EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Image of Gas Attack Against Lone Brazilian Woman Goes Viral
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ralph Nader Is Tired of Running for President
The most important moral and intellectual voices within a disintegrating society are slowly discredited when their nonviolent protests and calls for justice cannot alter intransigent and corrupt systems of power. The repeated acts of peaceful civil disobedience, efforts at electoral and political reform and the fight to protect the rule of law are dismissed as useless by an embittered, dispossessed and betrayed public. The demagogues and hatemongers, the purveyors of violence, easily seduce enraged and bewildered masses in the final stages of collapse with false promises of vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. And in the spiral downward the good among us are reviled as naive and ineffectual fools.
Illustration by Mr. Fish
There is no shortage of courageous dissidents in America. They seek to thwart the imperial disasters, looming financial insolvency and suicidal addiction to fossil fuel. They have stood in small knots on street corners week after week, month after month, year after year, to denounce the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occupied banks, shut down coal-fired power plants, attempted to halt mountaintop removal, interfered with whaling ships and walked in blustery weather to the White House, where they were arrested. They are struggling to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza on a ship called the Audacity of Hope. But because the corporate state and the two major political parties are indifferent to principled calls for reform, and because the mass of the public still buys into the myths of globalization and the American dream, the plundering and destruction continue unimpeded.
When most Americans face the nightmare before us, when they realize the irreversible devastation unleashed on the ecosystem and the economic misery from which they cannot escape, violence will have a broad and terrifying appeal. Those of us who demand a return to the rule of law and remain steadfast to nonviolence will find ourselves cast aside—the useful idiots Lenin so despised. I watched this happen in the social and political implosions in El Salvador, Guatemala, the Palestinian territories, Algeria, Bosnia and Kosovo. I watched the same cocktail of despair, economic collapse and callousness from a corrupt power elite mix itself into potent brews of civil strife. I watched the same untiring efforts by those who detested the violence and cruelty of the state, and the nascent violence and intolerance of the radical opposition. I covered as a reporter the disintegration that tore these societies apart. Those who held fast to moral imperatives, including Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador and Ibrahim Rugova in Kosovo, were thrust aside and replaced with killers on both sides of the divide who embraced violence.
“Wait until October,” Ralph Nader said when we spoke this weekend. “That’s when the budget cuts will hit home. It is one thing to have the governors of Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida and the legislators saying we will cut this and that. We don’t know what will actually happen when the guillotines are put in place. You may have a different kind of surge of public resistance and protest.
“There will be more and more people in the streets, homeless and hungry,” he said of the looming cuts. “Babies will be sick. Everything will be overloaded from the free food to the clinics. You never know where the spark will come from. Look at the guy who robbed the bank for a dollar. That was not quite the spark, but that is what I am talking about. This is what you have to do to get health care. Let’s say 50 people did that. There are a lot of dry tinder piles like that."
The death of liberal institutions that once made incremental and piecemeal reform possible, which once could respond to the suffering of the poor, the unemployed and working men and women, which once sought to protect the Earth on which we depend for life, means the last thin hope for reform is embodied in acts of civil disobedience. There are no established institutions that will help us. The press ignores the cries of the underclass and the poor. The labor movement is atrophied and dying. Public education is degraded and being rapidly dismantled. Our religious institutions no longer engage in the core issues of justice. And the Democratic Party is on its knees before Wall Street. The most basic government services designed to ameliorate the pain, including Head Start and Social Security, are targeted by our corporate overlords for destruction. The Kyoto Protocol, which was not nearly ambitious enough to prevent environmental collapse, has been gutted so companies like Exxon Mobil can continue to amass the largest profits in history.
Radical reform, including a breaking of our dependence on fossil fuel, must happen soon to thwart the effects of dramatic climate change and economic disintegration. And this radical reform will come only through us. I will join, for this reason, those planning the prolonged occupation of Washington on Oct. 6. Acts of civil disobedience are our last, thin line of defense against chaos. Make a resolution this Independence Day to join us. You owe it to your children and to the generations who come after us. I am not naive enough to promise you we can reverse these trends. I know the monolith we challenge. But I do know that if we do not begin to take part in these nonviolent protests then we have, in effect, given up all realistic hope of change and succumbed meekly to corporate enslavement, environmental catastrophe and severe social unrest.
“The first sign that there is a real breakdown is that the bridge between the people you mentioned and the people who should be speaking out as a result of their professional status is not there,” Nader said. “I am talking about the deans of law schools and law professors, as well as leading members of the bar. The obverse of that is that in 2005 and 2006 there was a bridge built. It was the president of the [American Bar Association] Michael Greco. He thought the destruction of the rule of law by George Bush was historically very dangerous. He commissioned three reports, using members of the ABA who were formally in national security agencies such as the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and the Justice Department. They came up with three white papers on three subjects, one of them being signing statements. They concluded that the recurrent violations by President Bush had risen to the state of serious violations of our Constitution. These papers were made public. They sent them to President Bush. He never replied. Apart from The Associated Press, the press, including the [New York] Times and the [Washington] Post, ignored it. That to me was a much bigger litmus test. It showed how deep the institutionalized official illegality has become, more important than the ignoring of people like Chomsky and us.
