Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 14, 2011 at 9:21pm

I can only think you have some kind of cognitive block, Mark, and I'm sorry about it. I can't imagine anyone else having such a hard time understanding what I'm saying, and repeating the same accusations after they've been addressed so many times. 

Things are different, Mark, not because we HAVE the changes we need, but because objective conditions are ripe to create the movement that will mobilize for those changes.

Can I be any more clear than that? Can I refer you to this answer this next time you ask me the exact same thing?

Everyone in Occupy recognizes the need for structural change on many levels. We are engaged in dialog as to how we can best achieve those changes.

You are engaged in dialog telling people it is hopeless because it hasn't already happened.

Are you under the impression that because you haven't seen the changes you want in YOUR particular lifetime, that these changes are impossible? I'm sure you know how long black people and women had to fight for equal citizenship -- the struggle lasted beyond any one lifetime.

If we had the changes we are all fighting for already, why would we be here in this Occupy chat trying to organize to get them, Mark? How do your questions make any sense? They become circular, there is no way through them or onward to anything, because you don't allow it -- you keep coming back to how bad things are, and we keep saying we're working to change them, and you keep saying how bad they are, and we can never move beyond that point.

And all the while, "direct democracy" is offered as a panacea and yet you can't even get anyone here excited about it because we all understand as a matter of common sense that direct democracy only works within relatively narrow parameters, and that it must relate to the current power structure one way or another -- because that is reality.

I'm not going to be a fool and put all my eggs in a basket with a giant gaping hole in the bottom just because the basket is pretty. 

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 14, 2011 at 10:53pm

I guess I do have a cognitive block, Victoria.

I say that voting in rigged elections isn't a good idea because the elections are rigged.

You say that it is different this time.

I ask how is it different.

You say it is different not because we already HAVE honest elections, one of the most important changes we'd need in order to make things different, but because objective conditions are ripe to create the movement that will mobilize for those changes by encouraging large numbers of people to vote in rigged elections.

So you're right, I must have a cognitive block, because I don't understand how large numbers of people voting in rigged elections where the votes don't even have to be counted, could bring about change. I hear you saying that it might take many lifetimes and that I might not live to see it, but I don't hear you saying how voting in rigged elections can bring about change.

I do know how long it took blacks and women to fight for equal citizenship. I'm sure that you believe that blacks and women, or a least a few token blacks and women, have achieved equal citizenship, so we should emulate their struggles, no matter how many lifetimes it takes, because they were successful in the end. Not that the Supreme Court can't still decide whether or not women can have abortions, or that capital punishment and slavery have been abolished as legal punishments for crimes and aren't meted out as punishment disproportionately to blacks, but there at least has been some progress--just look at our black President. Many people see having a black or female corporate spokesperson as progress, and in a sense they're right as I remember when corporations didn't hire blacks or females for any but the lowliest of jobs.

I didn't offer direct democracy as a panacea, but Abraham Lincoln did when he eulogized government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's the definition of direct democracy. He wasn't perfect either, but he had that one right. And he had something else right too:

http://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/presidential-warnings-1

But maybe ole Abe also suffered from a cognitive block.

I have clearly articulated many times that not voting is just one of many forms of noncompliance that could help bring down the system you don't wish to abandon, not a panacea, but one of many ways of withdrawing support from a corrupt system so that we can put our energies into creating a better system.

What I hear from those who don't want to abandon the system, no matter how badly it has been abusing them, is that they don't know where they'd go or what they'd do if they left it, and that the system has promised to change and stop abusing them and they have faith that the system can change. Maybe not in their lifetimes, but someday. Like the abused spouse who has complete faith that the abuser will change until the abuser finally kills them.

So how do ya like that NDAA, huh? Doesn't the worthiness of the system and its promise for hope and change make you just want to run right out and register voters?

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 15, 2011 at 2:14am

I hope I'm hitting the right "reply" -- it's hard to keep track on these endless threads.

