Mass Democracy Is a Farce: Electoral Politics in the 21st Century

Donald Trump has rustled feathers with his recent assertions at campaign rallies that the presidential election is rigged. Trump went so far as to deny that he will automatically accept the results of the election in the third presidential debate. Recent revelations by James O’Keefe have verified Trump’s claims that the electoral process is indeed rigged through massive voter fraud. WikiLeaks has provided additional disclosures demonstrating the collusion between the established media and the Clinton campaign. In spite of the overwhelming evidence supporting Trump’s claims of deep-seated corruption in the American electoral process, media talking heads and establishment politicians have reacted to Trump’s statements with incredulity and horror. How could a presidential candidate possibly question the legitimacy of our sacred and immaculate electoral process? The establishment isn’t concerned about the electoral process being fair or unbiased. The establishment is all too happy to accept and promote corruption as long as it advances their agenda.

The electoral process in America is hopelessly corrupt. Big business, big media, academia, and the government all conspire against the native American people to actualize their radical agenda. Trump’s comments serve as a useful springboard to discuss the general problem of mass democracy as it exists in Western societies today. Even without the massive corruption persistent in our democracy, our electoral process fails to achieve its stated goal: the representation of the American people’s collective will in governmental actions and policies. There are two primary reasons for this failure endemic to mass democracy. While I myself favor more traditional modes of government than democracy, there can be value in the input of a voting process within the framework of a traditional society and reasonable limits on suffrage. Mass democracy destroys this input and obfuscates the will of the people that is supposed to be served by the political process. There are two primary reasons for this in the contemporary American electoral process.

The first reason is that mass democracy canvasses far too many people to be effective. Democracy can only work on a small scale within a local context. Local elections allow voters to vote for candidates who already have a reputation for service and integrity. Often these candidates have been entrenched in their communities for their whole lives, and their families have similarly been established for generations. This fosters trust for officeholders among voters as they are able to have a greater degree of input in the electoral process. The influence of the electorate is diluted as the number of potential voters becomes larger and larger. In order to win state or national elections, candidates need the assistance of a large campaign team to get their message out to the public who otherwise would not know them or what they stand for.

Success in politics at the state or federal level usually requires the endorsements and funding of major donors and powerbrokers for the purpose of advertising and establishing name recognition. Federal elections cost billions of dollars, and that number is increasing rapidly. This means that campaign financiers, super PACs, and lobbyists exercise an inordinate amount of power in the political process. Those seeking public office are forced to conform their positions to the will of the donor class in order to have a prayer at being elected. This is further complicated by the influence of foreign campaign donors in American electoral politics. Foreign nationals are officially banned from making campaign contributions in American elections, but there is a loophole that allows American subsidiaries and divisions of foreign companies to form PACs and make campaign contributions. Thus are many politicians in the federal government beholden to the interests of globalists.

The second problem is that geopolitical boundaries have largely been rendered meaningless. At America’s inception, the states were founded as colonies under the British crown by different groups of Englishmen for different political purposes. New England was a bastion of Puritan congregationalism, the Tidewater colonies of Virginia and the Carolinas was founded as a Cavalier/Anglican settlement, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were founded as generically Protestant “tolerant” colonies, Maryland was a safe haven for English Roman Catholics, New York was originally founded as a Dutch Reformed colony, and the deep South colonies were founded with an Anglican establishment but were mostly peopled by Protestant dissenters. The colonies, and eventually the states that succeeded them, were governed by the same prominent families for several generations, and most men elected to office had an established reputation for principle and reliability. The Tenth Amendment assured the states against encroachments by the federal government. State identity was strong, with many early Americans considering themselves citizens of their state first. The first generation of federal government officials and statesmen had distinguished themselves during the cause of the American Revolution. By and large, the men in federal offices had merited their positions through their service to their countrymen during a time of intense crisis.

