Obama wins Texas

With all votes tallied and the proportional representation formula applied, it seems as though Obama has won Texas in terms of both delegates and the popular vote.

Which brings up an interesting point: no one seems to care, the story is already being buried, and Clinton certainly isn't going to honor her offer to drop out if Ohio and/or Texas were lost.

Much like the post-facto determination that Al Gore won the 2000 election, there seems to be a greater compulsion or need to instantiate electoral certainty rather than electoral truth. Indeed, the very question is why such a determination was only "post facto". Post facto of what? How can making the final tally be post facto of an election that hasn't been counted? Until the vote is counted the will of the people is not really known -- in theory.

The reality is that the magical suspension of an election is mistaken (or mischaracterized) as a crisis demanding immediate resolution. TV news networks define their reputation on the ability to "call" the election, concession speeches quickly follow and the narrative of finality trumps all other considerations. This artifice is what Derrida calls a "coup de force" narrative. The crisis designation ultimately demands a resolution whether it is real or imagined. An election is rendered as little more than a highly ritualized and rigorously reported coup. It is a fiction serving no interest but of the person who controls the media message.

What's so wrong about allowing the presence of democracy linger for a few days?

March 8th, 2008 / 0 Comments / Tags: Obama, Clinton, crises, elections, coup de force narrative