EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Court Race Throws a Spanner in the Works of Wisconsin Wingnuts
While Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan prepares to shut down the federal government to prove that government is bad, analysts say the radical agenda of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker suffered a major set back today as his good friend incumbent Justice David Prosser was defeated for Wisconsin Supreme Court. The AP unofficial vote count, with 100 percent of the precincts reporting, puts challenger Joanne Kloppenburg ahead by slightly more than 200. A recount is doubtless on the way.
In a state that has never unseated a conservative Supreme Court justice, people power fueled a concentrated effort to deny the Imperial Walker one branch of government. Walker’s opponents hope a Kloppenburg victory will swing the Supreme Court in a more independent direction and set the stage for the court to strike down Walker’s controversial collective bargaining law. While the fate of the law is uncertain, Kloppenburg’s three week sprint from dead-in-the-water to victor may give Walker, Ryan and other Wisconsin politicians pause as they rush to radically reshape government to benefit the privatizers and profiteers.
Sleepy Court Race Electrifies the State
While it may seem odd to many Americans, Wisconsinites like to elect their judges. Although an elected judiciary has its problems (namely, unseemly high-dollar elections), the ballot box sometimes hands citizens a rare opportunity to un-elect judges -- and that is what many Wisconsinites decided to do today. Prosser, a former Republican Assembly Speaker, stumbled when his campaign embraced Walker’s election.
The Kloppenburg victory is stunning. Six weeks ago, sitting Judge David Prosser was a shoo-in and the challenge by Assistant Attorney General Kloppenburg was a snooze fest. But something happened on the way to the high court. A governor, who was elected to create jobs, took office and quickly moved to disenfranchise voters and kneecap unions so they could no longer be a viable force in state elections. The raw power grab sparked a spontaneous uprising, the likes of which this state has never seen, and the Supreme Court race was the next vehicle for people to have their voices heard.
Proxy Fight Over Worker Rights
The whole country took notice when firefighters, teachers and cops stood with working families across Wisconsin to say ‘no’ to Walker's radical plans to bust unions, cut $1 billion from schools and privatize the university system.
When his “budget repair bill” was passed March 9th, many national observers thought the fight was over. With large margins in both houses, Walker’s stranglehold on government seemed invincible.
But irate Wisconsinites fought back on multiple fronts, filing lawsuits over the way in which Senate leaders rammed the bill through with less than the requisite notice required under the state open meetings law, blocking the bill’s implementation. They filed recall petitions against eight Wisconsin senators and this week delivered the requisite signatures for two of those recalls well ahead of schedule. They turned their attention to the heretofor unnoticed race for Wisconsin Supreme Court. Within days, handmade signs for Joanne Kloppenburg popped up across the state. Many voters understood that to win any of the battles ahead over worker rights, over the recalls, over redistricting and more, a more balanced judiciary was needed.
Kloppenburg went from being a long-shot to victory in a three-week sprint marked by huge independent expenditures on both sides. The anticipated recount will keep the juices flowing and will fuel the remaining recall fights.
Shock Doctrine at Work
While some voters believe the court will act as a check and balance on the madness at the state level, they are concerned that Paul Ryan continues to run amok at the federal level -- threatening a complete government shut down. At the same time that Walker was working to obliterate unions and privatize public schools, Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee, decided to go after Grandma with the complete privatization of Medicare. His radical budget bill, unveiled this week, slashes trillions of dollars from America’s social safety net and throws the elderly into the private insurance market with a “voucher” in their pocket.
Less interested in balancing the budget than redistributing wealth, his budget plan would funnel billions into the pockets of big insurance firms while also giving a ten percent tax break to corporations and the very richest Americans.
What is really going on here? Naomi Klein warned in her groundbreaking book “Shock Doctrine” that the right-wing excels at creating crises, real and imagined, to viciously advance their pro-corporate anti-government agenda. She credits economist Milton Friedman who observed that “only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is out basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


54 Comments so far
Show All"That, I believe, is out basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
What are their alternatives to Big Nuke, Big Oil and Big Coal?
Excerpt from “A Primer on Class Struggle” by Michael Schwalbe, Common Dreams, March 13, 2011.
“The most important arena outside the workplace is government, because it’s here that the rules of the game are made, interpreted, and enforced. When we look at how capitalists try to use government to protect and advance their interests -- and at how other groups resist -- we are looking at class struggle.”
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
- - - - -
Excerpt from “Court Race Throws a Spanner in the Works of Wisconsin Wingnuts” b y Mary Bottari, Common Dreams, April 6, 2011.
[Naomi Klein] credits economist Milton Friedman who observed that “only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is out [sic] basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
- - - - -
ezeflyer wrote:
“What are their alternatives to Big Nuke, Big Oil and Big Coal?”
