Originally published March 15, 2002, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1478
With Al Gore pointedly re-entering the stage of American politics, we are awash in memories of the extended civics lesson this country received over a year ago. You remember: The one in which we discovered that Your Vote Doesn’t Really Count. You may have thought you were voting for our nation’s leader, but you were wrong, because votes carry little to no force of law. In the words of Doctor Peter Venkman, “It’s actually more of a guideline.”
Now we all know we’re not allowed to complain. We’re at war, after all. Not a declared war, but a war nevertheless. And at such times, we’re not supposed to make the slightest whispered mention of dissatisfaction with the way that the government leaders fighting the war took office (and I do mean “took.”)
So instead, let us focus our energies into a positive direction. A fun, uplifting direction.
You say you feel that one-man, one-vote no longer applies? You say you still have bile in your mouth? You say you want to know that your contribution means something and that casting a vote still counts? You say you want to have direct influence on the destiny of a superteam?
Well, I don’t know why’d you’d be saying that last one, but as it so happens:
YOU’RE IN LUCK!
Back when I was reading comics as a kid, at a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we read our comics by candlelight since electricity hadn’t been invented yet, the Legion of Superheroes would hold yearly elections of its leadership. Those were fun times. We haven’t done anything like that in a while.
Oh, there’s been votes on stuff… and yet, somehow they always manage to piss people off. Retailers crabbed endlessly over ordering blindly on the reprint books containing the all-time best Marvel Comics, and certainly many of the choices themselves seemed… dubious. Not that I felt personally put-off by the fact that my work was barely represented in any of the voting, no, not even Hulk #467 or Future Imperfect or the Hulk AIDS issue or the Bachelor Party story or the Death of Jean DeWolff, ’cause hey, I’m not bitter, you miserable little—
Ahem.
And then there was the voting that determined which Marvel and DC heroes beat whom in Marvel vs. DC, which gave us such preposterous results as Wolverine apparently defeating Lobo rather handily. And let us not forget—would that we could—the phone vote that resulted in the death of Jason Todd and a PR black eye for DC Comics.
You might think that what we need is a good, old-fashioned vote, like in those Legion days of yore, that fans really can’t get angry about. That even though there’s only one winner, really there’s no losers. And if you happen to be thinking that…
YOU’RE IN LUCK!
Why? Because we’re holding leader elections in Young Justice, that’s why!
Yes, Young Justice, the monthly adventures of a group of teen friends who hang out together and also, by the way, occasionally fight bad guys while wearing spiffy colored tights, is finally going to be selecting, formally, a leader.
Now as is the tradition in just about any teen group which features Robin, the teen wonder has been the unofficial leader since the series’ inception. He wasn’t exactly elected to the post. He just seemed the most organized, and so stepped in to take charge. However there has been occasional head-butting with other members of the team as to who should be steering the ship. Furthermore his enforced “urban legend” low profile and trust issues raised as a result of both his secret ID and Batman’s troubles with the JLA have prompted other members to step more into the forefront.
Matters are going to be coming to a head in #46. At present, Robin has quit the team, but he will be back as of #46 (I’d list that as a spoiler, but c’mon, who didn’t think he’d be back? Well… actually, I didn’t. It was more a matter of the Powers That Be saying, “Peter, very nice dramatic beat, very well played, uhm, could you put Robin back in the team please?”) In that issue, there will be a definite struggle for leadership that will result—at the suggestion of team mentor Rick Jo… I’m sorry, Snapper Carr—in an official election. In the context of the book, the voters will be the members of YJ itself. But we’re planning to expand the voting roll to all you lucky interested (and disinterested) fans out there.
And no, not everyone in YJ is actually running for the office. Some wouldn’t touch the job with a ten-meter cattle prod. There are the four candidates:
ROBIN: Tim Drake, the once (and future?) leader. PLUS: A tactical genius and superb athlete who was trained by the world’s greatest detective. Has leadership experience. Has his own title that’s selling respectably. MINUS: Has quit the team once, and still may have leftover trust issues with his team mates. His urban legend status has proven a drawback and left him unable to be the public face of the team.
