The Sacrament of Democracy

If democracy were a religion, voting would be the sacrament.

I grew up in what I call "The First Free-Range Organic Christian Church of Homer." Sundays brought a message, fellowship, and a line of repentant souls taking communion-a remembrance of sacrifice.

The first time I cast my vote, it struck me as similar. The blood shed for my right to stand at a flag draped table and make my choice part of the collective wasn't lost on me. I had one of those "Come to Jesus" moments and in 20 years I haven't missed an opportunity to vote. Unlike Christ, the idea of democracy has never shed a drop of blood; patriots did. The same can be said of the suffragettes. Unlike the sacrament celebrated in religious ritual, elections should not be faith-based. The framers never intended our government to be run on trust; hence the myriad of checks and balances. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Election integrity is not about restoring faith in the system. Checks and balances are. When we vote, the agreement we all make is we cast our ballots for candidates who may not be the victor. We know that. Taking the risk of voting for a loser only works if you have confidence the process is beyond reproach. It is equally vital the winning candidate have an agreement the citizenry will follow their lead. Leadership can only be ordained if the people know their votes counted.

The past eight years have shown us the result of questioned elections. After election disasters in Florida and Ohio, a good portion of the country didn't agree George W. Bush was legitimate. I know people who refused to call him President Bush because of the suspected election fraud.

Alaska has a rich history of questionable elections. 2008 has been no different. Anomalies prompt people to scratch their heads and watch just a little closer. From some reactions, you would have thought asking a question was "unpatriotic." After reporting on the 2004 Election tampering, and knowing full well it was questionable, I wondered what this year's ballots would tell us. Apparently, Alaskans have completely changed their "voting habits" to include: a mail-in preference, cross-ballot voting, and finally, registering to vote and then not showing up. Alaska headlines are screaming "record turnout!" But in truth, our percentage of voter turnout is still lower than our average historical Presidential election records show. So what? Does that mean we shouldn't ask questions and get answers about reconciliation? As Americans we pledge to hold our leaders accountable; why wouldn't we start by holding the process of elections to the highest levels of integrity.

The day after the election I was in contact with both the Begich and Berkowitz campaigns. I've been in very close contact with the Alaska Democratic Party which has filed Public Records Requests. Experts from around the country are more than happy to answer questions or to mull over possible explanations to the election anomalies. People much smarter than I are paying attention, and are asking their own questions. A reporter I've bumped into for several years called today. He wanted to know if I thought the current vote count in Alaska was still "stinky." Another local asked if I thought the process was now legitimized since Begich was now leading Stevens. ARE YOU SERIOUS??? That my questions would hinge on partisanship is insulting and indicates a complete lack of understanding. Anyone who thinks we don't need a more transparent election process because their candidate is in the lead is a pathetic partisan hack. Anyone who believes election integrity is a "fringe" issue mocks those who have died to either earn the right to vote or protect it. I became a voter registrar in February of this year. To want to count only votes cast for my party of choice is vulgar. Not watching the referee calls when your team is winning is to invalidate the game.

So do I still smell the mudflats? Yes. Do I know what the source of stench is? No. Could it be the late wafts coming off the 2004 election? Possibly. What I know most certainly is this: voting is a sacred right; a remembrance of those who fought hard and shed blood for a bulletproof idea. Guarding the integrity of elections is essential to our democracy and anything less is blasphemy.

Show up. Ask questions.

Every vote counts.

Follow Shannyn Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shannynmoore

Comments

[davidly]

Had Dems not thought they'd be able to out-hack the opposition, they'd've won in '04.

[afram1]

Count the votes, count them fairly, make sure every voter's choice is heard, and let the chips fall where they may...Democrat, Republican or other party.

It is NOT about just rooting for your home team. Let the process be played out in a just fashion.

[Hugh-Gee]

Certainly. However, I was never among those who insisted that the apparent results (Stevens and Jones ahead, despite the polls) were evidence of corruption. Nate Silver, of fivethirty­eight.com, suggested a perfectly rational explanation for the votes' variance from the polls in http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/what-in-hell-happened-in-alaska.html :

"...the Democratic vote became complacent and did not bother to turn out. The outcome of the presidential contest was not going to be close in Alaska, and Barack Obama's victory in the Electoral College was apparent as of about 4 PM local time. Begich supporters, moreover, may have looked at the polls and concluded that their candidate was far enough ahead that they didn't have to bother to vote. Meanwhile, the Republican base was going to turn out no matter what because of their enthusiasm for Sarah Palin."

