EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution
He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start.
There are few things as maddening in a maddening political season as the warm and fuzzy feelings some progressives evince for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican presidential candidate. "The anti-war Republican," people say, as if that's good enough.
But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican. He's the John Birch Society's favorite congressman. And he's a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you're a member of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I can see how he'd be your guy.
Paul first drew the attention of progressives with his vocal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Coupled with the Texan's famous call to end the Federal Reserve, that somehow rendered him, in the eyes of the single-minded, the GOP's very own Dennis Kucinich. Throw in Paul's opposition to the drug war and his belief that marriage rights should be determined by the states, and Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people with privilege adequate enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)
Ron Paul's anti-war stance, you see, comes not from a cry for peace, but from the deeply held isolationism of the far right. Some may say that, when it comes to ending the slaughter of innocents, the ends justify the means. But, in the case of Ron Paul, the ends involve trading the rights and security of a great many Americans for the promise of non-intervention.
Here's a list -- by no means comprehensive -- of Ron Paul positions and associates that should explain, once and for all, why no self-respecting progressive could possibly sidle up to Paul.
1) Ron Paul on Race
Based on his religious adherence to his purportedly libertarian principles, Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unlike his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Paul has not even tried to walk back from this position. In fact, he wears it proudly. Here's an excerpt from Ron Paul's 2004 floor speech about the Civil Rights Act, in which he explains why he voted against a House resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the law:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
He also said this: "[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."
Ron Paul also occasionally appears at events sponsored by the John Birch Society, the segregationist right-wing organization that is closely aligned with the Christian Reconstructionist wing of the religious right.
In 2008, James Kirchick brought to light in the pages of the New Republic a number of newsletters with Paul's name in the title -- Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter -- that contained baldly racist material, which Paul denied writing.
At NewsOne, Casey Gane-McCalla reported a number of these vitriolic diatribes, including this, on the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”
In a related piece, Jon C. Hopwood of Yahoo!'s Associated Content cites a Reuters report on Paul's response to the TNR story, which came in the form of a written statement:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
2) Ron Paul on Reproductive Rights
The sponsor of a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul's libertarianism does not apply to women, though it does apply to zygotes. His is a no-exceptions anti-abortion position, essentially empowering a rapist to sire a child with a woman of his choosing. Although Paul attributes his stance on abortion to his background as an ob-gyn physician, it should be noted that most ob-gyns are pro-choice, and that Paul's draconian position tracks exactly with that of his Christian Reconstructionist friends.
While mainstream media, when they're not busy ignoring his presidential campaign in favor of the badly trailing former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, invariably focus on Paul's economic libertarianism, Sarah Posner, writing for the Nation, noted that during his appearances leading up to the Iowa straw poll (in which Paul finished second only to Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minn., by a 200-vote margin), "launched into gruesome descriptions of abortion, a departure from his stump speech focused on cutting taxes, shutting down the Federal Reserve, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and repealing the Patriot Act."
3) Ron Paul on LGBT People
While it's true that Paul advocates leaving it to the states to determine whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, it's not because he's a friend to LGBT people. Paul's position on same-sex marriage stems from his beliefs about the limits of the federal government's role vis-a-vis his novel interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, a newsletter called the Ron Paul Poltiical Report, unearthed by Kirchick, shows Paul on a rant against a range of foes and conspiracies, including "the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS," to which Paul parenthetically adds, "my training as a physician helps me see through this one." The passage, which also portends a "coming race war in our big cities," complains of the "perverted" and "pagan" annual romp for the rich and powerful known as Bohemian Grove, and takes aim at the "demonic" Skull and Bones Society at Yale, not to mention the "Israeli lobby," begins with the paranoid claim, "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me."
While Paul denied, in 2001, writing most of the scurrilous material that ran, without attribution, in newsletters that bore his name in the title, this passage, according to Jon Hopwood, bears Paul's byline.