“Usually people who are candid in calling things as they are, are viewed as people on the outside who want to change the system,” Nader said. “In the historic past they were socialists. They were radical labor leaders such as the [Industrial Workers of the World]. This time those people who are speaking out want a restoration of the rule of law. This is a pretty conservative goal. The extreme radicals are now in charge of our country, the military-industrial complex and the White House. It is not so much the military as the civilian leadership, the neocons in the White House. The military does not like to get into wars, but once they are in it is very hard to control them because they want to win.
“It’s not like Japan in 1939, which really was a militaristic society,” Nader went on. “It is exactly the opposite of what the constitutional founders thought would be the case. They put the civilians in charge to restrain the military. In effect, these people are activating and pushing the military into places the military does not want to go. They use a volunteer Army, flatter it, give it a lot of weaponry and send it abroad. Only about 5 million people, soldiers and their families, feel what is going on. Once it is entrenched, once you accept this neocon ideology, which is a vitriolic, aggressive, empire-spreading ideology, run largely by draft dodgers who in their youth gung-hoed the Vietnam War but wanted their friends to go and die for it, then democracy is too weak to overcome that. Two dozen people plunged this country into war. The first arena designed to stop this is the Congress, but it does not observe its constitutional duties or require a declaration of war.”
While protests are useful, Nader does not see any possibility for reform until there is a widespread effort to organize a sustained and radical opposition movement. This will come by building a movement that offers an alternative ideology and vision to that of unfettered capitalism, consumerism, empire and globalization. It is something Nader tried and failed to do during his own presidential campaigns.
"There is a tremendous asymmetry,” Nader said. “Seven hundred thousand people demonstrated in London. But where are they the next day? And where are their adversaries? The next day their adversaries are on the job. Where are the 700,000 people? They are out of there. How many organizers are on the ground in the 435 districts? Could labor unions have been organized without organizers? Could the suffragist movement have been organized without organizers? Could the anti-slavery movement or the civil rights movement been organized without organizers? If you don’t have organizers on the ground you know ipso facto that your demonstration is going nowhere.”
When I asked Nader, who mounted campaigns for the presidency in 2000, 2004 and 2008, if he would consider running again, he answered that it was “very unlikely.”
“You have millions of people who say run, run, run,” he said. “Then you put yourself out there and find they are voting for Obama. Until they become mature, until they realize that if they generate 5 to 8 million votes behind a progressive third-party candidate for leverage, what is the point? Why should people try four or five times? Let someone else do it.
“The people who go out there with some credibility and record, go into 50 states, sweat it out month after month, beating back ballot access obstacles, fighting the Democrats who are trying to suppress free speech and candidate choices for the voters, and then you still can’t get on the air to discuss civil liberties,” he said. “Never mind that they do not want to upset dear Obama or dear [John] Kerry. They don’t give you airtime to discuss the simple issue of the denial of civil liberties and the crushing of third parties.”
If elections were that effective, as the anti-war activist Phil Berrigan used to say, they would be illegal. We must follow the path Nader forged, attempting to sway enough people with conscience to sever themselves permanently and unequivocally from the mainstream and especially the Democratic Party. This defiance will again be dismissed as counterproductive and ineffectual. The sacrifices we are called to make will be real, uncomfortable and immediate, while the goals will be distant and uncertain. It will remain hard, for this reason, to jolt people awake. The expediency of the moment has a habit of subsuming the moral imperatives of the future. But time is not on our side. The impending disasters that await us, ecological and economic, are already visible on the horizon. If we do not sever ourselves from established systems of power, if we do not become in every action we undertake agents of rebellion, then the ecological, economic and, finally, human distortions that arise in times of confusion, suffering and collapse will overwhelm us.
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...




246 Comments so far
Show All“I’d rather vote for something
I want and not get it, than vote
for something I don’t want,
and get it.”
–Eugene Debs
Voted for Nader every time he has run, and when not, wrote him in.
democracy is a psyop aimed at providing the sheeple with the delusional sense that they have some kind of choice
nothing more than that
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.'"
george carlin - rip
you know ralph nader may be tired of running for the presidency but did chris or anyone else stop to think how tired the presidency is from running away from ralph
i used to wonder how it happened in nazi germany that a literate and cultured country could stand by while the psychotic nazis took over and brought them to the edge of obliteration
i don't anymore - the stupidity of the masses knows no bounds as cheney and his bullshit war on terror has proven again and again
here's what i say: for the republicans we dip both bachman and palin in bacon grease and let them slug it out for the right to muss mitt romney's hair
i hope that gingrich's wife doesn't get a terminal sickness like the other two (cancer and ms) because i'd hate to see him have to dump her in the middle of the campaign
as for obummer - is it just me or does he get to lookin' crazier and crazier every day
one day he is going to channel stymie from the little rascals for comic relief during a press conference - you know the place were war is not war
fuck politics folks - it is our yoke and it is bullshit theory that we "together" make it work
that's a lie and a damn lie
my solution for the entire gang of pols in this country involves a lot of rusty piano wire, broken glass and a barrel of industrial strength rectal suppositories
Re: obummer - I keep expecting his lizard tongue to slither on and out of his mOuth on live tv one of these days. The more i learn about wash dc and these current politicians the more I think David Icke might be on to something!
