Many of us, myself included, are happy to see Obama ahead in the election.
But even if 'our guy' wins, there are many problems buried by his winning:
- The effect of money in our elections is a corrupting influence. We have done little to fix that - we simply had a democrat good at fundraising to win within the money system.
We all sit with baited breath wondering how much our leaders will compromise the public interest to serve their big money donors. It should not be like that.
The big money donors, who historically in other societies would simply have ruled, but can't get rid of democracy, preserve their disproportionate power through the role of money.
Related, we have done little to nothing to find a 'public financing' solution for campaigns, in fact, this campaign is viewed as a crushing blow as avoiding public finance helped Obama.
- For all we complain about the issues being ignored and the trivial dominating the election - whether it was about how Al Gore phrased his statement on his leadership in fighting for funding to create the internet, or how much blood the shrapnel drew when it hit John Kerry - once again, the election has spent way too much attention on the unimportant and frivolous and nonsense, from lipstick on a pig to Bill Ayers. Relatively few Americans are informed this time, as usual, on the important issues.
- Americans have still not adopted fiscal responsibility. They accepted the 'prosperity' of Reagan's massive debt increase, and they continue to oppose any increase in taxes in the face of our increasing debt. Instead, they eat up writers who rationalize that the debt isn't a problem (wrong), and they blame 'the politicians' for not cutting spending, but keep electing politicians who they criticize.
In 2008, both candidates have embraced the 'no increase in taxes' message in the face of our debt and recession, to pander to the voters. Both promise tax cuts.
Neither has been able (or willing?) to lead the American people to fiscal responsibility, which means not to keep demanding 'no tax increase' unless they cut spending.
Not advocate cutting spending in the areas they like but that don't pass, but cutting spending. They should accept tax increases until spending is cut, not the other way around.
- Third parties still face crippling barriers to access. While I don't favor a third party, I value them in our democracy, and think we should level the playing field.
I don't mean in some way that it now can happen, where one third party doing better likely pulls from the major party more like it, allowing the other major party to win.
I mean a revamp of the voting method in the only way I know that willl work, some form of 'ranked voting' where you can vote for your first choice (the Anandtech Party, say), and if the Anandtech party isn't in the top two finanlists, then your second choice vote - maybe for Democrat or Republican - counts. That would free you to vote for the party you want without 'throwing away your vote'. The only harm would be to the two-party monopoly.
- Another campaign filled more with empty slogans by both sides than substance.
Some slogans like 'change' have a place in 'providing leadership', but it seems to me we're not at a a point where the candidates can say 'harsh facts' much to the public.
The main solution I see here is cultural - for example, when the news business shifted from being medicine - may not taste good but good for you - to profit-oriented, tell people what they want to hear so they pick your show to watch - we may have lost a lot to our culture being willing to hear hard facts. I don't want to romanticize the old news days, I don't think they were a lot better and in fact I think more good content is produced today than ever before - but the best content is seen by few people. Masses tune in garbage for news.
It's ironic that the better the technology - radio over paper, tv over radio, internet over tv - the more the public seems to find lower standards for the content.
At the very least, we can bring back 'the fairness doctrine' and use the FCC to pressure for an increase in 'quality public issue content' - and we can support public radio and tv.
- We still have not solved problems with voter suppression, with voting technology, with conflicts of interest as the people who head states' voting systems are campaign co-chairs.
States control their voting systems, but we could take steps for there to be some national body recommending standards and processes states could be pressured by voters to adopt.
But even if 'our guy' wins, there are many problems buried by his winning:
- The effect of money in our elections is a corrupting influence. We have done little to fix that - we simply had a democrat good at fundraising to win within the money system.
We all sit with baited breath wondering how much our leaders will compromise the public interest to serve their big money donors. It should not be like that.
The big money donors, who historically in other societies would simply have ruled, but can't get rid of democracy, preserve their disproportionate power through the role of money.
Related, we have done little to nothing to find a 'public financing' solution for campaigns, in fact, this campaign is viewed as a crushing blow as avoiding public finance helped Obama.
- For all we complain about the issues being ignored and the trivial dominating the election - whether it was about how Al Gore phrased his statement on his leadership in fighting for funding to create the internet, or how much blood the shrapnel drew when it hit John Kerry - once again, the election has spent way too much attention on the unimportant and frivolous and nonsense, from lipstick on a pig to Bill Ayers. Relatively few Americans are informed this time, as usual, on the important issues.
- Americans have still not adopted fiscal responsibility. They accepted the 'prosperity' of Reagan's massive debt increase, and they continue to oppose any increase in taxes in the face of our increasing debt. Instead, they eat up writers who rationalize that the debt isn't a problem (wrong), and they blame 'the politicians' for not cutting spending, but keep electing politicians who they criticize.
In 2008, both candidates have embraced the 'no increase in taxes' message in the face of our debt and recession, to pander to the voters. Both promise tax cuts.
Neither has been able (or willing?) to lead the American people to fiscal responsibility, which means not to keep demanding 'no tax increase' unless they cut spending.
Not advocate cutting spending in the areas they like but that don't pass, but cutting spending. They should accept tax increases until spending is cut, not the other way around.
- Third parties still face crippling barriers to access. While I don't favor a third party, I value them in our democracy, and think we should level the playing field.
I don't mean in some way that it now can happen, where one third party doing better likely pulls from the major party more like it, allowing the other major party to win.
I mean a revamp of the voting method in the only way I know that willl work, some form of 'ranked voting' where you can vote for your first choice (the Anandtech Party, say), and if the Anandtech party isn't in the top two finanlists, then your second choice vote - maybe for Democrat or Republican - counts. That would free you to vote for the party you want without 'throwing away your vote'. The only harm would be to the two-party monopoly.
- Another campaign filled more with empty slogans by both sides than substance.
Some slogans like 'change' have a place in 'providing leadership', but it seems to me we're not at a a point where the candidates can say 'harsh facts' much to the public.
The main solution I see here is cultural - for example, when the news business shifted from being medicine - may not taste good but good for you - to profit-oriented, tell people what they want to hear so they pick your show to watch - we may have lost a lot to our culture being willing to hear hard facts. I don't want to romanticize the old news days, I don't think they were a lot better and in fact I think more good content is produced today than ever before - but the best content is seen by few people. Masses tune in garbage for news.
It's ironic that the better the technology - radio over paper, tv over radio, internet over tv - the more the public seems to find lower standards for the content.
At the very least, we can bring back 'the fairness doctrine' and use the FCC to pressure for an increase in 'quality public issue content' - and we can support public radio and tv.
- We still have not solved problems with voter suppression, with voting technology, with conflicts of interest as the people who head states' voting systems are campaign co-chairs.
States control their voting systems, but we could take steps for there to be some national body recommending standards and processes states could be pressured by voters to adopt.
Facebook
Twitter