Set Your Priorities Straight

“So, since Ukraine is nonetheless now gearing up, with American taxpayers’ money, to replace its weapons-supply that was used-up or destroyed in the war to-date, and also to build an immense new military graveyard for a planned 250,000 corpses of Ukrainian soldiers in the next and future rounds of invasions against the rebelling region in Ukraine’s (former) southeast, the IMF is basically quitting continued financing of that ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in that region. The EU has already quit funding it, other than a token half-billion-euro donation delivered on December 10th. Only the U.S. remains committed to funding it, by donating whatever weapons and military guidance are deemed necessary in order to conquer, and/or to expel, the pro-Russian residents in Ukraine’s former southeast. 98% of the U.S. House voted for it, and so did 100% of the U.S. Senate. At least 67% of the U.S. public are against it.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-taxpayers-now-alone-in-financing-ukraines-ethnic-cleansing-campaign-imf-says-ukraine-fails-to-meet-conditions-of-17-billion-loan/5419885

The question that comes up is: How is that possible? How does that work?

When the majority of the population does not support the funding of a foreign war – how is it possible that those ‘representing the people’ vote in a totally different direction?

And what is more – why is this not hitting the headlines? While everyone’s focus is on Ferguson, whether or not Putin is becoming the new Stalin and the apparent ‘shock’ at torture practices  – the American elite goes about deciding what to do with taxpayers’ money without anyone even noticing that it stands squarely against the wishes of US citizens.

According to PovertyUSA, 46.2 million Americans live in poverty in the USA – that is 1 in 6 – and 1 in 7 American households were food insecure last year. Why oh why would you consider funding a foreign war – when at home, people are in desperate need of support?

Many justifications are put forward for military spending – but do they hold up?

Creating security for your citizens starts with guaranteeing personal financial security. Reviving the economy starts with ensuring effective flow in the domestic economy by reducing inequality and ensuring everyone is enabled to be an active and empowered participant in the economy. Building world peace starts with eradicating crime at home by making sure no one has a reason to destroy another’s life out of spite, because they are lacking. Democratization starts with recognizing the wishes of your people at home and acting according to those wishes – increase direct political decision making and build in mandatory budget referendums.

The real threats to civilization – the real wars that are being fought are not wars between countries, are not wars between people of different religion and different race. The real war is the war against against poverty – the fight to survive.

A Living Income Guaranteed would be a better use of funds currently allocated to military operations – if you really want to achieve the goals mentioned above – then start by implementing a Living Income Guaranteed – you have no right to meddle in foreign affairs when you allow your own people to live in destitution.




Visit/read:
http://livingincome.me
http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/
https://www.youtube.com/user/LivingIncome
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117690749220880074672
http://www.twitter.com/LivingIncome

Read More

Day 260: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt1

Democracy - derived from the Greek words 'demos' (the people) and 'kratia' (power, rule) - refers in its most basic sense to 'rule by the people'. Currently the term holds a very positive connotation - it has been generally agreed upon in the Western/developed world that democracy is the only legitimate form of government.

There have been great efforts made by the West, through the IMF and the World Bank to 'encourage' other nations to adopt democratic practices. This was easy for especially the developing nations that called on the IMF and World Bank for financial support. All these institutions needed to do was: making 'democratization' a condition for the provision of financial support - and *woops* - we suddenly speak of 'waves of democratization' as though everyone has 'seen the light'.

Anyhow - most people will agree that democracy is the most legitimate way of ruling, because it allows for the highest degree of freedom for the individual.

In Ancient Greece it was a contested issue. The renowned philosopher, Plato, was against democracy and advocated rule by the wisest among society, the philosopher-kings (how convenient of you, Plato). He argued that most people have no business being part of the political process, because they don't have the required knowledge, insight or understanding for it.

Although not explicitly, we have been aligning to Plato's philosophy by no longer allowing each and every citizen to vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right, but instead working with a system of representative democracy, where we elect individuals that are seemingly more equipped to make such decisions on our behalf.

Within allowing such a representative system of politics, we have created a 'gap' between demos and kratia - between the people and the government - where we can in fact no longer say that it is the people who are ruling, as it is the elected government officials in the executive and legislative branches of government that are ruling - and this excludes most citizens. This gap has allowed for secrecy and rent-seeking. Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion.