SUPERBOY: Kon-El, the teen of steel. PLUS: Brimming with confidence, not exactly a dummy when it comes to strategy, and a devastating and versatile force in a battle. One of the three founding members of the team. Has his own title which sells okay, but not great. MINUS: Impetuous to the point of occasional recklessness, Superboy counts on his power to see him through dangerous situations that he gets himself into. Can be dismissive of others whose opinions don’t match his own.
WONDER GIRL: Cassie Sandsmark, protégé of Wonder Woman. PLUS: Extremely well-read and knowledgeable, and quite possibly as strong as Superboy. When thrust into a leadership capacity during “Sins of Youth,” was not only more than capable of handling it, but found she had a knack for it. MINUS: Less superhero experience than her teammates, and the only one who can literally be grounded by her mother. Doesn’t have her own title. Can be stubborn to the point of idiocy when she thinks she’s right.
THE RAY: Ray Terrill, light-powered son of the original Ray. PLUS: At nineteen, he’s the oldest of the group which gives him a more adult perspective. Can move the fastest, which would be valuable in terms of coordinating team activities. Has snappiest costume. MINUS: Being newcomer to the team might give him outsider status. Extended night maneuvers could pose problem. Had his own title, but it was canceled. Willingly resides in Philadelphia which brings his judgment into question.
There you have it: Our slate of candidates.
Currently our intention is to confine the elections purely to print media, because computer votes too easily lend themselves to abuse, and because darn it, that’s the way they did it in the Legion, and that’s good enough for us. Readers, retailers, feel free to circulate the ballot to as many fans as possible. We’re looking to close voting by the end of March, so get to it! And we can guarantee: No hanging chads!
(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705.)
• 
Of course it applies.
It applies just as it does in Ankh-Morpork:
Would you consider writing – or have you recently pitched – another teen team book, presumably with Marvel? I miss Young Justice.
About the Lobo – Wolverine victory? I always thought it went the way it did because of something like this:
Kids across America were making their votes.
“Lessee, Storm would fry Wonder Woman with lightning bolts. No matter that Wonder Woman has stood up to Zeus a few times, Storm would win. Superman would take out Hulk and Batman would beat Captain America ’cause Batman is cooler. And then …
“Wolverine vs. Lobo? Who’s Lobo?
“Hey, Dad? Do you know who Lobo is?”
“He’s a fat, Southern sheriff.”
“A fat Southern sheriff? No way that would beat Wolverine! Okay, so Wolverine beats Lobo.”
That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.
That has to be the funniest visual I’ve had all week.
I started reading Legion too late to be part of an election, but I loved the idea. Not just because it got the fans involved, but also because it forced Levitz out of his comfort zone. Polar Boy’s victory near the end of the 80s Baxter Paper run was, in story, a terrible idea, and Paul did his utmost to work with that.
So, how did the voting turn out, or is that to be continued in a future BID?
It is QUITE likely that the margin of victory in Florida in 2000 was smaller than the margin for error (a margin which, incidentally, is much smaller in Connecticut). The fact remains that, in every count and recount of Florida’s 2000 vote, Bush won.
There wasn’t a single recount in which Gore won.
On its face, the claim the election was stolen is fatuous.
Now for the Constitution: Two points upon which there is a pile of undeniable history —
(1) Presidential elections occur by states as reflected by the electoral college as well as additional provisions. It currently takes 270 to win, and everyone who runs for president knows that. In 1860, Lincoln won with only 40 per cent of the vote (he wasn’t even on the ballot in the South — he got ZERO votes there). He still won because, in that particular election, one needed only Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to have enough (Lincoln actually won other states as well). If you win by one vote in each of those states, in 1860, you were president (and Lincoln was).
Lest anyone say this is skewed for Republicans, recall also that the same thing happened in 1912: Wilson won with only 40 per cent of the popular vote (the Republicans split between the Old Guard and the Bull Moosers, allowing Wilson to prevail in the electoral college).
And, that’s just the way it works. We cannot NOT have a president — someone must embody the sovereignty of the nation. “The King is dead; long live the King!” is how they say it in England (the occupant can die but never the office). So it also is here: If no one gets 270, we don’t hold another election; rather, the House of Representatives, voting as single states each with one vote, chooses the new president itself.
To those who say the electoral college is antiquated, the short reply is that this system USUALLY prevents candidates from ignoring smaller states for the alternative of running up a big score in a few large states, e.g., California. (the 1860 and 1912 elections were anomalies.) A national candidate for a national office needs a national base to govern successfully. The electoral college helps to give him that.
