Americans Abandon Voting - Barely 50% even participate - What democracy? What choices?

What the news media and political parties are not telling us about our $20 billion election next year?

Our media and politicians tend to portray the United States of America as the ultimate democracy in the world and have consistently presented us as the defenders of freedom and democracy.

Well I must be confused because nowhere is the word "democracy" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. How could that be?  Come to think of it, no where are the words capitalism or political party mentioned either.

Our government is supposed to be a democracy!

What exactly is the definition of a democracy?

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "democracy"

The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.

A country in which power is held by elected representatives.

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "republic"

A country that is governed by elected representatives and an elected leader.

So in a pure democracy power is held by the people directly, while a republic elects representatives to look out for the public interest.  Well let us look at that in light of the current state of American participation in the election of our representatives and leader.

Pythagorean Analysis of Voter reality in America 2016 Presidential Election

Total USA Population 2016                323,127,513

Total Population under 18                  73,642,285
Total Population 18 and over          249,485,228

Total Eligible Voters 18+                 249,485,228

Total Registered Voters                    157,600,000

Percent                                                                     63%

Total Voter Turnout 2016                136,669,276

Percent of Registered Voters                         86%

Percent of Eligible Voters                                55%

Total Trump Votes 2016                    62,984,828

Percent of Registered Voters                        40%

Percent of Eligible Voters                              25.2%                                                                    

Total Clinton Voters 201                    65,853,514

Percent of Registered Voters                      41.7%

Percent of Eligible Voters                            26.3%                                    

Total Eligible Voters not Voting    112,816,048

Percent of Eligible Voters                            45.2%                                                

Total Leaning Independent                          39%

Total Leaning Democrat                               31%

                           Total Leaning Republican                            28%                           

Nothing can be more dramatic than the realization that not only do we not have a democracy we do not even have a functioning republic in this the citadel of world democracy.  We are nearing the point for perhaps the first time in our history, when more Americans refused to participate in the voting process by refusing to register to vote, a consequence of freedom or common sense I suspect.  Also note the foreboding 2018 party preference when the two parties continued to erode while the Independents continue to rise.

2018 Party Preference

Leaning Independent     42%

Leaning Democrat           30%

Leaning Republican        26%

Our political system has failed to support our constitutional requirements for a republic.  Wake up America!  Better yet, wake up news media and politicians who are ignorant of history and fail to understand the meaning of a republic.  As a last, gasp effort to steer them in the right direction, here is an explanation of the American system of government as envisioned by our founding fathers back before the concentration of power in our news media and political parties.

Is the United States a democracy?  Here is an explanation by ThisNation.com

The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. 

The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums.

(Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."

The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind (Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4).  Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

Note Data Source for statistics: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

American Elections 7 - Tips for International Followers - Why the media and political parties have it all wrong - they forgot about Independents

Sometimes the most obvious is the most difficult to see and when it comes to the American media the most obvious and most logical is most often overlooked.  Ever since Obama first ran for office there has been a peculiar Main Street media fascination with the Tea Party movement and when it comes to the liberal media, it became an obsession.

For some odd reason the Lame Street media has been afraid, fearful, and terrorized by the thought that the Tea Party and its seemingly radical right wing supporters represents a grave threat to the American political process.

If the media wants to condemn a conservative commentator they label them "Tea Party" whether they have any affiliation with the Tea Party or not.  It is the liberal way to stigmatize the on air personalities that cause so much havoc in their lives.

Yet most conservative commentators have never joined the Tea Party and view it as an element of the Republican party, not a separate institution.  So the Democrats have tried to diminish any threat from the Tea Party by talking about the splintering effect the Tea Party has on the Republicans.

I suspect they just don't get it.

The only threat to the two party system in America is their arrogance in thinking there really is just two parties in the country and their failure to see we are rapidly approaching the point of no return when more American are alienated by both political parties and their partisan nonsense when in truth there is little difference between them.

Every election we get closer to the point when there are going to be more Independents than BOTH Democrats and Republicans.  When over 50% of the public believes neither party serves the public but both parties have become their own Special Interests.

