>>>Man, I never thought I'd find myself defending the U.S. electoral
>>>system, but at least we don't have a bunch of clerics vetting
>>>candidates for office. Yeah, I know there are all kinds of
>>>informal vetting mechanisms - money, restrictive ballot laws,
>>>ideology, media idiocy, etc. - but at least in theory anyone here
>>>can run for office. So this sort of sneer is really preposterous.
>>
>>I can't take your word for that. What part of the following essay
>>is incorrect? I should mention that the following article doesn't
>>even mention the most odious aspect of US ballot-access laws, the
>>fact that all these thousands of signatures required to get on the
>>ballot means that thousands of people would have to be prepared to
>>publicly align themselves with such a party. I can imagine it might
>>be a risky thing to do for many working people, to publicly support
>>for example a socialist candidate or party. It completely
>>circumvents the principle of secret voting to require up to 5% of
>>party supporters to go public and risk retaliation by employers.
>
>Did you read what I wrote? "YEAH, I KNOW THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF
>INFORMAL VETTING MECHANISMS - MONEY, RESTRICTIVE BALLOT LAWS,
>IDEOLOGY, MEDIA IDIOCY, ETC. - BUT AT LEAST IN THEORY ANYONE HERE
>CAN RUN FOR OFFICE." As fucked up as our system is, candidates don't
>have to be approved by a gang of clerics. There are actually a few
>half-decent elected officials in the USA, you know, as dire as the
>situation generally is.
Obviously the vetting mechanism is different, with different intended outcomes. But the strategy is the same, to ensure that candidates and parties that are a threat to the ruling class are prevented from getting onto the ballot.
In the US, the objective is to prevent any kind of socialist candidates and especially socialist political parties, from getting on the ballot. The mechanisms are convoluted, but entirely effective. In fact they prevent any kind of third party from arising. Indeed, the mechanisms are so effective they prevent any cohesive political party whatsoever from operating, rendering even the officially sanctioned Republican and Democrat parties a rabble, held together by patronage alone.
Candidates don't have to be approved by a bunch of clerics, only because the ruling elite in the US is not a bunch of clerics. The ruling elite is the capitalist class. Candidates for important political office in the US *DO* have to be approved by the capitalist elite though.
How else could a candidate get millions of people, working people, who need a job to put food on the table, with bosses who can sack them without any reason (let alone due process) to publicly sign up as a supporter of of the candidate?
Its not even conceivable that so many people could be found, willing to commit economic suicide.
In Iran, the mechanism is comparatively simple and transparent, the ruling clerics directly exclude candidates they don't sanction. That's why I have been having problems understanding what this current flap was all about. Why would the ruling clerics rig an election? Not only could they just bar any candidate they didn't approve of from the ballot, but the President of Iran doesn't have that much power anyhow, he's just for show.
Internal power struggle within the ruling clique are just too complex for me to follow.
But I digress, the point is: your electoral system is just as fucked as the Iranian electoral system. Don't kid yourself. Your masters are different. Slightly better I would suppose. But the pretend democracy is just as much a sham.
I wouldn't blame you for defending the capitalist system and the capitalist ruling class in the US as an improvement on a theocracy of the Iranian kind. I'd probably agree. But I can't swallow your argument that candidates in the US don't have to be approved by the ruling class, just the same as in Iran.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas