Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Matt Stone, one half of South Park's dynamic duo, recently uttered, "if you don't know what you're talking about, there's no shame in not voting." Matt has a point. Although Democratic or Republican party leaders are mostly unconcerned about the intellectual status of those who vote "their way," there is some danger in just assuming that a popular vote will result in ethical or equitable politics. Democrats surely hope that uneducated, working class types vote their way, but if the working class vote tends to go to the GOP, then perhaps the implications of Stone's comment would be more appreciated.

Ahh-nuld's (and earlier, Reagan's) popularity among the poor and working class demonstrates that voters no longer adhere to the old classifications, i.e., poor = democrat voter; wealthy = republican. The democrats and independent leftists cannot rely anymore on the poor, minority, or blue-collar vote; though the democrat pundits will try to appeal to “puppy dog eye” emotions to bring in the poor, instead of trying to rationally prove their point (say arguing for a sound economic plan opposed to Bush tax swindles and corporatism). Indeed, given the complexity of political and economic issues, an argument could be made that prospective voters must pass a poll test or possess a modicum of education; such a “voter accountability test” might be in the Democrats' or third party's best interest.

The South Park duo were denounced by Sean Penn, and this is perhaps understandable. Even Comrade Penn should be aware, however, how Stone's logic can be viewed from a democratic or leftist perspective: if voters, whether poor or wealthy, college educated or not, continually support GOP candidates, or even conservative democrats, then we should question the voting process itself. It is a tragedy that Kerry did not prove victorious over Our Chief Commanding Redneck with DT's, but it is also tragic that dems will continue with their innate love of voting and "the democratic process."

I'm so fed up with the whole fucked-up campaign and electoral process at this point that I'm more inclined than ever to agree with you on this. But I'm not so sure that limited-scope voter testing would help much. Far too many voters are locking into only their own pet issues (e.g..... specific education positions held by a certain candidate who also happened to mislead us into starting a war), or worse (and more commonly), dispensing with serious consideration of the issues at all in favor of weighing the mass appeal and telegenic properties of the candidates and basing votes on this along with other gut hunches such as the relative "moral" or "character" qualities of said candidates. The problem is.... many of these voters are not complete morons.... certainly capable of passing some sort of conceiveable rudimentary poll test, and then proceeding to vote irrationally anyway. Just curious.... what kind of "voter accountability test" might you envision, anyway?

A couple of other thoughts...... There are plenty of people now who maintain that both the 2000 and the 2004 elections were stolen by what amounts to a program of GOP dirty tricks, from disrupting voter registration to electronically altering election results (Diebold, etc.) to short-circuiting the proper 2000 Florida recount (brother Jeb and Katherine Harris). It is possible that the people made a conscientious and somewhat informed choice in both elections, only to see the will of the people subverted by GOP manipulation and strong-arm tactics.

And lastly, there are plenty of people who would say that the entire system is corrupt beyond redemption..... that the US government has long since been bought and paid for by corporate interests, and that any remaining belief in a government "of the people" amounts to a belief in a self-deluding cruel joke.

As I urged right-leaning members of the electorate before the election.... if you cannot entirely reconcile your "conservative" conviction with the incredible loose cannons of the apocalypse currently holding power in DC, then please, for the love of everything that has ever been considered holy, at least have the decency to withhold your vote.

Though I too am cynical about elections and politics and about everything, I think it is interesting that Burton's Prop. 59 was victorious in California. Though it is far too tame, it may be a start to real political reform. Prop. 59, now the law, would at least in theory give the public access to all communications by elected officials. Inquiring minds might want to know something about say the deep thoughts of a House GOP "leader" Kevin McCarthy or King Ahh-nuld himself and now they have the right to, at least to some degree. Everything Ahh-nuld says or writes or speaks, or pays someone to write, should be a matter of public record.

The implications of this law are interesting: perhaps eventually the CA public will be far more involved in the decision making process. Do you trust the likes of Assemblywoman Sharon Runner making decisions about economics or really anything? Better that say the CA teachers union make political decisions than a Sharon Runner. All of the proceedings of Sacramento elite, in public or chambers, should be wired and on videotape. There is no "off the record" for elected officials.

Anyone interested in ethical governing should appreciate John Burton for putting forth this rational proposition.


"What will Proposition 59 do? It will create a new civil right: a constitutional right to know what the government is doing, why it is doing it, and how. It will ensure that public agencies, officials, and courts broadly apply laws that promote public knowledge. It will compel them to narrowly apply laws that limit openness in government—including discretionary privileges and exemptions that are routinely invoked even when there is no need for secrecy. It will create a high hurdle for restrictions on your right to information, requiring a clear demonstration of the need for any new limitation. It will permit the courts to limit or eliminate laws that don't clear that hurdle. It will allow the public to see and understand the deliberative process through which decisions are made. It will put the burden on the government to show there is a real and legitimate need for secrecy before it denies you information."