4) Ron Paul Calls Social Security Unconstitutional, Compares it to Slavery
Earlier this year, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Paul declared both Social Security and Medicare to be unconstitutional, essentially saying they should be abolished for the great evil that they are -- just like slavery. Here's the transcript, via ThinkProgress:
["FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS] WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse—that very notion that you're presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, it's not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal, too, and we had to reverse that.
5) Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionists and the John Birch Society
The year 2008 was a telling one in the annals of Ron Paul's ideology. For starters, it was the year in which he delivered the keynote address at the 50th anniversary gala of the John Birch Society, the famous anti-communist, anti-civil-rights organization hatched in the 1950s by North Carolina candy magnate Robert Welch, with the help of Fred Koch, founder of what is now Koch Industries, and a handful of well-heeled friends. The JBS is also remembered for its role in helping to launch the 1964 presidential candidacy of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., and for later backing the segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace in his 1968 third-party presidential bid.
The semi-secular ideology of the John Birch Society -- libertarian market and fiscal theory laced with flourishes of cultural supremacy -- finds its religious counterpart, as Fred Clarkson noted, in the theonomy of Christian Reconstructionism, the right-wing religious-political school of thought founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. The ultimate goal of Christian Reconstructionists is to reconstitute the law of the Hebrew Bible -- which calls for the execution of adulterers and men who have sex with other men -- as the law of the land. The Constitution Party constitutes the political wing of Reconstructionism, and the CP has found a good friend in Ron Paul.
When Paul launched his second presidential quest in 2008, he won the endorsement of Rev. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist pastor who travels in Christian Reconstructionist circles, though he is not precisely a Reconstructionist himself (for reasons having to do with his interpretation of how the end times will go down). When Paul dropped out of the race, instead of endorsing Republican nominee John McCain, or even Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Paul endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin (who promised, in his acceptance speech, to uphold the Constitution Party platform, which looks curiously similar to the Ron Paul agenda, right down to the no-exceptions abortion proscription and ending the Fed).
At his shadow rally that year in Minneapolis, held on the eve of the Republican National Convention, Paul invited Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist, to address the crowd of end-the-Fed-cheering post-pubescents. (In his early congressional career, Julie Ingersoll writes in Religion Dispatches, Paul hired as a staffer Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist leader and Rushdoony's son-in-law.)
At a "Pastor's Forum" at Baldwin's Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, Paul was asked by a congregant about his lack of support for Israel, which many right-wing Christians support because of the role Israel plays in what is known as premillennialist end-times theology. "Premillennialist" refers to the belief that after Jesus returns, according to conditions on the ground in Israel, the righteous will rule. But Christian Reconstructionists have a different view, believing the righteous must first rule for 1,000 years before Jesus will return.
They also believe, according to Clarkson, "that 'the Christians' are the 'new chosen people of God,' commanded to do what 'Adam in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do...create the society that God requires.' Further, Jews, once the 'chosen people,' failed to live up to God's covenant and therefore are no longer God's chosen. Christians, of the correct sort, now are."
Responding to Baldwin's congregant, Paul explained, "I may see it slightly differently than others because I think of the Israeli government as different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli government doesn't happen to be reflecting God's views. Some of them are atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support... And there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so narrowly defined as only the Jews -- that maybe there's a broader definition of that."
At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: that of the "remnant" left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary North's publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul's keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, explained, "He claimed that the important role the JBS has played was to nurture that remnant and added, 'The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth.'"
Is there a progressive willing to join that fold?
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...
365 Comments so far
Show All__________________________________________
But the ideology of the oligarch's is BOTH neoliberalism AND free market capitalism (and even that doesn't adequately define their "ideology"). Those are not diametrically opposed concepts. The oligarch's don't fully support one and totally reject the other, do they? Paul is more into "free market capitalism" (although no such thing has ever existed in pure form), but he's not 100% against all "neoliberal" policies either, because he's an elitist. He thinks people deserve more because they were BORN (through luck of the draw) with distinct advantages. So he doesn't really mind if some unfairness leaks out in the form of a minor amount of neoliberal economic policies. No, he's not a real threat to the oligarch's economically. It's his anti-imperialism that would cause a cow with a certain segment of the oligarch's.
this is an absolutely silly post. supporting Paul in comparison with, say, Obama, isn't support for his classical conservative economics (which he is; neoliberals are *not* genuinely free-marketers). The people from the left and elsewhere supporting Paul are doing it for two reasons alone; and they aren't stupid, they know what else comes with the package. And no, I'm not supporting Paul. But I totally get why many are, and more power to them. At least they're not being scared back into their obedient Democrat box like others.
