Voting = Democracy?

 

Most of us are taught, from childhood, that voting is the essence of democracy. Is this so? Or, is voting simply the least we can do to participate in our sociopolitical system? What, in our electoral system, works, and what doesn't? Is this system imperiled? How can we best respond to bogus claims regarding election outcomes?

Peaceworks doesn't endorse, support or oppose candidates for office, but we do educate the public as to the issues, as well as electoral process. Some of the concerns we have include:

* The role of money in politics. Court decisions have equated spending to speech, which has allowed literally billions to be spent to win office, much of it undisclosed regarding source. Sophisticated marketing often shifts the outcome, especially in close races.

* The flawed winner-take-all electoral process. Plurality-wins electoral laws can disenfranchise those with minority views and interests. This is exacerbated by gerrymandering. Our system could be much more representative if we had proportional representation or ranked choice voting.

* Limited availability of the initiative process. While better than 80 percent of Missouri voters recently put the kibosh on efforts to effectively eliminate direct democracy through initiative, we are likely to see other attempts here in Missouri and elsewhere. And, presently only half the states in the union allow this sort of democratic participation.

* Limited voting times availability. While many states have expanded voting days and/or hours, many have not. No states that we are aware of have declared election day a holiday with time off. And it is rare that that employers are required to provide paid time off to vote.

* Limited access to voting by mail along with restrictive time-frames for receiving mailed ballots. The current administration has called for eliminating mail-in voting entirely, except when in-person voting is not possible due to health concerns, disability, etc.

* Restrictive ID laws. There is a push afoot to require birth certificates or passports as voter identification. Some would require names on the IDs to match birth name which could disenfranchise those who've changed names due to marriage, gender transitioning or other reasons.

* Intimidation. Citizens, non-citizens and mixed status families are being subjected to the abuses of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) We are deeply disturbed by reports of physical assault, murder, being held incommunicado, being held under inhumane conditions, and being deported, including to countries that they have no connection to, and countries where they might be tortured or otherwise harmed. It is understandable, therefore, that this has a chilling effect on many who are citizens and have the legal right to vote. This is clearly voter suppression that disproportionately favors one major party.

* Threat to intervene in the voting and/or tallying of ballots. Worst case scenarios could involve the declaration of martial law or the invoking of the Insurrection Act to allow the cancellation of the election or the seizure of ballots and the presentation of false “results.”

What is to be Done?

The answers to this question fit into two categories, personal action and political action.

The former focuses around making certain one is registered at their correct and current address, and that one has required ID to vote. Second is becoming informed as to where the candidates stand and what's in any ballot issues. And finally, making a plan to vote, making sure one knows where they'll be voting, what the hours are, and if postal voting is preferred, what the mechanics are.

Political action falls largely into the camp of supporting campaigns with financial and/or volunteer support. One can also encourage others to get involved; one-by-one we make social change. If anyone says “I work on issues, not elections,” one can point out that voting usually takes less than a half hour. Two or three times a year. And, even if one is not thrilled with the options on the ballot, there are real and very significant differences that affect all of us and our progeny; those who will inherit the world we leave for them.

Candidate Climate Survey

 

We would like to invite you to check out Peaceworks' candidate survey. As you might know, Peaceworks does not endorse, support or oppose candidates for office. We do inform our members and supporters as to the positions candidates for office have taken on this and other issues.

Many see climate change as the defining issue of the 21^st Century, but unfortunately most of those seeking office in the mid-Missouri area apparently do not. Despite reminders and an extension of the deadline, the majority of candidates chose not to reply; this includes Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.

Letting those running know that the climate crisis concerns you might be helpful. In the meantime, despite its limitations, we hope you find some value in what we're sharing here.

You can find the survey introduction HERE.

You can find the responses of Missouri House candidates HERE.

You can find the responses of Missouri State Senate candidates HERE.

You can find the responses of those running for federal Congressional seats HERE.

No Winners in War!

 

What's the most serious problem with the U.S. military budget?

You might say it's too big, and we'd agree with you, but that's not the answer we're looking for.

Is it the fact that U.S. military spending is greater than the next nine largest spenders, combined? (That's China, Russia, Germany, India, U.K, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France and Japan.)

Again, the info is correct, but not what we're looking for.

The correct answer—try this on for size—is that, even though we are spending a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, the Trump administration is proposing a 50 percent increase in military spending for fiscal year 2027, which starts in a few months.

