Why We Should Adopt a No Confidence Vote

Pro-segregation third-party US presidential candidate Gov. George Wallace, who is the most recent third-party candidate to have won electoral votes, is one who would have benefited if the option of a vote of no confidence had been available.

1,902 words

No one sensible could fail to see that our current political situation is unhealthy and unsustainable. Nor could anyone who is being honest fail to admit that our government is undergoing uncontrolled growth, looming larger and larger in this once-free land that it coldly leeches of vitality in order to strengthen itself. It is not my intent here to provide solutions for all aspects of these problems, but rather to focus on one of its roots, and thereby help to make it at least marginally harder for our elites to spit on our laws, degrade our culture, displace our people with hostile foreigners, and saddle our sons and daughters with massive debt in the process. I am talking about our two-party oligarchy.

As of now, it is simply not possible for a third party to effectively challenge this oligarchy’s shared rule at any level of government. This sad reality at least partially owes its continued existence to an illusion. As is so often the case with governments, the mirage of popular support creates actual — if passive — support. According to Solzhenitsyn, Stalin once sent the first person to stop clapping after one of his speeches to the Gulag — merely for having stopped. All wore a mask of joy on their face and clapped like mad, leaving every man among them plagued with doubts as to who was foolish or complacent enough to be clapping gout of genuine enthusiasm, and whose claps belied deep frustration and rage. Thus, a crowd easily large enough and hostile enough to overwhelm Stalin’s guards and kill him on the spot was rendered completely helpless.

While our Demopublican elites do not yet enjoy Stalin’s level of repressive, absolute power, the substantial political power they do have is maintained through a similar deception. Just like the happy faces in Stalin’s crowd, a vote can conceal much dissatisfaction and frustration. After all, there is no way to vote for only some of a candidate’s policies but not others; he is a package deal. And since there is no way to tell how many ballots for a candidate were cast with enthusiasm and how many in the resigned belief that his opponent would be even worse, many a suited sociopath is permitted to masquerade as the beloved paladin of all who voted for him.

This illusory support then creates actual support by feeding a species of self-fulfilling prophecy: the two parties each tell us that only they are popular enough and able to command enough support and votes to win, and that a vote for a third party candidate is both futile and a de facto vote for the oligarch you hate even more. As a result, few vote for the tertium quid and he goes down in defeat, and he ends up appearing as unpopular and his cause as hopeless as the Demopublican prophets had foretold – thus making their future claims about the futility of challenging them all the more believable.

Just as Stalin’s potential detractors feared finding themselves in the Gulag, so many an American voter fears finding himself in a state of social exile as the result of supporting an unpopular or futile cause. The two major parties seem to enjoy nearly unanimous support, after all. And so our oligarchs endlessly play the lesser-of-two evils game, persuading us time and again to hold our noses and swallow the rancid bilge water they carry for the crony capitalists, sexual deviants, warmongers, and others who fund them.

To weaken the illusion and rock the thrones of our co-rulers a little, I have a proposal. Call it the “no confidence vote.” It can be enacted at any level of government — although it’s best to begin at the local level, and work our way up — with a law requiring the following:

1. All polling stations must offer all voters the following options:
   1. cast a vote for a candidate for an office,
   2. cast a vote of no confidence for a candidate for an office, or
   3. cast a general vote of no confidence for that office.
2. Should the votes of no confidence reach or exceed 50% of the total cast for that office, no candidate may be elected to that office until another election is held where the no confidence votes fall below 50% of the total.
3. The interval between elections will be set at the law’s enaction and can vary, as can what happens to the office: Its previous occupant may perhaps continue or (my preferred choice) it will remain vacant, even though the bureaucracy will continue its work as usual. (The latter option ensures that a tossed election won’t benefit the prior office holders, but also won’t lead to a government shutdown, which the Big Two could threaten us with to extort votes for themselves.)
4. The reporting of election returns must include the following:
   1. what number and percentage of candidate-specific votes each candidate received,
   2. what number and percentage of each candidate’s votes were votes of no confidence,
   3. what number and percentage of total votes were general no confidence votes, and
   4. what number and percentage of total votes were some kind of no confidence.