* * * * *
My Reply:
Good question ezeflyer.
Well, I don't know about them, but first the working class must take control of the government.
Bill McKibben and other enviro notables probably wouldn’t put it that way, although I haven’t “checked in” with McKibben lately and things are getting much worse rapidly, but McKibben certainly understands the importance of getting government to establish policies that will help us all address the problems of climate change together. There is only so much that can be done as autonomous individuals. Even initiatives like Transition Towns are unlikely to produce as large an effect as the government ending subsidies to nuclear and implementing policies to encourage the development of genuinely clean, renewable energy
I think a Cap, Fee, and Rebate system that assesses fees at the point of importation or production of fossil fuels in the United States is important. The proceeds of the fees should be returned to the people whether or not they are employed and paying taxes on a quarterly basis as compensation for the increased costs of fossil fuels and as a means of engaging corporations through the market to produce green energy alternatives. This is the approach favored by NASA climatologist James Hanson.
Currently, money is “pooling” at the top of the economy in the hands of individuals and people who run large corporations. They have little incentive to hire people or to invest in the real economy in other ways. Unlike the Cap, Auction and Trade approach a Cap, Fee, and Rebate system would cover all the fossil fuel used in the economy and create an additional flow of money from the bottom of the economy toward the top.
This is the opposite of trickle down economics. Through the market corporations will have incentives to produce green energy alternatives as a result of the increased costs of fossil fuels to consumers and to themselves. Consumers can use their rebate to buy fossil fuels or take advantage of cheaper green fuels as those fuels become available. So-called "biofuels" like corn based ethanol that require fossil fuel petroleum imputs would increase in cost as well. The amount of the fees and rebates determine how great the market incentives for change will be.
In addition to Cap, Fee and Rebate, increasing the number of tax brackets and increasing the income tax rate on the wealthy, implementing a financial transactions tax, reductions in military spending, and the maintenance of important social programs is needed to get more money flowing throughout the economy. Heck a re-direction of the entire economy similar to what happened during WWII is needed to address the climate change crisis.
But in addition to Cap, Fee, and Rebate and the other changes advocated here we need to establish a genuine democracy in the United States.
Wisconsin style protests and demonstrations probably will be required to protect the economic power of the working class, establish a genuine political democracy, and implement other necessary changes as indicated above.
Please consider the following posts in this thread as "ideas that are lying around" that should be useful in establishing a genuine political democracy.
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
Well, this is great news!
[@Apr 7 2011 - 12:05am]
For comment on Wisconsin judicial election, brief discussion of proto-democracy, and explanation why Plurality Voting is unconstitutional.
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
"We Hate Them" Test
[@ Apr 7 2011 - 12:03am]
A look at the “We Hate Them” test in the context of Plurality Voting with and without a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option added and Instant Runoff Voting with and without a None of the Others (NOTO) option added.
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
Some proposals for establishing genuine political democracy
[@Apr 7 2011 - 12:00am]
Comments regarding the United States as a proto-democracy, the control of the government by the working class in a genuine political democracy, and proposals for transforming the United States from a proto-democracy to a genuine democracy.
AS Stalin declared it doesn't matter who or how many voted, it's who counts the votes that matters.Is the Wis., Secretary of State a Democrat? If not, well guess how the recount vote will turn out.
That would be Doug La Follette, a Democrat.
Regrettably I agree with you and with Joseph Stalin. The security and careful custody of the ballots and the integrity and proper audit of the vote count is of course always crucial.
I like Friedman's quote at the end. It holds true for Revolution as well.
Excerpt from “A Primer on Class Struggle” by Michael Schwalbe, Common Dreams, March 13, 2011.
“The most important arena outside the workplace is government, because it’s here that the rules of the game are made, interpreted, and enforced. When we look at how capitalists try to use government to protect and advance their interests -- and at how other groups resist -- we are looking at class struggle.”
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
- - - - -
Excerpt from “Court Race Throws a Spanner in the Works of Wisconsin Wingnuts” b y Mary Bottari, Common Dreams, April 6, 2011.
[Naomi Klein] credits economist Milton Friedman who observed that “only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is out [sic] basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
- - - - -
gladtobeincanada wrote:
“I like Friedman's quote at the end. It holds true for Revolution as well.”
* * * * *
My Reply:
I agree with you gladtobeincanada.
Please consider the following posts in this thread as "ideas that are lying around" that should be useful in establishing a genuine political democracy.
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
Well, this is great news!
[@Apr 7 2011 - 12:05am]
For comment on Wisconsin judicial election, brief discussion of proto-democracy, and explanation why Plurality Voting (first past the post) is unconstitutional (U.S. Constitution).