Icke gets more credible as the years roll on and the only one putting it ALL together.
I agree, JESSIA and MTDON. Icke may have some crazy whacked-out ideas, but he has softened a lot of those in recent years, especially the bit about the reptilians. More importantly, though, FAR too many people dismiss him entirely because of those particular views and refuse to acknowledge the other 98% of what he says, which is ALL starting to come true. More people need to listen to what he has to say. By the way . . . there is a 45-minute documentary out there, entitled "David Icke: Was He Right?" Have you seen it?
I've been reading Icke for ten years or so. My first reaction was to throw the book across the room. Eventually it all made sense. Then I began thinking the reptilian schtick was his insurance policy, to continue saying that other 98% and not get whacked for it. THEN I considered the possibility of other sentient creatures with whom we share this Earth (perhaps in different "frequency domains" but still part of Earth; like the many channels on the same TV set), and something very much like reptilians seems possible afterall (and elves,dwarves,faeries, angels, demons, gods, goddesses, "alien" greys, etc, etc...).
I think they are announcing their detailed "return" to our frequency domain with the crop circles.
Not that one, but have viewed many others and was very fortunate to hear him speak in Weed, CA, for 7 hours on a very hot day. Totally riveting.
"my solution for the entire gang of pols in this country involves a lot of rusty piano wire, broken glass and a barrel of industrial strength rectal suppositories"
I'm not convinced even those would do the trick.
Medmedude is making a mistake to blame the voting citizens for the corruption of our government. It is our political system and our method of funding campaigns that is the problem. First we are limited to only two choices. This is enforced by the major media and the two corporate political parties. No one but a D or an R can even get their name in what passes for 'news' in our press. Nader has gone to court to prove Democratic party worked hard to keep his name off the ballot.
It is not that the politicians are raised to be corporate lackeys. They may have started out with a desire to represent the people and to improve our government---but that does not get you elected. You need millions of dollars to buy TV ads. That money comes from the corporate elite---you know, the top 1% of the wealthiest people in our nation. These people bought our government fair and square. (Well, it is fair in their minds, they get their money's worth) This is in no way democratic.
I'm one of those people Chris Hedges talks about. I've been out there with my cardboard sign for decades. A few weeks ago I went to a peace demonstration---a big one in San Francisco---wow!! there were about THIRTY people in attendance. I wore a T shirt and my grandson (21 years old) saw the date of my Bring the Troops home shirt and said, "Wow! Nana, that shirt is older than me!"
As long as we have the two party system and corporate funding of the elections the future looks very dim and scary. To change this you must resolve NEVER TO VOTE FOR EITHER A DEM OR A PUB. We must open up space for new political parties to form. We don't have much time. The war on Libya is coming.
I hope Nader runs again, but I can understand why he may not. The people in control of this nation kill people who threaten their control. John Kennedy was killed by a 'lone crazed gunman as was his brother Bobby Kennedy and the 'lone crazed gunman' who shot 18 bullets without reloading his 8 bullet gun? A lone crazed gun man got Martin Luther King and Malcolm X too. Hey, a lone crazed gun man got Lincoln too! And Garfield. Nader has reason to be concerned.
WANT REAL: Fine points. I have tried to lay several of these influences out at various times, too. In spite of the glaring evidence, some prefer to return to the easier meme of just blaming all those dumb American citizens. Ironically, by this device, they need not examine the mechanisms in place to ensure the same political Catch-22 outcomes. Unless they are seeking an excuse to rouse violence as their answer to the status quo?
Our "winner-take-all" electoral system makes it nearly impossible for any Third Party to have a realistic chance of contending for ANY positions in Congress, let alone the White House.
Since the corporate whores in Congress control legislation, all chances of a better syetem, such as instant run-off used in many other nations, are DOA.
Ed,
Even if we had a substantial Third Party in the United States, a close examination of the European experience where third, fourth, and even fifth parties receive substantial support at the polls shows that these parties are largely indistinguishable from the major parties on either side of them. Political scientists find that they can easily classify these third, fourth or fifth parties as largely emphasizing either liberal or conservative values.
These observations emphasize the point that you make that our elected officials are the whores of the corporate pimps who control government in the United States.
It looks like their multi-party system still gets trumped by independent central bankers. When it's time to vote on a policy question, or a piece of legislation, there are only two parties; that group which votes "yes" on the proposal, and that other group which votes "no": the Y's and the N's, at the time of each vote.
ED wrote:
Our "winner-take-all" electoral system makes it nearly impossible for any Third Party to have a realistic chance of contending for ANY positions in Congress, let alone the White House.
Since the corporate whores in Congress control legislation, all chances of a better syetem, such as instant run-off used in many other nations, are DOA.
- - - - -
My Reply:
Ed,
Thanks for you comment. However, the choice of voting procedure is actually made at the state level by state legislatures. This improves the chances for success substantially in some states if large numbers of people actually decide that they are really willing to fight to establish genuine democracy in their state and their country.
However, both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting are preferential voting procedures. As a consequence neither of these two voting procedures is even capable of passing the "We Hate Them" test.
You can make up a version of this test yourself providing that you describe people's opinions in a way that makes it possible to also describe someone confronted by the "lesser of two evil" dilemma.