Ron Paul does a lot of things right, and a lot of things notably wrong.
Ron Paul actually believes that billionaires should be taxed. This flies in the face of almost all of political Washington these days.
The FDA is requiring every bottle in the nutrition aisle of a health foods store to carry the warning, something like, "This product is not intended to cure any disease", which is a pile of baloney. Every single pill in the store is intended to cure something or other, and every pill manufacturer and shopper knows it. There are immoral diet pill vendors out there but there are also sincere pill manufacturers. If the government is going to lie outright about health food, they might as well also write "In Moloch We Trust" on the dollar bill. Oh wait, that might be arguable.
It's ok to not like the war because propping up a couple of drug lords as "leaders" ultimately won't work.
PaulK wrote:
Ron Paul actually believes that billionaires should be taxed
* * * * *
My Question:
PaulK,
Can you provide a reference for this claim?
Thank you.
"5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution
He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start."
But he's pro-consistency, pro-constitution, pro-facts and pro-evidence, and that's such a relief. One can work from that. It's better to know what the political fronts really are, than relate to serial liars like Obama.
The above article of demagogic screed is unconvincing (note the early claim that "Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement" - when accused that way before any underpinnings are presented, one should not be blackmailed into acquiescing), for mostly seeking to associate Ron Paul with progressive hate-objects.
Sure Ron Paul's a bit old-fashioned. But in a presidency of his there wouldn't be Ron Paul alone - he's actually eager to respect the checks and balances of a representative government which the other politicians are as eager to do away with. There'd be lively political debate, with the best argument winning - if Paul has his way. Such is the impression he gives.
Having disagreement with Paul is far from the same as him not letting the different views take their proper place in proper proportion, if given the chance. Compare that to Obama.
Paul would do his best to neuter the monied elite and bring them in line the constitution - and for that only he'd be better than the crowd. Factor in his anti-military excursions stance, and you have someone who at least sees the real picture - where the US taxpayers' money goes. The other issues are trifles in that context.
I'd take a straight spine any day over the reigning invertebrates.
To expand upon my comment's conclusion, he's a politician so how can we trust him: How do we know he's telling the truth--that he really has a "straight spine"? Yes, he does have a voting record, and he's been re-elected many times with that voting record. Has Paul been caught in any obvious lies that might provide some insight into how he'd behave as president?
Reigning in the monied elite? Isn't it true that libertarians would like to repeal all the federal anti-trust laws? And the minimum wage? And building codes, zoning laws and safety standards for workers? Sure it is, all of it, and a quick google search will take you to libertarian pages that tell you why all that would be so great and fair and just. It would lead to profound human misery, of course, but wow, they sure are consistent.
RP would like to drown every single part of federal gov, except the parts that protect capital and property rights.
"I'd take a straight spine any day over the reigning invertebrates."
Yep, this is Standard Republican Operating Language. Meaning a guy who shoots first and asks questions... well, maybe asks questions. Unlike political opponents/invertebrates that 'fret and care like little girls'. Little Dub 'I'm the Decider' Bush prided himself as having 'a straight spine/being a straight shooter', as did Big Dick 'So What?' Cheney. So this phrase could be taken straight from the Karl Rove playbook.
"Paul would do his best to neuter the monied elite..."
