Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 16, 2011 at 10:12pm

How to transition would make another good thread.

Couldn't the theory of election boycott be taught without urging people to employ it immediately? There is really a lot to learn about the systemic weaknesses you pointed out.By explaining it as a future action if things don't change through voting it sounds less radical. 

So the message would begin with, government is corrupt, we are trying to elect more honest representatives but the system is in very bad shape. If we can't repair it there may be a moment when we are better off having a strike.

Even you acknowledge that your plan is longterm. Victoria pointed out that voters are more likely to get angry at the system if their votes aren't counted. People are angry about Obama's bait and switch and the banks. That birthed OWS. If people are encouraged to vote there are more likely to learn a bit more about the system and care more if the politician they elect screws them.As people become angrier plan b which they are now more familiar with starts to sound viable and not that radical as the natural next step. If voting doesn't work, striking is the only alternative. 

By using the word "strike" you are referring to mass-action that people are used to using as a means of rebellion against the powerful. You don't strike one by one.

Boycotting is something people do to businesses and it rarely works. Boycotting is passive. Strikes are active. A strike would include actions like picketing near polling stations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 16, 2011 at 10:15pm

Gisele, brilliant insights. You are right, boycotting can go on forever with hardly anyone even knowing. Voting strikes would be different. 

In a voter strike, anyone who did vote would be crossing the picket line. 

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 16, 2011 at 11:58pm

Yes, brilliant insights. 

In my experience, however, boycotts can be more effective than strikes. When labor goes out on strike in the US, there is usually a lot of police brutality. The history of union strikes in the US is one of blood, blood, and more blood. But when we boycotted grapes for the Farm Workers, there was nobody for the cops to shoot. You can't shoot an ordinary grocery shopper for not buying grapes. And it worked. Many boycotts have worked.

Yes, Gisele, Victoria is right that voters are more likely to get angry at the system if their votes aren't counted. There was a lot of anger in 2000. And then in 2004 when the votes weren't counted again. Not as much in 2008, although millions of votes weren't counted, because the most popular candidate won. But most people who were angry that their votes hadn't been counted kept right on voting.

The problem with encouraging people to try something to find out that it isn't a good idea is that they get hurt. For example there are people who don't take rape seriously and say disgusting things like, "Just lie back and enjoy it." I wouldn't want them to be raped so that they could find out the truth. I'd rather explain to a child that it isn't a good idea to stick metal objects into electric sockets, play with matches, or put their hands into a fire, than have them learn through experience. 

I think the US is in bad enough shape already. Voters consenting to allow it to continue is going to hurt the country a lot more. Since voters don't seem to recognize that they're hurting themselves, no matter how many times they get burned, I'm not sure they can learn from experience. But they may not be able to learn any other way either. Some people never learn.

Do you really think people might be more open to understanding what voting is, and why it is only a good thing in a democratic system and is a bad thing to do in an undemocratic system, if I urged them to stop voting in 2016 instead of in 2012? I don't think voters know the difference between a democratic system of government and an undemocratic system of government. Most voters seem to think that because they can vote, they have a democratic system of government, whether their votes are counted or not. 

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 17, 2011 at 12:13am

Boycotting a company hurts their bottom line. What does it do to boycott elections? You're not hurting anyone's bottom line. And you can't keep the boycott up, elections only happen once in a while. Grapes are sold every day. A 2012 election strike makes more sense to me.

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 16, 2011 at 10:20pm

Do people have to belong to a party to be elected? Can someone run as an independent?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 17, 2011 at 9:29am

Gisele,

The 2008 elections had some interesting independent wins and we already had one or two indepedents including Bernine Sanders who is one of my heroes.

A recent poll shows 56% of amaerican do not want either a democrat or a republican for  President and it is my hope that it may be possible to launch a viable indepednt for president.  There is one group with 4 million members so far ( Americans Elect) trying to idenity a suitable indepent nominee for President through a matching of values and priorities between members and a huge field of possible candidates which will be narrowed through member straw polls and member choices.  At present it doesn't include any persons not alreday in some office but will grow presumably grow to include. member nominees soon.  Not sure of the  authenticity of the process or the folk behind it but I am going along just tose how it works and what happens.  Seems like a good process for citizen nomination.

Elsewhere here I had suggested that Occupy every state to come up with and support non party affiliated nominees for every office that comes open.  Party Politics will never be honest politics.  A key I think is to have an engaged peoples nomination process.  What I like about Americans elect is it asks each of its members a long questionnaire tat is apparently well desigined ( includes calibrating questions for each question. ( Candidates listed have to do the same although they are showing candidte profile sonly on a few core questions.