Consider this very simple example for instance.
Everybody prefers Candidate A to Candidate B, but at the same time everybody dislikes and opposes both Candidate A and Candidate B.
If just one person votes that person will vote for Candidate A and Candidate A wins no matter if Plurality Voting or Instant Runoff Voting is used. If no one votes it's a tie. That is the best you can do under this particular circumstance with Plurality Voting or Instant Runoff Voting, a tie.
But neither Plurality Voting nor Instant Runoff Voting will tell you the truth that all of the voters, or perhaps only a majority of the voters, or perhaps only more voters than like the two candidates, actually hate the two candidates.
This is called manufacturing the appearance of consent.
Supposing there is just one person who prefers Candidate B to Candidate A and likes and supports Candidate B and everybody knows it. Then some people who prefer Candidate A to Candidate B but hate both candidates are going to be tempted to vote for the "lesser of two evils" because they have strong reasons to believe the person who prefers Candidate B will vote for Candidate B, and then of course we are screwed.
Of course, people who prefer Candidate A to Candidate B but hate both could kidnap the person who prefers Candidate B during the voting period, or worse simply kill the person who prefers Candidate B. But people really shouldn't be pushed to such desperate measures in a democratic society, simply because of the severe limitations of the voting procedure used in elections. But we do not live in a democratic society and both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting are just one part of the problem.
There are many other versions of the "We Hate Them Test". My favorite demonstrates that even if you add a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option to Plurality Voting or a "None of the Others" (NOTO) option to Instant Runoff Voting that both these two voting procedures will still at times elect one of the two candidates to office even though both of the two candidates are disliked and opposed by a majority of the voters.
The conseqences of restricting each voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association when voters cast their votes at the ballot box, and that is really what Plurality Voting and to a somewhat lesser extent Instant Runoff Voting do restrict freedom of speech and political association, the consequences are enormous and extend far beyond the "We Hate Them" test.
Yes, Plurality Voting is worse. But both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting prohibit voters from voting "No" directly against individual candidates on the ballot; and therefore both these two voting procedures favor candidates who may have little support from the voters but have huge amounts of support from wealthy people willing to contribute money in all the ways that it is possible to contribute money in order to get their candidate on the ballot and ensure that "suitable" candidates are almost always elected.
Fortunately, there are two consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedures called Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting which actually empower voters in the manner appropriate to the sovereign boss that voters are supposed to be in a democracy. Basically, both these two voting procedures determine whether or not there is a election winner in a manner very similar to that commonly used to hire someone for a job.
Now, image that!
Aren't all those elected officials supposed to be public servants working for us.
Of course, the power given the voters by democratic voting procedures based upon expressions of consent and dissent like Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting can still be overwhelmed by enormous amounts of propaganda.
This is called manufacturing actual consent (through brainwashing).
Fair and free democratic elections are not possible unless there is some reasonable control over the expenditure of money used for the purpose of disseminating political speech.
Despite what the U.S. Supreme Court may say, such regulation and control if fairly implemented does not violate anyone's free speech rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts needs only to think a little more deeply upon the comment in his concurring Citizens United opinion about the guy on a soap box or the lonely pamphleteer and realize that preventing someone from spending millions of dollars promoting and disseminating the political speech of his or her choice in no way prevents that person from getting up on that soap box or standing on a corner and passing out pamphlets, or standing on a corner with a laptop and showing the "Hillary" documentary movie or some other movie just like the rest us. The Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling violated the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
What are we going to do about that? A Constitutional Amendment to abolish corporate personhood or something more directly target at the real issue surrounding freedom of speech, freedom of political association, and the expenditure of money to disseminate speech or both?
Many of the problems of voting systems can be addressed, it voters are not limited to manichean choices: ie, yes vs no. Instead of being forced to vote yes or no, either or, voters should be able to vote based on a scale. Say 0 to 10, or -10 to 10.
That way, you can measure degree of agreement, degree of (dis)like.
rfloh wrote:
Many of the problems of voting systems can be addressed, it voters are not limited to manichean choices: ie, yes vs no. Instead of being forced to vote yes or no, either or, voters should be able to vote based on a scale. Say 0 to 10, or -10 to 10.
That way, you can measure degree of agreement, degree of (dis)like.
- - - - -
My Reply:
You are right, for the most part. But we shouldn't use numbers to label the scale and the scale shouldn't be so large.
Category scales are used in questionaires and surveys in order to give meaning to the scale beyond the meaning that a number can give by assigning verbal labels such as "Most Opposed", "Opposed", "No Comment", "Support", Most Support" to the points on the scale.
In fact this particular set of category scale labels is a good choice for use in Category Scale Power Voting ballots, because these labels let voters know what they need to do to directly express their degree of opposition or support about each and every individual candidate on the ballot.
Some sixty or more years ago research was done that indicates category scales are most reliable (meaning that the results are most reproducible), if the scale used provides no more than 5 to 7 degrees of expression, which is why category scales used in questionaires and surveys for the most part have provided no more than 5 degrees of expression for decades.
Because a government, and by definition democratic government, should not be about the arbitrary exercise of power whether that power is wielded by a dictator or a group of voters, the scale used in voting procedures should provide no more than 5 degrees of expression.
