Leave Cuba Alone!
February 22nd, 2008 | by MadHacktress |This week both president Bush as well as the other candidates for The Highest Office In The Land have called on Cuba to move toward Democracy. I say: leave Cuba alone.
The Cuban people are just as welcomed to use any form of governmental selection process they choose. In fact, in Cuba, the candidates for nominations require at least 50% support of the electorate in order for successful nomination. So far no candidate has failed to receive this support - ever. Most candidates receive a vast majority support from their constituents.
While, yes, the national government of Cuba is a one-party government, meaning that all successful nominees are acclaimed to their positions, that doesn’t make it any less viable as a choice than so-called true democracy. The constituents of Cuba have a voice in the nomination of their candidates. They have a voice in the selection of their representatives.
Each of those candidates has received at least 50% support of the populace in their district; many American and Canadian representatives cannot make the same claim. President Bust, for example, in the year 2000 received only 47.9% support of his electorate in direct elections. However, due to fun electoral math, he was elected president… even though 543,816 more people thought that the other guy was the better guy.
Cuba, similarly, has indirect elections for its President of the Council of State, a position which Fidel Castro has held since its creation. He has received overwhelming support from the members of the council, and has been a charismatic and popular leader to the vast majority of his country.
It is my opinion, therefore, that Cuba be allowed to continue to elect its leaders through whatever means it chooses. It would anger me a great deal if someone else were to suggest that my electoral system - the Westminster System - is flawed or undemocratic.
Entry Filed under: In The News, Pure Opinion
I sincerely hope that you decide to move and live in “utopia” Cuba.
The people have been asking for someone to come in and free them for awhile.
Who are you quoting as having claimed that Cuba is a “utopia”?
It think that claim is arguable at best.
Your idea that “The constituents of Cuba have a voice in the nomination of their candidates. They have a voice in the selection of their representatives” is ridiculous. If you only have one choice you have no choice. What if George W. Bush outlawed the Democratic party (and all others except the Republican party), changed the constitution, made himself the Republican nominee, forced everyone to go to the polls where only his name appeared on the ballot and then declared himself the winner. Then pretend that he did the same thing for FIFTY YEARS. Please do yourself a favor and open your eyes.
Please do yourself a favour and read what I wrote.
I absolutely acknowledge the fact that Cuba, as a one party system, offers only one selection on the election ballot for a candidate. That’s the way it works in a one-party system.
The people of Cuba, however, have a voice in selecting the candidate in the first place. At least fifty percent of the voting public needs to support the candidate in order for their nomination as a candidate to be accepted. This means that the people do, in fact, have a voice. Should only 49% of the public support a potential candidate’s bid for nomination then that bid fails. Only the guy who gets more than 50% support of his constituents can get his name on the ballot in the first place.
It’s kind of like the presidential primary system in the States, except that there’s a rather severe cut-off point for the potential candidate. Pluralities don’t win, only majority.
It is my contention that the people of Cuba have a right to whatever system of elections they so see fit. Just as the people of the United States do. So, too, do the people of Canada, the United Kingdom and, yes, even India. All of these countries have different (albeit slight in some cases) systems of elections, each system empowered by the Sovereignty of the nation. I dispute the contention that a socialist system is a lesser system than a so-called federal constitutional monarchy, as we have here in Canada, or a federal presidential constitutional republic. as they have in the United States.
So, again I state, please read what I’ve written and understand it for what it says. Also, take a little time to research the electoral process of Cuba and you’ll come to realize that contrary to propaganda, the people of Cuba do have a voice in their election process and they wield it. With voter turnout of more than 95% on a consistent basis they have one of the highest electoral participation ratios in the world. Of course, it’s probably pretty easy when there’s only one name on that final ballot.
Also, the people of Cuba do not elect their president, just as the people of the United States do not elect theirs. Cubans elect representatives who will chose the President of the Council of State, just as Americans elect Electors to the Electoral College who will, hopefully in good faith, vote as they have recommended.
Castro’s name appears on no ballot before the people of Cuba, so your George Bush analogy falls apart before it even begins. Bush et al. put their names on the ballot due to the fact that the members of the Electoral College are honour bound (but not law bound in many states) to vote as the plebes command. American electors, however, have virtually no choice over their representative in the Electoral College and so much take it on faith that the selection of delegates who will act faithfully on their behalf - in spite of lawful repercussion. During the presidential election of 2000, for example, there was nothing stopping a revolt of electors from voting Al Gore in as president. Granted it probably would have started a constitutional crisis, but he absolutely would have been the legal president of the United States of American, in spite of an otherwise mathematically sound win by George Bush.
All systems of election have their flaws. Why do we get to decide that Cuba’s is more flawed than ours? Why do they not have the right to their own sovereign electoral process, just as we do?
Is say again: Leave Cuba Alone.