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
"We Hate Them" Test
[@ Apr 7 2011 - 12:03am]
A look at the “We Hate Them” test in the context of Plurality Voting with and without a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option added and Instant Runoff Voting with and without a None of the Others (NOTO) option added.
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
Some proposals for establishing genuine political democracy
[@Apr 7 2011 - 12:00am]
Comments regarding the United States as a proto-democracy, the control of the government by the working class in a genuine political democracy, and proposals for transforming the United States from a proto-democracy to a genuine democracy.
Well, Rousseau basically called the whole thing about 2.5 centuries ago. Klein called it "Shock Doctrine": the philosophy that embraces disaster and chaos to implement unfavorable laws and practices. Rousseau mentioned precisely this type of action in Social Contract (1762), it says something to the effect of "evil people will take advantage of chaotic situations to put in place undesirable forms of government".
If many of us can't come to this same conclusion today with all the current circumstances then obviously awareness isn't our strong suit.
millionmillionaires wrote:
"Rousseau mentioned precisely this type of action in Social Contract (1762), it says something to the effect of "evil people will take advantage of chaotic situations to put in place undesirable forms of government"."
* * * * *
My Reply:
millionmillionaires,
Well, those of us who for some reason believe, hopefully correctly, that we are not evil need to do something ourselves to take advantage of the chaos and prevent all those evil people from taking advantage of the chaos at our expense.
Perhap you with your million millionaire friends can help us?
Although Edmund Burke has not been one of my closest (deceased) philosophical "soul mates" in life (all right no necrophilia jokes), Burke did say something like this:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing."
I only wish... if you can find me some millionaire friends I'll be sure to harass them with my information. I'm a carpenter, millionaires tend to shy away from low-lives such as myself.
I respect Burke for reviving that sentiment, but in all truth Plato deserves some credit, "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men".
Oh, well. I really didn't think you had millions of millionaire friends.
But I thought I would ask you, at least in jest, anyway.
Thank you also for giving Plato his due.
It is hard to make awareness a "strong suit" when all it has to offer is being aware that things are getting worse with no betterment in sight. I wish I wasn't so aware but perverse curiosity keeps me looking for new bad news.
In an interview Chris Rock says that if ignorance is bliss, what is knowledge and awareness but torture. He's got that right.
Hello Paranoid Pessimist!
I don't know. I believe that we can do something.
And that what people in Wisconsin have accomplished so far is important. What's more they are still working at it.
We should be too!
"Every mind must make a choice between truth and repose." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Most of us here at CD chose the harder path. This is laudable.
At this rate everyone will be forced to choose truth once things become so bad we cannot look the other way. We're just using foresight to the best of our ability.
But as the old saying goes, It's not over until the fat lady sings. In this case, Walker's minions will be doing their best to invalidate votes by Democrats. Throwing out a few hundred votes is child's play to the Republicans.
Too predictable aren't they? Especially with their fancy pants vote getting machines.
The people of WI are fighting for their lives, and I don't think they'll just sit back now and allow the GOP to go about the kind of vote invalidating behind locked doors as they've done in other elections.
I hope not.
I expect that you are right.
I think that we all owe them support and a debt of gratitude for their efforts to defend themselves and us from attack in the global class war (GCW).
Early in this part of the struggle a connection was made between the people in Madison, Wisconsin and the people in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt.
Amidst all the chaos and fog of class war, we need to remember those connections.
sheepherder wrote:
“But as the old saying goes, It's not over until the fat lady sings. In this case, Walker's minions will be doing their best to invalidate votes by Democrats. Throwing out a few hundred votes is child's play to the Republicans.”
* * * * *
My Reply:
sheepherder,
How has the fat lady’s voice been lately?
I agree with shadre. I don’t think that Wisconsinites are going to let this one go down so easily.
So the court may now out the earlier Senate vote, in which case the 14 errant Democrats will have to skip town again to prevent a revote?
I think your probably correct Horace, about re- vote on the bill...a properly processed bill could stand legally as law. And not only will the 14 Democrats do all they can to prevent passage of a 'properly processed bill'...perhaps the Sec. of State La Follette will refuse to sign & publish on the new bill.
Perhaps as time goes by, some of the 'state police management' will grow weary of authorizing thousands of hours of overtime too.
whocares;)
I will wholeheartedly support as I expect will huge numbers of Wisconsinites those 14 Democrats taking a working leave of absence from the Wisconsin Senate should that be helpful to stop the attacks of radical Republicans upon working people and the unemployed.
Unfortunately, the Republicans came up with a counter move to get a number of the things Scott Walker wanted passed, a counter move that circumvented the quorum rule that said Democrats had transformed into a podium for a kind of filibuster.