Although most people have five fingers on each hand which is why the most natural and commonly used number system is base ten, the human brain when "eyeballing" various kinds of measurements or while making complex (rotten?) "apples and oranges" and lemons type evaluations and comparisons among candidates, which are necessarily made without the aid of a standard measuring stick, can't reliably and reproducibly sort items or candidates into ten (or eleven) or twenty (or twenty-one) or one hundred (or one hundred and one), or whatever more categories. More is not necessarily better.
This is enough, however, to radically increase the freedom of speech and freedom of political association, and therefore the political power exercised by each and every individual voter.
The method used to aggregate or "add together" what all the voters have said about the candidates on the ballot in a Category Scale Power Voting election was derived from Yes No ' Maybe So' Voting and focuses on consent and dissent or support and opposition first, and then uses the information provided by voters as a candidate grading scale if necessary in order to select a winner from acceptable candidates.
Coincidentatlly, this process is similar to how a hiring manager or boss might look at a group of applications for a job. The resumés or job applications are first each looked at individually, nowadays often by a computer program, and job applicants or candidates are accepted and put on a short list for further consideration or rejected outright.
Then the final choice is made from the short list of job applicants or candidates, if in fact there are any job applicant or candidates on the short list.
This is a somewhat simplified description of how an election outcome is determine when Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting is used. The actual method automatically makes a second attempt at finding candidates for the short list if none were found the first time and includes appropriate rules for handling write-in candidates. While a write-in candidate may win an election outright, provisions for write-in candidates also provide a mechanism for getting new candidates on the ballot for a second election in case no one is elected the first time because no candidate has adequate support from the voters.
Unlike Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting, and Borda Count neither Yes No 'Maybe So Voting or Category Scale Power Voting will elect a candidate who is opposed by more voters than support that candidate.
It is appropriate that a voting procedure used to elect people to government office in single-member district elections including elections for governor and president provide results that are consistent with the consent of the governed and are arrived at in a manner similar to that used to hire people for a job.
Afterall, our elected representatives and government officials are supposed to be public servants engaged in public service working on our behave in our best interests.
I will post sample Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting ballots so that folks can get a better sense of how these two voting procedures works.
Regards,
Peter K. Harrell
P.S. See PuffinThrush at Jul 6 2011 – 5:50 pm in this thread for sample ballots.
medmedude,
Well said.
But remember the masses have been subjected to a world class PR campaign.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/07/01/the-tentacles-of-megas-reaching-from-the-government-to-the-emasculated-watchdogs/
First off, thank you for the Carlin quote. I was repeatedly and mercilessly attacked for being "reactionary" by other "revolutionary" CDers for saying exactly what Carlin said so correctly, LOL.
Secondly, the ever refreshing Carlin quote is completely lost in your own comment. what gives?
As the "sheeple" are too stupid to take part in government, what is that you propose - a meritocracy of smart people like yourself?
You are entitled to your opinions, obviously, even one that demeans what Winston Churchill noted as "....the worst form of government except for all the others". That you are ,apparently, embittered and filled with hopelessness is, in the end, your own problem.
Democracy is indeed at the mercy of the voters, uninformed voters make uniformed and generally poor choices, yet you offer nothing in the way of solution, only extreme antipathy. Most, I hope, come here to do more than this, much more.
Defeatism is irresponsible.
I understand why NADER will 'not run' again. The problem is the people - the voters - the citizens. The government would permit him to be a candidate. It is the people who must change. NADER is smart enough to recognize the fact that the people don't really want change.
I will continue to vote for him - for many reasons. He is the smartest most ethical Statesman I have ever known. None out there even compare to him. He has a long history that none can match. Politicians continue to disrespect him. A day or two ago, Sen Leahey stated on a radio broadcast that Nader cost the dems the election and caused Bush to be elected. Lies, misinformation continue.
In spite of it all, Nader continues to be a force. He continues to try to teach those who don't want to learn. Thanks Ralph. You will continue to be hero to many of us. Take your vitamins. I intend to write you in in the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that..............
Cynthia McKinney can TOTALLY compare with him.
But what difference would it make if Nader or McKinney by some freak of serendiptious events were to be elected President IF we still have the two establishment oriented parties dominating Congress.
We've got to organize at the state and the Congressional level with committed, viable candidates. We can't just operate at the Presidential level.
Like Nader says, this means organizing.
LibWing, very well said.
I've never understood the point of putting so much money and energy into trying to get a true progressive elected president ... when most Americans wouldn't recognize a true progressive if they saw one, and if one were elected he/she would be rendered ineffective anyway by a traditional Congress of D's and R's (as you point out).
It's much more sensible, in my opinion, to run quality Green and Socialist candidates at the local level (city council, state legislature, Congressional district), where they can actually win some seats, be visible, make noise, exercise some political leverage, and work their way up from there.
If you can't get third-party wins for city council or state legislative or U.S. House of Rep seats in notoriously "liberal Democratic" districts across this broad and diverse country of ours, I'm sorry, but you sure as hell aren't going to win the electoral votes of Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina in a national presidential election.
As you point out, that means organizing. And lots of hard work. And the patience to recognize you won't win all your victories overnight.