 

Redesigning the entire legislative and electoral process has been part of research and writing for about a year now.  I wrote a piece for my niece then chairman of Maine's green party called LEGBOOK ( although I would revise it is at my blog at posterous www.lindsay newlandbowker.posterous.com. In many ways .what Legbook envisions for legislation Americans Elect seems to be doing for the electoral process.

Tom Atlee at his posterous blog did some writing on direct democacry earlier this year and we were apparently both participating at/reading many movements on direct democracy. ( may still be links to some of that at my blog  which I haven't touched for along time).  One very insightful aritcle was about the inadeqaucy of a two party system to reflect our modern pluralism citing that as a factor in disnefranchisement and non participation.  I found that persuasive.

Also many of you here may be interested in viewing our many conversations at TED on direct democracy this year.

At my blog I wrote about Canada's no confidence vote predicting on the basis of my researching and thinking  that the elections would reaffirm Harpere with a clear conservative majority....and so it was..Canda followed the U.S. right over the preciipice bringing a swing to hard right.  Canada, although locked into a party system (which needs massive reform everywhere) does allow for proportional represntaioin though  so I had hopes for and still have hopes for to create a multi party system with an elected house truly reflecting the pluralism of modern Canada.  The process of working out differeing and opposiing views would be more alive and healthy in such a legislative body and help to prevent the kind of corruption we have now in the U.S. 

Both Canada and the U.S. have a chance in 2012 to make some meaningful in roads. In the U.S. through independent candidates ( non affiliated) and poerhaps even camapigns to get people we like who are stuck within the two party system to step outside of that and run as independents.  The America Elect Process may help idenntify who those people are state by state.  

Independent  could swing as much as 25% of the vote out of each party  and pickup an additional 20% through re enfranchised voters ( The "Occupy" band is assumed to be about 26% right now.  This could very well be the year of the independents and if we stick to that in every election we can break this log jam and get enough  people who are not products of the party machine  as many of these will also be reform candidates.

 

Don't want to revisit it here gven hardened positions on the possibility of e-voting but mathematically it is very easy to buld a tamper proof sysyem through the auditor process I previously mentioned ( especially if we had multiple auditor systems to which votes were randomly asigned and the same for the official count system.  Mathematically and in terms of technology it is very possible and proof of a valid vote would be a reconcilaiation of the auditor vs. official system.  My point in mentioning it here is that direct democracy requires this ongoing engagement that Americans Elect is experimenting with and LEG Book envisions at the legislative end. Without this ongoing engagement there will always be room for alienation and a gulf between what the people votinghace as information and what our represnttaive have as information.  Direct democacy is only mob rule without a process of discernment and deliberation.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 17, 2011 at 10:03am

Good luck getting an independent elected through a rigged electoral process where the votes don't even have to be counted. If the Supreme Court allows the election to stand, it will mean that the independent candidate chosen by Americans Elect can be controlled by the 1%. If not, the election will be nullified and the Supreme Court will choose the President.

Yes, electronic voting could be safeguarded if the electoral system was under control of the people instead of under the control of the 1%. It isn't. And that can't be changed by voting in a rigged system.

Sometimes we do get a President who tries to stand up to the 1%. Abraham Lincoln was one. John F. Kennedy was another. To the 1%, who have killed millions of people in pursuit of profit, a President who gets in their way is just one more. They seem to particularly enjoy assassinating Presidents in full public view so that the people can see what happens to a President who gets out of line, but people don't always learn. 

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 17, 2011 at 10:05am

Thank-you Lindsay. I think Ontario tried for proportional representation but it was voted down. If not Ontario somewhere else in Canada. It's been discussed in Quebec too. People went against it because they didn't understand it.To people here in sounds simple but at the time many people said they didn't understand it. Even some people who vote said they didn't understand it.

That's why I think it's so important that people get drawn into the process. Understanding doesn't come in a day or a week. It happens over months, years even, for people who have been taught that politics is for people who "know abourt that stuff".

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 17, 2011 at 11:05am

Lindsay,

Americans Elect is under wide suspicion and much criticism for being an essentially undemocratic organization run by big money people not to be trusted. If you want to engage in more discussion aout this, BlackBoxVoting on Facebook is a good place.