As I understand it in their rush to push the re-packaged bill through, absent budget items, Republicans ran afoul of open meeting laws and such.
Personally, I would love to see a wildcat strike of every union member (not just gov. employees ALL WI union membership should wildcat at every business THROUGHOUT Wisconson today & until this is done) sending a serious, diversified message of solidarity to all industry and government in the state. That message should be: "REFUSE TO WORK FOR LESS".
But as we all know, the Gov. Walker will not change his Republican agenda, even if it means destroying every company in the state that has long time sustained itself with union labor. Why wait for the new bill, or the new law, or the SC ruling, the gauntlet has already been thrown down, and the democrats did the right thing when the 14 wildcated out of state over this matter.
Oh yeah ...1 more thing, not a single union guy or gal, had anything whatsoever to do with this financial fiasco, INTENTIONALLY caused by the "disaster capitalists", and these 'Friedmanites' are quite expectant for perfectly sound WI industy to fold under their pressures. And they don't care, they actually believe "cheap imports is the way to build into the 21st century".
whocares;)
"Democracy should be exercised regularly, on foot. Free association not only promotes active bodies and public boldness, it is also vital to society and a force for change." - Rebecca Solnit
Horace,
I agree entirely with Rebecca Solnit about this, although it got quite cold in Madison, Wisconsin this winter.
Of course, what goes on in the legislature, in the state house, in the courts, and during what passes for free and fair elections in this country are important too.
To win, the story must be "Prosser challenging Kloppenburg Victory".
If we let this become "Kloppenburg victory remains in doubt", we lose.
Good point.
Well, certainly "Prosser challenging Kloppenburg Victory" sounds better.
Er...What's a "spanner"? Isn't that brit for wrench? Or is it something else?
Well, time to get into my boot and grab a torch....
Heading for Madison are you?
Wisconsin's victory may be a victory for cllective bargaining and all workers.
Let's hope so.
How long will the recount take, and will the state Supreme Court step in and stop it if it looks like Prosser may have a slight edge, the way it all went down in 2000 in Bush v. Gore? Will state Repugs find ways to rig the recount, with Walker's thugs pulling strings supplied by the Kochs? This thing is far from over, but it felt good voting for Kloppenburg yesterday.
Well, good luck.
It's not easy biting one's nails while keeping one's fingers crossed.
Sorry, I didn't mean to place a post here. Would have been a duplicate post.
Regarding the recount, fortunately for me I don't bite my nails, but I will keep my fingers and toes crossed.
Can you do that?
:>)
Well, this is great news!
Sure, there's a recount and it ain't over yet. But this is great news!
Hey, even Plurality Voting and proto-democracy can be worth something, if there is an acceptable candidate on the ballot, people are given a clear and genuine choice, and the stakes are high enough.
Proto-democracy can be a precursor to genuine democracy. A well functioning proto-democracy permits the people to choose which elites will rule them, but not whether or not elites will rule them.
Think the "lesser of two evils" dilemma!
Remember Plurality Voting cannot even pass the "We Hate Them" test!
The restrictions on each voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association imposed by Plurality Voting prevents the direct determination whether or not the consent of the self-governed actually exists within an electorate for any of the candidates on the ballot.
Think the "lesser of two evils" dilemma!
Remember Plurality Voting cannot even pass the "We Hate Them" test!
The restrictions on each voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association imposed by Plurality Voting give further advantages to candidates who already have the backing of wealthy elites, thereby violating the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Given (1) the existence of consent dissent grading scale based voting procedures such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting, (2) which increase the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of each and every voter, (3) which can determine whether or not the consent of the self-governed actually exists, and (4) which levels the ballot "playing field" by dissolving the advantage that Plurality Voting grants to candidates who already have the advantage of support from wealthy elites, therefore Plurality Voting is simply unconstitutional.
Think the "lesser of two evils" dilemma!
Remember Plurality Voting cannot even pass the "We Hate Them" test!
Peter K. Harrell
-
See also:
"We Hate Them" Test
[@ Apr 7 2011 - 12:03am]
"We Hate Them" Test
Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and the "We Hate Them" test:
Most everyone knows that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) based upon ranking the candidates according to preference.
While a number of years ago the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts added a “None of the Others” (NOTO) option to IRV, this doesn't really solve the problem caused by the basic preferential structure of IRV. Sure, there are circumstances where NOTO will emerge the “winner” but there are also circumstances where all the candidates are dislike by a majority of the voters and NOTO does not emerge the winner.
There are simpler examples of the "We Hate Them" test, but we will look at a two candidate 9 person example where this is the case.
Looking more carefully at this example will reveal how expanding the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of every voter can enable a voting procedure to pass the "We Hate Them" test even under the more challenging conditions posed by this 9 person example.
