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

[Dave Ketchum]

Thanks to Mike for adding some thought.

This subject is offering some thought toward Occupy getting something  
workable in 2012 - a year in which new and usable thoughts are needed  
quickly.  One complication is that our target is composed of 50 states  
with differing laws and differing collections of political parties.

Dave Ketchum

On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:18 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote per: Dave:  Re: The  
Occupy-Movement:
>
> Dave:
>
> You wrote;
>
> 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
>
> [endquote]
>
> Sure, but usually emotionally-charged movements like this consist
> only of letting-off-steam, and their members never apply their anger  
> or
> reform-desire to their voting. If they did, they'd all combine to  
> elect
> non-Republocrats to all offices. Don't necessarily expect that. At  
> least don't
> expect it to happen spontaneously, without lots of encouragement.
>
> On the other hand, of course the electoral possiblity should be  
> pointed out
> to Occupy participants. If there's any chance that they _might_  
> direct their
> energy and anger toward voting Republocrats out of office, then that  
> solution
> should certainly be suggested to them.
>
> You continued:
>
> , along with the many other
> problems to improve on, getting improved via politics.
>
> [endquote]
>
> I should have included that clause in the text that I replied to  
> above. What I said
> there of course applies to this last clause as well.
>
> Comments on Stephen Unger's e-mail, quoted in Dave's posting:
>
> 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.
>
> [endquote]
>
> Yes. That's why I suggest that we must, right now, use correctly the  
> voting
> system that we already have, Plurality. Plurality with Condorcet  
> polling
> can be equivalent to Condorcet.
>
> So that's why I've been suggesting that we do Condorcet polling of  
> candidates
> for the 2012 presidential election of the U.S.
>
> But we could even get useful information from Pluality polls. By using
> obvious assumptions about political-spectrum-order, we could look for
> the voter-median candidate.
>
> But, either way, we should report the CW or voter-median candidate  
> to the political
> parties, progressive media, and progressive organizations. Ask all  
> progressives to
> come together by voting for that candidate (whom I expect to be a  
> progressive candidate).
>
>
> Unger continued:
>
> .  Not clear whether a new party, working with the Greens or
> Libertarians, or working within the Republicans or Democrats, is best
>
> [endquote]
>
> Working within the Democrats or Republicans is not best. If there's  
> one thing
> we should learn from decades of experience, it's that.
>
> Work with progressive voters. Show them (from polling) that they  
> have the power
> to elect a progressive instead of a Republocrat. Tell them about  
> Nader's consistent
> wins in Internet polling. Show them the results of our 2012  
> presidential polls too
> (We must do those polls).
>
> Greens or Libertarians, sure.
>
> Greens and Libertarians agree on much. I won't go into details,  
> since this
> mailing list isn't for political promotion. I'll just suggest that a  
> compromise
> between Greens and Libertarians should include policies advocated by  
> both, without
> those policies objectionable to one or the other. You know which  
> policies those
> are.
>
> But, relevant to coalition between Greens and Libertarians, one  
> can't avoid mentioning
> the Boston Tea Party (not to be confused with the Republican-policy- 
> promotion "The Party Movement").
>
> Look at the Boston Tea Party's platform. It looks like the  
> compromise between Greens
> and Libertarians. Well, I don't know if they have any policies that  
> would be
> unacceptable to Greens, but it would be worth checking out.
>
> Regarding the Greens, the U.S. has two "Greens" organizations:
>
> 1. The original Greens (G/GPUSA)
> 2. The replacement "Greens".(GPUS)
>
> Read their platforms.
>
> The replacment "Greens" are a much bigger party, due to their  
> heavily mainstream
> character. They have some good suggestions (a subset of the original
> Green' suggestions), of course, and would be ok for
> a coalition, if they can bring themselves to accept one.
>
> Unger continued:
>
> - 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.
>
> [endquote]
>
> That's where pre-election polling is essential--to determine which  
> progressive
> candidate is the one that all progressives should support.
>
> Divisiveness is a really big problem among progressives, including the
> replacement "Greens".
>
> The other quoted writer said:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Quite so. All true.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Quite so. Today's Democrats are a lot worse than yesterday's  
> Republcans.
>
> Unger continued:
>
>>> When an approach fails repeatedly, it makes no sense to stick with
>>> it.
>
> Again, that's quite so. "If you want something different, then don't  
> keep
> voting for the same old parties that are giving you what you want to
> get away from."
>