Nate Silver became a star/cult figure of this election by dispassionately analyzing the manifold conflicting poll numbers and writing the clearest, most reasonable, most fact-based explanations of what was going on. His explanation was convincing enough for me not to want to jump to any conspiracy theories--and, now that it appears that Begich will win anyway (Nate sez so!!), I'm happy to accept the result of the people's will.

Yes, all votes should be counted. Once all votes are counted and all appeals exhausted, that paragon of provincialism, political hackery, and corruption, Ted Stevens, will finally be out on his keester.

[Michale32086]

Iddn't it interesting..

Now that Stevens is behind, all of the sudden we get "perfectly rational explanations" as to why the vote turnout seemed weird...

I hate being right all the time...

Michale....

[rabiddog6708]

Ted Stevens is going to prison, not to Washington D.C.

[LandShark]

Ted Stevens will go wherever the people of alaska want him to go, and then in February the judge will tell him where to go and when. These are two separate matters, but you connected them. If the sovereign people choose to elect someone about to sentenced, that's their right. There would be no right of the Senate to kick out the people's choice of alaska IF that is their choice (it looks like it won't be)

[afram1]

It is acceptable for the people of Alaska to elect him (if there is not any law in place that bars convicted felons from running for office), but the Senate has every right to kick him out.

Looks like it's moot because Begich should win, but Stevens can be rushed out of the Senate.

[Elitnaurista]

Thank you for pointing out the "short vote." Given the numbers of previous elections compared to the current one and the abundance of reasons to suspect those numbers, scrutiny is demanded.

Jim Vait
Bethel, Alaska

[WilliePilgrim]

While I agree with what you've written in principle, there is still a cynical side of me that brings to mind the old saying, "If voting could really change things, they'd make it illegal". And what bothers me more is that when the metaphore of religion is superimposed on my cynicism, it reinforces it rather than negates it. In the mean time the system we have is a work in progress and perhaps we shouldn't confuse blind faith with practicality.
As for the sacred; I prefer the natural patterns of chaos and randomness and so for a sacred approach, why not have half of congress placed in office by lottery just as we create that other secular but sacred body in government: the jury.
In the mean time, thanks for your "ear to the ground" insight on this very interesting, and at time curious, political season in Alaska. I'll be interested in hearing, when it's all said and done, how it was that Begich beat Stevens but Berkowitz's distinguished record in Alaska goes un-recognized, and the ultimate politcal scoundrel Don "bridge to nowhere...except Murkowski's significant holdings on Gravinia Island" Young keeps his seat. Cheers.

[LandShark]

It would seem the same cynical side of you would think "if speech would change things, they'd make it illegal" and then you'd not waste your time posting either. But I know cynicism is just how we protect ourselves from potential future hurt by not getting our hopes up. But the funny thing is, buried inside every cynical statement like "they're ALL corrupt" is the ideal that they ought NOT be corrupt. So, one hasn't given up the ideal, and the poster here has clearly not given up on speech and writing, cynicism merely gives one an excuse for not acting or the hope of not feeling.

That being said, the poster's essence is on the right path-- there are lots of forces that don't want voting to work. In the end, the more anyone cares about an issue the less they want to put it up for a vote of everyone else. But clearly voting changes things. Not as fast as it ought, but to deny that is to be unable to recall history.

[propitiousmoment]

Kudos to you; very nice current of Nietzsche running through that first paragraph :)

[kwalters]

Ethan Berkowitz is unfortunately lost in the shuffle. The Berkowitz-Young race is the stinkiest of them all. Ethan called corruption out on the House floor months ahead of the initial FBI Raids. His record in Juneau is stellar. He proved himself for years there. Don Young was more likely to lose than Ted Stevens. Don NEVER led in the polls...EVER! Every poll had Ethan up by 8-12 points. On Election night, Don was up by 8 points-he flipped the vote based upon polls-16 points!!! Where are all the pundits touting Don's miraculous come from behind victory? When Hillary won NH, she was down 9 points in the polls and ended up "winning" by 3-a 12 point turnaround. She was hailed as the comeback kid. It was labeled "the most stunning come back in political history." Young bested that by 4 points on election night. Don currently leads Ethan by 5 points-a13 point flip!? Makes no sense. If a complete election audit shows Don Young won, fine. I will give him my support as a constituent and call his office and express my view as often as needed. But if Ethan is revealed the victor via an audit...in Ethan's own prophetic words prior to the FBI raids of our legislature, "SOMEONE'S GOING TO JAIL!!!"

