I LOVE that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are so close in the race for the Republican nomination. Lets be honest with ourselves, Romney is going to get it, without a doubt. He is what you would call the ‘lesser of two evils’, and I think Americans are intelligent enough to know that.

But at the end of the day, I want Obama to stay in the White House. If he is defeated in the upcoming election, essentially the last 4 years of his presidency will be wasted. Obama is playing the ‘long game’ in politics. The strategies he is undertaking to fix the economy and give the US a different international reputation are slated to take more than 4 years.   This is a really interesting article which shows how Obama’s long term plan will render his critics mute by the end of his next term. 

If a Republican gets into the White House, the first thing they will do is scrap the ‘socalist kenyan muslim’ policies of Obama, thereby wasting the long term foundation he is trying to set up. The reality of it is that he is the most centrist Democrat the US has had in a long time, despite the irrational lamentation of conservatives. We voted in Obama on a platform of serious systemic change. It is irrational to say that since we haven’t seen all the results he promised in 4 years, then we shouldn’t give him the chance to achieve them in 8.

Back to why I love the Republican race. The more that Romney and Santorum fight, the more money and effort each of them have to spend on their campaigns. Essentially, Santorum is making Romney spend way more money than he wants to, thereby weakening his ability to campaign when the time for the presidential election starts. This is perfect. The more divided and in disarray the Republican party is, the better chance Obama will have to fulfill the promises he made. So I suppose, in a way, hats off to Santorum. You may be saving the country, but in a different way than you wanted to.

The title to this post is obviously a sarcastic one. Go ahead and pick a random youtube video and you will undoubtedly find a few trolls being as inflammatory as possible, infuriating people with their flawed arguments and persistence. We can hope that these methods of argument don’t find their way into more formal online political analysis, but the reality is that people are free to say almost whatever they want, and there usually aren’t editors looking out for flawed arguements.

Logical Fallacy:   If something can happen or has happened, then it will happen. 

http://www.herringpost.blogspot.ca/2012/03/president-obama-executive-order.html

This blog post is in regards to Obama’s signing of a bill that allows for executive control over all natural resources in time of emergency. The crux of the argument being made is that because of the precedent of Lincoln and Wilson usurping similar powers and dictatorially holding the economy hostage, the result of Obama’s bill will be the same. “The economy of the United States is based on the free flow of resources, energy, and the rights of consumers to buy and sell as they see fit.  Any interference in this economic process quickly leads to shortages, rising prices, and civil unrest.” Just because this happened to Lincoln and Wilson and there is the theoretical possibility of it occurring does in no way guarantee the same result. The flawed logic is as follows,

If A –> Z

and B –> Z

then C –> Z

 

Rhetorical Fallacy: Slippery Slope 

http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.ca/2012/03/repealing-obamacare.html

I attack conservative blogs probably because they provide me with the most ammunition. This particular post essentially draws a line of logical conclusions between the passing of Obamacare to needing to sell Washington State, Oregon, and California to China to pay the bill. This connection is absolutely ludicrous. His rhetorical chain tells this story:

Obamacare –> more $$$ power to politicians –> politicians get drunk on power –> do not repeal obamacare –> spend too much on healthcare –> getting into foreign debt –> China calls in that debt, immediately, on pain of war –> depletion of already low public purse –> need to sell various states to China to cover debt.

I shake my head at this man’s attempt to make healthcare into a contributor to Chinese invasion. facepalm. he tries to tell us that by passing Obamacare, we have just pushed ourselves onto that slippery slope that will have us speaking Mandarin in 50 years. He doesn’t even think that this is taking it a bit too far, “No, it is NOT FUNNY.  It’s not much of an exaggeration, either. “

Sorry, this is really funny. And it is a massive exaggeration. If I read this elsewhere, I would think it is a satire, or a draft script for the Colbert Report.

NDP Leadership Online Voting Compromised

Well, it seems like I may have jumped the gun with my last post. I provided many ways that the internet could enhance democracy but did not take into account the fact that it also had the potential for unparalleled voter fraud. This was demonstrated to me in a stark manner with the NDP leadership convention, which used an online voting scheme to select the new leader for the party. It seems that hackers were able to install malicious software on thousands of Canadian computers which were set up to simultaneously bombard the voting website with traffic. While the votes themselves were unchanged, this attack disabled the website for a long period of time, leaving many voters to simply ‘give up’.

While this is undoubtedly a detriment to the operation of democracy, this type of strategy is not limited to the internet, although it is made easier. This type of attack is essentially the same as having a flash mob of people physically show up at a polling station, thereby clogging the entire process. This has happened before, and is just as possible with the internet as with actual polling stations. Its just that cyber security isn’t as good as physical security. At least not yet.

So we can use this story to derogate the internet as a democratic tool, or we can look at it as a speedbumb on the way. Just as with traditional democracy, it will take time to iron out the kinks.

