Making sense of Tweedism

Larry Lessig talks about this guy called Boss Tweed — He said Boss Tweed doesn't care who does the electing as long as he does the nominating. “If you control the nomination every candidate will worry what you the nominator think, so you control the candidate whether you control the election or not — we call that genius theory — tweedism”.

Tweeds — nominate

The rest — select = tweedism

His example: Texas, 1923, Whites only could only vote in the democratic party. So .. ofcourse, Black people are left out. So the democracy only responds to Wite people.

Hence, it's not representative democracy anymore. A faux if you might call it that.

So I applied this to an *African country — a “democracy” — which practices a form of Tweedism.

Parties are allowed to run. But only Party C wins. The rest are considered dissenters, against the state — especially the very well articulated, highly supported parties.

So how is this tweedism?

We already know the state only wants us to vote Party C (This *African country is a one-party ruled country, Party C has been in power… since well, the beginning of party elections), so as citizens, even if we do get to vote, most vote Party C anyways in knowing Party C will win anyway? in fear? in preserving the status quo? …

Now I know that's not completely true, the political process of voting isn't the most transparent or trustworthy — in Named *African Country or anywhere else in the world. Lessig illustrated how America had that history before us Africans even considered it at least .. by evidence of their written history. Plus, when Facebook and whoever else are busy manipulating choices… it's hard to imagine free will and choice when the ethos of the manipulators are pointing in one direction. (Though some would argue shouldn’t you be able to rise beyond the whims of such tactics? rise above social media etc? Some would argue media platforms make you better informed, jolt you to take action — but that's a whole different topic!)

Tweedism continued — “Citizens deserve a government that serves their best interests, instead of biased candidates and nominees funded by tweeds that ultimately result in politicians that respond to those special interests.”

So let’s assume *African Country & Party C only elects biased candidates, nepotism and all the mambo jumbo that sometimes makes government less efficient and effective.

Party C — Tweed

Promotes Candidate M, and x y z (x y z are kind of irrelevant because we know Party C wants Candidate M to win).

Candidate M wins ofcourse. Majority elected by the people from the choices given by Tweed Party C.

Tweedism occurs as Party C people elect Candidate M from the choices of Party C’s Tweed.

And *African country brings him (or her) to power.

So for instance, the tweeds of *African country and Party C bring in a minister of health, who doesn't care for the interests of the majority but the few. So all his people get vaccinated, or hospitals have enough machines for diseases of the rich but not for the poor. Because the tweeds — Party C — have their interests that need to be taken care of first, not everyone else's. Or Tweeds need better roads in Place X, so better roads are done but not in ... those areas that could do with better roads for the low income.

Long story short, Tweeds are bad for any country.

End of story.