[DoTheMath]

Ask questions? OK.

What is Alaska's system for election oversight? Unlike my state, Alaska does not have a Secretary of State. My search for an Alaska Secretary of State turned up only the director of elections, Gail Fenumiai, providing vote-counting updates.

Is the director of elections appointed or elected?
If appointed, who appointed the current director?
What authority does the director of elections have? For example, does the director of elections have the authority to decide whether ballots are counted or not when there are disputes regarding ballot validity? If not, who does have that authority?

[LandShark]

There's nothing magic in the name "Secretary of State". In New York it's the "Board of Elections". In Alaska the Lieutenant governor appoints a Director of Elections required by law to be nonpartisan. Whether the SOS or whoever is nominally "nonpartisan" or not seems irrelevant to me, though, since everyone votes, everyone has biases, and the only only thing worse than a hyper-partisan secretary of state is a partisan (whatever) running elections with a license to keep their inevitable personal biases a secret because they have a "nonpartisan" job requirement. So the HAVE TO not say what they really think.

[tao53nyc]

Democracy a "sacrament"? More like "the God that failed":

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

[LandShark]

In a democracy of free and equal people, the people rule. it is as if each person is an equal god. To say Democracy is "the God that failed us" is absurd. Democracy is a PROCESS for free and equal people to resolve their policy preferences and exercise their rights.

If Democracy fails, it's because the process was not treated seriously enough, which is precisely the point Shannyn Moore is making.

Too bad that some people have had bad experiences with religion such that her use of religious metaphor gets in the way for a couple commenters, but at the same time, a very broad-minded, ecumenical religious metaphor has been part of the words of every single president of the United States. See "American Gospel" by Jon Meacham. But it's not a specifically Christian "public religion" we have had in this country, it's historically been much more like the Homer Organic Free Range Chicken church Shannyn comments about above.

[Michale32086]

Well said, Ma'am..

If, in my previous comments on your threads, I stated or implied that you were not fully bi-partisan in your efforts to count all the votes regardless of who they were for, please allow me to render my most honest and sincerest apologies.

I would still maintain, though, that you are the exception rather than the rule.

Your previous commentaries surrounding this topic illicited comments in the hundreds. (Ebay-137 Stolen-433)

It will be interesting to see if the same fervor is generated, now that the Democratic Party candidate is ahead.

Michale.....

[LandShark]

Reminds me of LBJ's comment: I'm a free man, an American, a Senator, and a Democrat, IN THAT ORDER. (emphasis added).

We all have to be able to speak to each other at the higher levels, as free people and as fellow Americans, and not just as Republicans vs. Democrats. That's one reason why I join with you in appreciation for Shannyn's post here.

[Michale32086]

Thanx..

Whenever given the opportunity, I always ask any candidate are they an American first or a Democrat/Republican first?

Of course it's easy to pay lip service to the "right" answer but at least it gives me a starting point..

Michale....

[LandShark]

Election results are the one and only official voice of We the People.

If you point to a person or media outlet who takes a See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil approach to determining the true result of elections, then I will point to a person or media outlet uninterested in Seeing, Hearing, or Speaking the true will of the People.

So if there are persons or media outlets not looking for, listening for and speaking out for the true will of the People, are they really defenders of democracy? No. They have lost their way.

Those who have lost their way with democracy may be doing so accidentally, foolishly or intentionally. No matter which is the case, the loss and damage to democracy, however, is the same. The lack of respect for the will of the people is the same. Those who respect democracy want to KNOW.

[godhelpusall]

Bravo, Ms Moore,

this should be on editorial pages across America ---

i've rarely seen or heard it said better ...........