In order to bridge the gap between the people and the government, two specific problems require to be addressed:

1. Education
2. Ownership of economic influence

We'll continue this discussion in the next blog.

Read More

Day 208: Is Equal Money a Fascist Regime?

Continuing from yesterday's blog - Day 207: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia? - we're here going to have a look at the common accusation that Equal Money Capitalism or the Equal Money System will be a Fascist regime - where some even claim there will be some form of concentration camps where people will be brainwashed...

It is never really clear what the context is in which Equal Money supporters will apparently go and do this brainwashing, so I will walk through the different contexts that I see could be referred to.

The first one is the idea that the Equal Money supporters will attempt to utilize mind-technology to try to persuade anyone who does not agree with the Equal Money proposal. In terms of this point - there's really nothing to worry about. We've stated several times that Equal Money will only be implemented through Political means. This means that: if a vote is held to determine whether an EMS system would be implemented and the vote determines that the majority is not in favor of Equal Money - then it will simply not be implemented. There's not more to it, no-one will go and harass anyone that did not vote for Equal Money. That's completely non-democratic.

If the vote determining that the majority votes for implementation of Equal Money and you're then asking: what about the minority that does not agree with Equal Money? That is a point that is established by the democratic rules today. When the majority votes and the vote is binding, the minority has to adjust to the binding vote. That is how democracy operates at the moment. Once Equal Money is then implemented, the democratic system would change. Direct democracy will be instated in such a way that voting is no longer about implementing the policies and decisions that the majority wants, but will stand in relation to agreeing whether the proposed policy is indeed what is best for all. So, if one votes for the policy, one agrees that the policy is best for all. If one disagrees with the policy, one must provide proof that there is inequality in the equation and that it will cause harm that can be prevented - and then one can suggest adjustments to the proposed policy or suggest alternatives.

From this point onwards - if individuals continue to be in disagreement with Equal Money and the policies that are established through such democratic means - three things can happen.

Scenario 1 - one takes some time to adjust and after a while sees that the fears one had about Equal Money had no real foundation, and in seeing how society operates according to the principles of Equality and What is Best for All - that it actually works out.

Or - scenario number 2: you continue to be in disagreement with Equal Money and express this disagreement through democratic means. Each one will have their online LifeProfile where they will stand in direct contact with the government administrators. When such input is received, you will be asked to supply specific information in terms of how you see yourself being harmed within the current system. If the information you provide indicates that you are indeed being harmed unnecessarily - solutions will be implemented to correct the disharmony in the design of the system. If it is found from the information your provided that the cause of your discontent is not within the system as the system is sound within the principles of harmony, equality and what is best for all - then support will be provided in terms of explaining how alternatives of the current system would cause greater harm. These points would have been scientifically determined through the policy-making process. If these explanations are rejected by the being without other reason than 'I just don't agree', then this may indicate that there may be some psychological imbalance where the person is not sufficiently capable of considering another as equal to themselves. In these cases, then, psychological support will be offered, where professionals will be available to assist you in correcting your own psychological disharmonies. This will not be compulsory. Forcing a person to change will not result in actual self-responsibility and self-correction - one can only correct oneself - therefore, assistance can be offered, but it cannot be forced upon the person. If assistance is refused, one will have to live with one's own discontent as the refusal to change will be one's own responsibility.

In the 3rd scenario - the disagreement with Equal Money will be expressed through spiteful behavior in deliberately acting in a way that is in disagreement with the laws and rules that have been established through democratic means under the Constitutional principle of what is best for all. In such cases, one has decided to deliberately cause harm and disharmony. Again - firstly, it will be investigated whether your discontent flows from a disharmony within the system that would cause you to 'act out'. If this is the case, steps will be taken to correct the problem. If this is not the case, then one requires to face the consequences of one's spitefulness. When a being is deliberate within causing harm and disharmony when one lives in a system that supports each one equally and provides the best results for everyone - there will be no more choice involved. One will be placed in a facility for self-correction. One has at this point forsaken one's rights to be a part of the society as one is willing to harm others within the society, and has created oneself to be a threat to others. Within the self-correction facilities, again - one will be assisted and supported to correct one's own abusive patterns. No one will attempt to change you - because one can only change oneself if the change is to stand within actual realization, understanding and integrity. This the only valid change. Therefore, professionals will continue to support you, but if one does not support oneself towards actual self-correction, one cannot expect to return to society, considering the risk one poses to others.