Plurality Voting is also a voting procedure with a preferential structure. Each voter elevates a single candidate in preference over all the other candidates. Adding a “None of the Above” (NOTA) option to Plurality Voting does not really solve the problem with the basic preferential structure of Plurality Voting either.
In contrast Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting (YNMS) and Category Scale Power Voter (CSPV) are consent-dissent grading scale based voting procedures.
Please consider the following sample 9 person electorate which I use to discuss the "We Hate Them" test.
We will look at Plurality Voting with and without a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option added and Instant Runoff Voting with and without a None of the Others (NOTO) option added.
There are a total of 9 people in this sample electorate grouped into 3 categories according to their opinions.
Group 1 People (4 in number):
Prefer Candidate A to Candidate B; like / support Candidate A and dislike / oppose Candidate B
Group 2 People (3 in number):
Prefer Candidate B to Candidate A; like / support Candidate B and dislike / oppose Candidate A
Group 3 People (2 in number):
Prefer Candidate B to Candidate A; dislike / oppose Candidate B and dislike / oppose Candidate A.
The 2 people in Group 3 are suffering from the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.
If you look at these 9 people you will notice that they dislike / oppose Candidate A by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 5 people in Groups 2 and 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1.
Also, you will notice that they dislike / oppose Candidate B by a 6 to 3 majority consisting of the 6 people in Groups 1 and 3 versus the 3 people in Group 2.
In other words these 9 people dislike / oppose both Candidate A and Candidate B by majorities of the people in the 3 groups.
But Plurality Voting without NOTA will elect Candidate B by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 5 people in Groups 2 and 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1 if the people in Group 3 vote otherwise Plurality Voting without NOTA will elect Candidate A by a 4 to 3 majority consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 versus the 3 people in Group 2.
Plurality Voting with NOTA will also elect Candidate A this time by a 4 to 3 to 2 plurality consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 versus the 3 people in Group 2 versus the 2 people in Group 3
In other words even adding the “None of the Above” option to Plurality Voting doesn’t enable Plurality Voting to pass the “We Hate Them” (both) test. This certainly violates the principle of the consent of the self-governed.
Just replace the words Instant “Runoff Runoff Voting” for the words “Plurality Voting” and words “None of the Other” for “None of the Above” in the above analysis and you will get very nearly the same results for Instant Runoff Voting with and without the “None of the Other” option as you get for Plurality Voting with and without the “None of the Above” option.
The primary different between the Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting results in 2 candidate elections occurs when NOTA and NOTO are included as options on the ballot for these two voting procedures respectively.
The initial result for Instant Runoff Voting with NOTO gives Candidate A the 4 votes from Group 1, Candidate B the 3 votes from Group 3 and NOTO the 2 votes from Group 3 if the people in Group 3 decide to vote otherwise Candidate A will win outright with a 4 to 3 majority.
Assuming the people in Group 3 decide to vote, according to the way Instant Runoff Voting works NOTO is eliminated from contention because NOTO has the fewest votes of any of the “candidates’. The IRV votes of the 2 people in Group 3 are transferred to their second choice Candidate B giving candidate B a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 5 people in Groups 2 and 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1.
Even adding the “None of the Other” option to Instant Runoff Voting doesn’t enable Instant Runoff Voting to pass the “We Hate Them” (both) test in this example. Once again this violates the principle of the consent of the self-governed.
Both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting are severely flawed with or without NOTA and NOTO.
Peter K. Harrell
-
See also:
Some proposals for establishing genuine political democracy
[@Apr 7 2011 - 12:00am]
Some proposals for establishing genuine political democracy:
Posted by PuffinThrush (re-posted by PuffinThrush)
Apr 1 2011 - 12:19pm.
What passes for liberal democracy in the United States is not genuine democracy, but merely a form of proto-democracy where voting does not give the people the power of a sovereign boss and where elections are unable to determine whether or not the consent of the self-governed actually exists.
The power of the working class is affected by many things including the allegiance of the government. The more the government gives its allegiance to the ruling class the more difficult it is for the working class to exercise power.
Given that the working class outnumbers economic and political elites in a genuine political democracy the working class not the people who control large corporations should be able to control the government and command its allegiance.
Here are some of the things that are wrong with proto-democracy in the United States as well as some of things we might do to change them. Given the reluctance of the ruling class to give up power, in every case people in the streets demanding changes that will contribute to the establishment of genuine political democracy in the United States will be essential.
