The Death of Democracy in California
by Joseph Rowlands
Yesterday, Sept 15, 2003, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the state of California is to become a Kingdom ruled by His Royal Majesty, King Gray Davis I. This momentous decision was couched in terms of democratic principles, the court unanimously decided that no more elections by the people would be legally permitted until a flawless voting mechanism was invented and implemented. His Majesty's Royal Administration is tasked with this important responsibility. Knowing that His Majesty's power cannot be usurped until the job is done, the proud denizens of California mysteriously expect the process to take only a few months.
Of course, this isn't quite how it's being explained in the major media. The Associated Press headline is Court Puts California Recall Vote on Hold. Turns out that the ACLU believes that some voters may be disenfranchised during a recall vote due to non-perfect voting mechanism (a.k.a., chads). They proposed that democracy should be suspended until a better mechanism can be installed. That is, they asked that every voter be disenfranchised equally. The appeals court loved the idea.
There are a few subtle points here. First, this allegedly flawed system of voting that is entirely inappropriate to remove His Majesty from office was the same system that got him elected in the first place. If it's not good enough to get rid of him, why do we still act as if it was good enough to vote him in? In fact, we could extend this throughout the history of California elections that used the punch-card system. Does this ruling mean that the current state government should be removed from office, and all laws passed during the punch-card system days should be repealed? I wonder how long that's been going on.
Next, some may have noticed that King Davis, when he ran for election during the democratic days of California, was affiliated with the "Democratic Party". This is reminiscent of petty dictators calling their countries "The Peace-loving, Caring, Wouldn't-Hurt-A-Fly, Never-Torture-Our-Own-Citizens, Democratic, Republic of Gadzookistan." He may even call himself "Governor" to help deflect some of the attention away from his vicious power-grab. Orwell, you were the master.
Speaking of which, the "Democrats" have been arguing the recall election is a Republican trick to circumvent the will of the people. With straight faces, they have been telling people that having a free and democratic election subverts democracy. Naturally, if elections are a subversion of the will of the people, the solution is simple. Get rid of them (the elections...not the people). That's the only way to save democracy. It's a common theme with the left. "You must kill them to save them" (the people...not the elections).
The precedents from this ruling are terrifying of course. The court believes that if any votes may be lost or confused, democracy should be suspended. Or in their words "delayed". What happens when they find out that computers can be programmed wrong, or tampered with, or can confuse Floridians? What happens when after six more months of government bungling, the new voting machines aren't ready? Perhaps we shouldn't have federal elections until the voting mechanisms are uniform across the country?
That's not the problem, though. The Supreme Court will hopefully reject the judicial "reasoning" of the Appeals court, and bring democracy back to this barbaric land. And even if they manage to let the recall be delayed, King Davis' days of looting are almost over.
No, the problem isn't with a the court. It's with those who would subvert the election process in the hopes of squeezing out a victory. It's with those who decide to recount some votes when the law specifies you must recount them all. It's with those who decide to postpone elections in the hopes of getting a bigger turnout of their supporters.
One of the last defenses against tyranny is an objective means of electing officials. When those in charge decide the rules on the fly, then the people have lost their last, peaceful check against the outrages of government. When the rules change to fit the desired outcome, then democracy is truly lost.
Discuss this Article (3 messages)
|