Herein - consider that these self-correction facilities are not concentration camps and the procedure is very similar to the correctional system that is in place currently. However, currently - when individuals break the agreements of society, they are branded as 'criminals' and are removed from society where they are placed in a cell as punishment, and from that, supposedly they 'learn a lesson'. We have seen that this approach is not effective. Firstly, because many of the 'criminal behavior' is a direct outflow and consequence of a system that does not support each one effectively, causing individuals to resort to crime to support themselves. When crime can be prevented in the way we structure our society, it should be done - but this is not sufficiently considered within our current system. Secondly - most people coming out of prison do not learn any lesson. Instead, they feel alienated and often fall back in their previous patterns. Those imprisoned are not sufficiently supported in understanding their own psychological and behavioral patterns and are not sufficiently guided in terms of how they are able to correct these patterns. Therefore - self-correction facilities will be the correction of what we currently know to be prisons - where individuals are no longer abandoned or punished - but unconditionally supported to as effectively as possible be re-integrated into society.

Related articles

• Day 206: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia?
• Day 193: Is Equal Money Capitalism Doomed to Fail?
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 203: The Mockery of Democracy Continues - Dead People Voting in Zimbabwe
• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• Day 200: Collapse of Global Civilization Inevitable?
• Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?
• Day 201: The Power of 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 186: The Invisible Hand is Invisible because it Doesn't Exist - Equal Money Capitalism and Providing Results that are Best for All
• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 169: Equal Living within Equal Money Capitalism

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago or so. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

 

Debt Forgiveness

Q: If all debt is relieved, won’t there all of a sudden be a large group with no jobs all at once”

A: Those who may find themselves in a position of unemployment as the result of Complete Debt Forgiveness will either be integrated into other companies - or government will provide them with new jobs. Preferably, these types of outflows would have to be considered before implementation to ensure smooth transitioning from one system to the next – and would thus have to be calculated and planned prior to full implementation.

Countries

Q: Will people be able to choose in which countries they will live?

A: Yes – though in the end, every location will be supported and equipped equally in terms of infrastructure to ensure an equal standard of living in every location / country. This in itself will minimize the amount of migration as migration currently is mostly based on economic reasons.

 

What happens with Deficits / Surpluses?

Q: Since a person’s income is dependent on the profit from products being purchased, if the products are not purchased enough to give them sufficient income, do they get supported from compassion department, while it gets sorted out?

A: Yes, those companies that are very successful and sell more than they require paying out everyone with the same income will transfer their funds into a centralized bank. The bank will then utilise these surpluses to momentarily subsidize those companies who are running a deficit. The fact that they are running a deficit may indicate a point of ineffectiveness within those companies which may be corrected. When deficits are identified - someone will be sent to intervene and evaluate the situation. The company with deficit will receive training from similar companies who have proven to be effective and successful, so they may learn from their methods and techniques and become equally effective.
 

Bottom-Up Democracy

Q: So this will be a top-down system like today's?

A: No - because the top is the bottom - direct democracy means that the people rule. Equal Money Capitalism’s political process will be the same as the process outlined within the Equal Money System – which is a form of Direct Participation. You can read more about the Political Nature of both Equal Money Systems here.
 

Payments for Non-Products?

Q: How do people earn an income from jobs that don't produce a product that is purchased, or will everyone need to do a job that produces something to be bought? or does compensation also happen as paid from the government not just consumers purchasing products?

A: Yes - any value that is added - whether to a product or not - will be compensated. So - for government services - you simply do your hours and receive an equal income like everyone else. Whenever you purchase a product or a service – you are always paying for the labour involved, as such there is no difference when paying for a product versus paying for a service.

