Article: Is Government Legitimate Without the Right to Vote?

[JordonGreene]

Is Government Legitimate Without the Right to Vote?
by Jordon M. Greene | www.JordonMGreene.com
September 22, 2010

“Just as representation without voters has little meaning,
voting without free choice cannot result in representative government and
becomes nothing more than the people’s periodic renunciation of their sovereignty.”
- Giovanni Sartori in The Theory of Democracy Revisited -

Most political scientists would agree that there is one basic criterion or variable upon which the legitimacy of government hangs. That criterion is that of frequent and free elections. Moreover, there must be choice among candidates; and the voter’s choice should have a fair chance—however remote—of winning. Through frequent and public elections the people are able to have a voice in electing those who will administer their government and who will make choices on their behalf. Those whose choice succeeds in an election likely have a stronger belief that government is legitimate; conversely those whose choices lose the election will likely believe less strongly in the government’s legitimacy. Nevertheless, political scientists typically agree that that loss does not equate to the absence of legitimacy, though a citizen may not agree with the office holder. . However, a government’s legitimacy rests on knowing that everyone has a chance at being represented by the possibility of electing their preferred candidate to office through free and open elections.

Put bluntly, we do not see people raiding the US Congress or White House every two or four years with guns and pitchforks because their candidates lost the election. Instead, the supporters of those losing candidates accept the results of the election as long as foul play or fraud is not evident and accept the legitimacy of those elected in most cases, despite their personal view of the person in office. This all sounds great and wonderful and even plausible. However, I submit to you that there is one major flaw in this idea.

The flaw itself is not contained directly in the idea or simple construct, but the actual application and definition of elections, and more importantly free elections. If one is speaking of the simple ability to cast a vote, then yes we have free elections. The right to vote in its most basic form is being able to vote; women fought for a Constitutional right to vote in the early 1900s during the women’s suffrage movement resulting in the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, I argue there is a vast difference in this simple form of the right to vote and the full and genuine right to make your choice; the right to vote one’s own conscience. The right to vote one’s conscience is absent in most states in the Union and most assuredly absent in North Carolina. You ask why? It is due to North Carolina’s anti-democratic and free speech-damning ballot access laws dating all the way back to 1901. For this reason, the choice of many North Carolina residents has a near-impossible barrier to overcome to obtain a place among the choices of others.

These ballot access laws artificially and without reasonable justification restrict the right to vote by limiting voter choice to a select state-approved list of candidates or parties, typically the Democratic and Republican Parties. Since Parties such as the Greens and Constitutionalists among others are not “state approved” they are denied the right to vote by these laws. Therefore, ballot access laws devaluate the right to vote to its most basic form. Being able to go to the polls and mark a ballot is not enough to claim we have voting rights. I truly believe that these laws are comparable to saying that people have the right to vote in countries where voters are coerced to vote for a certain candidate or only given a select number of choices on purpose by the government. The right to vote is empty where there is not choice.

With that said, it would seem to me that political scientists are really only speaking of perceived legitimacy based on the perceived notion of the right to vote (something quite different from the actual right to vote in my opinion as I explained earlier) and in which case, political scientists need to clarify this and qualify it so as not to be misunderstood. However, I dare say that political scientists are unwittingly stating something rather negative about our system of government. In this case, they may very well be saying that, by the standard given, American government has lost its legitimacy, as people do not have a reasonable expectation or chance that their candidate or choice will prevail in the coming election as their candidate may be entirely excluded from placement on the election ballot.

For this reason, modern day elections simply serve, as Giovanni Sartori so aptly stated in his book The Theory of Democracy Revisited, as “…the people’s periodic renunciation of their sovereignty” by furthering the hold of the two major parties who are unwilling to permit truly free elections in a system of “…which they are the principal beneficiaries” as Theodore J. Lowi put it. The issue is the right to vote, it is the potential of representation, the possibility of a voice and the legitimacy of the government we live under. I submit to you, that if we truly derive legitimacy of government from the opportunity to be heard, the chance of winning the next election and the competence and freedom built into the system, then sadly American government has been sorely illegitimate for over one hundred years. I say it is high time that we tell those in power that we want our right to vote back. That we reach out and show others in our state and around the nation the need for reform at the ballot box to open up the electoral process to more voices and make it a truly competitive process where people are heard and where the choices made lead to legitimate government once again.

Constitutional, democratic and lawful government is not legitimate where the state does not allow the full and unequivocal right to vote. An arbitrary and restrictive limitation on voter choice is not and cannot be consistent with government legitimacy.

Copyright © 2010 Jordon M. Greene. Jordon M. Greene is the President and Founder of the North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections, he served as campaign manager for his father’s unaffiliated congressional campaign in 2008 and as a member of the Constitution Party of North Carolina State Executive from 2008 to 2010. Jordon is a student of political science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

I would like to thank Dr. Martha E. Kropf, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte for her assistance with this article.
__________________________

This article is archived at http://www.jordongreene.com/wordpress/?p=54

[hubcap]

One of the reasons that it is this way is because those "Political Science" gurus have been telling us how the system works for a century now. We go to college and we learn our "Political Science" from professors who for the most part never stepped foot in the real world.

This is a little like allowing the Beatles to dictate our reality to us and rewarding us when we believe it.

We the voting public are no longer a threat to Government officials. We may vote out the D using the R's as a lever, but this is like using Juan McCain as sunscreen. They set the rules contrary to the Constitution and we the voting public go along with it.

Now, if a public official were to face a real threat from the voting public, the line that leads to public office would be shorter. You wouldn't have every "Political Science Professor" in the Universe pining away at wanting a career in politics....

Why! You might get your butt whipped if you cross these Americans! THEY HAVE GUNS AND KNOW HOW TO USE THEM!

"I, Dr. Limpwrist, Professor of Political Science have decided to remain in Academia where it is safe.......I hate seeing angry mobs walking toward me."

But I doubt it will change. We Americans are following after our British Cousins. We like being pushed around by political thugs.

[JordonGreene]

Of course not all political scientist are like that, and not all ignore this crucial problem. I for one am a political science major at UNC Charlotte and the professor who I credited with helping me, neither of us are like that, however I understand that that is not you point though. I just don't necessarily like the complete generalization, though point taken.

That is sort of the point of the article, since we do not have the right to vote, since unconstitutional laws have found their way on to the books, government is not really legitimate, and we no longer have a real effective means by which to prompt change unless we overcome huge obstacles which should not be in place so we can not use our vote to threat (not in a harmful way but in a meaningful and right way by threatening to throw them out of office for something other than Ds or Rs). I want to get people thinking about the issue and I'm trying to find as many routes to the issues and perspectives to think about it so as to be able to connect and get people irritated with it and actually SEE IT as a real ISSUE, unlike most people and candidates.