Nader has been running for president since 1996.
That's nearly a generation, dude.
Yes, it is a generational project. That is a problem, only if you think that you can change anything via some magic pill, via some glamourous shortcuts. There are not shortcuts, there are no magic pills, there are no magic wands.
It does not matter whether you have the "luxury" of time. Also, lacking large overwhelming force (money, numbers), a project, a struggle spread out over time, is the only way, since everyone is subject to the same rules, to the same laws, in terms of time.
maciek (in response to Donny-Don) wrote:
Problem with that route is that it's a generational project.
We no longer have the luxury of time. The current level of unemployment exceeds 16% and will continue to rise as the PTB raids our pensions, outsources jobs, and offshores investments.
- - - - -
maciek (in response to rfloh) wrote:
The 'magic pill' is a pissed, united on issues and activated public. Watch the PIIGS.
* * * *
My Reply:
Yes, "a pissed, united on issues and activated public. Watch the PIIGS" and even people in UK and elsewhere around the planet.
But establishing genuine (political) democracy must also be among their most important priorities!
rosemarie jackowski wrote:
A day or two ago, Sen Leahey stated on a radio broadcast that Nader cost the dems the election and caused Bush to be elected. Lies, misinformation continue.
- - - - -
My Reply:
Hi rosemarie jackowski,
I remember from a previous post that you support the Liberty Union Party in Vermont and I expect by extension the Socialist Party and maybe even the Progressive Party.
I had the pleasure of living in the Northeast Kingdom in Derby Line on the border with Quebec for nearly a year. Unfortunately, I am currently living elsewhere and am no longer in Vermont or even New England.
In any case what I wanted to say in reply to your comments was this. Anyone who blames Ralph Nader and Green Party voters for Al Gore's failure to win an outright victory in Florida in the 2000 Presidential Election has to also blame Plurality Voting, which was the voting procedure used in the election.
While Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) would have made a difference in Florida in 2000, IRV is seriously flawed and will produce election results that violate the consent of the governed (see PuffinThrush at Jul 5 2011 - 12:22am and my Reply to a Reply at Jul 6 2011 - 7:13am in this thread), and essentially contributes to the manufacture of the appearance of consent on the part of the voters.
What is needed is a consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting not Instant Runoff Voting as a replacement for Plurality Voting.
Just one possiblity that would have been provided by either Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting if one of these techniques was used in the 2000 Presidential Election would have been for you or other Ralph Nader supporters to vote in support of Ralph Nader and at the same time vote in opposition to George Bush. There are several variations on this kind of vote including adding your direct expression of support for or opposition to Al Gore by more fully specifying your vote accordingly.
There are many people in the United States and around the world who want change. Not everyone wants change, of course. But many people do.
The problem is that we desperately need massive and comprehensive change and we need this change in the very near future. Most of the people who recognize this are understandibly uncertain how to go about bringing about such change given the grim prospects for success and the obvious personal risks that could be involved.
In any case keep up the good work. Are you planning on running for office again in Vermont?
Actually, I think Nader allowed his ego to over-ride his tactical thinking when he stood against - and denied success to - Al Gore. It is - of course - impossible to say just how a Gore presidency might have turned out but when we remember the actual alternative the US and the world got - Bush - then it is real hard to understand what Nader was thinking !! By all means, fight the good fight - but, sometimes, you need to be real careful about what fights you get into. Pyrrhic victories help no one.
John Dowdle,
I certainly didn't trust George W. Bush while he was campaigning for president and I was concerned about who Bush would nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court. I thought George W. Bush was clearly much worse than Al Gore. But did you really think that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were going to be as terrible as they turned out to be?
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took immorality, corruption, and demagoguery in government to a distinctly higher level.
Hell, they even flaunted it!
Since you blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's failure to win an outright victory in Florida in 2008, then you must accept that Purality Voting was also to blame for an election outcome which gave the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to select George W. Bush as president.
If you believe that democracy is important then you should support the replacement of Plurality Voting by a consent / dissent grading scale voting procedure such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting.
You need to help make voting safe for democracy!
- -
Sample Ballots: See PuffinThrush at Jul 6 2011 - 5:50pm in this thread.
Voting Procedure Discussion: See PuffinThrush at Jul 5 2011 - 12:22am and my Reply to a Reply at Jul 6 2011 - 7:13am in this thread.
That some still believe this canard, which is wrong on so many levels and has been accurately opposed so many times and with so much accuracy and acumen,is unfortunate.
You are, of course, free to believe any damn thing you choose, things like Gore should have run unopposed, or Gore didnt lose because he failed to carry his own damn state, or Nader had no constitutional right to run, or Gore cost himself the election by refusing the aid of Clinton, or that Donna Brazile was wrong when she blamed herself not Nader, or whatever false paradigms comes to mind.
Chris Hedges' piece omits entirely the US first-past-the-post electoral system, which by it's very nature, empowers a two-party structure. In said system, only two things matter, money and votes...and that has been so since the Roman republic. Unless one of the two corrupt 'major' parties is supplanted & dies, as happened to the Federalists & Whigs, the current duopoly will remain; and such an enterprise will take, at the minimum, decades. Unfortunately, it appears as if very few (including the denezins of this site) possess the patience and wherewithal to do such. Thus, Hedges' call will go unheeded unless he and others like him deal realistically with the 800 lbs. electoral system gorilla in the room.