Related articles

• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 168: The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

Money in EMC

Q: What will money be backed by? will anything give it its value...or is that not necessary?

A: Life value will back money -- Labour backs money - which is your capital - that is why the money supply will increase and decrease according to population as each one requires to have an income that recognises their life value and that allows them to live a life worth living.

Q: In terms of printing money and the paper and money that costs, rather turning everything digital ?

A: Yes - digital - let's not kill trees for no reason.

Politics in EMC

Q: Who will sit in governmental positions? no more elections?

A: Politics will largely remain the same as within the EMS proposal - so, yes - there will still be elections. To read up on this point, please read: http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics

Q: will we vote on every decision directly through internet? Or still elect once every 5 years and they can do whatever they want after elected?

A: This will be organised in the same was as presented in the Equal Money System wiki: direct democracy - everyone is directly involved in policy making

What about those who provide services instead of goods?

Q: How do people earn an income from jobs that don't produce a product that is purchased, or will everyone need to do a job that produces something to be bought? Or does compensation also happen as paid from the government not just consumers purchasing products?
A: Any value that is added, whether through providing goods or services, will be compensated. So – the same principle applies to employees in companies that produce goods and employees of companies that provide services – the price of the good or the service is determined in such a way that all participants receive a fair share of the profit so that all end up with an equal income. In terms of those working for the government or providing government services – they will also receive an equal income – this is the purpose of taxation.

How to Ensure Full Employment?

Q: How do we make sure everyone is employed; will we have to create meaningless jobs like in the army – dig a hole, cover a hole? 

A: There are many jobs that require to be done that aren't being done at the moment - the Earth is barely taken care of. Remember that a company’s responsibility will extent further than merely the production of goods and services. Each company will have a Compassion and an Environmental Department.

Compassion Departments are a social function. Such departments will assist, for instance, with giving care to the elderly, organising and providing daycare, assisting victims of natural disasters and so on. Individuals whose jobs within the production process are replaced by technology, will instead be employed within the Compassion Department of the company and continue to receive their income.

Environmental Departments of a company fulfil the function of giving as one would like to receive. Companies will use resources from the Earth and will likely create pollutants that affect the environment. The Environmental Departments are in charge of giving back to the Earth in terms of assisting the environment to renew the resources that were taken, for instance, through tree-planting, creating dams, etc. Furthermore, it will assist within mitigating or stopping the negative effects of pollutants, such as, for instance, water or air purification.

Once everyone is employed and all meaningful jobs are being done - we decrease working hours. For instance, if a job requirement is 8 hours, 2 people can do 4 hours each. Also - people don't have to work for 60 years of their lives - we can go on retirement when we are 30-40.

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness

Read More

Day 153: War on Democracy

Watch this

Related articles

• Day 140: Congo - Children Torn from Families as we Speak to Fight as Soldiers in Civil War
• Day 138: USA - Land of Liberty and Democracy?
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 142: Presidents under Fire
• Day 137: Greece: The Birth and Death of Democracy

Read More

Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System

 Also, would everyone be required to vote?

Voting in an Equal Money System is not a matter of requirement, but a matter of responsibility. For society to function in a way that is Best for All, participation, contribution and understanding on an individual level are essential. Each one's participation or non-participation affects everyone else - and as such, everyone is equally responsible for the results of the participation and non-participation.

Understand that, in terms of the points of apathy, not caring about or simply not wanting to vote (which are currently very common) - these attitudes are results from, and reactions towards the current economic and political system of inequality. Non-participation has become a way of expressing that one does not care about the current economic and political system, because this very system does not care about us either. However, in a system of harmony and equality, there is no valid reason for a person to not do their part in participating in the process of life on Earth. Unless it can be shown very clearly through mathematical and scientific evidence that the relationships within the system are producing disharmony - which causes a person to refuse to participate - non-participation is deliberate and a form of spite. As such, it will raise a 'red flag' to indicate that the person requires assistance as they are in disharmony with themselves and with society. And such disharmony, if left unaddressed will, in turn, cause some form of harm or disharmony to occur on other levels. Therefore, the person will receive the appropriate psychological assistance to correct the disharmony.