Responding to just one part of your last post Mark -- no, no, no, and no, again.

I am NOT  . . . ok, now, you have to really LISTEN here, ok? . . . I am NOT telling people that voting in rigged elections is a good thing to do. Ok? Read that as many times as you need to. And then stop accusing me of it.

I am telling people to organize to end the rigging. That is the first, primary, central thing that I am doing. I am only just now working with activists who are all focused on that one question: How the hell do we stop the rigging? What will it take to get rid of the machines? What are the legal means, what are ALL the possible means, what is possible now, in this climate, in these times?

After having been in this game for most of my life I KNOW from EXPERIENCE that people do NOT want to be told not to vote.

I have told people not to vote -- just like you have -- and guess what? I get the same response you do.

They don't like that.

They want to vote, Mark. They fought and died for the right to vote, Mark. They don't know what ELSE to do that makes ANY sense, and they don't want to be told their one bit of power over government is useless and they should abandon it.

Bad marketing.

I didn't really know how to handle this for a long time. But recently I've worked it out. I realized that, first of all, as I'VE ALREADY SAID MORE THAN ONCE ON THIS THREAD . . . and this is the last time I will say it . . . voting makes it more difficult for the bastards to rig the results. Low turn-out makes it easier.

So, this is a win-win. People want to vote, let them vote. Good. It is just one part of the overall attack, Mark. You need to think in Chess terms. This is just one little part of a much larger strategy to attack the Corporatocracy on all fronts. Get out and vote for the better candidate. The one with some decency. The one who isn't taking corporate money. If there is one. I encourage people to turn out in landslides.

Get out and vote in LANDSLIDE numbers for the recall of Scott Walker. And in LANDSLIDE numbers for the labeling of GMOs initiative in California.

I am saying LANDSLIDE because that makes it really hard to rig. Ok? It's just harder to steal it. Make the bastards sweat a little. Don't just sit home and do their work for them.

But I am NOT telling people to do this and then go home and watch Survivor. I'm saying, #1, to organize on all levels to get rid of the riggable computers, and to work with the growing movements for campaign finance reforms, and an end to corporate personhood, and to take part in the national dialog so that we all move forward together in this growing movement, which we are creating together.

And if you're only going to use direct democracy but you still have to vote, you will still need an honest vote count -- all the more reason to work with me to get rid of the machines.

Can't respond to anything else tonight.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 15, 2011 at 3:44am

And I've explained many, many times, Victoria that there are at least two ways to easily circumvent a high-turnout landslide vote. One is to program the central tabulators to allocate the votes by percentage, so that no matter how many people vote or who they vote for, the results come out in the same proportions, and the other is to just have the Supreme Court nullify the vote and select the President themselves. In neither case do the bastards have to break a sweat. One just involves some basic programming, and the other takes a few hours of some Supreme Court clerks writing justifications for what was done. Since there is no way to verify the central tabulators and no way to appeal a Supreme Court ruling, people can KNOW that the election is stolen, but there is no possible redress.

I've also explained many, many times, that you can't get rid of computers in elections by voting. If people are willing to vote in elections where the votes are tallied by computers, why would anyone bother to give them hand-counted paper ballots? Sure they can gripe--griping is an unalienable right. But if you're willing to vote in computerized elections, that's what you'll get.

Of course honest vote counts are needed in democratic forms of government, but when power is vested in the hands of the people, the dictionary definition of democracy, it is the people who decide how to count their votes, not the government. So people don't have to petition government to get rid of voting machines, they just don't allow voting machines. 

I'm no chess master, but I suspect that if you're defending your opponent's king instead of attacking it, you might not win. Voting to consent to delegate to a system of government the legitimate authority to bash your head in for protesting, is not part of any overall attack. It's what I think football calls an own goal, when you accomplish what the opposing team needs to win.

I've never tried to tell people that their one bit of power over government is useless. I've tried to explain to people that voting in rigged elections or in elections where your votes don't even have to be counted, to delegate your power to representatives who don't have to represent you, is NOT power over government. Not even a teeny tiny bit of power over government. If you want power over government, you have to stop delegating your power to government.