>>> I am hopeful that the Occupy Movement will wake up enough people to
>>> turn things around.
>
> There have been similar movments in the past, and so I wouldn't  
> count on that,
> at least not spontaneously.
>
> The sentiment of the Occupy people is encouraging. But someone must  
> show them
> that they have got to turn their anger and energy toward voting the  
> Republocrats
> out of office. If enough progressively-inclined voters (that  
> includes pretty much
> everyone who falls for the Democrat compromise) would vote for  
> candidates better
> than the Republocrats, then the Republocrats would immediately be  
> history.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> If you're suggesting working within the Democrat party, then you  
> need to re-read
> Unger's e-mail.
>
> Telesca said:
>>>> Why do you think that starting a new third party would be more
>>>> feasible?
>
> More feasible than what? More feasible than reforming the  
> Democrats? :-)
> How about this reason?: Because the latter is impossible. As Unger  
> pointed
> out, it's been tried for a long, long time.
>
> However, one progressive author pointed out that, structually, our  
> primary
> system could be considered the 1st stage of a 2-stage voting system,  
> like Runoff.
> It wouldn't be a matter of _reforming_ the Democrats, who are quite
> unreformable. It would be a matter of using their primary as a 1st  
> election
> of Runoff.
>
> I'm skeptical about that, because I don't think that democracy or  
> voter input
> has much to do with who gets the Democrat nomination. You've seen  
> the conventions.
>
> In fact the idea sounds quite doubtful. But I felt that I should  
> mention it.
>
>>>> I rather think that it would be easier to reform an existing major
>>>> party
>
> Nonsense. The corrupt, big-business-owned Democrats aren't reformable.
>
>  >>> On 12/7/11 9:26 PM, Stephen Unger wrote:
>
>  >>>> By overwhelming margins, polls indicate increasing  
> dissatisfaction
>>>>> with both major parties.
>
> Yes. The sentiment is "throw the politicians out". Revise that to
> "Vote the Republocrats out"
>
> I'd say "the corrupt Republocrats", but that would be redundant,  
> because
> that's the only kind of Republocrats.
>
> Speaking of polls, this is an appropriate place to repeat that Nader  
> has
> won all or nearly all of the Internet presidential polls in which he  
> was
> a candidate.
>
> Many people believe that they, individually, are the only one who want
> something better than the Democrats. Wrong. You're not the only one.
> The average public sentiments and preferences are not as your tv  
> represents
> them.
>
> The media say that "the middle" is halfway between Democrats and  
> Republicans.
> No, that's just the mass-media middle. The actual voter median is more
> progressive than the Democrats.
>
> Unger continues:
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Yes. Gore Vidal once observed that we don't have two major parties.  
> We have
> one party with two right wings.
>
>>>>> Their rivalry is
>>>>> about as genuine as that of professional wrestlers.
>
> That's exactly what I was about to say. The analogy is a remarkable
> accurate one.
>
>>>>> The Republicans
>>>>> play the role of the nasty villains, terrifying liberals, while  
>>>>> the
>>>>> Democrats act as the clean cut heroes.
>
> Exactly. It's the old "Good-Cop/Bad-Cop" routine. The job of the  
> Republicans
> is to scare progressive into supporting the Democrat, who says, "We  
> can't let
> the Republican win. I can help you."
>
>>>>> On most significant issues
>>>>> their actual positions are essentially the same, tho they differ  
>>>>> in
>>>>> rhetoric.
>
> Quite so. The only difference is that the Republicans don't deny being
> Republicans.
>
> An author in _The Progressive_ observed that Democrat candidates sound
> progressive when campaigning, but look Republican when in office. He
> explained that by pointing out that they get their votes from one  
> segment
> of the population, and their money and instructions from another  
> segment.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> But it will need lots of encouragement and advice, to support a 3rd
> party or 3rd party candidate.
>
> We already have some good 3rd parties. There's no need to start  
> another.
> Find the voter-median or Condorcet winner among the 3rd parties we  
> already
> have.
>
>>>>> fight to
>>>>> reform our election system (e.g.., score voting,
>
> Score voting would be fine. I suggest that the 3-slot score method I
> call "+/-" would be popular.
>
> But Approval would be excellent too, and would spell the end of the
> Republocrat regime.
>
> Then there are various newer and more deluxe proposals (discussed in
> recent postings here)
>
> They include MMT, MTAOC, MMPO, MDDTR, Forest Simpson's modifications  
> of MMPO,
> and a method proposed by Chris Benham.
>
> These methods all meet FBC and avoid the Approval Bad Example problem,
> also known as the "chicken dilemma" and the "co-operation/defection  
> problem".
> Additionally, they all afford some majority-rule protection.
>
> But if Approval or Score voting (especially +/-) is the most feasible
> voting system reform, then either of those would be entirely adequate
>
> Mike Ossipoff