October 29th, 2006
|03:02 pm - Possibly amusing irony|
According to this NYT Article
The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez. I'm 95% certain that this entire investigation is simply a (almost certainly hopeless) ploy to try to find a way to invalidate (or more likely simply call into question) elections our vile masters dislike. However, I'd also love it to be true. Having Hugo Chavez fix US elections so that the Republicans lose power would both be vastly amusing and would also please me almost as much as people in the US having enough collective sense to vote the monsters out of office. Of course, when dealing with the neocon-fundy alliance, my own views are for getting them out of office by any means necessary. In any case, the possibility is deeply amusing.
Current Mood: amused
Finally, the hint of someone else muddling in our political system half as much as we've been muddling in theirs!
The sad part is I can't say I believe we'd be worse off. Sad when a semi-hostile foreign nation would do a better job of selecting an American president than the American people...
I'm not entirely convinced that we chose the shrub.
|Date:||October 30th, 2006 06:17 am (UTC)|| |
True, but it is also true that you can only fake an election so much. All polls and evidence shows that at least 48% of voters voted for him in both the 2000 & 2004 elections. The fact that at least 48% of voters voted for that vile idiot in 2004 utterly horrifies me.
Yes, but in that case, we're talking about a measly what? 24% of the US population supporting him? As usual the majority chose not to vote.
All the research I've seen indicates that the people who don't vote pretty much would have voted the way the people who did vote did. The problem from my point of view is that most people really do believe what they see on television.
grrr . . . I hate people who won't research.
|Date:||October 30th, 2006 07:39 pm (UTC)|| |
From my PoV, the central problem with democracy is that most people are stupid and easily lead.
This is precicely why I'm all for a benevolant dictatorship. People in large groups scare me.
|Date:||October 31st, 2006 04:04 am (UTC)|| |
Being for a benevolent dictatorship is like being for a well-informed, egalitarian democracy. Who wouldn't be for that? The only problem is all the damned humans.
Well, having had a life as one of those benevolant dictators, I can aggree with Plato--those people have to trained from birth to do the best things and be selfless. Of course, a workaround could always be to make the greatest benefit to the dictator be from doing the "right thing." I'd even support implanting the guy (or gal) with some mechanical device that released endorphins every time he helped someone.
I'd also like to say that the odds of being able to raise one concerned/benevolant person is greater than the odds of raising a society full of them.
|Date:||October 31st, 2006 01:12 pm (UTC)|| |
But the tolerance for failures is correspondingly smaller. And who will guard the guardians etc etc?
As always, the questions of the ages. I'd suggest a constitution and a firm judicial system with the power to dispose/punish the dictator, but I'm very willing to admitt I don't have the perfect solution.
|Date:||October 30th, 2006 07:36 pm (UTC)|| |
Truer words have rarely been said.
|Date:||October 30th, 2006 12:14 am (UTC)|| |
Sometimes I hope that some enterprising hacker will throw the election to Jesus. That would have amusing fallout. ^_^
When I first heard that, I was thinking... "Oh ghod, I fucking *hope* we could get some leftist vote stealing!"