But I agree with you that most people are happy with the current system. And while they might want a few minor reforms, like getting the voting machines out of elections where the votes don't have to be counted, ensuring that the uncounted votes were uncounted accurately, getting corporate money out of elections where votes don't have to be counted, etc., the system itself isn't something they wish to change.

The only possible means I know of to end the election rigging is if people simply refused to vote in rigged elections and insisted that they would not vote until they got honest elections. I was told that worked in Ireland and all the voting machines had to be scrapped because people wouldn't use them. 

Germany did it through their courts, but since our Supreme Court is guilty of election-rigging itself, I doubt that would be a productive path to pursue here.

I'm very glad to hear that you're not urging people to vote in rigged elections, Victoria. Very glad. Very very very very very glad.

Did you hear that?

Of course you can't stop people from voting if they want to, you have to allow people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to gamble in rigged card games, you can't stop them. You can warn them, but you can't stop them. I try to warn them. They don't like that message, as you know. So they keep doing it and they keep getting screwed. I keep warning them, they keep telling me that this time things will be different, and then they always come crying to me afterward that the same thing happened again.

Okay. I know nobody listened the last time, or the time before that, or the time before that. And I know they won't listen this time either. But I will keep warning them anyway. What I won't do is sympathize when they complain that they got screwed again. Because they're consenting adults and they were warned. If they consent anyway, they can go cry to somebody else.

Consensual Political Intercourse

Permalink Reply by David Lasagna on December 15, 2011 at 2:12pm

This is in reply to the Victoria post beginning--"I hope I'm hitting the right "reply"--(and hoping, too, that it appears where I want it to)

Victoria's post here and Mark's reply that followed triggered these thoughts.--

1. To my way of thinking Mark has a hard time ingesting ideas that are contrary to a core belief of his--that in this country at this time you just should not vote. He will pay lip service to enough of the words used in a comment by Victoria detailing objections to/problems with his point of view to resemble conversation but he leaves out enough, which is usually quite a lot, so that what Victoria is actually advocating is not given anything like a fair representation in his responses.

I'd had the same experience  with this sort of misrepresentation from him over at Bradblog. That's part of the reason I came over here in the first place. I wanted to in some way or other confront that style of his which for me does a disservice to any prospects for continuity that a fellow commenter might have. And to which I object on general principles.

2. I am very much interested in politics. I am also very much interested in the personal politics inherent in communication. I believe we need revolution to address both our multi-faceted societal dysfunction and our multi-faceted personal dysfunction which, it seems to me, we all have in some form or another.

Which brings me to another oft recurring aspect of Mark's comments that I take exception to. Time and again I see him attributing motives to others that seem either wildly off the mark, unknowable, or both. In the immediate personal realm he has attributed motives to me and to Victoria(who was a perfect stranger to me before this thread)that we have repeatedly, steadfastly insisted are not our motives. I find this weird and disconcerting and I would like Mark to acknowledge that he does this and to stop.

In a broader cultural sense I see Mark doing the same thing, ie.--"..most people are happy with the current system.." or "..the system isn't something they wish to change." These assertions of Mark's do not jive with the world I'm living in. I think they're wildly inaccurate. From the Tea Party to OWS to random polling of Americans what I get is that people are very unhappy with the current system and that most people are desperate for change. Typically Mark's recurring and broad assignation of projected motives is a key building block to his comments and arguments. All too often they just don't make sense.

3. Victoria writes beautifully about the possibility of change that she sees as a new situation/opportunity that has just recently appeared on our horizon. That's what I see, too. Part of the wonder of what seems to be this new unprecedented situation is THAT YOU JUST CAN'T KNOW HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO GO. As far as I can tell Mark doesn't much account for the newness of our situation and hence the uncertainty of possible outcomes. As far as I can tell he sees certain things--like the worth/unworth of voting today in the U.S.-- in very stark black and white terms. He will occasionally pay lip to not having all the answers but then he reverts to insisting that answers offered differing from his couldn't possibly be valid. Often he does this with a dismissive mocking attitude. I object.

