Vote Not To Vote, But Be Sure To Vote by Doug Wrenn

Vote Not To Vote, But Be Sure To Vote

By Doug Wrenn

July 26, 2007

"…That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.."

(Declaration Of Independence)

Bravo to Mr. William H. White of East Dennis, Massachusetts. Mr. White is a true patriot, who has stepped up to the plate to address a grievance of which many if not most of us from both sides of the partisan aisle in our country today are exasperated: lack of political leadership. Perhaps that explains why at this writing, a poll on Real Clear Politics at: www.realclearploitics.com shows that Congress has a 65% disapproval rating, and President Bush as a 63% disapproval rating. That's pretty sad, considering that we voted for these losers. What's even sadder is that we had very little other choice.

My interest in Mr. White's cause was sparked by a favorable op-ed entitled, "When In Doubt, Vote For NOTA," in the July 22nd edition of the Waterbury Republican-American, viewable on line at: http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/07/22/opinion/272749.txt.

Further research directed me to numerous other related articles, and finally, Mr. White's web site at: www.nota.org. "NOTA" simply stands for "None Of The Above."

NOTA is an effort now underway in many states and facing uphill opposition from the usual suspects for the usual reasons. It grants voters in an election an additional option of "NOTA" on the ballot when none of the listed candidates are appealing. (You know, like most of the time!) The beauty of the NOTA option, however, is that the vote is not wasted, such as with a write-in vote. If a majority of ballots are cast for "NOTA," new candidates would then have to be nominated and a new election would have to take place 60-80 days after the original election.

We have a crisis in our nation today. Our elected officials (I won't call them "leaders!") have transformed themselves from the originally intended citizen legislators to fat-cat career politicians. Both major parties are equally guilty of gerrymandering district lines after every new census to favor incumbents and the current party in dominant power. The end result is many if not most incumbents in various regions often running unopposed, and disgruntled voters voting with their feet because they are tired of being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils every year and in every election. In several precedents already, candidates who filed late to run in an election and were subsequently taken to court by their opponents were allowed by judges to continue their illegitimate races against an otherwise unchallenged incumbent, despite the violation of law, on the desperate pretext by the deciding judges that the voters would still at least have a choice.

The NOTA web site is chock full of various links and information. It is a very worthy and informative read. Of note are sample bills in both chambers of the Massachusetts state legislature, as well as a sample bill that can be forwarded in other states. Other links show current efforts underway in the other states for this endeavor, as well as many news stories reflecting what is probably only the very tip of the iceberg in terms of nationwide voter dissatisfaction. There is also a petition to sign to support this effort on the web site, as well as cited why NOTA should be allowed, including reasons of eliminating having to vote between the lesser of two evils and that the lower overall cost of holding a second election is in the long run, itself a "lesser of two evils" and a cheaper proposition than voting for an inept leader. The NOTA web site also correctly advises us that there cannot be true consent without the option of not giving consent. (Don't feel bad, that one took me a minute, too!)

There is no more consent of the governed. As citizens, we are now little more than placated sheep by Big Brother. We have elected tyrants who are deaf, apathetic, inept and corrupt. If you don't believe that, then do the phrases, "Harriet Miers," Dubai Ports," and "Amnesty for illegal immigrants" ring any bells? It is ironic that this movement started in Massachusetts, not only because that state was (at one time) the cradle of our liberty, but because only recently, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry recently traveled from the Beltway to Bean Town to strong-arm the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts state legislature into not allowing a referendum on gay marriage because it would upset the party's apparently delicate applecart on the federal level with the cherished gay lobby. Isn't that nice? Attention, Bay Staters: the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution is now hereby canceled (for you) until further notice. Massachusetts has apparently seceded from the USA in a hostile takeover and is now a controlled territory of the DNC. In my own hometown, I recently took our First Selectman to task in the press and further stirred the pot a little more when she announced that after three referendums in which the townspeople voted down the budget that she "refused" to cut it any more. (The end result was the budget barely passing in the next vote with only one symbolic dollar being ironically cut and the First Selectman calling me at home afterward.) Does anyone see a pattern here? "Consent of the governed?"