With the continuing decline in public confidence in our political parties, politicians and media and with the continued ignorance or deliberate effort by the media to disregard the growing number of Americans rejecting both political parties that day we cross the 50% threshold is rapidly approaching and will most certainly be here by 2016 or 2020.

The following is a Gallup Poll which most media failed to report on the continuing surge in the number of Independents in America.  They are the real danger to the two party system and the real hope for healing our Nation.

January 8, 2014 (first published)

Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents

Republican identification lowest in at least 25 years

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.

The results are based on more than 18,000 interviews with Americans from 13 separate Gallup multiple-day polls conducted in 2013.

In each of the last three years, at least 40% of Americans have identified as independents. These are also the only years in Gallup's records that the percentage of independents has reached that level.

Americans' increasing shift to independent status has come more at the expense of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Republican identification peaked at 34% in 2004, the year George W. Bush won a second term in office. Since then, it has fallen nine percentage points, with most of that decline coming during Bush's troubled second term. When he left office, Republican identification was down to 28%. It has declined or stagnated since then, improving only slightly to 29% in 2010, the year Republicans "shellacked" Democrats in the midterm elections.

Not since 1983, when Gallup was still conducting interviews face to face, has a lower percentage of Americans, 24%, identified as Republicans than is the case now. That year, President Ronald Reagan remained unpopular as the economy struggled to emerge from recession. By the following year, amid an improving economy and re-election for the increasingly popular incumbent president, Republican identification jumped to 30%, a level generally maintained until 2007.

Democratic identification has also declined in recent years, falling five points from its recent high of 36% in 2008, the year President Barack Obama was elected. The current 31% of Americans identifying as Democrats matches the lowest annual average in the last 25 years.

Fourth Quarter Surge in Independence

The percentage of Americans identifying as independents grew over the course of 2013, surging to 46% in the fourth quarter. That coincided with the partial government shutdown in October and the problematic rollout of major provisions of the healthcare law, commonly known as "Obamacare."

The 46% independent identification in the fourth quarter is a full three percentage points higher than Gallup has measured in any quarter during its telephone polling era.

Democrats Maintain Edge in Party Identification

Democrats maintain their six-point edge in party identification when independents' "partisan leanings" are taken into account. In addition to the 31% of Americans who identify as Democrats, another 16% initially say they are independents but when probed say they lean to the Democratic Party. An equivalent percentage, 16%, say they are independent but lean to the Republican Party, on top of the 25% of Americans identifying as Republicans. All told, then, 47% of Americans identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, and 41% identify as Republicans or lean to the Republican Party.

Democrats have held at least a nominal advantage on this measure of party affiliation in all but three years since Gallup began asking the "partisan lean" follow-up in 1991. During this time, Democrats' advantage has been as high as 12 points, in 2008. However, that lead virtually disappeared by 2010, although Democrats have re-established an edge in the last two years.

Implications

Americans are increasingly declaring independence from the political parties. It is not uncommon for the percentage of independents to rise in a non-election year, as 2013 was. Still, the general trend in recent years, including the 2012 election year, has been toward greater percentages of Americans identifying with neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, although most still admit to leaning toward one of the parties.

The rise in political independence is likely an outgrowth of Americans' record or near-record negative views of the two major U.S. parties, of Congress, and their low level of trust in government more generally.

The increased independence adds a greater level of unpredictability to this year's presidential election. Because U.S. voters are less anchored to the parties than ever before, it's not clear what kind of appeals may be most effective to winning votes. But with Americans increasingly eschewing party labels for themselves, candidates who are less closely aligned to their party or its prevailing doctrine may benefit.

Now that we are halfway through the 2016 election cycle it is clear that the Independent will dominate in the general election, and the "outsider" candidates have demonstrated tremendous strength in the primary elections.  Both political parties are actively trying to stop the outsiders and protect the political establishment and status quo, but Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump may be more resilient than expected by the media.  

Survey Methods

Results are based on aggregated telephone interviews from 13 separate Gallup polls conducted in 2013, with a random sample of 18,871 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cell telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

.     

American Elections 6 - Tips for International Followers - Who votes in America?

