[EM] The Occupy Movement: A Ray of Hope -- in Politics

[Michael Allan]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Write-ins can be effective.  I hold up proof this year.  For  
> a supervisor race:
>   111 Rep - Joe - on the ballot from winning primary, though not  
>             campaigning.
>   346 Con - Darlene - running as Con though unable to run as Rep+Con.
>   540 Write-in - Bob - who gets the votes with his campaign starting  
>                  18 days before election day.

We're floating the idea within Occupy of a primary voting network that
might help by giving independents a leg up.  It would extend not only
across and beyond parties, but also across any number of voting
methods and service providers: (see also the discussion tab here)
https://wiki.occupy.net/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/RFC/Open_voting_network

It's not easy to summarize, but maybe easier from the voter's POV:

   We won't endorse any single provider (monopoly) of primary voting
   and consensus making services.  Instead we'll maintain an open
   voting network (counter-monopoly) in which: (1) no person is
   excluded from participating in the development of alternative
   technologies and methodologies of consensus making; (2) no toolset,
   platform or practice is excluded; and (3) each person may freely
   choose a provider, toolset and practices based on personal needs
   and preferences without thereby becoming isolated from participants
   who make different choices.

None of this is especially difficult (not technically), but it's hard
to imagine how it could ever get started without Occupy.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I read of too much happening, such as apparently unreasonable arrests  
> or destruction of Occupiers' property, that Occupiers need to respond:
>       .  If Occupiers truly earned such, they need to behave more  
> reasonably.
>       .  If there is truth in what I read, the US desperately needs  
> better attention to public safety, including officers, and those  
> directing them, behaving better.  The Occupy Movement needs to see  
> this as an important reason to see to such, along with the many other  
> problems to improve on, getting improved via politics.
> 
> Stephen Unger has thought seriously in the following email, plus the  
> article referred to at its ending.  I would not agree to all, but add  
> to that:
>       .  2012 is an important election year - now time to consider  
> what is now doable.
>       .  Not clear whether a new party, working with the Greens or  
> Libertarians, or working within the Republicans or Democrats, is best  
> - studying all the possibilities is a proper beginning, and laws in  
> various states affect what is practical.
>        .  Starting competing efforts makes sense but, when they start  
> to compete in electing, time to drop the excess.
>       .  Write-ins can be effective.  I hold up proof this year.  For  
> a supervisor race:
>   111 Rep - Joe - on the ballot from winning primary, though not  
> campaigning.
>   346 Con - Darlene - running as Con though unable to run as Rep+Con.
>   540 Write-in - Bob - who gets the votes with his campaign starting  
> 18 days before election day.
> 
> On Dec 8, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Chris Telesca wrote:
> > On 12/8/11 5:24 PM, Stephen Unger wrote:
> >>
> >> Forming a new party (or building up an existing third party, say the
> >> Greens or Libertarians) is easier because all your work is of a
> >> constructive nature, as opposed to having to devote great amounts of
> >> energy to combat or replace those currently in command. This is not
> >> made easier by the fact that the internal procedures of traditional
> >> political parties are not models of democracy.
> >>
> > You can start up a party called the Left-Handed Back-Scratchers, but  
> > it
> > doesn't mean you will be effective at gaining any political clout or
> > winning office.
> ...
> >>
> >> Over my lifetime, I have seen efforts to make the major parties more
> >> responsive to the public fail repeatedly. In particular, liberals  
> >> have
> >> been notoriously persistent in sticking with the Democratic
> >> Party. Most were convinced that their arms would whither if used to
> >> pull down any voting booth lever not labelled "Democrat" (only very
> >> recently have the old lever type machines been replaced). The results
> >> have been getting worse every election. Eisenhower, and even Nixon,
> >> look good compared to those now in the Democratic saddle.
> >> When an approach fails repeatedly, it makes no sense to stick with  
> >> it.
> >>
> ....
> >>
> >> I am hopeful that the Occupy Movement will wake up enough people to
> >> turn things around.
> >
> > I hope so too - but I don't think that a third party is the way to do
> > it. There is already so much momentum and mass behind a going-concern
> > that you'd have to do so much work with a third-party to raise up to  
> > the
> > same level. Given the same number of people with the will to make
> > something work, it's always easier to take over a going concern than  
> > to
> > start from scratch - just as in business.
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve
> >> ............
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Chris Telesca wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why do you think that starting a new third party would be more  
> >>> feasible?
> >>>
> >>> I rather think that it would be easier to reform an existing major  
> >>> party
> >>> - the plans for how to do so are right there. No one but party  
> >>> officers
> >>> can run the party if enough good party members put their foot down  
> >>> and
> >>> remind the electeds that they are nominated by the party - no party
> >>> by-laws or plan of organization allows for a candidate or elected  
> >>> public
> >>> official to control a party.
> >>>
> >>> Chris Telesca
> >>>
> >>> On 12/7/11 9:26 PM, Stephen Unger wrote:
> >>>> By overwhelming margins, polls indicate increasing dissatisfaction
> >>>> with both major parties. People have been trying to reform both the
> >>>> Republican and Democratic parties for decades. They have failed
> >>>> miserably, as both parties have become less and less responsive  
> >>>> to the
> >>>> people. They are both arms of corporate interests. Their rivalry is
> >>>> about as genuine as that of professional wrestlers. The Republicans
> >>>> play the role of the nasty villains, terrifying liberals, while the
> >>>> Democrats act as the clean cut heroes. On most significant issues
> >>>> their actual positions are essentially the same, tho they differ in
> >>>> rhetoric.
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of us agree that our system for general elections is in bad
> >>>> shape. Intra-party procedures are considerably worse. Reforming an
> >>>> established party means extensive mud wrestling with entrenched  
> >>>> party
> >>>> hacks who control all the levers of power.
> >>>>
> >>>> Starting a new party or beefing up an existing third party is more
> >>>> feasible, tho it will not be easy. But, if the Occupy Movement  
> >>>> keeps
> >>>> growing, it will soon have the muscle to take on the job. The  
> >>>> fight to
> >>>> reform our election system (e.g.., score voting, and reducing the  
> >>>> role
> >>>> of money in politics) should be pursued in parallel with the  
> >>>> fight for
> >>>> a decent new party, as each depends on the other.
> >>>>
> >>>> More detailed arguments can be found in
> >>>> http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/twoParty.html
> >> <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/%7Eunger/articles/twoParty.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve
> Dave Ketchum