Thus, through a no confidence vote for a candidate, a voter can in effect say to the Big Two, “I may have given you my vote, but only to prevent someone I despise even more than you from winning, and if I’d had a better choice, I’d have voted against you.” Hence, a Catholic Democrat could show Barack Obama that she hates his abortion policies and general decadence; a Republican could let John McCain know that he loathes his warmongering, and so on. The lesser-of-two-evils, package deal nature of the candidates remains, but the illusion of popular support it creates will be shattered. This will likely bring to the polls many, such as the paleoconservatives and libertarians, who had previously argued, “Don’t vote, it only encourages them.” Also, should the general no confidence votes help push the total of such votes to 50% or more, the lesser-of-two-evils game could be ended, at least for that election and particular office.

If this approach were to force the Big Two back to the drawing board, there will be two possible salutary results. The first is that, if the Big Two hope to win the next time around, they’ll be forced to toss some of the more sordid special-interest garbage they tried to cram into the bottom of the package they offer us, lest they persuade too many of their supporters into voting no confidence as a result. Should this happen even once, and should these panderers see their chances of winning disappear while their despicable sugar daddies see their legal bribery go down the drain, both will be more hesitant to put as much of their time and money on the line for the sake of lobbying.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.

The no confidence vote turns the lobbyists’ and politicians’ greatest advantage against them. At present they can afford to dedicate a large portion of their time and money to campaigning and lobbying in hopes of a big payoff, while the average voter is busy simply making an honest living and — with nothing substantial to gain no matter who wins — thus puts little time and money into politics. But this also means that the average voter has almost nothing to lose by helping to toss an election with his no confidence vote — while the politicians and lobbyists stand to lose everything.

The other potential outcome is a third-party victory. If an election is thrown, or if the returns show moderate-to-high percentages of no confidence votes for the Big 2, but nearly 100% votes for the third-party candidate, the illusion of Demopublican popularity will be shattered, and those who only voted for them out of fear of wasting their vote or joining an unpopular cause will likely reconsider their position. The disgruntled but timorous man will say, “I guess I wasn’t the only one who hated his guts and all the crap he peddles for his Hollywood friends after all!” Those who previously wavered will be emboldened to their next vote to the third-party candidate they had liked but didn’t want to waste their vote on, for it’s no less a waste to vote for the Big Two if the election is tossed. The very possibility of actually winning or demonstrating their popularity will likewise encourage at least a few more parties to make the attempt. And those that do will find their power and influence magnified by the inherent logic of the no confidence vote. For as a third-party candidate’s best chance of winning is by causing the election to be tossed,

it will also be beneficial for him to turn the Big Two’s dominance against them: They rake in the most special-interest cash, but it also means they have the most to hide. Rather than spending his meager war chest on advertising for himself, which likely won’t generate much support anyway, the third-party candidate will instead run ads pointing out the Big Two’s unsavory connections and promises in order to cause more of their usual supporters to vote no confidence. This will very possibly toss the election and give him a better shot at victory the second time around.

This will at the very least discourage the plastic Demopublican men from disrespecting third-party candidates in the same way as they did Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. At most, it might further discourage the Big Two from taking tainted money in the first place.

Even if the Big Two still manage to win, the oligarchs’ confidence will be at least somewhat shaken by the number of no confidence votes among those who elected them. Phony “mandates” will be shown for what they are. Richard Nixon might have been less inclined to expand the welfare state had he seen just how many of his “landslide victory” votes in 1972 owed themselves to George McGovern’s unpopularity and the fact that George Wallace had been shot.

While the idea of the no confidence vote would doubtless face the full onslaught of

Demopublican party men and their media toadies, it’s rhetorically fairly easy to sell. After all, what ordinary citizen would consider an election in which half the voters didn’t want the current candidates to rule to be legitimate? The cost and inconvenience will be too great, its opponents will argue, but that seems rather weak when pitted against the idea that if the Big Two simply provide candidates of which at least half the voters approve the first time around, there will be no additional time and expense needed. Also, given that the current scramble for special-interest cash that the Big Two currently spend most of their time on will at least be curtailed by the no confidence vote, it’s highly likely it will actually reduce the cost of elections.

That’s my idea, for what it’s worth. It’s certainly not a full solution to our political troubles, but it might make the situation at least slightly better — and I can’t see how it could make it worse. Of course, all this might be rather moot if elections continue to be held via voting machines that don’t record the votes accurately anyway, but that’s another issue for another day.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
• Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments. 
• Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

• your payment
• the recipient’s name
• the recipient’s email address
• your name
• your email address

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.