Election Irregularities in the State Due South of 'Katherine' Blackwell's Ohio

Kentucky Senate to make 'unbridled' attempt at subverting the rule of law

Oh, Kentucky! Ye ancient land of “unbridled spirit,” of horses, hospitality and horseshit politics... Say it isn't so! (Heck, this state even has Congresspeople with horsey teeth, but that of course belongs in a dentistry blog.) And did I mention this state's got horses?

With my writing discipline now restored and focusing on the issue at hand, let me first welcome y'all to my state, the Commonwealth of Kentucky (No, 'commonwealth' has nothing to do with socialism, kid—your parents are Republican, I bet). Anyway, y'all see, what we basically have going on here is this Republican candidate for the 37^th Senatorial District, Louisville pizza parlor heiress Dana “Dan 'Malano' Seum” Stephenson, somehow having forgotten to look at the state Constitutional blurb regarding the residency requirement for running for this open Senate seat. Ms. Stephenson hadn't lived in the state six years prior to the election, as required, as she lived across the Ohio River in enemy state Indiana for two-thirds of that period. Stephenson's forgetfulness was revealed when her opponent, Democrat Virginia Woodward, filed suit a day ahead of the November 2 election. And not withstanding the smelly political timing of the lawsuit, Stephenson made no attempt to withdraw her name from the ballot. Y'all smell this political stink from a mile away, I betcha.

From the perspective of running a well-tuned democracy, I have no rational choice but to declare a pox on both these candidates. (And OK OK, I will stop blurting “y'all” for the rest of this article.)

You see, once the election was over and the unqualified candidate won, off to court this stink went. And the judge, Jefferson Circuit Judge Barry Willett did something extraordinary: He actually disqualified Stephenson and revoked her win. And you're sitting there thinking: “So what, the judge had no choice.” But wait, there's more! The judge actually... get this.. awarded the victory to Ms. Woodward, even though she received a minority of the votes! It's just such a humdinger to behold when the rule of law is upheld at the same time democracy is subverted. I love this state!

There's certainly no question that Stephenson's win should have been thrown out, unless you're a seething anti-democracy, arch-conservative and weirdly partisan Republican. But, on the other hand, to award a win to the candidate who didn't actually win is, well, unbridled horseshit. The only reasonable judicial response would have been to order a special election and let the best qualified candidate win, where 'win' means a plurality/majority of the votes, thank you! Democracy would have been restored. But this judge, apparently on crack, handed yet another issue to fun-loving, Florida-admiring Kentucky Republicans to exploit.

Now, Ms. Stephenson, through the auspices of her arch-conservative attorney and blinkered TV debate personality, Jim Milliman, is pursuing a political overturn of the judge's decision in the Republican-controlled Kentucky Senate. Mr. Milliman is daring to suggest that the legislature can override the strict and clear requirements in the state Constitution by determining the qualifications of their membership. This is patently absurd and worse, plainly illegal, as the Senate cannot legally determine qualifications that subvert constitutionally-defined qualifications, but only judge them, according to the same Constitution. Moreover, a state legislature cannot afford to make a judgment that openly defies the state's highest laws, then expect citizens not to view an action like that as indication that the rule of law is no longer in play in that state. Horrifically enough, however, there was a precedent for such shenanigans when in 1987, the Democratic-controlled House seated somebody who wasn't a legal resident of their district—shame on those Democrats. But two wrongs don't make a right, and seating Ms. Stephenson would be nothing short of a brutal political attack on the rule of law.

Sadly, though, Republican Senate President David Williams is indicating that the Senate will indeed take up this matter as soon as it's brought before the body. Williams is the same extreme partisan who openly spread gay rumors about Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Daniel Mongiardo just before the election and then denied it, all to ensure the victory of the floundering reelection candidate and dimmest bulb in the Senate, Republican Jim Bunning. Perhaps this speaks more for Kentucky politics than it does any particular players, but it's seemingly apparent that there's only one person to go to in Kentucky these days if you're a Republican in trouble (due to your own foibles) and need the assistance of an unethical partisan power play. On top of this, who the heck cares if Mr. Mongiardo sets off some GAYDARs (as if there's anything wrong with that)... oh, I almost nearly forgot, this is bible bumpkin Kentucky.

Meanwhile, Ms. Woodward is expecting, if not demanding to be seated based on an election she didn't win. Love that democracy! Perhaps Ms. Woodward might be reminded of the roots of her Democratic party. Even with a judgment in her favor, certainly a personal recognition of the unethical smell of taking a seat she didn't get the most votes for should be accorded. Further, she should realize that she will have a great chance of actually winning in a special election, given her newfound name recognition.

Both political parties need to come to a rational agreement here: That all candidates in any political election need be qualified, and that the candidate with the most votes wins. Neither side in this dispute seems ready to do the right thing for the constituents of the 37^th District. Only a newly minted special election will make sense here. I'm not politically adept enough to know how this can be pursued at this point, but certainly, for the sake of getting things done right, political leaders will find some way to proceed on this.