Our statesmen have become politicians and they won't go quietly into that good night. We need to pay less attention to "American Idol" and more attention to our American government. Never mind who's pitching for the Yankees tonight. That has no effect on your life. Find out who your local, state and federal representatives are, and start following what they do, and when necessary, raise some Hell. That does affect your life. Our ignorance and apathy is nothing new. We gave some of our rights away on April 8, 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, which undermined founding father Roger Sherman's compromise between big states, small states, individual rights and state sovereignty in our bicameral Congress. While we were duped into believing we were expanding our voting rights, we diluted the power and sovereignty of the rights of our individual states, which is why our system of a weak central government has now bloated and become a benevolent tyranny with excessive waste, cost, and unfunded mandates. Our fellow citizens, including the same clueless, drooling, loopy ones obsessed with "American Idol" and sports, are now who vote for our US Senators, not our respective state legislatures as done prior to the ratification. That is why we now have less control in many areas, such as education, which is not even a federal government function under the Constitution. Ignorance is a tyrant's best friend.

Both parties often have difficulty running candidates, and the discontent, if not utter disgust, is clearly bipartisan. More and more, and particularly in the Republican Party, the candidates we're stuck with are either redundantly flip-flopping liars with weathervanes for core values, like Mitt Romney, or are so far off the party line, but have the money and name recognition to go far, that they have a "Here I am, so take it or leave it" attitude, such as Rudy Giuliani. Of the GOP's current 2008 slate, the only other top tier candidate is John McCain, whose campaign is now rightfully self-imploding, and on the lower tier, we have numerous high quality and truly conservative candidates who are still struggling to raise their first million dollars in war chests that more resemble shoe boxes. Not surprisingly, these same candidates aren't much higher than 1-2%, if that, in the polls. Then of course, we have the ghosts of Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, teasing and tickling our ears while they still play a coy and frankly, rather tedious and annoying game of peek-a-boo that may ultimately prove to dash their hopes of victory by entering the race too late, if even at all. There are still many grumblings that the conservative base of the GOP, completely and rightfully dissatisfied with the lack of desired candidates, will stay home on Election Day in a race that already appears to be an uphill fight.

On the left side of this issue, despite her surrounding glitz, Hillary Clinton is as a polarizing (and obnoxious) figure within her party as she is outside of it. When you get past her money and name recognition, Hillary, once off her broom and on her feet, strikes many people, including many Democrats, as someone who would likely be bitten by her own dog, and her approximate 50% ratings reflect that split. It almost seems that while this race is Hillary's to lose, many within her own party are still holding out and holding their breath for a sudden and grand entry of "A Great Left Hope," that is actually both electable and likeable. Let's face it, Hillary is no Bill. This is a contributing factor to Barack Obama's popularity, which makes up for his gross lack of experience (about the same level of inexperience that John Edwards had in 2004), his charisma aside. It's also another reason why an unannounced Al Gore keeps popping up in 2008 presidential polls from time to time, and why some Democrats are hoping and praying that their favorite green robot with a staged multi-personality disorder will stop making movies and return to the hustings to again regale us all with more entertaining but fabricated fairy tales of his life experiences. While "Hollywood Al" seems to be on the outs with both his party and the royal order of Clinton, he still has some yet unburned bridges, and even some outright fans among the people. To test the waters of Democrat discontent, stop any Democrat on the street in Connecticut, mention the name, "Joe Lieberman," and see what happens. Just don't forget to duck.

Let's face it, ideologies aside, if the majority of the electorate was satisfied with its candidates, left, right, or otherwise, names like Nader and Bloomberg would be far less tantalizing tidbits of provocative and controversial topics for both the press and for political junkies. Furthermore, the seeds sewn by current and past elected officials and candidates of the two titan parties are what have given fertile soil for third party and independent candidacies to grow, to whatever extent they may. The American political pot has not only reached its near boiling point, but it seems ready to also soon even spill over.

