The Fraudulent Meaning of Elections

The Future of Freedom Foundation today posted online my Freedom Daily article on “The Fraudulent Meaning of Elections.”

Here’s the start & finish –

“Politicians strive to make Americans view elections as sacrosanct. Challenges to election results are portrayed as heresies that threaten to destroy the entire republic. After the 2004 presidential election, many Democrats went on the warpath over alleged voter fraud and manipulation in Ohio and elsewhere. The Constitution requires Congress to certify the Electoral College voters for each state before a president is officially elected. A handful of Democratic members of Congress formally challenged the seating of the Ohio electors when Congress reconvened in early January 2005. Though the debate in the House of Representatives lasted barely two hours, many Republicans feared that raising the topic had derailed the nation and the march of history….

The “debate” in Congress illustrated how elections are now about consecration, rather than representation. Elections have become something for rulers to shroud themselves in, rather than leashes used by the people. Politicians are obsessed with maintaining the imagined dignity of their class, not in resolving doubts about honest vote counting. ”

This piece is a spinoff from Attention Deficit Democracy.  I note elsewhere in the book: “The biggest election frauds usually occur before the voting booths open.”

I hope this article does not prove a fatal detriment to my chances for winning the 2006 Norman Vincent Peale Postive Thinking Award.  



, , , ,

8 Responses to The Fraudulent Meaning of Elections

  1. Thomas Bell July 10, 2006 at 11:48 am #

    The average voter doesn’t even know what Senators or Representative would represent him/her, and the politicians call voting “sacrosanct”?

  2. Jim July 10, 2006 at 1:03 pm #


    If one thinks too hard about the process, it could induce cynicism.

    It is amazing how much hokum Americans now put up with.

  3. Steve July 11, 2006 at 4:24 am #

    Not to delve too far into the topical but this brings Joe Lieberman’s current campaign to mind. He seems to think that he is entitled to the Democratic nomination in Connecticut. I have never seen him stand up to anyone until he got a primary challenge.

  4. Jim July 11, 2006 at 9:24 am #

    Connecticut has a history of sending the most pious sonuvaguns around to the U.S. Senate. Or maybe Lieberman took sanctimony lessons from Lowell Weicker.

    It is fun to watch Lieberman having to defend himself after largely scorning his party.

  5. D. Saul Weiner July 11, 2006 at 10:07 am #

    It amazes me how every time someone attempts to call the politicians into account for their corruption, mistakes, and incompetence, their kneejerk reaction is to resort to intimidation and bullying to silence their critics? What is even more amazing is how well these tactics work!

  6. Jim July 11, 2006 at 2:53 pm #

    Yes. The recent brouhaha over the Bush administration’s warrantless financial surveillance vivifies how easy it is to browbeat the media….

    Maybe enough folks will catch on at some point that this hokum will not work.

  7. D. Saul Weiner July 12, 2006 at 6:52 pm #

    What is also interesting is that after the media gets browbeaten, they tend to do exactly the same thing to the citizens who demand accountability. I think you could consider this a form of “kicking the dog”. This video is a great example of that, but much to her credit, Cindy Sheehan does not get flustered and simply refutes every point made by the warmongering interviewer.

  8. Jim July 12, 2006 at 10:38 pm #

    Oh, if only kicking were more fruitful…