What the news media and political parties are not telling us about our $5 billion election this year?

Our media and politicians tend to portray the United States of America as the ultimate democracy in the world and have consistently presented us as the defenders of freedom and democracy.

Well I must be confused because nowhere is the word "democracy" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. How could that be?  Come to think of it, no where are the words capitalism or political party mentioned either.

Our government is supposed to be a democracy!

What exactly is the definition of a democracy?

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "democracy"

The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.

A country in which power is held by elected representatives.

The Cambridge Dictionary - Definition of "republic"

A country that is governed by elected representatives and an elected leader.

So in a pure democracy power is held by the people directly, while a republic elects representatives to look out for the public interest.  Well let us look at that in light of the current state of American participation in the election of our representatives and leader.

Pythagorean Analysis of Voter reality in America

Total USA Population Today           325,332,205

Total Population under 18                 78,000,000

Total Population 18 and over          247,322,000

Total Eligible Voters 18+                 247,322,000

Total Registered Voters                  142,200,000

Percent                                                            57%

Total Voter Turnout 2012                121,757,000

Percent of Registered Voters                       85.6%

Percent of Eligible Voters                             49.2%

Total Obama Votes 2012                   62,615,406

Percent of Registered Voters                       44%

Percent of Eligible Voters                             25.3%                                                                        

Total Romney Voters 2012               59,100,000

Percent of Registered Voters                      41.5%

Percent of Eligible Voters                            23.9%                                    

Total Eligible Voters not Voting      125,565,000

Percent of Eligible Voters                            50.8%
                                               

Total Leaning Independent                          43%

Total Leaning Democrat                              30%

Total Leaning Republican                            26%                           

Nothing can be more dramatic than the realization that not only do we not have a democracy we do not even have a functioning republic in this the citadel of world democracy.  For perhaps the first time in our history, more Americans refused to participate in the voting process by refusing to register to vote, a consequence of freedom or common sense I suspect.

Our political system has failed to support our constitutional requirements for a republic.  Yet I do not hear a single candidate for either party raise the issue of the disconnect between our political parties and our constitutional rights.

Wake up America!  Better yet, wake up news media and politicians who are ignorant of history and fail to understand the meaning of a republic.  As a last, gasp effort to steer them in the right direction, here is an explanation of the American system of government as envisioned by our founding fathers back before the concentration of power in our news media and political parties.

Is the United States a democracy?  Here is an explanation by ThisNation.com

The Pledge of Alliance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. 

The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums.

(Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."

The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind (Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Alliance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4).  Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

Note Data Source for statistics: U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Projected Population by Single Year of Age (0-99, 100+), Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2060." Released December 2014. Web-based data files available at:

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2014/downloadablefiles.html

.

The Iowa Caucus - Predictions from an Iowa Hayseed - Hillary or Bernie, Cruz or Trump?

.

Today is the beginning of the American Presidential campaign to replace Barack Obama as Iowans caucus to pick their choices for Democrat and Republican candidates in one of the most unusual methods used in the USA.

The "caucus" Iowa style is like no other form of primary in that it is the first test of the strength of candidates and first test of their ability to appeal to people, not the media, not the contributors, but the people.

The two parties differ somewhat in how to run the caucus, with the Democrats disqualifying anyone with less than 15% of the vote, which means a redistribution of the votes for O'Malley to the surviving candidates Clinton and Sanders.

What the media failed to note until today, is that if Bernie and Hillary tie as the polls seem to reflect, and Clinton is the establishment candidate while Sanders is the outsider, it seems logical that the O'Malley votes are anti-Clinton and therefore will go to Sanders.

If there is a high voter turnout, and there most certainly will be, Sanders and Trump stand to benefit the most.  If the anti-establishment mood of the nation is real, and all evidence points to that fact, again Sanders and Trump benefit.

On the Republican side, there are a dozen good candidates, including two who won the Iowa primary previously.  Then there is the only true outsider championing the "silent majority" of Americans Trump, who has never run for public office.

Challenging Trump is Cruz, claiming to be an outsider but after winning a Senate seat in 2012 and personally managing the shut down of the US government a couple of years ago, he hardly qualifies as an outsider.  He also failed to mention he received one million dollars in last minute loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank in order to win a runoff for the Senate seat.