1) Plurality Voting unduly restricts each voter’s freedom of speech and freedom of political association in ways that favor those who are already powerful. This violates the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of “equal protection under the law”. Plurality Voting should be replace in single-member district elections with a consent-dissent grading scale based voting procedure like Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting or Category Scale Power Voting that among other things permits voters to express a preference between major party candidates without supporting either while at the same time directly supporting or opposing other candidates on the ballot. State legislatures are responsible for specifying what voting procedure is used in most government elections. Any and all ways of pressuring state legislatures apply here, as well as placing referendum and initiative questions on the ballot, and initiating lawsuits.
2) Elections are run featuring overly restrictive ballot access laws, the unnecessary exclusion of less powerful candidates from debates, limited public funding of political campaigns, and chronic failures to provide the same resources to voting precincts in poor and minority communities as are available in more wealthy ones. Advocating and agitating for legislation and initiating lawsuits.
3) Our legal system at the direction of precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court discriminates against the freedom of speech and political association of the middle class and the lower classes which make up the working class by equating the expenditure of money for the purpose of disseminating electoral political speech (during the “virtual town hall” that characterizes the period of time leading up to elections) with actual speech, thereby granting wealthy individuals and individuals with access to a corporate treasury the ability to spend as much money as they want on disseminating the electoral political speech of their choice. Engage in comprehensive and potent “rule synthesis” that can serve as a basis for new legislation, a constitutional amendment, or direct challenges to the relevant Supreme Court rulings over the past thirty years.
4) A number of years ago Ralph Nader, if I remember correctly, suggested that there should be a way that the people can contribute to providing an income to less wealthy candidates while they run for office. Many of us do not have the luxury of running for office when that means as it so often does that we would have to give up our source of income in order to run an effective campaign or simply do have sufficient income to take time away from the struggle for survival. Wealthy people who have large salaries or significant amounts of income from sources other than salaries and wages do not have this problem.
Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party “I am not a witch” candidate from Delaware, did get into some trouble as she should have for allegedly using funds donated to her campaign for her own private purposes.
I think Ralph Nader’s suggestion is a good idea. Donations either for income replacement or simply for income supplementation should be acceptable only from natural persons and nominating political parties in any where donations are limited to natural persons, whose contributions for this purpose are limited by law and are placed in a separate fund from campaign contributions. Any candidate wishing to accept such funds must make public their income and amount of wealth. The total amount of donations that can be accepted by the fund should capped (perhaps around the current average household income) and donations beyond that amount should not be accepted and must be returned if they are acceptable in error.
* * * *
Posted by Mairead (Reply re-posted by PuffinThrush)
Apr 1 2011 - 12:20pm
re (4): Or simply make the satisfaction of our common human needs a right of citizenship. If everyone had the right to food, shelter, etc. then people could do things that aren't focused on the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. Things such as stand for office.
* * * * *
Posted by PuffinThrush (Reply re-posted by PuffinThrush)
Apr 1 2011 - 2:31pm
Yeah, that would do it. Perhaps Nader's suggestion might be an intermediate step on the way there as well as another alternative once there.
There is a DSM-IV category for these people...."creating crises, real and imagined, to viciously advance their pro-corporate anti-government agenda"
If you replace the "pro-c anti-g" with 'pro-me anti-authority' as in arrogant self centered self involved self important self aggrandizing pricks...I think that one falls under sociopath...and borderline personality disorder...paranoid schizophrenia...narcissism...and that ego thing...addiction...and the president has dementia.
I was wondering when someone would pull out their copy of the DSM-IV.
Sheesh ! So many categories! So many politicians! So little time!
:>(
To win, the story must be "Prosser challenging Kloppenburg Victory".
Spot on- cayenne redmonk,that's the ticket!
Paul Ryan and his government shutdown?
So, I'm not entirely sure on the details, I heard it in passing on NPR. Is this true: Unless a budget solution can be brought about by Friday the Fed will be shut down?
If this is true, this sounds vaguely familiar: "Pass the bailout resolution NOW or the economy will shut down".
Fuck these pricks, they're obviously trying to extort America to get what they want. Their fear tactics are banal at this point. Shock Doctrine can only work so long until people become immune.
millionmillionaires wrote:
"Shock Doctrine can only work so long until people become immune."
* * * * *
My Reply:
Good point. I like that.
"The Shock Doctrine can only work so long until people become immune."
In order to become immune people need to control their despair, muster their determination, figure out what they can do, and do it!
The people of Wisconsin are pulling out all the stops as they say doing just that!
Solidarity in struggling together is a big help.
Thanks bud, but I can't take credit for it. It was spoon fed to me in the concluding chapter of Klein's book that I notice you've also read.
"In order to become immune people need to control their despair, muster their determination, figure out what they can do, and do it!"
I think this is very true. My tendency is to resort to cynical remarks and sardonicism which, in reality, doesn't help much unless you're Jon Stewart or Bill Maher. I think Wisconsin folk are leading by example.
