Judicial Democracy

If you don't regularily read Drudge, you need to do so today. He has no less than fifteen separate articles whose headlines suggest that fishy circumstances may surround this present election. I've not read them; I truthfully don't care who wins, and can feign no interest in the "legitimacy" of an election wherein the candidates are identical.

Still, it is fascinating to observe the inability of America, international spokesnation for Democracy, to conduct an election properly. It has been said that after Bush won Florida by the slimmest of margins no one could claim that one's vote did not matter. In reality, the 2000 fiasco demonstrately this perfectly. Pretending, for the sake of the argument, that both parties are substantially different, one still has little reason to vote for one's preferred plutocrat. If the result is a victory by wide margins, one's vote was irrelevant--or superfluous, depending--if the result was close, voting irregularities will cause the "losing" candidate to sue, whereupon the courts will decide the will of the people, as they are already in the habit of doing.

When one thinks about it, the only surprise is that it took the courts this long to exercise this power. After all, they have decided all the important issues--from abortion to affirmative action, from property rights to the use of birth control--on behalf of the American people for decades. Evidently, the courts slovenly movement to fully abolish democracy, which has yet to come to full fruition, is due, not to a lack of ambition on behalf of the courts themselves, but instead due to the paltry power of the legislative branch.

But make sure you vote.