In my mind, the anti-establishment mood of the nation is a direct result of control of our government by special interests, specifically the financial and banking powerhouses and pharmaceutical drug makers, through the failure to have adequate campaign financial limits.

In this election year, the most special of special interests finance and support two candidates.  First is Hillary Clinton, whose family received millions and millions of dollars from Goldman Sachs dating back to Bill Clinton's impeachment, while Hillary has received millions from the financial giants and corrupt hedge funds.

The second is Ted Cruz, who not only violated federal campaign laws by failing to report the Goldman loans, he also failed to mention in his bio that his wife is a twelve year employee and director of Goldman Sachs.

The news media chooses to make qualified predictions of what will happen today, sort of hedging their bets since they have been wrong about every aspect of the election this year.  If the turnout is very high, they say, there is a chance Sanders and Trump will win, but the odds seem to be a lower turnout and wins by Clinton and Cruz because both spent more money and have the best organization in Iowa.

I say nonsense a qualified prediction is like a wimp whose idea of taking a chance is going out on a limb that is two feet off the ground.  Perhaps we should throw the media into the establishment category as they have done as much as the big bankers and beholden politicians to undermine our country.

Did I mention Barack Obama is the third politician who represents the best office holder money can buy because of his own decade long relationship to Goldman Sachs?

At any rate, the Coltons Point Times is not afraid to make real predictions on the Iowa race and here they are.

The Winners

The American people who know our government, financial system, our political parties, and campaign financing system are corrupt to the bone.

Bernie Sanders who will send shock waves throughout the Democrat establishment machine by beating heavily favored Hillary Clinton with his multitudes of young, energetic, and untested volunteers.  At the same time, he will help strike a mortal wound to the equally corrupt political party machines that have controlled our elections.

Donald Trump who is the other side of the double-bladed sword that will lead to the destruction of the special interest control of America, and who, like Bernie, comes to the party with no strings attached.  Like Sanders, Trump is bringing millions of Americans back into the political process in order to slay the mighty machine that has bled America dry.

America has seen nothing like this avalanche of support for outsiders since Andrew Jackson became our seventh president in 1829 when he ran against the corrupt financial establishment trying to take control of the young America.

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes."

                                                                                    Andrew Jackson

Jackson served two terms, founded the Democrat party, and closed down our national bank, the Second Bank of the United States.

Rand Paul considered inconsequential by the media and Republican Party but who can be invaluable in shaping a future America free of special interests.  I sense he will far exceed expectations.

The Losers

Hillary Clinton who finds she is no longer heir-apparent to the presidency and must stand accountable for all her bizarre acts in government.

Ted Cruz who discovers a conservative with no personality is largely boring and cannot be trusted.

Goldman Sachs who thought they had both political parties compromised but might just be wrong.  Even if she loses in Iowa, Hillary still is the prohibitive favorite to win the Democrat nomination since Bernie is not even a real Democrat and he is a socialist.

Barack Obama who is counting on Hillary to protect his presidential legacy even though trusting the Clintons to protect anyone other than a Clinton is not a good sign for our president.

Finally, Harvard and Yale could easily be losers as the two Ivy League schools have controlled the American presidency for the past 28 years.  There are 2,618 accredited colleges and universities in America, give someone else a chance.

Hillary (Yale) or Cruz (Harvard) is the standard-bearer expected to maintain the stranglehold on the presidency that Obama (Harvard), Bush, Jr. (Yale and Harvard), Clinton (Yale), and Bush, Sr. (Yale) have preserved through four straight presidencies.

  

Trump crowds

As for the caucus in general, I expect the Republican turnout to set a new record and the Democrats to be very close, if not break, the Obama record in 2008.

Bernie crowds

In addition, since Trump and Bernie will both win the New Hampshire primary in another week, the shock waves will continue to reverberate through the political parties and media as the campaign unfolds.

A side note, the Democrat winning the Iowa caucus won the presidency in 2008 but the Republican winning the caucus has not won the presidency in 20 years.

.