Finally, there are currently many areas of the world with very, let's call it "tight-knit" communities where people are all of the same religion or background or maybe just a small, isolated community that has lived together for a long time and does things in a very specific way. For such communities, I forsee resistance to joining the larger Equal Money System.

To what extent will these communities be accomodated? If they made it clear that they wanted no part in the overall system but wished to remain non-violently separate continuing on in their own way, how would that work?

We live in such a large and complex world, I can understand how people would see the Equal Money System as this nice idea but when it comes down to the practical implications of implementing it- they're lost.

Groups have developed various kinds of coping mechanisms in order to survive in a world of inequality. Tight-knit communities that like to somewhat isolate themselves from other communities are an example of such a coping mechanism in reaction to the current system of Inequality. Since inequality is the cause of these types of group behaviours and dynamics, they will be addressed through the introduction of a system of Equality - as this will remove the cause of the reactive mode. Of course, this will not be an easy process as there will be resistance to change in the same way that everyone resists change on some level. Though, resistance to change will also occur from the perspective that - since they are in a coping mechanism and believe that they are managing 'just fine' on their own, the perception exists that no other help is needed. Tight-knit communities will not be looking for a solution, because, from their point of view - they have the solution. Though, what is not considered within that is that we live in a world where everything is interconnected and that each one's actions have a consequence on everything and everyone else. Therefore, remaining isolated from each other will never bring about true solutions that are Best for All.

So - education will become an important factor, as education will bring about the realization that there are different ways to handle things, that provide more viable and substantial solutions. This education process will take time as one of the points that is required to be proven is that humans can in fact change. This is why an Equal Money System will not be a resolution or a solution within the next 2, 3, 4 years. It will take a process of 10 to 20 years of massive education, before we can get to a point where we can introduce, consider and vote on a new system. Through education, we'll make sure that individuals and groups are not sabotaged by their own ignorance. And thus, reversing the statement that 'ignorance is bliss' - in bringing about the realization that bliss is actually the action of living together in a way that is Best for All – ensuring each other’s harmony and one's own harmony.

Will those promoting an Equal Money System work on developing more details as time goes on?

Yes, definitely. In fact, comments and questions (like yours) assist us greatly in fine-tuning, adjusting and expanding on the Equal Money proposal. And thus, thank you for your participation, please do continue!

Related articles

• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System
• Day 132: Namibia is Unto Something

Read More

Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System

Many people ask the question whether 'What's Best for All' and 'Democracy' from the starting point of 'the majority rules' are not contradictory or incompatible.

What is being looked at within such questions is a scenario where a majority wants to enforce a particular policy -- but this policy is not best for all – what then?

Many democracies existent today are constitutional democracies. A constitution contains a set of fundamental principles and guidelines according to which the particular state will be governed. It is thus a 'framework' within which all decisions, policy and legislation are made. Whenever a new policy is being developed or when policies are reviewed -- it has to be checked whether it adheres to the base principles, as outlined within the Constitution. If they are not -- they are considered to be 'unconstitutional' and can hence be disregarded. This also implies, that even in democracies today -- one cannot vote on policies which are in essence unconstitutional, and there is thus a 'limit' on what is acceptable and allowed. So, what we are introducing within and Equal Money System, where Equality and What is Best for All are the base principles of the Equal Money Constitution: is nothing New.

Within this, it is thus implied that achieving and enforcing what is Best for All is not contradictory to democracy per se -- as the available options to be voted on, will always be within the framework of what is Best for All. As such -- voting will not exist from the perspective that one is presented with a policy and either 'likes' or 'dislikes' it based on an opinion one has and would vote accordingly. Instead, one will be presented with policies which have been designed by various agents from various backgrounds/expertise who have volunteered to contribute their time to design policies as frameworks and guidelines in terms of how particular points are to be managed -- and these are always designed within the starting point and context of Equality and what is Best for All. The end result coming from this process, will then be peer reviewed to cross-reference the proposal and make sure that all points are aligned within what is Best for All and that no points have been left unconsidered.

All of these processes, will occur in a transparent, publicly available manner -- where at any moment, anyone can check the movement of information -- leaving no space for 'hidden agendas'.