Translation: He would neuter their CONCERNS, as his administration would actually Set The Monied Elite FREE from ANY constraints at all. Let the Holy Market decide! No rules to protect people from grifters and others - so the rich get richer; no taxes from the rich to the people's government and the social contract gets destroyed - so the rich get richer; no help from government against corporate/bankster malfeasance - so the rich get richer! (Isn't Ayn Rand Objectivism/Greed is Good/Rich Get Richer just so much fun?)
Hey, but that's all just Ron Paul's way of saying: "Back to Self-Reliance, assholes! You're on your own! So you'll have to do what it takes. Just print your own damn self-reliant money if you want some! Sell your organs, sell your sex, sell yourselves back into slavery if you have to! And grabbing what you can get away with will be the dog-eat-dog Libertarian way of life as it will be lived under President Ron Paul, just like in the old-fashioned good old days!" Yeah, just like the "old-fashioned" good old days... in the CAVES!
"But he's pro-consistency, pro-constitution, pro-facts and pro-evidence, and that's such a relief..."
Pro-facts? Pro-Constitution? Pro-Consistency? Pro-Evidence? Bush/Cheney claimed the exact same things. Where is Paul's evidence for the stances he takes, as mentioned in this article? There are NO facts, NO evidence, NO Constitutional positions that back up his stances. He holds them as philosophical positions, as an ideology, and his ideology is the ideology of the John Birch Society. I guess that's his consistency. And his constituency.
Why, oh why, do liberals always want to 'just get along' with the other side, see 'the good points' in the opposition, and be cooperative and bipartisan- until they compromise away their entire agenda to the bully side? This is what Obama does. This is what liberal supporters of Ron Paul do.
And even Paul's good 'anti-war' position comes from the ECONOMIC COSTS of war and his extremist idea of non-interference by government, no matter how justified, for any issue (save, of course, those private-choice issues that he disagrees with and thus wants interfered with... see above article), and not from any true moral stand. And when and IF he would bring soldiers home from the wars, and they become the new unemployed in the jobless civilian world, President Ron Paul willl be the first to tell them to, "Go Fish! No help here. Move along. Can't afford you. Here is your pink slip from the USA, now leave the premises... of this country. You've been shitcanned."
In Ron Paul, "...you have someone who at least sees the real picture - where the US taxpayers' money goes. The other issues are trifles in that context."
So where TAX MONEY goes is THE REAL PICTURE? And all other issues are TRIFLES? This is the TEA PARTY LINE, (and yes Ron and Rand Paul are proud Teabaggers!) Yes, it's THE TAX MONEY that is the burning issue of the day... NOT the destruction of the environment, NOT the joblessness and despair in America, NOT the manifold health crises, NOT the homelessness and the TEN MILLION homes facing forclosure today, NOT the privatization of social institutions and our common heritage, NOT the 77 Million families threatened by diminishing government support, NOT the non-intervention of government to solve the energy crises, NOT the hijacking of government by advertising money and the expensive RIGHTWING REPUBLICAN NOISE MACHINE that is the Main Stream Media, NOT the extortion of government by the Teabagger Nuts, NOT the corporate-owned SCOTUS, NOT even the Bush Wars, NOT a PLETHORA of things that seem far, far more important than the stupid, phoney Tea Party Non-crisis of TAX MONEY! As even heartless old Cheney admitted, Deficits don't matter. Unless you can use them to Terrorize voters to vote your way!
So "where tax money goes"... is that THE REAL PICTURE, as Ron Paul appears to believe? NO WAY. Government is not a 'business' and can't be run that way (proof: see the Bush administration) but it is usually pretty darn efficient anyway. The 'Cost' perceived comes from doing what private people wouldn't, couldn't, or shouldn't. And the big debt now is due to the 'Cost' of saving the private ASSES of the banksters and the Capitalist system itself (as well as the cost of the Bush/Cheney Corporate Wars for Oil) So these same people are now COMPLAINING?
What Ingrates... Ingrates like Ron Paul, who praises and promotes, as a Libertarian, that same capitalist/corporate system that is now once again being salvaged by We-the-people's-government at great expense, and who, even as this is happening, denigrates a socialist-style system, as envisioned by FDR and progressives to this day as the only way forward.
