Friday, January 07, 2005
Congress Considers Ohio's Voting "Irregularities", Kills Messenger `
Paradoxically, one of the only redeeming features of the 2004 election in Ohio is that it was so badly botched. By which I mean, maybe somebody will notice, this time... possibly long enough to fix something (i.e., more than a week).
So much crap. Punchcards, touch screens, "missing" machines, day-long lines in the rain, outright fraud, incompetence, discarded voter registrations (outright fraud), Constitutional Amendment for marriage "sanctity", the complete subversion of provisional balloting, Ken Blackwell, Ken Blackwell, Ken Blackwell (outright fraud). I saw an old guy forced to wait for hours on foot, mostly outside in the rain, finally get within reach of the voting machines when he collapsed into convulsive seizures on the floor. We had to call a squad. He never got to vote. Meanwhile the head of our County Board of Elections misreports the number of voting machines deployed for days, even after the election. "How many machines in that total again?"
Anyway, some people prefer not to consider a given problem. (Remarkably, some people may also benefit from it. Are these usually the same people? Hmmm...) The justifications this time are undisguised: "there might be problems, but we got the right result". Should we be surprised? Ends justify means. Means are only a pragmatic consideration. We make up the rules as we go along. Or, in short, we make the rules.
Equally distressing as an illustration of human weakness, examine the difficulty people have taking an individual stand against criticism, even when it is in their own interests. Then consider how much less likely we are to stand up for some kind of abstraction or system, like say, Democracy or the electoral process (regardless of pragmatic interest). People talk a lot of shit about Democracy. It justifies a lot of actions for us, good, bad, convenient, whatever. But the number of times we actually evaluate what we *are* doing is slim.
The motivations for inaction are rooted in pragmatism, and ultimately, in fear. In a San Francisco Gate analysis, my Congresswoman Deb Pryce displays some intimidation towards those who would delay the system, for even a few hours, from proceeding along as though no problems existed:
So much crap. Punchcards, touch screens, "missing" machines, day-long lines in the rain, outright fraud, incompetence, discarded voter registrations (outright fraud), Constitutional Amendment for marriage "sanctity", the complete subversion of provisional balloting, Ken Blackwell, Ken Blackwell, Ken Blackwell (outright fraud). I saw an old guy forced to wait for hours on foot, mostly outside in the rain, finally get within reach of the voting machines when he collapsed into convulsive seizures on the floor. We had to call a squad. He never got to vote. Meanwhile the head of our County Board of Elections misreports the number of voting machines deployed for days, even after the election. "How many machines in that total again?"
Anyway, some people prefer not to consider a given problem. (Remarkably, some people may also benefit from it. Are these usually the same people? Hmmm...) The justifications this time are undisguised: "there might be problems, but we got the right result". Should we be surprised? Ends justify means. Means are only a pragmatic consideration. We make up the rules as we go along. Or, in short, we make the rules.
Equally distressing as an illustration of human weakness, examine the difficulty people have taking an individual stand against criticism, even when it is in their own interests. Then consider how much less likely we are to stand up for some kind of abstraction or system, like say, Democracy or the electoral process (regardless of pragmatic interest). People talk a lot of shit about Democracy. It justifies a lot of actions for us, good, bad, convenient, whatever. But the number of times we actually evaluate what we *are* doing is slim.
The motivations for inaction are rooted in pragmatism, and ultimately, in fear. In a San Francisco Gate analysis, my Congresswoman Deb Pryce displays some intimidation towards those who would delay the system, for even a few hours, from proceeding along as though no problems existed:
"So eager are those who abandon their jobs as public servants, they castRead that correctly. That they "abandon their jobs" is her assertion (her threat). They're so eager? For what, distraction? Quick, you distract them and I'll ... continue watching the inauguration? Or what, you distract them and then I will, in turn, distract them from your distraction?
themselves in the role of Michael Moore, concocting wild conspiracy theories to
distract the American public."
I've got it! First we dress up like Indians, and then we dump all the tea
into Boston Harbor. I'm sure it will distract the American public!No, that won't work. We need a conspiracy theory. A wild one.
Indeed, let's get to concocting immediately. Someone else can fill our elected offices if they figure out we're gone.
Fine. But there's one problem: I don't know how to concoct.
It's easy. Just ask yourself, "What Would Michael Moore Do?"
Brilliant!
Comments:
Post a Comment