 

I’m taking a stand. Technology (and by that I mean NEW technology) has the potential to increase the prevalence and quality of democracy around the world. In my opinion, there are 3 ways that this can be accomplished: dissemination of information, growth of a global culture, and increased opportunities for participation. I am mostly referring to the internet when I speak of new technology.

Dissemination of Information

Churchill one said, “the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Indeed this is a major democratic flaw, the tendency for people to be uninformed. Misinformation is also a huge factor which impedes the proper exercise of democracy. The television and radio mass media is owned by a small handful of companies and, as Noam Chomsky would argue, they are able to manipulate the agenda for their own interests. The internet gives people the opportunity to consult a nearly infinite variety of sources and viewpoints. The fully informed voter is more likely to be someone who reads news and forms opinions based off the multiplicity of interpretations the internet provides. This would have been next to impossible 50 years ago, now it is instant.

Growth of a Global Culture

The internet is probably the most unifying innovation since satellite television. If a global culture does exist, its home is online. Increasingly, this global culture is based off of the cultural group which dominates the internet, namely western cultures. These espouse liberal views of equality, individualism, and ultimately democracy. It is no wonder that the most undemocratic countries in the world severely limit or censor internet access. Instant connections to a cultural community online which is devoted to grassroots individualism will foster democratic values in people who otherwise would have had no contact with other ideas.

Increased Opportunities for Participation

Many people credit social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter for mobilizing the population and making the democratic revolutions of the Arab Spring possible. Indeed it is a tremendous tool for mobilizing civil society, and forming large groups which can then have their voice heard by government. I previously introduced the website voteocracy on this blog. It basically lets people cast votes for every bill entering congress, thereby instantly aggregating a measure of public approval which legislators can look at. Services such as this can make the link between the pulse of the people and the lawmakers much more solid, which is the entire point of democracy in the first place.

All in all, the internet serves to make everyone more connected. The point of democracy is to connect people to their representatives, and thereby indirectly create policies which the people would have wanted. The point of the internet is…… well its not democracy per se, but it can definitely fulfill this purpose.

This is a dramatic protrayal of Harper in 2008. He got a coalition government he didn’t want and wasn’t able to be…

“KING HARPER”

look at how mad he is about it!!! He’s really losing it.

Today’s a different story. He finally got his way, and now he is going to kill IsoHunt. I’m just glad I didn’t vote for him.

 

“US foreign policy has nothing to do with ideology, as it only cares about the kind of democracy it wants. The US wants to impose a “designed and tamed democracy” in the Arab region, so as to protect its own interests.”

This is an article from an online service called the “Gulf News” which is basically an opinion section blatantly attacking the motives behind US foreign policy. Its builds off my post on democratization nicely, in that it states that the US only has an interest in a certain version of democracy in the middle east, one that it can tame and control. At the end of the day, the US efforts abroad are to further its own influence. Democracy just happens to work well because it is morally defensible and easily influenced by US interests. The article uses one example in particular with great effectiveness to prove its thesis. If  the US had a legitimate interest in democracy for its own sake then its behavior regarding HAMAS would have been different. When HAMAS won the elections in Palestine, the US refused to recognize them as legitimate, saying that is a “terrorist organization”. But they also say, “the September 11 attacks would not have happened if there was democracy in Arab countries” Hmmm… doesn’t seem to make logical sense. The article also goes on to critisize the US involvement in setting up various dictatorships in Latin and South America. I talked about Iran in my own editorial bashing of US foreign policy.

If you think American foreign policy is about a humanitarian effort to bring freedom and democracy to the people of the world then you need to stop watching Fox News, abandon your ‘White Man’s Burden’ philosophies, pick up a history book and a newspaper (not owned by Murdoch), and see what is really going on. Ignorance might be bliss for you, but it sure isn’t for Iraqis.

As you all know (I hope) the UBC AMS elections were held last week, but apparently turnout was appallingly low. This once baffled me but I have since come up with a reason why. I’ll run you though my thought process. First I was incredulous, going through the possibilities, but then things started to make more sense.

 

So I ask, did you vote?

If you did, then you were one of the few. If not, why not?

Couldn’t find the time?

There really is no excuse not to. Its as easy as logging into your CWL account and clicking a few buttons, something which I’m sure you do every other week to see what room that 8am class is in because you can never remember. You could even do this from the comfort of one of the five friendly neighborhood Starbucks!

Couldn’t care less?

The issues are fairly important. I’m sure very very few people are unconcerned with rising tuition fees, the U-Pass, and the Whister Lodge (they’re thinking of selling it for god’s sake!!!) Even if you don’t know the candidates, you can respond to the referendum questions.

Didn’t know they were happening?

B.S. You knew. If you come to this Poli class then you’ll see the literally hundreds of campaign posters plastered along the walls down Buchanan. Every block. Every floor. You even got an email reminding you. I even saw an acapella group singing a catchy tune about the AMS elections at the bus loop!

OK well maybe it was this….

According to this article in the ubyssey some campaigners for Silley were running around the Totem park commons block with a laptop getting random people to vote for that candidate. They realized that nobody was going to vote anyways, so it wasn’t about being the best candidate, but getting the most people to log on. Not ideal democracy….