Of course, with any course taken, there's a price to be paid. Elections aren't cheap to run. But state leaders suggesting in any way that the law isn't the law is far more pricey.

Now, speaking again of horses (naaaay! that dreaded image my state cannot shake, nor wishes to shake)... Elections really aren't like horse races, after all. In an actual horse race, when the first place finisher gets disqualified, the second place horse automatically wins. Judge Willett must have inserted this analogy into his decision. However, he neglected one simple point: The people didn't decide to elect the second place finisher!

The people of Kentucky's 37^th Senatorial District must be given another chance to exercise their democracy, and do it with a slate of qualified candidates. Anything short of this is unacceptable, and unbridled... well, you know.

A Tip to the Politically Defeated: Democracy Doesn't End on Election Day

You're sad. You're down. You're out. Your candidate lost.

Game over? Not by a long shot.

At this auspicious time in U.S. history, I am especially inclined to state what should be the obvious, to go Kung Fu on your asses and make a simple observation to you jumpy and upset grasshoppers out there: The vote isn't democracy's only tool... nor even its most powerful. We Americans don't vote and forget, leaving elected officials with unchallenged dictatorial powers for years on end (or at least we're not supposed to let them get away with that).

In reality, the most powerful tool is sustained, rational argument. Votes and their associated election results may win battles, but only your undying commitment to a cause and the building of sturdy rational cases for your cause's positions is what wins the war. The overwhelming reality of democracy is that 1) arguments never cease, and 2) your opponents never die. To deny this reality is to declare others your master, and you their slave. Heck, let's make this even more clear: Argue or perish.

But, you say, “The irrational, the powerful, the 'monied' control the mass media! How can we get our arguments out there if we are effectively silenced?” ...To which I reply, “I hear what you're saying, I really do, but you, Grasshopper, speaketh nonsense.”

I'll save deep discussion of our so-called Fourth Estate (otherwise known as the “murder, weather and sports brigade”) and its failures for another day. But for now, for the sake of healing, it's helpful to review how the “losers” can continue to achieve their objectives after painful election defeats, despite the coarse crosswinds of mass media malarkey.

As many of us well know, legislators of the so-called “loyal opposition” have several tools in their tool belt for dealing with the winning majority, the key ones being obstructionism, bipartisan approaches and the development of alternative policies to pronounce or reinforce when things go wrong with prevailing policies. To take one example, in the Republican majority government at the U.S. federal level, the opposition Democrats still have the power of filibuster in the Senate to obstruct any legislation or appointments they deem too extreme. At any rate, certainly this range of tools is well-known to the political junkies in most of us. We Americans take it as faith that our elected elites in the loyal opposition will do what they can do to protect the interests of the electoral losers.

But that's not all folks! We the people also have our own tools to bandy about—especially in recent times, our tools are becoming far more numerous, comprehensive and effective. To be cute, I could analogize that we now have Ginsu knives compared to the butter knives we used to brandish.

From the beginning of civilization, we human beings always possessed the ability to discuss issues with each other in our direct attempts to persuade or influence. Even before the Internet came on the scene in a big way in the 1990's, the people already had possessed the “power of the pen” to write letters to their newspaper editors as well as to their representatives. Further, through direct participation in governmental hearings, citizens always could take their case to present before their elected representatives in hopes of influencing some of the votes that made the real difference. On top of all this, citizens always could engage in civic activities and activism to extend the reach of their causes.

Once the Internet achieved wide use, its first use in the realm of politics (still ongoing today) was to extend activities that were already taking place in the “offline world”. Letters became emails. Discussion moved into discussion boards and blogs. Some governmental meetings have transmogrified into “online consultation.” Activism has mushroomed through the awesome power of the Internet to bring together citizens of like minds and organize them in ways unforeseen before Internet access became virtually ubiquitous. Howard Dean's campaign for the U.S. Presidency especially highlighted this new organizational power.

As time goes by, we are discovering that the Internet is providing a catalyst for a collective power that was previously unimagined. The public's new power base, or the Internet as political platform, is not simply facilitating and not simply amplifying—it is also in some respects already replacing elements within our traditional democratic experience! In the 2004 Presidential campaign, we experienced some cases where blogs and other online campaigns acted as the determinants of which stories deserved coverage by the mass media, thereby diminishing the role of the traditional gatekeepers. Examples of stories advanced by the new public power base include the phony documents CBS touted with regards to President Bush's National Guard service as well as the big end-of-campaign brouhaha regarding missing high explosives stockpiles in Iraq.

Another previously unimagined focus of this new political platform is its increasing glocalization of political and other activities. The Internet originally seemed to be the medium for bringing together like-minded people from across wide distances, rather than helping people (whether like-minded or not) gather in their own communities and cities. But increasingly, we are seeing efforts through websites like Meetup, Tribe.net and Craigslist to create an economically viable global access for congregation while also paying attention to the ability for people to meet others they can actually run into at the grocery store. Certainly, the possibilities here are endless for influencing local politics over the long run—exchanging arguments with a group of people dispersed throughout your town will have never been so easy.

