Bill, asks if the US population sees the Electoral System as 'unfair'?
And also hinted at, is the question of how the US public sees the
'fairness' of Bush's victory?

So what is the 'pulse' of the US population???      The world wants to
know!

The US is currently a thoroughly de-politicized population that no
longer thinks about issues like 'fairness'.      We are like the Germans
that sat cheering, or watching passively, as the NAZI war machine rolled
along.      Who dares question?     What is the value of any minority
dissent?

The Left has been defeated here, in a much more thorough manner than in
how Hitler destroyed the German Left.     There is no present popular
resentment, or even memory, of the actual demolition that occurred, like
with after the smashing of the German Communists and Socialists.
The 'victorious' military now determines public consciousness.

The point being made, is to not look for normal mechanisms like 'public
will', or a judiciary balancing class tensions.      The militarized
propaganda machine will stifle all that.      Liberation will have to be
sparked by external events, not internal.     And a decomposition and
defeat of the gigantic policing/ military apparatus of the imperial
rulers will be necessary.

Just like the heroic Resistance of the Russian and Chinese populations
was necessary to defeat fascist terrorism, the will to defeat American/
European imperialism will have to be built primarily from The
Resistance, outside our national boundaries.     Such heroism is in
limited supply from within.

Tony

Best Wishes to All... in 2001
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(Do you mean "the people" must be engaged in creating the law, simply
respecting the law, or something else?)- Issodhos

Bill-
<What is meant here is that the law in modern society is subject to the
consent of the people. This is explained succinctly in the famous George
Orwell quote, "The parliament can make laws, but whether and how they
will be enforced will be determined according to the will of the
people." (Actually, I can't remember the exact words, I just
paraphrased. But that is the gist of it.)

The people will withdraw their consent if they do not regard it as
"fair'. And as we have already seen, "fair" is a subjective notion. But
the 'will of the people' is probably a better way of putting it, it is
what the majority of people subjectively think is fair that matters, not
the letter of the law. In the end this is what will determine how, and
even if, the law is enforced.

For example, up until very recently, practicing homosexuality carried a
21 year jail sentence in here in Tasmania. But it has been a very long
time indeed since the authorities attempted to enforce that law. Because
it would have offended the will of the people, it would have been
considered grossly unfair. And the authorities well knew it. Another
example is abortion, which is illegal under the letter of the law, but
the letter of the law has been ignored for many years because that is
the will of the people. There are many such examples.

In the case in point, the US electoral system, I can't say whether most
of the US population regard it as unfair. But if they did I would expect
that 'will of the people' to force a change. Perhaps not in the letter
of the law, but certainly in how it is enforced. I don't know, but I do
suspect strongly, that an electoral system in which the candidate
receiving the majority of the votes is defeated by another candidate
would have to be an electoral system (law) which is extremely vulnerable
to being regarded as offensive and unfair by the majority. However this
is complicated by the fact that only a minority of people in the US
actually vote.

Obviously yours is a country without a strong democratic culture, so
perhaps an unfair electoral system would not be considered very
important? Perhaps people there will "consent" to such a law?>