Demarcating where the GOP is going down across the board is not Governor Scott Walker, but Rep. Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee. His Federal budgetary proposal to privatize Medicare, with an implicit threat to Social Security down the line, is going to scare the death out of the elderly, and they vote disproportionately. Strange how the Republicans, elected because of the failure of the Damnocrats to provide jobs, have gone beserk in fostering their ideological agenda. They appear true believers, out of touch with reality, assuming if elected, it is because the public thinks like them. Either that or they realize their election is a temporary affair, and they're going to foster their agenda while they have the opportunity. All they have left in time is a year and a half, and then they're out, out for a long time if the Damnocrats can actually stop pandering to the wealthy donors who seem to move back and forth between the parties, guessing which one is going to be in power.
philandrel wrote:
“Demarcating where the GOP is going down across the board is not Governor Scott Walker, but Rep. Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee. His Federal budgetary proposal to privatize Medicare, with an implicit threat to Social Security down the line, is going to scare the death out of the elderly, and they vote disproportionately. Strange how the Republicans, elected because of the failure of the Damnocrats to provide jobs, have gone beserk in fostering their ideological agenda. They appear true believers, out of touch with reality, assuming if elected, it is because the public thinks like them. Either that or they realize their election is a temporary affair, and they're going to foster their agenda while they have the opportunity. All they have left in time is a year and a half, and then they're out, out for a long time if the Damnocrats can actually stop pandering to the wealthy donors who seem to move back and forth between the parties, guessing which one is going to be in power.”
* * * * *
What you describe and the way things look to me suggests we are ripe for what political scientists would call a change in political party system, something like when the Whig Party ceased to exist in the United States and the Republican Party joined the Democratic Party as the other party in the two party, duopolistic system (i.e. second party system).
Depending on how things go either the current Republican Party or more likely, at least at this point in time, the Democratic Party might self destruct and be replaced by a new political party. There are two reasons why I think the Democratic Party may be more vulnerable right now. And I want to stress that whatever one has to say about such things is necessarily highly speculative.
Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has strong support among the electorate in the sense that their support could be described as both broad (number of supporters) and deep (average intensity of support from individual supporters). That’s because both major political parties are basically just tools of the “corporatocracy” as some people like to describe it.
The support of the Republican Party among the electorate is “deeper”, but not as “broad” as the Democratic Party. Conversely, the support of the Democratic Party is “broader” by not as “deep” among the electorate. There are, of course, many independents, as well as supporters of the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. We could ask the question whether one of these two parties by broadening their support or a completely new party might replace either the Democratic or Republican party.
A couple of other posters on Common Dreams whose monikers I can’t remember have suggested in recent months that they think we are possibly on the verge of such a change.
[Reason 1:] What is increasingly happening right now is that the Democratic Party is subject to the so-called “enthusiasm gap”. Thanks to Barack Obama and of course the work of many other diligent Democrats over the past ten years or more. Both voters and potential voters increasingly recognize that the Democratic Party has increasingly become a more important tool of the “corporatocracy” within the duopolistic Plurality Voting electoral system - party system.
Although it does not have the analytical status of the “law of supply and demand” in economics or the “law of conservation of mass / matter” in chemistry, there is a “law” in political science which applies to the duopolistic nature of Plurality Voting. It is called Duverger’s Law.
All of this has, of course, been discussed for years by people who comment here on Common Dreams. The value of talking about it in terms that are more often used by political scientists is to more firmly connect this discussion to the understanding of politics gained through the activities of political scientists as well as to the actual history of politics and elections in our own country and around the world.
The alternative to a change in political party system like the one that occurred when the Whig Party was replaced by the Republican Party is the change in the political party system that saw a profound enough transformation of the Democrat Party to bring about the New Deal and what has been referred to by political scientists as the fifth party system in the United States
Under most circumstances Plurality Voting does not tolerate three or more political parties seriously competing for political power. In this sense both Plurality Voting and Duverger’s Law make a change in party system like the one that occurred before the U.S. Civil War less likely.
[Reason 2:] But thanks to U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past 35 years or so leading up to the Citizens United v. FEC decision wealthy people who control corporations have a stronger grip upon government and the Democratic and Republican parties making the kind of transformation that brought about the New Deal and the fifth party system less likely.
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 there was discussion among political scientists and others whether or not another transformational rather than replacement style transition to a sixth party system was in the works. I lost track of that discussion, but I expect that the consensus at this time might be the answer was “Yes”.
The point is that the tight grip of wealth on the two major political parties makes either kind of transition to a new perhaps seventh political party system difficult.
And in any case as chronic discussion here on Common Dreams about the “lesser of two evils” dilemma and the “spoiler effect” versus the “joys of working within the current party system and cooptation” suggest there are dangers and drawbacks to both types of transitions.