Quite right. I don't know how Hedges and Nader expect to gain "leverage" by siphoning off "5 to 8 million votes" and flushing them down the one-flush drain of a losing "progressive third-party candidate." Maybe Nader thinks if he'd gotten that many votes, Gore or Kerry or Obama would have invited him into the Oval Office to tell them what to do. It sure doesn't work that way when Bush wins, and if Obama wins without you, it means he doesn't need you.
Progressive votes need to be organized independently of the Democratic Party, but then throw their independently organized weight into the fray of the Democratic primary nominating process and the power play of real politics. That is the only way to have any influence at all, and if there are even half as many self-conscious progressives out there as it would take to win through a third party, there are more than enough to take over the Democratic Party.
So it would appear as if you are advocating doing what the Christian right did with the GOP during the 70's & 80's, and take over the Democratic party from within, starting at the local level. To do such would entail recruiting, training, and sustaining a determined cadre who are in it to win it for the long haul. In this ADHD-addled age, that is quite the task. Also, whom is willing to fund a long-term effort like this a la the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Coors family, etc. , did with the GOP beyond George Soros?
Gubrud points to how to really make a difference: "Organize independently of the Democratic Party, then throw the independently organized weight into the fray of the Democratic primary nominating process and the power play of real politics." This is the only way to make any kind of significant difference but it takes organization and leadership to get everyone on the left to work together where they can without insisting on agreement in every detail, avoiding the endless negativity and tiresome talk about needing a third party (at last count California already had seven on a recent ballot).
The left needs to see a strong leader to create a real, full, coalition, brainstorm a list of possible presidential candidates (I would love to see such a list now) and set about working for him/her as an alternative to Obama. I worked and raised money for Obama's election and feel betrayed and hope to be able to work for someone in whom I could have real hope but am through holding my nose and voting for the lesser of evils.
I'm sorry, Chris, but I think that promoting mass protests are a proven failure. They may have helped end segregation but that situation was different. Mass protests are a bubble, such as the worldwide massive protests against the invasion of Iraq, and simply ignored or lead to repression.
come on smitty,chris said if you think that showing up at one mass protest&then going home to live your life will change anything,it wont!!!!what is needed is for poeple,who see the gravity of whats happening to realize that,like the protests/civil disobedience of the 60s&70s,it took over 10yre of constant protests to end segregation&the vietnam war and if we can start&keep a real revolution going for as long as it takesWE CAN DESTROY THIS CABAL OF COWARDS&FOOLS!!secondly,after chris's call to arms,why are so many comments about the unfixable,corrupt election process,it's over&done with&unfixable,so lets move on to getting organized&out there,now,this summer,times awaisting talking,talking on the net,the time for talk is over,enough already,the time for real action is now!!!!!!!
Protests like in the 60s/70s, or prior to the invasion of Iraq, or in Seattle are worse than a waste of time for the loss of energy that could be used for organizing and what I would encourage the left to do if I were trying to interfere with their effectiveness (and what I read that the right is actively doing). Massive protests lead to DeGaulle in 1968 and then Nixon. If you think that Vietnam protests were successful, with another 1-3 million dead, what would failure have looked like?
Republicans gained the power and influence they have today by organizing, not by singing songs and waving banners, much less looting stores. Why can't the left learn from experience???
then stay home !!
Posted by smitty88
Protests like in the 60s/70s, or prior to the invasion of Iraq, or in Seattle are worse than a waste of time for the loss of energy that could be used for organizing and what I would encourage the left to do if I were trying to interfere with their effectiveness (and what I read that the right is actively doing). Massive protests lead to DeGaulle in 1968 and then Nixon. If you think that Vietnam protests were successful, with another 1-3 million dead, what would failure have looked like?
Republicans gained the power and influence they have today by organizing, not by singing songs and waving banners, much less looting stores. Why can't the left learn from experience???
- - - - -
My Reply:
Ok, smitty88. So, please spend a significanty large amount of your organizing time in efforts directed at establishing genuine democracy in the United States.
This should include replacing Plurality Voting with either Yes No' Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting, since Plurality Voting is undemocratic and given the existence of these two alternatives is also unconstitutional,
(For more details see PuffinThrush at Jul 5 2011 - 12:22am and my Reply to a Reply at Jul 6 2011 - 7:13am in this thread.)
smitty88 (in support of Gubrud) wrote:
Gubrud points to how to really make a difference: "Organize independently of the Democratic Party, then throw the independently organized weight into the fray of the Democratic primary nominating process and the power play of real politics." This is the only way to make any kind of significant difference but it takes organization and leadership to get everyone on the left to work together where they can without insisting on agreement in every detail, avoiding the endless negativity and tiresome talk about needing a third party (at last count California already had seven on a recent ballot).
- - - -
My Reply:
Both the organize outside the Democratic Party then compete within the Democratic Party in party primaries strategy Gubrud described and a third party compete with the Democratic Party and Republican Party in the general election strategy would be more effective and even mutually reinforcing if Plurality Voting were replaced by a consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting in both primary elections and general elections.
