing in a candidate for President.
President Obama obtained consent of the governed. The Democratic Party,
as opposed to Democratic voters, retained control of the Senate, while
Republicans gained seats in The House of Representatives. All
politicians obtained consent of the governed - both those so governed,
who voted, and by those who did not vote.
Both parties are minority parties. Both parties and their politicians
obtained consent of the governed with a minority of votes. The reality
is that, President Obama was re-elected with twenty-nine percent of
eligible voters while twenty seven percent of eligible voters registered
dissent with President Obama's leadership, by voting for Mitt Romney.
Two percent of voters registered dissent with both candidates.
Furthermore, dissenting votes by Republican voters returned The House to
Republican rule while Democratic Party candidates retained consent of
the governed, to remain the majority in The Senate.
The reported results of The 2012 Presidential Primary:
-
Obama - 51%,
- Romney - 47%
- Other - 2%
Now, for the real results:
-
Obama - 29.7%
- Romney - 27%
- Other - 2%
- Not Voting - 41%
The reported results conferred psychological value upon President
Obama's win. The Democratic Party portrayed President Obama's win as a
vindication of his rule. Consent of the governed - both voting and the
non-voters - stands at over sixty-nine percent (69%). By remaining
silent, eligible voters who do not vote, give tacit consent. Even if
they do not agree with the President's actions. Those non-voters did not
actively dissent, deciding to remain passive.
By the reported results, President Obama obtained an overwhelming
mandate, which was reported as such by The Democratic Party. This
mandate he obtained has allowed him to conduct himself as he has,
pursuing policies against traditional Democratic values. Because he has
consent of the governed.
In reality, President Obama and the Democratic Party obtained consent of
the governed, yet - by using the real results of the 2012 elections -
are in effect, a minority government elected by a minority of eligible
voters - who retain majority rule in the Senate and control the
administration. Republicans achieved the same in the House of
Representatives. Both parties are elected by the minority and are
minority parties, in light of the real results of the elections of 2012.
Both have consent of the governed. Non-voters approved their retaining
of their respective positions simply by not voting. In effect,
non-voters vote for both parties in the same proportion as do the actual
voters.
There are those who argue that voting does not matter. That voting is
useless. That nothing will change in government. And those that advocate
or believe so, are correct. By not voting, those non-voters are
effectively consenting to be governed by both parties; parties who are
free to pursue interests inimical to the well-being of those who are
non-voters.
Silence is consent. Not voting, is silence. Not voting conveys legitimacy and moral authority upon those who are elected.
That legitimacy and moral authority is of enormous psychological value,
once conveyed to those who are elected. Those elected by the majority of
voters and non-voters, use legitimacy and moral authority to pursue
their own or party interests. They have both. The non-voter, despite
what he or she may think, disagree with, or object to; has already
consented through their silence. Other governments recognize the
legitimacy and moral authority of an elected government as obtained
through the consent of the governed.
Silence is not dissent. It is merely being silent. Voting against an
elected official or party, is dissent. Active dissent instead as opposed
to passive acceptance, where one may speak out against their rulers'
policies; yet have consented through their silence to a ruling party's
policies.
Reconsider the 2012 Presidential Elections with the participation of all
voters, as a theoretical, if one hundred percent of voters, had voted.
By using the same numbers above, as to the real results:
-
Obama: 29.7%
- Romney: 27%
- All Others: 56.3%
Consider that 'All Others' would have been split between various third
parties, or voters casting ballots marked 'none of the above', or by
voters casting ballots with write-in candidates. Consider that this
would have left fifty-six point three percent of all votes divided among
third parties, where no third party would have won any seats in
Congress. That the Republican Party and Democratic Party would have
retained their respective seats in Congress.
That fifty-six-point-three percent of voters did not consent to be governed if such would have been the case.
The psychological impact upon both parties, in such an outcome, would
have dramatically weakened both parties. They would, in effect, by
minority-elected representatives. These results would scare them as they
know that the majority of voters had voted against their rule. That the
political landscape of America could be changed if enough voters among
those fifty-six-point-three percent, could only find a common cause and
candidates.
The reality of the number of those who actually cast votes for President
Obama, stands at twenty-nine-point-seven percent. The Republican Party
knows this. The psychological value of the real number is invaluable to
blocking President Obama's initiatives. Simply because The Republican
leadership knows, without a doubt, that President Obama was elected with
such a low number of ballots cast. That President Obama only has
consent of the governed due to those who remained silent, by not voting.
