If the major parties don't represent us, does that mean we're stupid?

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” –Albert Einstein

 The Independent Voters Network had this op-ed piece which opined that the two major parties 'clearly and strikingly' do not represent most voters. It offers scant little evidence for this thesis, other than there are an increasing number of independent voters.

The sort of lazy excuse for analysis in this article bothers me. Giving the voters a free pass for their choices may be nice populism but does not serve the national interest.

100% of Americans are represented by either Democratic or Republican Congressmen (obviously except for two vacant seats). 

99.3% of Americans are represented exclusively by major party US senators.

100% of Americans are represented by Democrat or Republican state governors. 

All of them are the result of (sort of) free and fair elections. 

If Americans don’t feel these two parties represent them, why do they elect exclusively them virtually all the time from among the 3-6 choices available in the majority of elections?

One can reasonably infer from this situation one of two possibilities: either a) Democratic and GOP elected officials *do* generally represent the views of most Americans or b) that voters are so stupid or gutless as to overwhelmingly elect people who don't represent them even though, in the majority of cases, there are non-major party alternatives. 

Which is it?

You can bitch and moan about your cable company or your cell phone provider but as long as you keep buying their product, they don’t care. They will have no incentive to improve. 

Politics is the same way. The corporate parties don’t give a toss about your whining, so long as you keep buying what they sell. 

If you keep voting for them, they’ll never have an incentive to change in any meaningful way. Sometimes people whine when politicians break promises but more often, the moaning comes about when a polician acts exactly as he or she suggested in the campaign! 

As PJ O’Rourke concluded in his excellent book Parliament of Whores: [I]n a democracy such as ours, the whores are us.

Enemies of democracy reveal themselves

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Locals may remember a guy by the name of Don Neddo. Shortly after the Iraq Aggression, Neddo organized many pro-war rallies in this area where he led denunciations of those who act like citizens by daring ask questions about the insanity.

He later stepped down as an organizer of pro-war rallies after it was revealed that he was telling bald-faced lies about being a veteran. He claimed to have served in Korea when in fact he hadn't been in the military at all.

Apparently not content with his earlier attempts to suppress freedom and democracy at home, he's embarked on another crusade against them.

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise is reporting that Neddo is one of two people challenging the petitions of Eric Sundwall, a Libertarian running for the special election in the 20th Congressional District.

The other enemy of real democracy, or perhaps the tool of the enemies of real democracy, is someone named Laurie Kelly Sickles of Ballston Spa, according to the ADE.

These tactics designed to asphyxiate free choice are very familiar to me as someone who follows African politics, but they remain an unwelcome site in a country that markets itself as the leader of the free world.

During an appearance in Glens Falls, Sundwall said he expected challenges to his petitions by anti-democratic forces and that he was taking measures to ensure more than enough signatures to remain on the ballot.

Independents increasingly turning on Bush

I was interested to see some poll results conducted by the American Research Group. (Kudos to my friend Mark for pointing them out)

The discovered that respondents were almost even split (45% yes, 46% no) on whether the House should begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and that a majority (54%) believed they should do so against Vice-President Cheney.

64% of all respondents disapproved of President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison time and 84% would oppose an eventual pardon for the vice-president's former chief of staff.

Apparently, most Americans don't buy the administration's mind-numbing Snow Job that the commutations 'strengthen the rule of law and increase public faith in government.'

Not surprisingly Democrats tended to support impeachment and oppose the clemency for Libby with vice versa being true for Republicans.

Bush obtained a massive 27% overall approval rating (67% disapproval).

But what interests me is the tendency among independents (by which I presume the pollsters include BOTH members of smaller parties and members of no party).

A majority of independents support impeachment for both Bush (50% for, 30% against) and Cheney (51% for, 29% against).

Independents are actually MORE opposed to Libby's commutation than Democrats (80% to 76%).

Independents are significantly MORE opposed to a potential pardon for the convicted felon than Democrats (97% to 82%).

Some have criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment 'off the table.' It was a political decision, not a justice-related one. Can you blame her? The cardinal rule of politics is that when your opponent is commiting suicide, stay out of the way.

The fact that such a huge portion of independents have turned against Bush and Cheney has to be a serious worry for the 2008 GOP presidential contenders.

It also demonstrates that dissatisfaction with everything about the administration can hardly be blamed on partisan Democrats.