Rudy, Hillary or No Confidence ?

It would be in the country's interest to eliminate debt service. We need more engineers than lawyers. Murderers and Rapists deserve to die but shouldn't be killed by the State. Medical education should be free. Abortion is usually wrong but ultimately not my choice. We all need money, but socialism might catch on with a good publicist. Taxes should be based on sales and provide us with defense (which should not be necessary), infrastructure, primary education and general welfare for those cannot provide it themselves. Space is our last frontier, but that search crosses others. Government has done its part, proving it possible; we should do the rest.

I have no confidence that either Rudy or Hillary agrees with my outlook & agenda. These will not be the only choices on the ballot. A hodge-podge group of novelty candidates will provide the daring voter with alternate selections. In NY you will see Perot's hand in the Independence Party, environmentally correct Greens and even the Marijuana reform candidate. A couple stoners still make it out.

The last election of the decade is either this year or next, depending on your opinion. For the first time in my adult life I did not vote in the last election. Besides the usual excuses, which were true, I know my vote is useless. If a little fairy put a camera in the small town hall where I vote , it would show that a write-in vote of "no confidence" is simply ripped up when the votes are tallied. There is no category for this vote. It is an expression of the polity with no formal recognition.

Ever since the first free "men" (apologies to the ladies) of North America, (in what is now Dorchester Mass.) gave their confidence to the "Seven Men" who then represented them on a council in 1630, we have not had a true democracy. Yes, Pat, perhaps a republic and certainly an Occidental empire, but not a true expression of citizens meeting to decide each others rights and duties. Perhaps only the Althing in Iceland ever achieved this reality, but it can be certain the loud ones dominated. A Parliament was not possible in a country that wanted to elect a King. The biggest coup in American History was Mr. Marshall's deft maneuver to assure that English common law remained forever in the form of judicial review. Something so simple and clear as the Bill of Rights became the whore of history.Used by everybody for one thing, their own gain.

Ever since Washington stepped aside, the father, son and holy ghost come to us in annual elections. We select an individual held up by a party to represent our interests in a forum where others from all over the US participate. Congress passes the nations budget, the President has considerable influence on all legislation and regardless of your take on Edmund Burke, the "people" only decide in a winner-takes-all process which simply amounts to pulling a lever. Your opinion is not recorded, the ballot should be secret and that's all you really do until next year. Some people feel that participating in the process is meaningful. They usually get stuck making phone calls to random voters and putting signs where they shouldn't.

It is not impossible to conceive a relationship amongst citizens which reflects an absolute tally of approval or disapproval on any issue any time. Computers are available to everyone. Encryption and user identification are very reliable and secure, as much as the old lady poll watcher ripping up my vote. Half the people vote "no confidence" by not even showing up.

Would the death penalty change every hour in an NET democracy? Could anybody run for president on an html page that was listed alphabetically? How would we ultimately divide the fruits of our time and labor? Printing a half-dozen labels that say "no confidence" and giving them to a friend that doesn't vote might have the cumulative effect of producing a higher percentage for "nobody" rather then two candidates who barely represent half the voting population. People don't care for a good reason. They are busy producing results in their lives.

If as little as one-percent said "no confidence" something would happen. Perhaps Federal matching funds would be provided which sent free labels of "no-confidence" from Pueblo, Colorado. The "no-confidence" candidates could simply denounce the front runners with little or no fear of retaliation. Knowing that they could not themselves become elected, personal lives would be salvaged. Focus groups would have fewer categories and more time for the free lunch.

Stimulating confidence in "no-confidence" is not easy. Suppose half the people put a hyphen in the label and half didn't? In New York they would be considered different candidates. Traditional voters will blanch at the prospect of wasting their vote. Some will simply forget and others will just look at you. Push come to shove, you probably have an opinion about dung on Mary, so you will choose between the lesser of two evils. But if you know that you don't care, if you buy into something else completely, or if you simply feel guilty but without a viable choice, then vote "NO CONFIDENCE."