Coming into a new national election cycle shortly, I thought this essay on democracy, originally published in 2010, was ripe for revising:
First, some Necessary numbers: as of 7:30 AM on September 28, 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (census.gov), the United States of America has a population of 329,727,985 people.
With any given election, roughly 54%, or 178,053,112 people, actually turn out and cast their vote. Now, remember that number, ok? Here's another one: 76% of Americans have access to the Internet... that's roughly250,593,269 people (www.statista.com). And that's a conservative number that's growing almost daily.
Point? We need to modernize America's voting. Enough of this silly registering and going to our local polling places to vote. Online, people. We need to do it online. Advantages? All-but instant, all-but unquestionable (with the appropriate precautions taken) results. Everyone has a social security number... one number, one vote. You will protect that number like you protect your bank card PIN (well, those that do, will; those that don't, never will). If not, you will lose your vote. There is no more fraud potential with this method than there is with the current methods used ("hanging chad..." need I say more?).
 |
| The voting booth of the future. |
And who is more likely to vote? A guy who has to vote on the way to or from a busy day's
work, or that same guy after dinner sitting at his computer in his living room, perhaps even in his underwear? I'm guessing the latter scenario is the more favorable for a higher voter turn-out.
Face it, then we can (and should) vote on everything and anything... not just the politicians. We can cut out the middle man (sorry congress) and put the vote directly into the people's hands... it's the Ultimate Democracy. It's the Plebiscitary Democracy!
From Wikipedia: "A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal."
Come on, folks, it's 2019 for God's Sake. National Healthcare? Put it to a referendum. Legalizing marijuana? Put it to a referendum. Abortion law? Put it to a referendum. Climate change regulation? Put it to a referendum. Term limits? Put it to a referendum.
You get the idea. Hey, let's put the idea of a Plebiscitary Democracy to a referendum...
... term limits. Yes. Yes. Yes. Errr... maybe. I don't think our founding fathers ever officially condoned the concept of a "career politician," or politics as a career.
That being said, while most of them had other careers (farmer, merchant, slave owner) (just kidding- save it, Dugan), by the time we actually became a nation, most of the notable movers and shakers were pretty much into nation-building full time. Case in point might be the first King of America, George Washington himself.
Limiting a politician's term sounds like a good idea, if for no other reason than out of spite. If you look more deeply though, I'm thinking that like any other public service (ie, teaching), the more you do it the better you get at it. It's a little on the naive side to think that you can have a politician step from the shadows, serve two or three or four years with any kind of effectiveness (heck, the first two or three or four years of public service are learning the job), and then step quietly back to their old lives. It takes time to learn the fine art of Politicking, just like any craft. Seriously, would you want someone who worked at Wawa to step into a room and negotiate a nuclear disarmament treaty with Kim Jong-il? No offense to the Wawa employee-- God forgive me but I can't do without a Wawa within three miles of anywhere I live-- but nine times out of ten this much-beloved guy can't tell the difference between three and four meatballs on my meatball shorti...
Of course, in a democracy such as ours, term limits is the ideal, but I don't think it's realistic.
But what do I know? I'm just a teacher.
© Ray Cattie
No comments:
Post a Comment