Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Clearly, we’re down to the final hours before the election:
50th Ward alderman Bernard Stone, who is Jewish, has recently been suggesting that his opponents are making anti-Semitic remarks when they accuse him of helping his “friends” with zoning changes. Over the weekend he reported that someone sent him a copy of one of his mailings with a swastika scribbled over his picture.
Naisy Dolar, one of Stone’s challengers, said the race is shifting her way and announced plans for a celebration party. But it won't be in the ward, or even in the city—it'll take place in Skokie.
The Second Ward’s Madeline Haithcock let it be known that Bob Fioretti, one of her most aggressive challengers, once had an order of protection issued against him; Fioretti said it was requested by a woman who had been harassing him and was lifted a week later.
Arenda Troutman, the embattled 20th Ward alderman, alleges that employees of The Woodlawn Organization, one of the most powerful institutions in her ward, have been destroying her campaign signs.
46th Ward challenger James Cappleman distributed a flyer over the weekend featuring a map of the ward color-coded by the alleged turf of eight different street gangs. “Don’t you think your alderman should work with police and the community to target gang activity?” it asks. After 20 years, let's move gangs our of your neighborhood." Alderman Helen Shiller has been in office 20 years.
Don Gordon, an opponent of 49th Ward alderman Joe Moore and his ban on the sale of foie gras, attended a “Freedom of Choice” dinner Sunday night featuring the delicacy. “If I were in the City Council, we wouldn't have a kneejerk reaction about this,"he said. Animal rights demonstrators picketed the event and vowed to volunteer for Moore Tuesday.
- While Mayor Daley felt comfortable enough to take the day off from the campaign Sunday, his challengers have been out talking to anyone who will listen. Dock Walls took time Monday morning to be interviewed live on Columbia College’s TV news program, which only shows on campus.
- Meanwhile, the Reverend Al Sampson, who was a key organizer for Harold Washington, has joined with several dozen other African-American ministers and political activists to distribute more than 300,000 copies of a flyer listing the 2007 “Soul Slate.” It endorses Dorothy Brown for mayor and, for City Council, black aldermen and challengers who haven’t received significant support from the Fraternal Order of Police or the Service Employees International Union. Among them: Haithcock, Tillman, Darcel Beavers (7th), Shirley Coleman (16th), Howard Brookins Jr. (21st), Earick Rayburn (opposing Anthony Beale in the 9th), and Eldora Davis, running in the 18th. The fact that many of the incumbents almost always support Daley is "a problem," Sampson said, but not as much as the support of unions. “We can’t have outside interlopers undercutting our leaders,” Sampson said.
Well, there is the "2007 “Soul Slate.” Perhaps there should have been a "2007 Cracker Crate."
This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.
I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'.
While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.
I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public.
This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s).
Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected.
In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%.
It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist
the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.
So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).
Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:
* 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
* 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.
* 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and
IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.
* 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.
* 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.
Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election
participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above.
If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?
If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to
sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?
Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?
Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?
Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?
As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.
The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.
The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power
ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by
their deeds.
Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few.
To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:
* You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time
* You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time
* But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time
The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at
just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.