I referred him to Howard Zinn's thoughts on the optimism of uncertainty regarding these types of dynamics(nobody foretold Franco's Spain turning democratic or the Berlin Wall coming down so precipitously)but again there was no acknowledgment of the possibility of any validity to these types of thoughts.

4. I, like Mark and Victoria, have spent much time agonizing over the sense or worth of voting. I, like them, have incurred the wrath of friends for voicing an unpopular opinion on the subject. The emergence of OWS has precipitated a shift in my thinking. I know our voting system is royally fucked and that there will be little to no way of ascertaining the validity of any election outcome. But I agree with the many good reasons provided by Victoria to vote.

To my mind the more people get involved in the election process, the more people get really excited about the possibility of transformative candidates, the more we keep making noise(in a positive way) about electile dysfunction, the better chance we have of awakening a consciousness about the need to change the way we vote and what we're voting for. All that seems very much worth it. Seems to me this requires group effort on multiple fronts. I'm afraid what Mark advocates will serve mostly to continue to isolate and thus disempower citizens, exactly the opposite of what he desires. That's how it looks to me.

In the Ukraine people were aware of the possibility of rigged outcomes. Because they were aware and involved they made a big stink and reversed a false outcome. Why couldn't that happen here, too?

5. Mark loves to come back at this point and say that still it wouldn't matter cuz the system is so fucked up. Victoria has admitted/addressed that many times as have I. Yes, the system is incredibly fucked up. That's why we need to be proactive across the board. That's the way that makes sense to me in these incredibly challenging times.

6. Let's see if Mark can respond to this without calling me a fascist or a troll or a disrupter or assigning all sorts of nefarious motives to me.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 15, 2011 at 2:28pm

I probably missed some, but I counted 25 times in David Lasagna's comment where he refers to me by name or with a pronoun.

An ad hominem attack is something that is addressed "to the person" rather than to the issues. A few glancing references to the issues doesn't disguise a personal attack. 

Victoria came here to attack my ideas, not to attack me as a person, and we're having no problem discussing the issues.

Lasagna came here to attack me. 

Just sayin'.

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 15, 2011 at 3:19pm

Oh my gosh you guys are cracking me up. "electile dysfunction" lol, that is brilliant. Humour is an excellent way to get a message across and the shorter the message the better. And Mark, "just sayin" hahaha, I'm shocked that you can retaliate so succinctly.

David, your post was actually quite constructive. If Mark can correct some of those bad habits he can become more persuasive.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 15, 2011 at 3:22pm

Well, if I have to be attacked by anything, I'll take Lasagne. With a nice Merlot and some garlic bread.

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 17, 2011 at 9:20pm

Ok I did read all your links..nne of them address what I have propsed or make any statement that e-voting is imposisble to enginner to meet all of the criteria they outline.

the anti e-voting does not address the idea of having a completely independent aufdiotr system  not under the influebce of control of the official tabulation system.

the anti evoting does addres or consider the use of random numbers to allocate votes as made randomly to several different auditr systems so no one system will have all the votes ( that coudld true of the official vote as well..that it resdes in several separate  system to which each randomly selected. there are tons of ways statistically and organizationally to make the e-vote 100% tamper proof.

 

none of the links you referred us to  address the voter receipt I suggested as a way of of calibrating the presence of that vote in both systems.

 

None of the links you referred us to consider the  possibility of a 200% calibation vote by vote to insure that the auditor set includes each and every vote in the official setand no other votes.. Such an easy and quick and isimple process..a sort of each and a record by record comparison (if ane b recoed byrecords..very simple.  It could even be that there are several sets of official and auditor records generated .  If there is no deviation or tampering combining the part sof any auditor set randomly choosing which auditor set will be used and also doing the same with the master set will still yiled to perfectly identical vote by vote. They should natch exactly. 