That those voters will most likely remain silent in future elections.
Paul Weyrich, considered by many to be the Founding Father of Modern
Conservatism, through The Moral Majority and other conservative institutions, openly advocated that the less people who vote, the
better off the Republican Party is in winning elections. In a speech
before Conservatives in Dallas, Texas, in the Fall of 1980, Paul Weyrich
remarked, "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo
syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want
everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they
never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now.
As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes
up as the voting populace goes down."
Paul Weyrich, as a conservative Republican, railed against good
government. Good government that can come about by increasing voter
participation. The consent of the governed. By registering dissent
through the voting process - even if you do not win - sends a powerful
message to those who govern in our stead. Legitimacy and moral authority
are stripped from politicians and ruling parties when the majority
actively dissent through active participation in the election of
officials.
Governments fall because of dissent. Societal transformation is
achieved, eventually, when the majority actively dissent, thus stripping
elected officials of the majority of legitimacy and moral authority,
conferred upon them, by voters. Such results are not instantaneous.
There is no short-cut to change. Electing one person will not provide
that change.
As long as those who do not vote, believing in the fallacy that by not
voting that they are actively dissenting; fail to actively register
their dissent. Silence is consent to both The Democratic and Republican
Parties, that they have the legitimacy and moral authority, to act upon
the behalf of our population. By not voting, you do not speak to power.
Those who believe they dissent by not voting, the politicians have
nothing to fear from those who do not voice their opinion through the
ballot box. The ballot box is what elects them. The ballot box is where
they obtain their legitimacy and moral authority. The results of the
ballot box are only registered by those who vote. The remaining of
eligible voters who fail to vote; remain silent, thus conferring tacit
consent upon those who would govern.
For those who protest against the ruling party(ies), for those who
advocate policies to their liking; for those who fail to vote? The only
protest that matters is the protest cast at the ballot box. Politicians
will still be elected. Non-voters are simply absent.
What possible effects do non-voters have upon the electoral process?
American politics, as measured through polls, is seen as about evenly
split between the policies of the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party. Polls show this. The casting of ballots reflect this. Yet, a
significant minority of voters are missing from the results used to
prove such an almost even split between voters. Poll results are simply
that. We can not know what the real gap between the polls that show an
almost even split is; if the polls are real. Without the participation
of the majority of voters. A meme is established that America is an
almost evenly divided nation, between liberals and conservatives. Polls
show this. The ballot box - through the popular vote with the
participation of the majority of voters - does not and can not show the
reality.
Consider, also, that the less eligible voters that vote, the easier it
may be to manipulate the results of an election, thereby enabling the
theft of elections through vote-count fraud. Anomalies in American
political races have been reported through the use of one of the most
reliable methods to detect fraud: exit polls. When such anomalies have
been encountered, the most reliable indicator of fraud - exit polls -
has been discounted. One factor that may influence such a conclusion of
unreliability with exit polls is that the so few vote in the local
races.
Passive consent by non-voters is key to the Democratic and Republican parties, to continue to pursue policies inimical to America's interests.
To your interests. The the interests of the public good and well being.
To America's Common-Weal. Common Wealth. Common Well-Being.
Both parties are crudely represented by social divisions, who pursue
roughly the same economic policies of neoliberal economics, and who
pursue the foreign policy of the neoconservative movement that dictates
America's actions around the world, in relation to other nations. With
both active and passive consent, of those who vote and non-voters
respectively, legitimacy and moral authority to pursue such policies, is
granted.
In one sense, active voters who elect their leaders only provide a
minority consent. Thus, a rule by the minority. Coupled with passive
consent by those non-voters, both parties are able to realize a consent
of the governed. Non-voters, are in effect, voting for the policies of
both parties, irregardless of the non-voters' personal beliefs and
actions. Dissent at the ballot box is the only dissent that matters to a
politician. It is only through the ballot box that a politician is
elected. A politician has nothing to fear from those who do not vote,
who do not register their dissent.
Register your dissent. Vote. Even if you do not win, you will be
counted. Or forever, remain silent with the politicians knowing, that
they have nothing to fear from you since you refuse, as a non-voter, to
be heard where it counts: at the ballot box.
For those of you who say, that the elections are stolen? Remember Paul
Weyrich. He is right. You are not. Elections are easier to steal, the
fewer that vote.
Don't vote? Well, non-voters are only signaling, "Bye Bye, Democracy!"
—
Veri1138
