Five essays on the electoral system

By Mark E. Smith

After the 2000 election when the Supreme Court stopped the vote count and announced that there was no Constitutional requirement that the popular vote be counted, I, like many others, joined the election integrity movement to try to find ways to ensure that our votes would count. After six years of activism and research, I learned that the Supreme Court had been correct, and that not only was there no Constitutional requirement that the popular vote be counted, the US Constitution had vested power in the hands of the government and not in the hands of the people, as the third essay below explains. In other words, the United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional tyranny. So I stopped voting in 2006 and became an election boycott advocate. Finding myself banned from many liberal and progressive websites for urging people not to vote in sham elections, I started posting my essays on my own website at:

Theses five essays were written when Cindy Sheehan was running for office. Based largely on the experiences of John Conyers with regard to the Downing Street Memos, it is a response to those who think that independent or third-party candidates might accomplish something by working within the current system, or that it is worth voting for local candidates. The second essay was in response to a Democratic Party operative who was instrumental in co-opting Occupy San Diego away from direct democracy and channeling it into politics as usual. He and his vigilante cohorts were so brazen that on the 100th anniversary of the Free Speech Fight in San Diego, an historic event when anarchist Emma Goldman had been run out-of-town and Ben Reitman was tortured for saying things like, “If voting could change anything, they’d make it illegal,” these liberals stood on the same spot downtown and pretended to be advocates of free speech instead of the statists they are.

I used these essays, particularly the fifth one, which explains why voting, is the consent of the governed, as the basis for Occupy teach-ins, but my voice was almost entirely drowned out by the sheer numbers of political operatives registering voters for their particular causes or candidates. It was the fourth essay,  a rebuttal to most of the common arguments for voting used by political operatives and written in response to one of those modern-day vigilantes that got more than six thousand views, which isn’t bad for a tiny website with no more than a dozen regular readers.

And then a strange thing happened. Somebody posted that essay to a liberal website, the admins deleted it, somebody else asked where it had gone and posted a link to it on Fubar, and it got about four thousand more hits in a couple of weeks. So I decided, since this seems to be an idea whose time has come, to post my top five essays on voting in one place for convenient access. All may be freely reproduced in whole or in part, with or without accreditation. Enjoy and share! Below some of the essays is a link to where it was originally posted on Fubar, for those who might wish to look at the informative discussions which followed.

−Mark E. Smith,
@fubarista on Twitter


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Dissent Not Consent

A fine site


Scribbling for environmental, social and economic justice

News, Analysis, Culture

%d bloggers like this: