This cartoon is perfect.
Now, the Supreme Court’s idea is that the guy who looks like the Monopoly Man is legally allowed to use his wheelbarrow of cash to buy speech, while the elderly black man shouldn’t have lost his birth certificate in his last move. The black man’s right to vote is outweighed by his need to provide a particular form of state-issued identification, but our desires to have a government free of corruption and an equal voice in the outcome of our elections is outweighed by Monopoly Man’s right to spend his money however he sees fit.
Over in France, they’re having their presidential election today. They have different ideas about free speech.
There is a blackout in the French media today up to 8pm local time (11:30pm IST). No opinion polls or election analysis will be done before all the polling booths close. Anyone publishing results could be fined 75,000 Euros but that hasn’t prevented people on keeping an eye on the Belgian and Swiss media who come out with exit polls two hours earlier than in France.
In fact, the campaign ended on Friday even though the election is today. That’s because the candidates are not allowed to campaign the day before the election. So, imagine that here in the United States there are no restrictions on billionaires funding Super PACs or anonymously funding issue advocacy groups in the weeks and days before an election. But in France, even the candidates are not allowed to speak on election day and the day before election day.
I’m not saying France has their election/speech laws exactly right, but they at least are highly concerned with getting a fair, clean result. We’re just pawns in the billionaire’s game.
W-wait.. in France the citizens vote on Sunday?
Here in our superior system, we vote on a Tuesday, a work day/school day, etc. No problem voting on a day when you’ve got ten other things to do.
Not only does France do it right by stopping the campaigning a day before the election, their campaign season is much shorter- thus dissuading the amount of money spent by those attempting to influence voters.
And they vote on a Sunday, when the majority of the people have the day off. My understanding is in the first round of the election, French voter turnout was nearly 80%. We’ll see what the turnout is today.
Our voter turnout- here in the greatest democracy in the world? 50%. even less in our primaries and midterm elections.
but Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath. Therefore, we’d be oppressing the religious by having weekend voting.
Actually, that’s not funny. Saturday voting really would be a violation of the Jewish sabbath for those that observe it, since they will not write or use electrical devices or ride on the Sabbath. I don’t think the same could be said for Sunday for most Christians, but I’m sure there are some who could not vote on Sunday.
I’m sure there are some people in France who don’t do anything on the Christian Sabbath. There must be at least one.
France also bans headscarves for Muslim women. We don’t, do we?
Needless to say, I agree with the rest of your points. Maybe Election day should be a work holiday.
Election day a work holiday?
I agree- but safe to assume most employers would fight this- after all, we get “too many” holidays as it is.
The other thing France, and most other EU nations do right: at least THIRTY days of vacation per year.
The answer is weekend voting, as is done in some nations.
That way Christians can vote on Saturday, Jewish folks on Sunday.
But this is all moot- our system is not really about encouraging voters to get to the polls.
Conservatives have hated the French and their Jacobin republicanism since Burke denounced their revolution, thus provoking Thomas Paine to write in their defense The Rights of Man.
It was Jefferson and his allies who were full of sympathy for the French and preferred an alliance with them to an alliance with the English.
Meanwhile, the Brit government, though not as good as it could or should be, has evolved over time into something far more sensible and democratic than our republic or that of the French.
Now might not be the exact moment in time to extol the virtues of the British system of government.
You said that Sunday.
Today is Monday.
Better, now?
So, imagine that here in the United States there are no restrictions on billionaires funding Super PACs or anonymously funding issue advocacy groups in the weeks and days before an election. But in France, even the candidates are not allowed to speak on election day and the day before election day.
You write approvingly:
and
And yet you reject the idea of an effective fix being in place here in the United States.
The fix is media-created and media-supported. It is achieved through the application of huge amounts of money through the media, money that does not want its ownership identified. This goes to the Super PAC idea and it also goes to the concept of whoever/whatever controls the pursestrings of the major media also controls how the major media skew their coverage. If we could accurately identify the real owners of said money, I am sure that we would see exactly the same sort of “Give to both candidates but give more to the one that you wish to win” concept that has been perfectly evident in the publicized corporate donations to both candidates and parties for decades.
The general consensus regarding this sort of activity is that the corporate donors are covering their backsides, just in case the one that they think will win actually loses. That may have been true in the pre-supermedia, pre-information age that is only recently past, but it has gone way beyond that now. Today? The media have almost absolute control over who gets attention and what kind of attention is given. All you had to do was watch the arc of attention lavished on the various Ratpublican candidates during the most recent faux primary campaign to see the truth of this. Only Romney was made to look “presidential.” The others were either set up for a fall if they were considered to be relatively harmless by the money people (I mean, ya gotta have some kind of show or the marks will get wise, right?) or actively dissed by any and all means possible if they were considered to be some kind of real threat to the status quo.
As soon as Gingrich began to gather some momentum….and believe it, he had adequate position in the PermaGov, adequate experience, almost adequate backing and is most likely in possession of any number of secrets that would make things uncomfortable for some people presently in power if publicly known…as soon as he was perceived to be some kind of threat he was transformed into a cartoon character and his candidacy was effectively ended.
Paul? They tried to ignore him, then they mocked him, then they attacked him. He’s too stubborn…and too much the ideologue…to quit, but they most certainly managed to isolate him from any chance whatsoever at the White House.
The others?
Fools and clowns.
Romney was the selected one.
The chosen one.
Chosen to go down.
Watch.
AG
This is nothing new and won’t change till enough people get sick of voting for the mediocrity that is our political elite.
.
Outside of France the media were making hay with some leaked exit poll results. However, stiff penalties and fines would be imposed inside France for any publication by the media or its citizens. To get around this problem, there were some creative solutions:
“The Hague is shining @ 52.8°C.
At Budapest several clouds and fog @47.2°C.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."