Another virtue of NOTA is that it will keep candidates true to their respective party platforms, and true to their individual core principles (for those who actually have any), or else, and that's the problem with our current electoral process, we need to have more "or else," but we don't, and our sleazy but savvy politicians know that and capitalize on it all the time. Without the NOTA option, not voting, even if because of a deliberate and well-intended motive, is frivolous. Such a statement would be heard but ignored by our current crop of sleazoids in the political class. They couldn't care less if 99% of the electorate stays home, as long as someone votes them into office, and regardless of how few those "someones" may be. NOTA is a beautiful thing. If it won't keep our politicians honest (OK, maybe I am aiming a bit high!), it will at least keep them motivated. Furthermore, it's blind to party affiliation. Let's forget party labels for now and all just actually think as Americans for a minute. Let's face it, folks, we have an unacceptable "schmuck" surplus of officials and candidates on both sides of the political aisle. I have heard some disenchanted voter say that as general rule, they now vote against any incumbent. Even if that tactic was successful, under the present system, all it would accomplish is to replace current bad officials with new bad officials. It's time to clean house and throw out the garbage, and NOTA is the way to do it.

We need to pressure our state legislators. Closing our eyes, holding our noses and pulling a lever must never be a mandate ever again. We proved we could move mountains on the federal level with the recent issues I mentioned. It can be done on the state level as well. For those legislators and legislatures that still persist in ignoring the voice of the people, then we must overturn their power via initiative and referendum where allowed, and state constitutional conventions where initiative and referendum does not exist. It goes like this, they listen, or we remove them, and compromise, like surrender, is not an option.

In a televised talk, Father John Corapi once quoted a nun who opined to him that she believes that our lack of leadership today is because of God's punishment for our collective societal sin. That's an interesting and worthy point, and even if you don't agree with it, just consider the sorry state of affairs of today in terms of our morality. Then bear in mind that the leaders we choose are a reflection of us, because they come from our communities. Folks, this isn't rocket science; good in, good out, crap in, crap out. Got it? We also need to clean up our own act before we can rationally expect an equal standard from our elected officials.

I'm as giddy as a schoolchild in puppy love right now. Probably like many of you, I have tried various methods of voicing my voter discontent. I have skipped voting in an election completely, I have skipped lines on certain ballots, and I have done the hold my nose thing while choosing the so-called the lesser of two evils, which is still choosing evil, regardless of intention. I have also done write-in ballots, and voted for independent, third party, or grossly unpopular candidates who had virtually no chance of winning or even coming close. Seldom have I voted for candidates for whom I felt truly impassioned, not just on the issues, but also for a feasible chance of winning as well. Are actual quality, well-rounded, electable candidates on a ballot really too much to ask for? These other options left me walking away with disgust for voting for someone I didn't like, chagrin for someone I knew would barely even get 1% of the vote, or guilt for not completely voting if even at all. NOTA washes all those second choice options and various negative feelings of remorse away, and it returns the power of our government where it belongs, to us, the people.

I've worked in politics and elections. In most elections, on average, you get roughly 50% turn out, and closer to about 75% in a presidential election. Then you have some people who only vote every four years, when the President runs. I also often work with young people, just turning voting age. Most of them don't vote at all. Immaturity and laziness are big factors, but apathy runs a close second. The kids are picking up on our discontent, and while are apathy is certainly justified, our lack of civic duty is inexcusable, and worse yet, it's contagious to the younger generation that will control our future.

As anyone who has ever dieted knows all too well, as tough as losing weight is, keeping the weight off is even tougher. Likewise, when exiting the Constitutional Convention after its conclusion, Benjamin Franklin was accosted by a woman who inquired what type of government he and his colleagues had given our new nation. The good doctor answered, "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

There's the rub. What Mr. White started, we must continue. NOTA can return the power of consent to the governed. It is then up to we, the governed, to keep our gift of consent. Make no mistake about it, what we regain, if we even commit to regaining it, can also again be just as easily lost, and our power and liberty, once again, along with it. As history has taught us, where there is an absence of consent, by either submission or domination, ultimately there is dictatorship.