(For more details see PuffinThrush at Jul 5 2011 - 12:22am and my Reply to a Reply at Jul 6 2011 - 7:13am in this thread.)
The point has been to achieve 5 percent of the popular vote so that a third party (in this case the Green Party) would be eligible for millions of dollars in federal matching funds in the subsequent election cycle. That is real leverage.
and also automatic ballot access for subsequent elections in most states, which was a more important goal for Nader's original Green campaign.
And that is the strategy that failed the Greens in that campaign. Great idea in Spring of 2000 when it appeared the Blue candidate would be a shoe-in. Bad idea by fall of 2000 when the "race" appeared to be "getting close". The "spoiler" B.S. reared its head and everything came crashing down.
Perot's people did a better job, but even their success just fizzled or was absorbed by the Red Party in around a decade after 1992.
5% Prez results based strategies may work if one could combine 1992 Perot's $ with the 2000-era Greens' Youth Appeal and boundry-pusher reputation. Otherwise it is a mistake that has been made before and should be avoided next year or after.
matti (in response to drone) wrote:
And that is the strategy that failed the Greens in that campaign. Great idea in Spring of 2000 when it appeared the Blue candidate would be a shoe-in. Bad idea by fall of 2000 when the "race" appeared to be "getting close". The "spoiler" B.S. reared its head and everything came crashing down.
Perot's people did a better job, but even their success just fizzled or was absorbed by the Red Party in around a decade after 1992.
5% Prez results based strategies may work if one could combine 1992 Perot's $ with the 2000-era Greens' Youth Appeal and boundry-pusher reputation. Otherwise it is a mistake that has been made before and should be avoided next year or after.
* * * * *
My Reply:
matti,
Well times do change
The 2010 enthusiasm gap suggests that more and more people believe, that particularly at the national level Democrats and Republicans simply aren't that different. This is especially true of Barack Obama.
Ross Perot had a lot of money to spend but raising money is somewhat easier now given the Internet, at the same time that it is harder and / or maybe easier now given that so many people have lost money and jobs because of the support by both Democrats and Repulicans for wealthy people and large corporations in the class war being waged against them.
People need to support Green Party candidates with their money if they have some to spare and with their votes in 2012.
People also need to support the establishment of genuine democracy in the United States which includes supporting the replacement of Plurality Voting with Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting so that the "mistake" as you described it made by Green voters in the fall of 2000 is an impossible "mistake" to make.
Supporting a candidate that the voter actually likes instead of a "lesser of two evils" candidate becomes an impossible "mistake" to make, because voters can directly support a Ralph Nader while they directly oppose a George Bush, and at the same time at the last minute can still decide whether or not they also want to support an Al Gore or instead oppose him. What is more voters can make this last minute decision about an Al Gore without relinquishing their support for a Ralph Nader and their opposition to a George Bush no matter how they choose to vote about Al Gore.
The "voting splitting" caused by Plurality Voting that gives rise to the "spoiler effect" is eliminated by Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting.
See PuffinThrush at Jul 5 2011 - 12:22am and my Reply to a Reply at Jul 6 2011 - 7:13am in this thread,
I will post some sample ballots too for your friends at the local bar, although these ballots will consist only of text, no images.
P.S. See PuffinThrush at Jul 6 2011 – 5:50 pm in this thread for sample ballots.
There's lots of different electoral systems being used all around the world. None of them have stopped global capital from raping the masses.
Thank you for the statistics. The smearing of those who state the obvious as "Commies " or Leftists" stems from the Duopoly that seeks to maintain the status quo by smearing any and all movements that seek to steal a bit of power. I think that whatever label you may coin for an opposition to the corporate rule that is the two party system the result will be the same, smear tactics.
Ironic that we "lefties" are actually expressing the will of the majority of Americans isnt it? The solution seems to me to be attached to the downward spiraling economic disaster that is the death throes of Capitalism. I find this unfortunate as it seems not to lead to peaceful change but to something else again. When unemployment reaches twenty percent the direction we "commies" suggest might begin to seem more attractive and the smearing less effective. Sad really.
I will continue to vote third party, and hopefully , if more and more do so the two party system may attempt to woo lost voters back with a move towards centrism from the right wing that now is called the center. Or perhaps the Greens will attain a handful of legislators who, in a rather evenly divided House and Senate, will have more of an effect than mere numbers might indicate.
So true, and I noticed the folks who were in the streets massively in Spain in the video on your Mosquito Cloud site were all young.
I hope the rally in DC is successful but I wonder if it will be the usual crowd of us old activists mainly.
Maybe it can encourage big turnouts of youth, and I think after the next election folks will be getting ready to say enough is enough.
But like Ralph seemed to suggest, after the demonstration is over even if it is peaceful and large, the silence from the press is only broken by reports of "What good did it do?" since the system will remain the same.
We are not broke enough for real change yet... but when we say "time is running out", we also mean we will be broke enough for real change soon.
It is harder for said 'global capital' to do their voodoo in nations with a parliamentary system that allows for more than two parties, such as most of continental Europe. While the robbing still occurs, the share extracted is nowhere near as much as elite corporate robbers get in the USA. This is reflected in the important socio-political statistic: wealth distribution.