Never heard that before. What system is that Bernie? |
By Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired
So president Obama is in favor of mandatory voting like they have in Australia.
If we had it here Obama told an audience at the University of Chicago Law
School Friday, our voter turnout could climb as high as 80%.
“We really are the only advanced democracy on earth
that systematically and purposely makes it really hard for people to vote,” he said. While
the US has a history of denying voting rights to certain sections of the
population, with regard to the non-white population through extreme violence and
at all times the working class to one degree or another, the main reason only
53% of voting age Americans voted in the 2012 election is not because they
couldn’t find a voting booth. It’s
because they can’t find any candidates or a party that represents their
interests. They have learned through experience that no matter which party
governs for the next four years their lot will not improve, their material
conditions will continue to deteriorate.
There are differences between
the two capitalist parties that’s true. But these are not principled
differences as both the Democratic and Republican parties philosophy is one of
austerity, of making the working class pay for the crisis of capitalism. Both
parties are committed to defending the capitalist class, what Bernie Sanders
refers to as the “billionaire class”
and the system that ensures the rise of this class and its economic and
political dictatorship over society.
People do not participate in
the electoral process as an experiment in civics. This does not mean that
people should opt out and avoid politics, but we have to understand why they
do, it is not because they don’t care as some liberals often claim. They cannot
reason why a working class person won’t vote for the lesser of the two evils, a
competition between two political organizations representing billionaires over
which section of this class can plunder the US and the global society for the next
four years.
Obama is a slick bourgeois
politician. He has helped the insurance companies gain new customers forcing
people to buy from them at the same time creating some animosity between the
young and the old, the old who need care and the young who can avoid it more easily
due to the advantages of youth.
Like Obama, Elizabeth warren,
Robert Reich and other more liberal representatives of capitalism, Bernie
Sanders is tapping that anger that exists in US society toward this billionaire
class after decades of declining living standards. He does not attack the
system that ensures the billionaire class its rule. He does not attack
capitalism. He does not condemn US foreign policy and the trillions spent on
what is mistakenly called “defense”. He
does not call for the public ownership of anything, even within the framework
of capitalist society.
He is heading out to meet one of the most powerful representatives of global capitalism and what is often called here in the US, White Supremacy, in the figure of the head of Vatican Inc. This is a tactical move in the hope of winning the Catholic vote in the upcoming New York primary. Bernie has drawn the conclusion that he might just win this thing.
He is heading out to meet one of the most powerful representatives of global capitalism and what is often called here in the US, White Supremacy, in the figure of the head of Vatican Inc. This is a tactical move in the hope of winning the Catholic vote in the upcoming New York primary. Bernie has drawn the conclusion that he might just win this thing.
Sanders is scheduled to
attend a Vatican conference on “economic
and social issues” and has upset the president of the “Pontifical Academy” organizing the conference: “His presence threatens to make the event
political.”, Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social
Sciences, says. What a ridiculous statement. The Vatican is not at all a
political institution is it? And how can
economics be political? Tut tut!
Sanders’ opportunism and announcement of the visit is a “monumental discourtesy” Archer told Bloomberg, “He may be going for the Catholic vote but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly -- not that he will.” (Bloomberg news.)
Sanders’ opportunism and announcement of the visit is a “monumental discourtesy” Archer told Bloomberg, “He may be going for the Catholic vote but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly -- not that he will.” (Bloomberg news.)
It can’t be ruled out, and is
quite likely, that the Vatican has been spoken to by powerful forces among the
US “billionaire class” and that led
to this criticism and open rift.
Sanders’ campaign is certainly ruffling feathers and causing all sorts
of mistakes to be made in the Clinton and Democratic Party machine camp.
I have shared my views on
Sanders in previous posts, especially describing himself as a socialist which
is one of his many dishonesty’s. The
most recent is here.
Sanders has explained that
his self proclaimed “political
Revolution” is nothing more than getting more people out to vote, and in this case, for the Democratic
Party, so he would probably feel quite
comfortable supporting Obama’s statements on mandatory voting.
Sanders has been around; he is not stupid. He is not calling for an independent
direct action movement to be built and out of that an alternative political
party that is an absolutely necessity if any one of his significant reforms are
to come to fruition. Even if he honestly believes that his reforms can be won
through the Democratic Party never mind society being changed through it, he
never explained what this means. That his young supporters are in for the most vicious
political struggle to make that happen, that the party is completely
undemocratic and there will have to be a concerted struggle against the power
in it and the super delegates that ensure this power is untouched. Every Democratic
member of Congress is a super delegate. Sanders refers to John McCain as his
friend. C’mon. What champion of the working class would have McCain as a friend?
It's inequality stupid, as simple as that. Pope and Bernie say so |
There is no doubt that we are
in an unprecedented period electorally. Sanders campaign has gone further than
any of us would have imagined. It has gone further than even he imagined and I
personally think he now believes he can with the nomination.