And respectfully, my position on e-voting is not "hardened" --it's informed. I'd appreciate it if you would recognize the truths in the long post I gave you earlier explaining why I and so many others, including top computer programmers nationwide and in Europe, have come to this position. Your position is not as informed as those who have literally spent lifetimes studying the issue, and calling the rest of us "hardened" as if we have some unyielding bias based on lack of information or just ideology, is honestly insulting.

I'd be thrilled if we could make e-voting safe, but the top programmers in the world have not done so, and have relented after decades saying it is impossible to do so.

You cannot make it safe against those who would maliciously hack the system. 

Additionally you ignore the point that every ballot counted must be done so in a publicly observable manner to suppor the rights of the voter. I have to ask, why do you ignore this? Does this point not matter to you? Do you feel the voters don't really need to know whether their votes were counted? It's ok for us to have to take the results as a matter of faith from computer "experts" who assure us all is well?

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 17, 2011 at 11:16am

And Linsday, I understand your interest in promoting e-voting is only for making democracy more accessible -- correct?

What is really frustrating for people like me who are so deeply involved (for no money btw) in election activism is that others RARELY take the time to really learn about the irreconcilable problems with e-voting before promoting it. Most people who want to see e-voting, especially Internet voting, simply close their ears to those of us really working hard to safeguard the democratic process, who have the bad news they don't want to hear.

Lots of people like you say they have the perfect system, they've figured it out. But I can promise you -- PROMISE -- that I can produce many people who will explain why your system is not fraud or tamper proof.

Fraud with paper ballots is limited, preventable, and you can catch it and fix it. Not so with computers. It's centralized, often undetectable, and you can't fix it once the votes are changed within the system.

As a voter, I want to be able to verify the count with my own eyes. That's the only way I will ever feel confident about the results. Voting is one of those areas -- like food and agriculture -- best kept simple. Democracy is something everyone should understand, not just the "experts."

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 17, 2011 at 11:24am

Ok wait -- last post, Lindsay.

I think this is an opportunity for dialog. Can you help me understand what I need to say to really get through to people like you?

Clearly you are someone who cares and your heart is in the right place. But still I believe you've dismissed my first posts to you on this issue even though you probably respect me on other opinions I may have (I think!).

I want to know how I can best reach people like you, with some tech experience, who believe e-voting is a good thing.

Based on my arguments to you, do you think there's any way I can do this? What can I say that might have an impact? What arguments are more effective than others? What is it in your thinking that causes you to believe I'm wrong in my position?

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 17, 2011 at 11:34am

Victoria,

 

Thanks for the heads up on Americans Elect..I will check it out further and begin with the links you have provided. This one coincidentally in today;s Huffington Post certainly supports what you say.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/americans-elect-wh...

 

Christie Todd Whitman is on the board which says all I need to know and according to this article the by-laws. the board of Directors, not the memebers will make the nomination.  This article also points oout that the leedersip of this organization are pepole who have lost their influence with existing parties.

 It is clear you have been working on these electroral and legsilative process issues for a long time, as I have.  Good faith and in depth resarch leads to different sources, different experets, different point sf view.  The whole thing about "experts" is experts also differ.  They just differ with a bigger bag of real information.

And of course thequlaity of the  expertise we build in our own efforts to know the truth, find the right answer  depend on what governs the inquiry.  I try always to begin with no pre conceived idea of what the right answer might be.  To be open in my query.

Perhaps not here, but elsewhere ( TED maybe???) I would love to follow this e-voting thing down.  As you say.  Very important for all to understand what the possibilities and limitations of e-voting are.

Although I do apologize for my use of the term "haraened" and do understand the core of your response ( run into all the time everywhere..we all do..people who have done no homework at all who have all the answers).  That is not me..I too have spent quite a bit of time on reserach..Obviously I had not, to date,  run into the sources you refer to and of course I want to look at those and will.

I see in your reply that you also understand my disappointment if what you say turns out to be true...paper ballots is a disappointing solution when looking towards the things I would like to see possible like direct citizen engagement in the actual  process of deliberating and making laws., introducing  resolutions, vetoing bills etc.

Do you know of anyone legitimately trying to do all the things I had hoped Americans Elect was about.  I really love the idea of crowd sourced nominations for all offices and I love the idea of ranking/profling all who serve perhaps based on ho wthey have actually voted.  Even if Amercans Elect is a fraud the idea it purports to represnt is worth pursuing and thinking more about, I think.

 

I also love the idea of Occupy, instead of aligning with Democrats as Ben and others have suggested,called on thos up for re election to abndon party ties and run as indpedents..a sort of test of colors..are you a creatur eof the party or desiring to serve "we the people?" creature 

peace

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page