"It's better to know what the political fronts really are, than relate to serial liars like Obama."
Hmm.... I thought Ron Paul was a Libertarian. But isn't he now running in Republican sheep's clothing (his pick of facade-party sez something right there) due to POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY? 'Cause, really now, how much pull does the Libertarian Party have anyway? So isn't Ron Paul, RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE, just Another Hypocritical Politician who LIES and 'does what it takes' to get into office?
"He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start." And the Ron Paul contingent essentially says, "Yes, but so what..."
So what? This is why any discussion about Ron Paul as a Progressive's choice for a president is so maddening on a Progressive site. There should be no doubt that Ron Paul (or his offspring Ayn-Rand Paul) is UNACCEPTABLE to fill any political position. The self-evident evidence has been amply presented by Paul himself.
Move on from this idiotic discussion of Ron Paul as a Progressive Choice for anything! Talk about lesser-evilism!
Let's get some REAL Progressive choices being discussed instead! Please!
Or aren't there any?
Nice rant. Let me just get this straight: you think Obama is straight-spined? That he didn't betray around 90 percent of his pre-election promises?
And btw, "where the US taxpayer's money goes" was in reference to the 58 percent in military spending FY 2010.
But stop worrying so much - there's no way Ron Paul will become president. At most, he may freshen up the debate a bit, tilt the issues, e.g. re military spending - which will be a good thing for all but the entrenched elites.
Did you know there's a US group of a few thousand (est. 10,000) Federal Reserve Bank stock-holders who receive a guaranteed (by the 1913 Fed Reserve Bank Act) 6 % annual return on their stock in the Fed, amounting to a subsidy of this small, self-chosen group of some 3 bn USD 2010? - Look it up at Wikipedia "Federal Reserve System": "The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $ 79 billion to the U.S. Treasury." I.e. $ 3 bn divided among est. 10,000 fed-bank stockholders, equals an average of $ 300,000 each annually. And while not outrageous, it's still a nice, secure pension, don't you think? (- I could survive on that...) Add that other "fringe-benefits" of owning this stock is being among the most economically influential people in the world, and having access to those social circles: it means being pretty well cared for, not? - That's a pretty good return for owning some bank stock, these days... - Think about it: parttaking through fed bank stock ownership in ruling the economy, but not needing to worry personally about how the economy develops, due to that annual dividend - arising from people simply using money - is that a healthy system? And the only one, almost, asking hard questions about it is Ron Paul. Isn't that a good thing which deserves some attention?
He's also extremely pro-capitalism.
I take it that you are too, then.
"Paul would do his best to neuter the monied elite and bring them in line the constitution"
LOLOL. ROFPML. RP would do his best to make the monied elite even more powerful. His political philosophy is entirely based on making the monied elite powerful: protection of capital and property rights above all else.
Nice HACK piece on one of the few politicians out there that tell the TRUTH, even if it doesn't conform with the writer's narrow-minded thinking of what life would be like in 'Stanland.'
Crossing your fingers and waiting for another charismatic carnival barker like "Mr. Hope and Change?"
Good luck.
This article is getting a lot more hits than others by far, proof of widespread discontent with Obama probably, and hoping another "representative" will fix things.
We are still placing all our hopes on politicians. Will we ever learn that representative government is designed to be authoritarian, conservative and anti-democratic? That it keeps the people under the boots of oligarchs and commissars?
The old farmer at the end of the third video here did something incredible. He became totally independent of fossil fuels:
http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/Phoenix_Project_Video.html
Having read the arguments for and against Ron Paul, it seems to me that for most people, including the author, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. For many, social issues such as gay marriage, education, social security, and health care, outweigh concerns about the deaths of brown children far far away. I can understand that attitude, but I cannot condone it.