Today the states are largely a relic of a formerly meaningful political jurisdiction. The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment (or at least the Incorporation Doctrine inferred from it) has allowed the federal government to vastly supersede the states in political importance. This problem is further complicated by the addition of several states to the original American Republic, each with their own political interests, pitting sections of the country against each other. Another factor that complicates the electoral process is the emergence of major cities. Cities have grown steadily in America, and the one person–one vote system that the American electoral process utilizes overrepresents the interests of big cities at the expense of smaller towns, villages, and rural areas. People who live in large metropolitan areas tend to vote for both left-wing social causes and liberal fiscal policies. These policies, including higher taxation, often penalize areas outside the city, but people who live outside cities are simply outvoted by the city residents. It’s simply a matter of population density.

This influences state as well as federal elections. Several electoral maps, such as this map of the 2012 presidential election by county, illustrate the problem. Most of the counties in the United States vote Republican, but the counties that vote Democrat tend to be more densely populated and can thus out vote more sparsely populated counties. The result is that the simple majority of many states’ voters who are concentrated in large cities control the electoral vote of that state. For example, in my home state of Illinois, Chicago controls state and federal election results in spite of the fact that most of Illinois is actually Republican. The fact that three-quarters of the state’s population lives in the Chicago metro area means that virtually all of downstate Illinois is disenfranchised. The majority of Illinois is Republican country, but a Republican presidential candidate has not won Illinois since 1988. The same is true for many other states with large metropolises.

Demographics are also used to influence state and congressional elections to the House of Representatives. Voting districts are redrawn by the party in power in order to annex opposition voters to districts where they will be outvoted, and increase the number of districts voting for their party. This gerrymandering is named after former Massachusetts governor and vice president of the United States Elbridge Gerry. This process has effectively disenfranchised many voters, who now find themselves in districts that do not meaningfully represent them or their interests.

Mass migration has also influenced state and federal politics in recent decades. Hispanic immigration, of both the legal and illegal variety, has greatly increased the Democratic Party voter base. This trend has recently pushed Virginia from a red state to a blue state, and is also pushing Texas in the same direction. If this trend continues, the Democratic Party will essentially have a guaranteed path to victory in national elections for the foreseeable future. Maps such as this one present a stark illustration of the principles behind verses like Deuteronomy 17:15 and Isaiah 3:12, which implicitly limit suffrage and political power to men of their native country. Our current electoral process in America amounts to false representation. The descendants of the founding stock of America are intentionally being pushed aside in favor of voters who will be more compliant in moving the country in a leftward direction. Whatever the merits or demerits are, we can be sure that America’s political establishment has no interest in being accountable to the actual American people.

And this all stands independently of the sort of outright rigging which Trump is rightly protesting.

The electoral process is in desperate need of reform or outright replacement. There is no easy or superficial fix in our current political process. That being said, it is incumbent upon us to have ideas for repairing the system so that when the opportunity arises we can propose and implement solutions. The less radical proposals involve reforming the electoral process, which I think is a good first step in the right direction. I agree with the late Lawrence Auster’s proposal that suffrage should be limited to married men with children who pay a net amount in taxes. I would simply add that voters should be of, or closely related to, the country’s founding stock. This would essentially limit suffrage in America to white tax-paying men. We also ought to amend the electoral process towards a more European system like single transferable voting,¹ facilitating greater political variety.

More radical proposals include the secession of several states from the current United States, or the outright dissolution of the federal government. A variation of this proposal would be for most of the states to selectively expel states that are already substantially different from the traditional American nation. The current United States sans New England, the Left Coast (Washington, Oregon, and California), and Hawaii could be a starting point. Let these regions fend for themselves. The same idea could apply to states severing themselves from parasitical large cities. Of course there are also more traditional European-style governments to consider. Since the American Revolution, the idea of hereditary rulers has been unconscionable for many Americans, but it deserves consideration. There are many benefits to having hereditary rulers who have a personal and generational vested stake in the country’s welfare. There is also good reason to believe that the public would be more willing to rein in the abuses of a hereditary ruler who abuses his power, since there would not be the same illusion of accountability to the voting masses through the electoral process as we have today. More can and should be said on this subject, which I would like to revisit in the future. For now, our people need to be aware of the problems posed by mass democracy and understand how our electoral process is bringing about their dispossession and displacement. Eventually, the house of cards that is the federal government and the American electoral process will come crashing down, because the current trajectory we are on is unsustainable. It’s time to get the message out that we whites are sick of being replaced, and we intend to do something about it.

Tweet