John noticed, I didn't exactly answer the question, 'Why would Bush (or the larger political machine) cancel an election, now that they all know they can steal elections...'    I can only offer my reaction to this question and how it conflicts with my own model of what makes things tick.  It is not Bush who can cancel elections, steal elections, and operate as a dictator.   It is a plutocracy who selects and promotes such politicians, who wield power.  They choose who gets paid, throughout the party apparatus, and the media.   Of course this observation is a bit tautological.   How useful is it, to observe that policy outcomes are determined by causes?  And to enumerate the most critical causes (in this case, the "types" of people, being those willing to spend the most money)?     But John, your question is not the question I would ask.  I would ask, "Why would a plutocracy bother to maintain any facade in the first place?   Since corporations are the real unit of social organization, and the real apparatus of power for the plutocracy, and since the government is just a department that maintains courts, prisons, and military, why wouldn't the corporations simply build a lot of office buildings next to the capitol, in order to give instructions to government more efficiently and directly?"    Why don't they just automate all their management apparatus with Lotus Notes, web services, databases, Blackberries, etc.  Of course-They did.  It's called K-street, Crystal City etc.  The machine works perfectly, it's perfectly legal.  Why would they bother stuffing ballot boxes or cheating in elections?   --Todd

At 06:55 AM 8/9/2007, John D. Clarkson wrote:
I agree that the differences (at least on an operational level) between Republicans and Democrats, if you put Republican bigotry, hatefulness, and sanctimony aside, are minimal compared to differences in political parties in most other countries. For instance, Republicans urge that we should allow an all-powerful Executive to decide to eavesdrop on citizens� private communications. Most Democrats urge that our privacy should be invaded only after a SECRET court approves it. A SECRET FUCKING COURT! It is amazing to me that we blithely accept the premise of a Star Chamber.
 I also agree that voting based on the merits of an individual candidate is an illusion; we vote to empower an entire political machine embodied in a particular political party (which differs very little from the other party). At least the Parliamentary system (at least those that are coupled with proportionate representation) is honest about that; and, to its credit, provides �votes of no confidence� that permit sacking leaders when their incompetence becomes apparent. Here, with our �winner takes all� approach, we have had (even assuming the election results were honest) a party that held 99 percent of the power after receiving barely 51 percent of the vote, led by an asshole who publicly proclaims that he doesn�t give a damn about what the public wants and that he will continue his policies even if his wife and his dog are the only ones who support it. What arrogance�
What I do not understand from your response, though, is how it addresses my question: �Why should Bush (or the larger political machine) cancel an election and risk massive resistance when he (it) already has proof that he (it) can steal elections and no one even complains loudly?