I still cannot see this. We have discussed this at length, the people
around this blog, on the blog itself and also in our phone conferences that we
have. The Republican Party is a complete shambles and could well split even
before the election and most certainly after it.
This party drew in the Christian Right as a counter to the influence organized labor, ethnic minorities and other disenfranchised groups have in the Democratic Party. The Republican old guard, the genuine conservatives for whom profit and making money is god cannot get rid of them. This element is ideologically driven. They do not care about profits---they care about Jesus and the second coming. US policy regarding Israel is dominated by these Christian Zionists who are seeing the coming of their savior in all this violence and mayhem in the region.
This party drew in the Christian Right as a counter to the influence organized labor, ethnic minorities and other disenfranchised groups have in the Democratic Party. The Republican old guard, the genuine conservatives for whom profit and making money is god cannot get rid of them. This element is ideologically driven. They do not care about profits---they care about Jesus and the second coming. US policy regarding Israel is dominated by these Christian Zionists who are seeing the coming of their savior in all this violence and mayhem in the region.
Hillary Clinton is the safest
bet for the US bourgeois. She is ruthless, well connected and is no flake when
it comes to ultra violence, after all, she will have to prove herself as all
the misogynists will be there breathing down her neck. But she will serve them
well as Obama has and they will hold their noses and vote for her, Republican
or not if Trump or the lunatic Cruz is the Republican candidate. The labor officialdom the Democrats best
friends are pretty much silent as they are on all matters of social importance,
but working behind the scenes. The major media corporations and print media
have yet to come out blasting.
If Sanders wins NYC will that
change things? If one thing I have learned over time, especially in this
campaign it is that none of us can predict much with certainty. Sanders has committed himself to supporting
Hilary Clinton if he loses. Will he keep to that? I am not so sure. I am
convinced he has been totally shaken by his successes. He could break and run independent. He could
lead a left spit from the Democrats. Foolishly, the likely Green candidate Jill
Stein has hinted that she would be open to a bloc with Sanders, a sure way to
stick a nail in the Green Party coffin.
Meanwhile if we get mandatory
voting the Democrats, and the Republicans if they’re still around, can boast to
the world about our 80% voter turn out rate. The government could also make a
little money out of it as I understand not voting leads to a fine.
1 comment:
In Australia, attendance at the ballot is compulsory. Once there, of course, what you with your ballot paper is confidential, and whether you cast a vote or not is your business. Most people, once there, do cast a vote. Some leave their ballot papers blank. Some write in political comments.
The left in Australia is generally strongly supportive of compulsory voting. Evidence from comparable jurisdictions with voluntary voting - particularly the UK and New Zealand - shows that when attendance at the polling booth is voluntary, factors such as bad weather impact more significantly on the working class vote and the vote of vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed, much more than on the rich, who can drive to the polling booth.
Another aspect of the Australian voting system which is much better than the US, is our use of preferential voting - if your candidate of first preference does not succeed, then your vote is passed on at full value to your second preference, and so on. This means that you never have to worry about "wasting" a vote on a candidate from other than the major parties. It is because of preferential voting that Australia has seen the gradual erosion of our traditional three party system (with the Labor Party - once social democrat and now neo liberal - on one side and a coalition of a "Liberal" Party - hard line conservative tories, despite the name - and a National Party - based on a conservative rural constituency - on the other). Now we have Greens and Independents in both our state and national parliaments, as well as small party representatives from the right, including christian fundamentalists and anti-environmentalists. We also have maverick populist parties.
However the key thing for the left is that you can run a socialist campaign without being accused of undermining the chances of the "lesser of two evils" major party candidate. We can vote, eg, 1 Socialist, 2 Green, 3 Labour, which means that we can give our full support to the parties we prefer, and still ensure that, if neither the Socialist nor the Greens candidate are successful in that electorate, our vote will go to Labour ahead of the tories, which can be critically important in preventing the worst ravages agains workers' rights.
Compulsory ballot attendance and a high turnout doesn't force people to vote for the ruling parties. It does ensure that the vast majority of the working class and its allies participate in the electoral process, and that all parties have to consider those voters when running their campaigns. Together with preferential voting, it has assisted the growth of small parties of the left as viable electoral contenders, and even occasionally as elected representatives.
Don't knock it just because your two major parties are both conservative. If the left walk away from the electoral process, we cede the ground to the right without a fight.
If you think a utopian revolution is actually a viable alternative in the current circumstances, then good luck with that. But if not, then giving working people a voice in who governs them should not be discarded just because you're concerned it could give reactionary governments more "legitimacy". They claim all the legitimacy they want from the voluntary voting system.
I have little time for Obama. But every now and again he does suggest something sensible. I think this is one of those times.
Post a Comment