DISQUS

Dave Wielenga · 1 year ago

Is the discount because we're having a spate of elections? I mean, are elections cheaper by the spate than if purchased individually? Your story left that unclear, mister.

Theo Douglas · 1 year ago

Sorry, Dave, there's no discount. The city was able to do things slightly cheaper in a few areas--but the election still winds up costing us a fair amount of folding money.
And that word was supposed to be "spats," as in "everyone will be wearing spats." And monocles. And mustache wax, for the fellas!

Joe Weinstein · 1 year ago

Of course elections cost. And of course the money is wasted. That's par for the course of our de-facto oligarchic government that likes to call itself an example of 'democracy'.

In regards actual needs of truly democratic and soundly deliberative government, the popularity polls called 'elections' - and the long-term offices that they fill - are both indeed elective - NOT needed. The alternative - already used very effectively in ancient Athens - is to simply involve you and me and all willing participating citizens as members (selected at random or by rotation) of decision juries. Each jury puts in the manageably short time needed for just one or a few well-deliberated decisions.

To be sure, such a directly democratic and effective arrangement would displease our oligarchic long-term rulers - whether elected politicians or appointed people like commissioners - because it does away with any perceived need for their political 'profession' and for all their self-indulgent games and perks (and opportunities for profitable corruption, through command of long-term strangleholds on decision-making power).

Indeed, in fairness to elections, their direct costs are just a fraction of the total extra costs of government by elective oligarchy rather than direct deliberative democracy.