I had planned on waiting until closer to the Presidential election before commenting on that topic, but after reading  Mark Hohmeister's pained column on Saturday about the negative Obama Zings I felt his pain and decided it served as a good segue for me. 

In 1972, I eagerly cast my first presidential vote for George McGovern.  Since then, and as my anarchistic beliefs matured, I've become less and less interested in voting. I may or may not vote this year.

Why? Because the base of the representative deomocracy created by the Constitution has been completely...well, debased.

That base was originally:  free, propertied males over 21. That base produced, for example, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

Expansion of the franchise now allows just about anyone to vote. This expanded base has produced, for example, Nixon, Carter and "Dubya" Bush.

If you wanted the "short version" of this blog, read no more. Otherwise.... 

Today, elections are essetntially a popularity contest much like the student government elections in high school and college. On second thought, student elections actually have a voter base that can discuss the "issues" on an informed basis. 

Student govenrment candidates talk about what they will do if elected. Our "real government" candidates often talk more about why we should not vote for the other candidate. Because that is easier to understand by the electorate than any in-depth discussion of issues. 

When the clerk at the Burger King can't do the math to give me correct change for a $5.28 meal when she rings up the $10 I pull out and then muddy the water by pulling out 50 cents.....how can there by any informed discussion on the complexity of, say, health care?

One of the lowest examples I've seen yet of negative campaigning is Hillary revealing to enquiring minds that Obama is not to be trusted because he wrote an essay in Kindergarten about being President, proving without doubt that even then he was already hungry for power. All she's doing is projecting onto Obama her own very real lust for power and hoping she can con voters into thinking she is reluctantly stepping forward because she just happens to be the most experienced candidate who, as luck would have it, has been preparing for this all her life (without planning it, of course). But if any candidate is a scheming "old school" politician, it is Hillary and I will not vote rather than vote for her.

It is a sad truth that few people have gone bankrupt underestimating the intelligence of the public and so politicians have followed the same path since near universal suffrage. We won't let someone drive without passing a test, but the basic test to vote is minimum age and breathing, although the latter is not a requirement in some places.

The only reason our govenrment is not in even worse shape is that a large percentage of voters don't bother to vote. I don't think that indicates there is a huge anarchist base there for me to rally; rather, there's a lot of apathy.

But assume that all voters are highly informed and turnout is above 90% range. Would those conditions change my perspective on voting in a Presidential election?

Not at all.  Because last time I heard, the President is an executive who at best proposes and hopes that Congress disposes favorably.

But voters seem to believe that Presidents are Kings who, if elected, will obtain consent from a compliant Congress.  They do not realize we are not a parliamentary form of government, which is designed to actually accomplish things.

Our form of government is a "diffused power" system which values the inertia of doing nothing (and being well paid for it.) Unless the House, a super majority of the Senate and the President all agree , the result is normally finger pointing. (Of course, this situtation of "do nothing" govenrment is a benign form of anarchy which I should welcome but I hate being teased.)

An already bad situation is made worse by the fact that many Presidents know which way the voter winds are blowing and accept the idea of an Imperial Presidency,. Is that why Dubya is a/k/a "the Decider?"  He decides, not Congress? Hail (Heil?)  King (insert any name here)!

I  don't know, or care, whether the imperial tone of the modern Presidency is a backlash to the impotence of modern government. All I know is that when the time comes, I may not have an answer to the title of this blog...What...me vote? WHY?

P.S. This blog is dedicated to Alfred E. Neumann, a pillar of anarchy