(2) As a matter of constitutional law, states are not required even to have presidential elections. The president is elected by the states qua states — he is the representative of 50 different sovereignties in international affairs — we are the UNITED States, which is what makes us special. And, each state (if it wants to) can forego the presidential election entirely and simply have the state legislature choose the state’s electors.
Florida (controlled by Jeb Bush’s Republicans at the time) could have done this in 2000 (and I actually recommended that it do so). After all, the electoral college sits upon a constitutionally designated day, and it would have been political heresy for the president to have been chosen without Florida’s delegation, no matter how important it was to some to inspect all the hanging chads.
These provisions were put in the constitution to insure that competent (rather than merely popular) people would be elevated to the helm (which at all times has to be manned). The Founders did not want a government of klutzes. They wanted quality leaders (to the extent such could be had), regardless of party. So, they set up a winnowing process which limited the potential failures of unregulated democracy.
Now, maybe that is not “pure” to true democrats (small “d”); however, the one thing it does tend to arrest (to the extent we actually use the restraints) is the elevation of some guy like Hitler (and I have to assume that fearless leader, for being Jewish, certainly is in favor of arresting that).
The system we have can be messy; but, so far I have not heard anyone propose anything better.
Finally, we were NOT at war in 2000 (the 9/11 attack occurred in 2001). I also reject the idea that we are at war today or have been at war any time in between. War is a LEGAL state of affairs between sovereign entities only — the U.S. can declare war on Germany, Japan, Great Britain, or for that matter the Maldive Islands. But, there is no such thing as war on piss ants. Talking about “war” on terrorism is the same as declaring “war” on ignorance, poverty, or inflation — it is using “war” as a metaphor, not in its actual, legal sense.
That’s an important distinction because the war powers of the government only can be invoked for use in a real (legal) war. War powers are not properly invoked against criminal gangs (what al Qaida is) or pirates, and that means one still must employ legal procedures when confronting or engaging such entities. Republicans are quick to forget this, but on this issue, Eric Holder was right.
To do it any other way risks creating a monster state more likely than not of waging “war” on its own people.
Indeed, “national security” was the precise reason the Hitlerians used to get rid of the Jews.
Most of us probably think it was a good thing when Obama sent the SEALS to shoot the šhìŧ out of Bin Laden (even the people from FOX News were dancing in the streets). The fact remains that Pakistan has a legal system derived from the British (like us), that its courts were open, and that therefore THE LAW IN THE LAW BOOKS says the President committed cold-blooded murder.
OK: In the international scheme of things, the Pakistanis weren’t going to do anything about that, so Obama is safe from criminal retribution. But, I can envision a scenario in which Bin Laden’s wife perhaps has a better lawyer who, in the wake of her husband’s killing, files a wrongful-death suit in federal court NOT for the death of her husband (she’d get not a cent for that) but for the concurrent death of her son (who was shot for no justifiable reason).
Who was the attorney who represented the Goldmans against O.J. Simpson?
Wouldn’t that have been a fine kettle of fish, to have the President of the United States prosecuted in a civil action for murder, and when you look at the law, you realize that he’s guilty as hëll?
Somebody somewhere wasn’t thinking.
Now, maybe the reader thinks the above really is nothing more than an intellectual exercise (and to some extent it is). Still, consider where we’re going by equating pirates with recognized governments: If killing Bin Laden is OK, then so is killing his henchmen abroad with drones; and, if the courts in those countries are open, then what is the legal barrier to using drone strikes against perceived enemies in the U.S.? And, if the Government really is that dangerous, then what’s to prevent any criminal from justifying flight on the ground the Government is conspiring to kill him (or her)?
Think about it: That’s what ACTUALLY happened in the Patty Hearst case — government officials (from the Watergate administration of Richard Nixon no less) made enough threats against her and misbehaved sufficiently at the same time to convince her she had to either run or fight, or die. In the course of that, a woman who went to a bank to deposit a church collection was who actually ended up dead.
There is more to this incident than can be reported here; the point remains that there can be real costs to “solving” even pressing problems outside the law. Furthermore, dressing those problems in the cloak of war does not change anything. Rather, such merely provides us a disguise in which we can hide from the monsters of our own id.