 None of the references you provided so far exmaine a system with these protections and the use of randomness  .tgese provide perfect transparency a copy of the validated two sets could be made universally availble for inspection by all on line.  It rovides perfectly for chain of custody..the voter through the voters receipt number hwich is indepenent of both systems.

The central premise of all the cites you provided links to is that the owner/operator  of the syste can tamper with it.  That will be immediately apprent in the system I am outlining and no one operator would at any moment have control of all te data or kno which data sets will combine for the final auditor set and final master set.

We don''t now have    such a sytem and as we all now even paper ballots have their problems..wasn't whole hanging chad thing a big problem in Floridas paper ballot..there was too much room for human error.

Happy to look at whatever else you have looked at that specifically addresses and rules out each of the stategies I have suggested to provide for an e-voting systen that is bith perfectly transparent, 100% error proof, removes all human error, and provides for fast easy validation by reference to two completely independent systems...

to me the larger issues with e-voting is that there i snot universal access to the internet.  That people can vote from their home computer would be great  but for many there would be  issues with acces..again easy to overcome by not deliveringthe set f computers to be used at public voting places until the exact time of the election and again using randomness to insure there is no waying of knowing where those computers will come from or which ones will be used. 

 

obviously no one will have any control over each of the indivudally owned systems that could be used for voting.

I am still open..

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 17, 2011 at 10:09pm

Okay, suppose that using your system, Lindsay, no one operator would control all the data. How do you insert at least one or two honest uncorruptable people into the system? With our present government in control, if it adopted your system, it would also ensure that ALL the operators were corrupt or controllable. 

And even if any tampering was immediately apparent using your system, under our present system of government, what would you do about it? Complain to which authorities? Demand that what Congress or Supreme Court stop the election and correct the problems? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 18, 2011 at 1:10pm

Thanks Victoria..I did branch out and did look at the links within the link you provided including Bev Harris and Brad Blog and links from there  all very similar in their approach, assumptions and analysis.  I am gald to take a deeper look.  Can you point me to any of the links in the '"evidence" link that you believe have addressed thenselves to the specific means and methods I have laid out?.

I did actually put in quite a bit of time searching out from what you provided and didn't bump into anything that acknowldeged or referenced any of what I laid out.  I did by coincidence find several very intriguing bodies of work on e-voting that are based on what I laid out and all done by very creditable and knowledgeable people with great command of privacy and security issues.techniques on the internet and will bring some of htat here when I can get to it.  I think one was called "VoteBox" and as I recall was using these techniques of randomness and distribuytive systems appled to existing electronic voting technology.

At the moment I have shifted my primary focus to constitutional and judicial reform so won't have as much time to participate here.  Will try to keep track though and saving in my email comments I want to respond to but can't just now.

This has been a very fruitful and edifying journey..many thanks Mark, Victoria, Gisele, Mr. Blue and others who have dropped in and out.  I enjoyed both the process to which I credit Gisele, as well as the information and ideas exchanged and developed here.  All very fruitful.  Bright Blessings.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 18, 2011 at 1:56pm

Lindsay, if you would, just do me one favor. Respond to the point I keep bringing up about the voter's right to see the ballot count. This is the lynch pin of the paper ballot argument, and I need to know how you feel about it.

I feel that the right to vote infers the right to have your vote counted. I also believe that I have the right to KNOW my vote was counted, not just to be assured of it by experts.

I am not a technical expert so I can't point you to people who have already considered the system you're proposing, but I do hope you present your position to paper ballot advocates who are also technically savvy. There are some on the Black Box Voting facebook page. If you don't do it, I might cut and paste your description of your system and offer it for consideration on that page myself, to get feedback. In that case I want to make sure I'm presenting it in the clearest light, so if you want to post your absolute clearest version of it that would be great.

I appreciate the dialog!

V

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page