Going from local political activity to the global, we are now also witnessing the growth of a movement some are calling the Second Superpower. No matter what you think of America's superpower position, there's no question that many in the world see American hegemony as, at best, a point-of-view that requires some counteracting or rebuttal, or at worst, a cancer that requires strong opposition. This new global public power base, as it were, may hope to achieve what no other nation in the world could imagine achieving—that is, providing the same degree of political counterbalance that was “enjoyed” during the Cold War. For better or worse, anti-U.S. political power is growing, and this power will indeed be exerted against any U.S. policies deemed to be too extreme.

World citizens didn't vote in the 2004 U.S. election, but don't think for a minute that this prevents them from influencing U.S. politics in a major way. Denouncing this new “outside influence” will do nothing to diminish it—the world's citizens are now effectively U.S. citizens and they aren't going to let go. And the Internet, along with globalization, will increasingly lock this new reality into place. To those Americans who fear this future, I say, “Fear not, as this power works both ways.” At the same time, we do have to be concerned that this inevitable conflict of national sovereignty and global democratic activism is going to cause of lot of troubles that we can only now barely imagine.

To close, I will reiterate that despite any hidden influence or critical events beyond anyone's control, it is sustained, rational arguments from U.S. citizens as well as world citizens that will ultimately control our nation's political destiny. This is not to say that your vote on November 2 didn't count. It very certainly did count. However, it is but one step in an ongoing process that will never end.

The bottom line is that ever-advancing communications technologies will always continue to change how we live and exercise our political rights in a way that increasingly empowers us. By now, this must be such a straightforward idea that we can even sloganize it...

Democracy... it's never over.

---

Thanks to everyone for the gracious comments they added to the first PPB article.

First, a big 'hello' to the other Steve Magruder out there. May you live a good life. Just don't pretend you're me and we'll be in good shape. :)

Second, I want to acknowledge those who wish to see the old Democracy 2.0 site reappear somehow. I have to admit that I neither have the time nor the finances to continue the site. I may be interested in reviving it at a future time, but for now, if there's any particular feature from the D2 site that you liked, please let me know and I'll try to develop that into an article or series of articles.

Last, I know I promised an article every two days at the max, but alas, the election season pretty much had me tied up. I felt that being so immersed in partisan activities might end up tainting what I had meant to be a mostly nonpartisan blog.

See ya next article!

My New Sobriety: What Happened to Democracy 2.0?

ON EDIT: Democracy 2.0 is now back up and running at d2.stevemagruder.com.

Greetings everyone.

I assume you're wondering what happened to Democracy 2.0 as well as my other sites.

Well, I made a hard life decision, but it's one that I think will turn out to be more beneficial to what I was trying to achieve in the first place. Let me explain...


First, with my increasing proliferation of websites (political, personal, professional), I am noticing that I am losing focus on what means the most to me: making a difference in the political world, especially with respect to the issues I care most about. This is not the first time I've lost focus in my life--in fact, losing focus has become a staple of my character. Neverthless, I just decided that it is high time to stop that behavior. I need to focus focus focus on what means the most to me--getting out my thoughts in a clear and complete manner without obstruction.

Second, related to the focus thing, as an IT professional, I was letting the advance of my programming skills get in the way of producing content. No more. I recently decided to exit the IT profession due to many factors which make any further involvement in it just plain unworkable--these factors are too numerous and difficult for me to discuss in this article. At any rate, I've found myself concentrating almost solely on how I would get my message out, while rarely spending any time on what the message is. As of this article, I hereby slap myself vigorously with cold water.

Third, with my ongoing research into matters surrounding the expansion of public involvement in deciding public policy matters (i.e., "a more direct democracy"), I have come to realize that I have boxed myself in a narrow approach to these matters. To fully discuss these kinds of issues, I honestly can't always be nonpartisan, as sometimes partisan forces do things to negate public participation--and things like this cannot be ignored if I am to be effective. Further, I believe that there are many other political issues related to democracy and public sovereignty that almost always seem to escape full public discourse. Thus, I will strive to:

1. break outside this box I created and deliver articles that people will find simultaneously relevant and fresh;
2. transcend what currently passes for political discussion in the United States; and
   
3. be bold and timely.

Fourth (and last), with my ongoing change in careers (including this stab at writing), I can no longer afford the hosting that my websites require. This combined with the effect of my lost focus meant that I was going nowhere with the spent resources. I have to come to the stark reality that what I've been doing just won't work.

Therefore, I am starting this blog and bringing down my websites.

To those who enjoyed these websites, I hereby apologize and hope that you will stay with me and explore the issues raised in this blog. If you choose not to stay, I wish good tidings for you and yours (note: you'll always be welcome to return at any time).

As always, thank you very much for your time and support.

---

By the way, since this blog is new, I'm very open to making naming, description and style changes. If you have any ideas, please feel free to send them my way.

Stay tuned for my first regular article. I hope to write something new every day (or at least every other day). I have a lot of ideas in my head. Of course, feel free to comment on the articles and to submit ideas for new ones. I am even open to providing opportunities for guest articles. The channel is open!

So, here goes....