The 2016 Election season is providing a remarkable window
into the current American political environment. The view is particularly
interesting in that it shines light onto the souls of the political parties. And
what the public has seen isn’t necessarily a good thing for the parties, since
as they say in politics: “There are two things you don’t want to see being made,
sausage and legislation.”
There were accusations that the leaders of each party were
trying to ‘rig’ the process. And there were efforts within each party that would
support that there were those in the Parties’ committees that were operating
along biased lines with preferences for or against one of the candidates. So
surprisingly the public was reminded of something that it already knew but seem
unable to integrate into their reasoning; that is, the public doesn’t trust
politicians. But the fact that party leaders and functionaries were attempting
to guide the primary processes doesn’t examine the most important aspects of
those primaries and of the upcoming general election which is now being touted
as “going to be rigged”.
Starting with the primaries, the ‘rigging’ claimed is
closely associated with the parallel charge that the primaries were ‘unfair’.
So the question is what was ‘rigged’ and ‘unfair’, and how did this rigging and
unfairness get executed? The ‘rigging’ seems to vary by state, where each state’s
Party committee define and control their primary processes. So some of the ‘rigging’
isn’t necessarily at a universal or national level but more local. Other
efforts were directed at identifying weaknesses and vulnerabilities that could
be used against one candidate. So not
only can’t the public trust politicians and the parties, but the politicians
can’t trust the politicians and their own party.
This would all seem to be what Americans would expect of
nations that are lead by an authoritarian, fascist, sectarian, oligarchy, or
dictatorship style of government; however, Americans like to think that our
nation is still a democratic system. So while citizens might find the parties’
interference as distasteful and unethical, does it allow them to actually ‘rig’
the primaries or the election?
In every state their respective primaries allowed the voters
to choose their candidate. These voters were able to decide and choose which
candidate that they wanted to support. Candidates won or lost a primary based
on those votes. To ‘rig’ that process the only avenue that a party had was to convince
the voter to choose their biased view over that of the voters’ own judgment. If
the party voters think the process was ‘rigged’ then the voters were the
individuals who ‘rigged’ the vote. The desires and intentions of the parties
can try to persuade the voters to go with their preference, but the voters get
to decide for themselves because that is not just Americans expect that is what
they demand. In what primary were the voters denied their right to cast their
vote for their choice?
There is another facet of the parties rigging their
primaries, and of some nebulous entity or group that is ‘rigging’ the general
election that requires some inspection. The leaders in each party were also
elected by the voters, so the people who are claiming that the party is ‘rigging’
the process are people who the voters trusted and wanted representing them, and
elected to office. If the system or the process is being ‘rigged’ it is being
done by the people that the voters believed in. This is highly illogical, particularly
since voters tend to reelect over and over the same individual. The voters have
‘rigged’ the system, as they choose both the candidates and the winning elected
official. The states’ efforts to ensure that those who vote are legitimate and
eligible voters would seem to make ‘rigging’ the election not just irrational
but guaranteed to fail. The number of people that would be required to be
involved would make ‘rigging’ the election impossible to execute and retain
hidden; plus anyone competent person involved would be able to make the themselves
enormously wealthy by blackmailing those involved.
The threat to the elections “being rigged” unsound,
irrational, and unreasoned. The threat to the election is whether the voters
are adequately informed and knowledgeable about the issues and problems facing
the nation; and whether they understand the proposed policies and plans being
contested, and the implications and the cost-benefits of those policies and
plans. While there are a sizeable portion of the voter population that will
make an emotional decision, America has to rely upon the judgment of those
voters who will use intelligence, experience and vision to determine the
winners of the next election.
No comments:
Post a Comment