Yes, Ron Paul is a right wing nut, a kook who named his son after an even bigger kook, Ayn Rand (who opposed Medicare, but secretly used it under her real name). Yes, Ron Paul isn't a purest in opposing war. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/paul-j22.shtml
But what is important about Ron Paul is the symbolic message to the MIC -- we the voters oppose you and even though many of us have had to hold our noses, we voted for Paul because we oppose the MIC.
I get the feeling that many of the regular posters to CD will vote for Obama in the end. They talk the moral game, but when they shut the curtain to the voting booth, it will block out the smell of the rotting corpses of Muslim children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, etc.
"I get the feeling that many of the regular posters to CD will vote for Obama in the end."
According to what I read throughout years of the archives, most of them voted Nader or Mckinney. I can't imagine that they'd even think about voting for Obama next year.
I voted for Brian Moore, another antiwar candidate. I suggest voting for the socialist candidate in 2012, as well, if you'd like to cast a symbolic vote (as you state yourself, it's a symbolic message) without having to hold your nose.
FYI, tomcarberry, from Wikipedia:
"Randal Howard Paul[6] was born on January 7, 1963....Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".
It seems to me that far fewer people are likely to be the victims of US militarism under someone with strong conviction like Paul than under Obama. This is one area where the President has a lot of power.
That is not an ideal choice, but I would vote for Paul over Obama if there was no progressive candidate. And if there really is a significant anti-war, anti bank bailout, anti free guns for apartheid states, libertarian contingent out there that Paul is appealing to, I would like to see a more respectful dialogue than this somewhat slimy article with a lot of innuendo and nothing on the plus side. If Paul is such a champion of corporatism, where is the corporate money? He is definitely no friend of the big banks that invented the housing bubble and buy president after president.
There is always a progressive candidate. Believe it or not. You can write in anyone you want! So then the question becomes - why would you NOT write in your personal best choice? Perhaps the most profound question of all, ehh?
To put it another way, do you think you'd benefit more voting elite candidates than voting your personal best choice? I think not!!!
The author doesn't seem to understand that straddling the fence is as Merkan as Apple pie and we ain't about to give up our wild hypocrisy.
Like many posting I am consumed with frustration and anger at the lack of productive ideas and actions emanating from Washington. Let's cut to the chase. There are few politicians will meet all our needs. Should I say there are none. I do not agree with the majority of Doctor Paul's philosophies, but I do agree with his determination to diminish the influence of the MIC. Consider history. In their decline most empires became more militaristic as they waned in their death struggles, expending precious financial resources. That is the position of the United States today and for any recovery and the future well-being of this country and its citizens the tentacles of the empire must be systematically severed. So, regardless of the kookiness of Doctor Paul's other policies, I will support his success in this arena as it is of the utmost importance the empire be closed down, the waste of our young and our capital stopped, restored to revitalizing this country.. But it is interesting how he is being diminished and by whom.
I have known for quite some time that Paul would not be an ideal candidate, but he would still be better than Obama, which stands for militarism, empire, and Wall Street, the primary demons that have led to the destruction of our nation and world.
And where is the progressive alternative? Liberals have demonized Ralph Nader, someone who symbolizes the very progressive views that most of us who read Common Dreams are all about. There doesn’t seem to be a primary challenge to Obama in the offing, so what are we to do?
The reason that Paul is attractive to leftists like myself is that the mainstream "left" in this country is comprised of unprincipled Democratic party loyalists who find a way to defend war and imperial adventures as long as the Democrat is in charge. I will take Paul with all his faults over a morally bankrupt movement that is only interested in attaining power, principles be damned!
Ok, at the risk of getting attacked as "neutral", I'll say this. If it's any consolation to you, you're not really losing any principles by choosing Paul over Obama. You just won't be gaining as many progressive principles with Paul as you would with guys like Nader, Stewart Alexander, Cynthia Mckinney, Matt Gonzalez, etc...
You are right. Me too.
Obama has trashed the Democratic platform.. probably not happenstance.
JK writes:
"The reason that Paul is attractive to leftists like myself is that the mainstream "left" in this country is comprised of unprincipled Democratic party loyalists who find a way to defend war and imperial adventures as long as the Democrat is in charge."
i disagree.
