Free and fair elections on a secret ballot are a human right which has been touted by "western democracies" for most of the 20th Century. It seems to have vanished in the 21st, but it is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.Article 21
- Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
- Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
- The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
There is another provision Article 20 (2) which states that: "No one may be compelled to belong to an association." I guess that's a good place to start on how US elections are rigged since some states have closed primaries which require people to belong to a party before they can vote in them. That is a violation of several provisions since it requires stating party affiliation, being compelled to belong to a party, and using public funds for a private organisation.
And I have news for you if you think that the democratic party is anything beyond the left of centre, if even that far left.
The primary process is another part of rigging elections in that they drag on interminably, which means that any candidate needs money to run a campaign through to the end. But even that doesn't guarantee that a candidate will get anywhere as Bernie Sanders demonstrated in 2016. The upshot is that the primary process is a sham which could easily be run in one day with modern technology. The only reason it drags on so long is to allow for the appearance of anything other than a coronation rather than a truly democratically chosen candidate.
Do you think that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden actually won the primaries in 2016 and 2020? At least 2024 is a lot more obvious in being a sham.
And if money isn't enough of a barrier, then the duopoly has their ways to shut down insurgent candidates: whether it is the primary or nomination process.
Ballot access to third parties is another way the democratic process is thwarted. Let's take Green Party candidate, Jill Stein's, race to get on the ballot in all 50 states. As she will point out, the duopoly are already on the ballot: it's the third parties which have to petition to get on the ballot.
And they have to do it on a state by state basis. The Green Party of New York needs to get 45,000 valid signatures by May 28, with at least 500
or 1% of enrolled voters coming from at least half of the congressional
districts for Jill Stein to be on the ballot. The Green Party is collection 90,000 signatures to make sure that they will have enough. This is because New York lawmakers increased the number of required petitions
from 15,000 signatures to 45,000 in 2020. Under former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the
rules were also changed for party qualifications for ballot access from receiving at least
50,000 votes in gubernatorial elections to getting 2 percent of the vote
for the top office in elections every other year.
So, here's an answer if you are wondering why the candidates and duopoly parties suck so much. They don't have to do a lot to be assured that's what you are going to be served up in an election. In fact, because of Gerrymandering, some parties don't even bother running a candidate. That means we have the ultimate one party system.
Sure, there are lots of ways to shake up the system if you are tired of crappy candidates. For one, vote for Jill Stein even if her politics aren't yours. She may be the first third party candidate in nearly 200 years to be able to win a presidential election (ever hear of the republican party???). Since one of her platforms is election reform, that would definitely get it on the radar.
Secondly, people need to realize that the US is actually a parliamentary democracy with the legislature holding the power of the purse. Having a serious government shutdown would turn it from a de facto Westminster system to a de jure one--especially if these principals are present:
- A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.
- A parliament that can be dissolved and snap elections called at any time.
Of course, the US may go through governments faster than Italy or Belgium until it gets its act together, but would that be a bad thing?
