Majority Rule – People or Money?

Ted Folkert

October 5, 2014

Listen to all of our leaders and would-be leaders. They all tell us that they are for democracy – that only they can make our country more democratic. Of course, democracy suggests majority rule – you know – one person, one vote, which is not the definition that many of them understand while they pretend to lead.

The thing they don’t tell us is which majority rule they are following, the majority of the people or the majority of the money. It appears that money has won out here, especially since the five angry men in black dresses have declared it so, by deciding for us that anyone can spend as much as they want on political contributions in one way or another.

Democracy and majority rule really defines the essence of government for the common good, the primary subject that we discuss here.

History provides substantial evidence that a democracy cannot prevail in an autocratic, aristocratic, or oligarchic government. Leading economists provide substantial evidence that the level of inequality of wealth and income we now experience leads to an inheritance society, an inheritance society leads to an aristocracy, which leads to an oligarchy, which leads to anarchy, which leads to an autocracy. A vicious circle of failure to govern and failure to sustain a viable nation that provides equal opportunities for all, which our constitution implies to be essential to a free people – all of which implies a failure of our leaders to lead.

In order to approach the most important common-good subject of the day, perhaps we could employ some simple logic, even though that would be adverse to the manner in which our government actually operates.

Simple logic:

Premise: Democracy should include all of the people.

Premise: All votes should have the same value in an election.

Premise: Some people have more money than others.

Conclusion: Money should not be allowed to vote in elections.

Premise: Candidates for election like to spend money to convince voters to elect them.

Premise: Some people stand to prosper more from the outcome of elections than others.

Premise: Some people have more money to contribute to political campaigns than others.

Conclusion:  People should not be allowed to spend money in political campaigns.

Premise: The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted by the five angry men in black dresses to allow money to vote in political campaigns.

Premise: In order to overcome the interpretation of the five angry men in black dresses we must amend the Constitution of the United States.

Premise: An amendment requires two-thirds of both houses of congress to approve an amendment, which then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures – or – two-thirds of state legislatures are required for proposing an amendment, which would then require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures – either of which is a substantial challenge.

Premise: The US Senate is unable to obtain two-thirds and the House of Representatives is totally dysfunctional and would not even take up a vote.

Conclusion:  We the people must take the action necessary to accomplish this challenge, the most important challenge one can imagine for the future of the nation.

Premise: There is considerable grassroots action now taking place for promoting an amendment to the constitution to correct our election laws. The political organization, Public Citizen, is very active in such an endeavor.

Premise: The Senate received a majority vote for the Democracy for All Amendment that was recently proposed, without any Republican votes, but the House will not take it up.

Premise: There are efforts going on across the country with 16 states and 550 cities indicating support for such an amendment.

Premise: Polls have shown that 3-1 of those polled oppose the Citizens United decision from the five angry men in black dresses, including 2-1 of Republicans who also are in opposition.

Premise: A majority of 6-1 are unfavorable of spending of special interest groups and lobbyists in campaigns. Yes, six to one!

Conclusion: We the people must take the action necessary to accomplish this challenge, the most important challenge one can imagine for the future of the nation. To accomplish that, we must tax capital (wealth) and increase taxation of excessive income. A subject for considerable debate, but one that the working-class would generally agree with, along with many of our leading economists. The condition of inequality over time creates a class of inheritance which, without effective taxation, continues to grow until a society of aristocracy exists and eventually becomes an oligarchy, control of government by a few wealthy individuals or families.

To accomplish effective taxation and control inequality, we must eliminate control of our electoral process by the rich and powerful individuals and corporations. A large majority of the people agree, Republican and Democratic.

Many of our leading scholars, economists, and progressive politicians, who have struggled with this enormous objective, have concluded that this cannot be achieved without a constitutional amendment that would establish an electoral process that eliminates big money from controlling the election of our leaders. An amendment that eliminates the declawing actions of an activist Supreme Court, that group of nine appointed individuals who hold our democracy in their hands and create decisions that force their political beliefs on the people.

A democracy, which we all believe we either have or at least desire, requires majority rule. Not the majority of the money, but the majority of the people. Just because one person controls more wealth than another does not justify the wealthier person to have more influence on the electoral process, thereby reaffirming the right to continue the advantage in income and wealth. People of lesser wealth should have an equal vote in the election of our leaders and the enactment and enforcement of our laws.

Conclusion: : We the people must take the action necessary to accomplish this challenge, the most important challenge one can imagine for the future of the nation.

Think about it!