Upon completion of the peer review, the particular proposal or policy will be presented to the public for voting -- which is then in essence the final stage of review/cross-referencing. Within the voting process one is then in fact indicating that one agrees that what is proposed is indeed Best for All -- and if one disagrees, one would have to back up this disagreement with the necessary proof and evidence -- upon which the policy/proposal can be revised/re-evaluated (simply having an 'opinion', is thus not acceptable).

Within this structure Education will play a major role, within ensuring effective education to all children in order to provide them with the necessary mathematical, scientific and common sense skills and insights, to be able to evaluate and participate within policy formulation or policy-review effectively.

The focus is thus on the Participation of the Majority within directly taking part in the policy creation process.

Within this, the approach of 'Prevention is the Best Cure' also plays a vital role -- where we want to ensure that all policies and decision-making are done in order to prevent consequences resulting from inequality. When consequences have already manifested, this would indicate a major problem in the effective application processes where a point within the foundation is unsound and 'cracked' so to speak, which results in having to 'go back' and fix things -- which is unnecessary and could have been prevented, and these points would as such require urgent attention. We thus want to ensure at all all points are taken into consideration at all times, so that a sound foundation can be in place which will prevent unnecessary harm and abuse from taking place. This is in contrast to our current system, which only acts after problems and consequences have already taken place and only then devise solutions -- which is in essence, doing everything 'backwards'.

Related articles

• Day 137: Greece: The Birth and Death of Democracy
• Day 111: Evilution - Neocolonialism - Part 2
• Day 128: What We've Failed to Consider about Policy and Voting
• Day 141: Even the Rain: Water Politics - Catastroika
• Day 140: Congo - Children Torn from Families as we Speak to Fight as Soldiers in Civil War
• Day 142: Presidents under Fire

Read More

Day 138: USA - Land of Liberty and Democracy?

Although the USA is often seen as the land of liberty and democracy, its federal election procedure is completely incompetent:

"The United States is an exceptional nation, but it is not always exceptional for good. The American voting system too is an exception: It is the most error-prone, the most susceptible to fraud, the most vulnerable to unfairness and one of the least technologically sophisticated on earth."

An ideal democratic election procedure looks as follows:
- You know the results as soon as the polls close
- Votes are counted electronically
- Every district and state has the same rules and the same organised procedure for voting
- The voting procedure is managed by an independent electoral agency

How does the USA perform on these parameters?

State and local laws cause big distinctions in terms of how elections are held in each region, making national standards impossible. In some states you don't even have to present your ID when you vote. Other nations use completely outdated technology and equipment. An example here were the 200 elections in St. Louis, Missouri. Because no investment was done to improve outdated equipment, creating long delays on voting day. At poll-closing time, people were still cuing to cast their vote all over the city. Because many inhabitants of St. Louis are democratic, Al Gore asked a judge to extend voting time with three hours in St. Louis. The judge granted this request. The Republicans however, appealed and the decision was revoked.

Yes - that's right -there is no independent election body that supervises the elections and politicians are able to interfere by asking possibly partisan local judges to make exceptions on their behalf. But parties' interference does not stop there. Politicians often schedule voting in a way that is in their advantage and in the disadvantage of the opponent. Voting places are moved around for the same reason. Elections themselves are just an extension of parties' campaigns.

So - the US scores badly on all four of the above-mentioned parameters. Now add to this that voting day always falls on a Tuesday, a working day, making it hard for many to actually cast their vote - and: international election observers present to make sure that the elections are conducted in a democratic way - were banned from nine nations - of which some threatened with arrest.

Democracy means that the country is run by the people and for the people. Considering the ridiculousness of the facts that people only get to cast their vote once every four years, that election campaigns are all about who's got the most money to run the best campaign and who has the best poker-face in making promises they never intend to keep and then the scandalously inadequate voting procedures - just how are the American population governing themselves?

Sources:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/americas-election-process-an-international-embarrassment/?iref=allsearch
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/05/opinion/frum-election-chaos/index.html

Related articles

• Day 108: Virtual Democracies
• Day 137: Greece: The Birth and Death of Democracy
• Day 105: Human Liberties
• Day 102: Liberalism
• Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedom!

Read More