You heard that right, an increase of half a trillion or $500 billion; an inconceivably large sum. Some folks and some of the corporations they own or control are getting very rich and richer still, raking in the dough big time! Eisenhower got it right 65 years ago, when he called out the excesses of what he labeled the Military-Industrial Complex.

Trump recently told us we can't fund day care and suggested the states should raise their taxes to pay for it. He has also said the states should fund more of Medicaid, and he's been talking up bringing down Social Security benefits that older and disabled folks rely on.

What we're talking about here is what economists call “opportunity costs.” That is what we could do instead with the money. And clearly there's plenty that's not getting funded, despite obvious needs. We're talking about nutrition, healthcare, housing, renewable energy, education, environmental protection and much more.

Some might speculate, suggesting that the $500 billion increase figure is a gambit designed to set parameters for a debate over how much we should increase the military budget. Well, guess what, we're not looking to rein in the increase, but instead to significantly decrease the military money hemorrhage. Let's get a handle on this,folks. We need to build a Peace Economy, one that provides all of the essentials to all of the people.

But wait, we hear some of you saying, don't we need to seek peace through strength? We're not here to argue how strong our defenses must be, but rather to point out that virtually every use of the U.S. military over the past 80 years has been offensive, not defensive. In fact, one of the few things Trump has done that we agree with is changing the name, assumed after WWII, back from the Defense Dept. to the Dept. of War, its original and more honest name.

We need to point out how, over and over, the U.S. has intervened in one nation or another. Some, like the 2026 U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, have been unambiguous military wars of aggression. Others have been proxy wars, like those against Cuba the Contra War against Nicaragua in the 1980s or the coups in places like Chile in 1973, Indonesia in 1965, Guatemala in 1954 or Iran in 1953.

And those who maintain that U.S. militarism is needed in a dangerous world seem to have blinders on, as they consistently fail to notice how much of the world's violence is U.S.-initiated. And hardly ever do they question why other nations are able to spend so much less per capita than the U.S. It should be obvious to all who look, that these nations are defended adequately at a fraction of the cost we, in the U.S., are paying. Let us learn from good examples set by others and become a force for peace, justice and mutual, verifiable disarmament worldwide.

Organizing for What We Want & Need!

 

The following are the prepared remarks shared by Peaceworks Director Mark Haim at the Veterans for Peace Memorial Peace Gathering held May 25, 2026. The picture above is from our May Day demonstration.

Good afternoon friends. Thanks for being out here. In this perilous time it is critical that we make our concerns known.

We can't help but to call out the urgency of addressing costly wars, new arms races, the absence of nuclear arms control, loss of democracy, all this playing into extreme nationalism of fascism.

All these concern us and we must speak out against what's wrong.

But we need first and foremost to address what we do want.

We want and need PEACE.

We want and need universal healthcare; affordable housing, and adequate nutrition for all.

We want and need clean air, clean water, a clean, sustainable energy future and a stable climate and more.

We want and need freedom and justice. This includes social and economic justice as well as environmental justice.

This need is incompatible with fascist autocrats, with cults of personality, or with the continuous need for making enemies and making wars.

When we gather to move forward this agenda it's OK to protest, but what's most needed is to demonstrate what we want and need.

Let me clarify. Protest is a negative term. We protest what we oppose—war for example—but, when we demonstrate it includes taking a stand for what we support—peace for example.

If we hope to build a movement that's broad-based and attracts large numbers of people, we need to share a positive vision of the sort of livable future we hope to create.

For example, my sign, which I was holding earlier, says “Peace with Iran.” That's what I'm demonstrating my support for. That's not all, of course, but it's a clear example of what's needed, an agenda that all can rally behind; one that can make our lives better; one that can bring forth a livable future for ALL.

One more thing: LOVE!

As we do this work, we cannot let hate simmer. We've got to move beyond hate, fear and enemies.

We've got to care and share.

We've got to share our understanding of what Gandhi taught: the importance of being the change we wish to see.

And, lest we forget, the motto on my hat makes it clear:
“Love Your Neighbor.”

And, guess what, we're all neighbors!

Part of what's most needed today is building a strong, vibrant, broad-based peace movement; one that can attract the participation of a diverse mix of people of all ages who share a desire to create the sort of peace-loving society we've been sharing.

I invite you to join in daily peace vigils as well as weekly demonstrations and larger mobilizations. The work of creating a future we can be proud to pass on to our progeny requires sustained engagement, day-in and day-out, for the long haul. Please join us in co-creating a peaceful, just and sustainable future for all.