Sunday, 4 November 2012

Taking $uffrag€ for Granted

I got an email from a guy called Chris Hedges urging me to donate money, time, and a vote, respectively, to Jill Stein's Green candidacy. You might not remember her as the candidate who, desperately seeking press, got arrested trying to crash one of the Commission on Presidential Debates' must-see-TV events featuring 1) the candidate whose party's slogan "If we don't do their bidding, they will" wasn't playing as well as expected, so they went back to their last refuge "They're waging a war on women, therefore, The Supreme Court!" and 2) the candidate of the party whose slogan is "Paid for by 1% of the folks who fostered Hope in 2008".

Third party advocates would like to have drawn attention to the bipartisan war of neglect on this one particular woman and a few other pro-choice guys, but you can't really draw attention where no such attention exists.

Both of the endowed party candidates for the top job are on pace to spend what amounts to roughly $14 million per vote. Think about that. The president has already spent over $12 million per vote based on the number he garnered in 2008. If the turnout is down from last time, that per-vote campaign money figure rises: The lower the return, the greater the investment. Guaranteed.

Almost two billion in propaganda in spite of all the free press variety of the same. No wonder so many vote for them. No wonder so many don't. Honestly, though, two billion is a drop in the bucket for the coalition of the killing; that's the bill for "keeping America safe" on Memorial Day alone.

The Non-Voter has had a permanent majority for most of my lifetime, much to the chagrin of people who have the Donkey candidate's sticker permanently affixed to their bumpers. "Higher voter turnout means Democratic victories," they say. Unless you voted for Nader, in which case you're a stupid Republican enabler who was supposed to punch D or stay home. No wait...


The time has come, the deadline's arrived, the postmark is due. I know Illinois was as good as "called for the incumbent president" before this election began, but the votes cast for the House and Senate races determine who'll be able to raise the most money from coming Tuesday until the first Tuesday in November in '14 and '16 and '18 (and forever, godblessamerica willing). That's powerful influence.

The completion of my ballot, however, was to be in deference to the person, registered or not, who paid me the most to cast it. The only bid I received was "2 bucks more than the highest bid". Very Price is Right-like, this strategy reveals an underlying will to avoid overbidding, but smacks of ₫-mar-kr-€-C$-¥ mocking. I will not abide.

Instead, I submit my vote on behalf of those who would mean America harm (in accordance with presidential decree). Correspondingly, my endorsement for the Office of Presidency of the US goes to whoever is number one on next Tuesday's Kill List.

I wonder, had it been a swing state ballot I was offering, if I might've gotten a "While I'm theoretically against what you're doing, I'll pay you to vote for my president anyway"-bid from the likes of Bill Maher or George Clooney.

It's a shame, really. At $14 million spent per vote, the $2500 Individual Campaign Contribution Limit makes up a measly two-tenths of a percent of one choice on one ballot. I was offering so much more.

₫-mar-kr-€-C$-¥, part 9 << --