The solution, of course, is to work not simply to change the political party system, but to change the electoral system including the way we actually cast of votes at the ballot box.
Excerpt from “Court Race Throws a Spanner in the Works of Wisconsin Wingnuts” b y Mary Bottari, Common Dreams, April 6, 2011.
[Naomi Klein] credits economist Milton Friedman who observed that “only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is out [sic] basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
- - - - -
gladtobeincanada wrote:
“I like Friedman's quote at the end. It holds true for Revolution as well.”
* * * * *
For more about the Whig Party, Duverger's Law, and the five party systems as well as speculation about a sixth and a seventh party systems see the last part of this post for web links.
For further discussion in this thread:
Please see in this thread:
Well, this is great news!
[@Apr 7 2011 - 12:05am]
For comment on Wisconsin judicial election, brief discussion of proto-democracy, and explanation why Plurality Voting (first past the post) is unconstitutional (U.S. Constitution).
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
"We Hate Them" Test
[@ Apr 7 2011 - 12:03am]
A look at the “We Hate Them” test in the context of Plurality Voting with and without a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option added and Instant Runoff Voting with and without a None of the Others (NOTO) option added.
- - - - -
Please see in this thread:
Some proposals for establishing genuine political democracy
[@Apr 7 2011 - 12:00am]
Comments regarding the United States as a proto-democracy, the control of the government by the working class in a genuine political democracy, and proposals for transforming the United States from a proto-democracy to a genuine democracy.
* * * * *
For More About . . .
Duverger’s Law see WikipediaURL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
The Whig Party in the United States
See WikipediaURL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)
The First Political Party System (roughly 1792 and 1824)
See WikipediaURL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System
The Second Political Party System (from about 1828 until 1854)
See WikipediaURL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Party_System
The Third Political Party System (1854 until the mid-1890s)
See WikipediaURL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System
The Fourth Political Party System (1896 until 1932)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Party_System
The Fifth Political Party System (1932 until 1980? or the present?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System
The Sixth Political Party System ? (1980 ? until the present?)
Some references I found on the web discussing a possible Sixth Political Party System
(The volunteer workers at Wikipedia do not recognize the existence of a Sixth Party System.)
1. www.jstor.org/pss/446428 or http://prq.sagepub.com/content/26/3/385.extract
Just the first page of an academic journal article, not a helpful reference.
2. Divided Government, the Uniqueness of the Sixth Party System (Part one)
http://oneutah.org/2010/01/04/divided-government-the-uniqueness-of-the-sixth-party-system-part-one/
This reference is more interesting and includes the author’s summary of the preceding five party systems
3. Is the U.S. on the cusp of a Sixth, or Seventh, political party system?
This reference also summarizes the preceding five party systems
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=534620
The Seventh Political Party System ? (2012 or 2016 or 2020? until ????)
(The volunteer workers at Wikipedia do not recognize the existence of a Seventh Party System.)
1.Is the U.S. on the cusp of a Sixth, or Seventh, political party system?
This reference also summarizes the preceding five party systems
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=534620
2. Barack Obama is the Leader of the Seventh Party System
http://poldenovo.blogspot.com/2007/12/barack-obama-is-leader-of-seventh-party.html
3. BrainGlutton: Is America on the cusp of a Seventh Party System?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=473444
- - - - -
(“We will know better later.” – Harry Sarabian , a dairy farmer until his death sometime in the 1980s.)
When politicians or political parties win big, as the republicans did in 2010, they tend to become overconfident and reckless. Remember LBJ in 1964? Remember, the republicans would have done better if the "Tea Party" weren't a factor. This is just the beginning.
Also, the Republicans after the 1994 mid-term "Contract with America" victory ended up suffering from a little too much hubris in their own shut down the government efforts.
The proverb "pride goes before a fall" is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris.
Keep an eye on Governor Mitch Daniels. He came into office and immediately did everything that the Wisconsin Gov is trying to do. Now Mitch is laying low, becoming a Sleeper, so that he can run for President. If he were elected then he will do at a National level what he has done to the State of Indiana. How about the selling off of Medicaid to IBM. Mitch now has the ability to take any state highway, taxpayer funded, and privatize it. Where is that publicity????
Yes, not as much news out of Indiana or elsewhere around the country.
There are even efforts to "Awake the State" in Florida, for instance.
You are right pooka47401. No one should think that this will be over even if there is a clear victory in Wisconsin.
Indiana has long been a police state, courtesy of the Republicans. Put alonside Ohio (with it's Teabagger Kasich) and Michigan, soon you won't be able to travel in the eastern Midwest without paying a toll on what was once the state's highways.