Or this….

The AMS elections of 2010 had some serious electoral fraud going on! Electronic fraud. Apparently you could access the system and cast as many votes as you like if you do it right. The results favored one candidate by a large margin. The article also says that it is likely this wasn’t the first time this happened. Well, I for one don’t like voting in a non-democracy.

maybe these are some reasons why people are not turning up (in a manner of speaking) to AMS elections. Either they are plain lazy, or disgusted by the shambles AMS democracy is in. I sure am.

I didn’t vote.

 

 

Emotional Chinese premier says democracy cannot be held back as he admits country is in urgent need of reform

– ‘Due to my incompetent abilities and institutional and other factors, there is still much room for improvement in my work. I should assume responsibility for the problems that have occurred in China’s economy and society during my term in office for which I feel truly sorry.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114917/Wen-Jiabao-Emotional-Chinese-premier-says-democracy-held-back.html

 

Well this is a fairly uplifting story. It seems that China is actually contemplating true democratic reform instead of simply repressing its citizens in times of hardship. In response to the growing unrest in regards to the economy and other social factors, PM Jiabao has said that he is in favour of some democratic reform, some “leadership competition”. 

While this is well and good for democracy, I wonder how sincere this rhetoric actually. Nowhere does he indicate that there might be a multiparty system, just a replacement of leadership within the Communist Party. I contend that this is nothing more than rhetoric to make his failures with the economy, and his resignation as a good thing. “Now we have democracy!” well, actually, you don’t. Instead you have just masked your shameful resignation with the happy buzzword “democratic reform”. This word also serves to ease the social unrest which leadership fears may result in another Cultural Revolution. This is a politician being a politician. He has the reputation of being the ‘nice guy’ within the leadership, and desperately wants to retain this image as he emotionally exits stage right; a sacrifice on the altar of democratic reform. I hope nobody buys it.

This weekend I watched a documentary which really made me sick. I am one of those people who firmly believe that the election of George W. Bush was the worst thing to happen to the United States since the depression. This documentary I watched made me realize just how close the election was, and the sinister forces which allowed Bush to prevail in Florida.

Here is the documentary, I highly reccomend it:

I’ll briefly outline what happened. Florida has a very old law which states that convicted felons can not vote, but hasn’t cleaned up its voter registry in a long time. Jeb Bush, the governor at the time decided that the upcoming election was the best time. So he handed over a list of convicted felons and registered voters to a data company, and asked them to remove any names that appeared as both convicts and voters. This was legal. What wasn’t legal is that the company was intentionally asked to be as lenient as possible in matching names. For instance a Patrick Smith would be removed from the voter list if a Pat Smith was a convict. Sometimes a matching first initial was enough. What ended up happening was a huge amount of unwarranted disenfranchisement. Because most of the Flordia convicts were ethnic minorities, anyone with a similar enough name was removed from the voter list. Estimates of 15% of the removals were people who were completely innocent. And because minorities tend to vote Democrat, this meant a huge number of registered Democrat voters were turned away at the polls! 

The media, (and by that I mean Republican Rupert Murdoch) focused entirely on the faulty ballot sheets as the main cause of controversy when in fact the manipulation of the voter list was the real problem.

We often criticise other countries for not having transparent, free and fair elections. But with this and the Robocall scandal, who are we to judge. Can you imagine the world today if 534 of the tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters had been able to vote for Gore?

Democracy, at its purest form means a system of governance which allows the people to decide their own fate. This is done through choice of representatives but this method can run into issues such as the principal agent problem or corruption. The opposite stance is direct democracy where literally everyone participates in deciding every issue. This one, however, is costly and not all people want to concern themselves with all matters of politics. The dawn of the internet age brings an exciting new opportunity for direct democracy. The costs are lower, both in time and money, and it is instant, finally making pure direct democracy possible. Take a look at this site votetocracy.com. It is a site which tracks and displays bills in Congress and allows users to vote on them. These amount to nothing more than polls, but the information is very direct and useful indicators of public opinion to legislators.

“What if 10million Americans voted no on a bill and Congress voted yes” – “Its time for a new mode of civic engagement”

“Votetocracy was created by regular citizens who decided it was time for Americans to have a better, actionable and measurable way to interact with Congress. This is not just a blog with commenting forums. We are about action. By providing Americans the ability to vote on bills in Congress we create a measurable repository of citizens sentiment towards each bill. That’s good for all Americans and good for Congress. Truth is – Congress wants to hear from you.”

This website is cool. No doubt about it. It allows you to feel as if you are actually making a contribution to politics. There’s even a scoreboard which shows how well the American government conforms to public opinion, http://www.votetocracy.com/scoreboard.html

If sites like this were launched with official legislative intent, then direct democracy would be achieved. As of right now, the American government is performing pretty poorly compared to the people’s preferences (perhaps choosing corporate ones instead), but sites like this highlight this fact and push for a change.