The reason Paul, and any other heroic candidate who we try to believe will stop the horrors of our political economic system, are attractive to anyone, is that by believing candidates and voting will stop the horrors, we continue our day-to-day lives without accepting that WE THE PEOPLE must wrest control of the political economic system.
This is hard, dangerous, dirty, risky work. Unlike pissing about candidates and voting, which is easy, and utterly pointless, except to waste our time and our lives (as intended) and allow us to believe we might change things by pulling a lever every two or four years.
JK writes:
"So what are we to do?"
Talk to your family, your co-workers, your friends, your neighbors. Look at how our lives are tied to this monstrous political economic system - work, education, entertainment, media, the marketplace, taxes, voting, etc.
As a first step, assess where we have power to withdraw support from this system, and reduce our dependence on this system. Put your energy into things that do not feed this system, but instead feed ourselves, our families, our communities.
As a second step, assess all the ways this system is fed, and preys on people and the Earth, and manipulates public awareness. Identify vulnerabilities, weak points where the power of this system, and the people who run it, can be diminished and diverted.
Read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, and think long-term strategy. There's nothing in there about defeating your enemies by participating in imperial electoral charades.
Or, alternatively, we can achieve a lot by denouncing each other for our voting strategies and preferred candidates! The powers-that-be, the power elite, the oligarchy, the establishment - they LOVE it when we spend our time and focus our attention in this way. That's why they put on such a spectacular show for us!
"Read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, and think long-term strategy."
Webwalk, thanks for bringing up that book and I've read it too. It's a very good book and one of the best on eastern thinking and I thought that it was quite an insight into eastern psychology. I can't promise you or anyone that diplomacy is for everyone but neither can I deny the fact that we on the Left will have to unite and organize just like Americans of the early 20th century did. There is one issue with that book though. Authoritarian minds can use it to engage in harmless but hostile takeover. I think that's where people who would otherwise favor diplomacy have shunned it as "good cop bad cop" and I can't blame them on that. I dunno webwalk but after reading the discussions here and on Alternet on this article, I think we're headed for more roughshed ahead.
These "faults" are deadly for a lot of other folks who probably do not look like you. Rather than supporting the Green Party you admire you now turn to this guy? A racist, a misogynist, a homophobic, etc has more appeal? Why is that? Your position has made it amply clear to me that voting really solves nothing in this ill begotten land. The struggle is to completely deconstruct this system that oppresses so many that you are willing to sacrifice. We owe this to the people who have payed the highest price: those whose lives and land were stolen and those still suffering the effects of slavery and racism.
Define "left". Go ahead. I suspect that you cannot define it, since Paul, at heart, is an extreme right winger, and you find him attractive.
"Liberals have demonized Ralph Nader,"
????????
drone wrote:
Dems are definitely vote herding.
* * * * *
My Comment:
These are desperate times. The arguments in this thread reflect that fact.
It's interesting that folks here have moved from arguing over the pros and cons of voting for the "lesser of two evils" to arguing over the pros and cons of voting for the “greater of two evils”, and now more recently to arguing over the pros and cons of voting for Ron Paul's mixture of anti-militarism and right wing social and economic policy.
But what about democracy?
I know we don't have a democracy in the United States.
In a democracy voters would be able to vote directly for or against each and any of the candidates on the ballot, expressing their opinion and exercising political power regarding the individual qualifications of each and every candidate on the ballot separately. This means having the chance to directly oppose or support Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, or any other candidate on the ballot.
After all, elections are supposed to be about determining whether or not any of the candidates on the ballot have received the freely given “consent of the self-governed” from the voters.
“We the People” are supposed to be the ultimate sovereign in a democracy. We are supposed to be the boss.
We should be able to say no directly and unequivocally to any or all of the candidates on the ballot.
Personally, there is no way I am going to cast my pathetic, measly Plurality Voting freedom of speech and freedom of political association squashing vote for Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul.
Just ain’t gonna happen.
There is a better way. It’s too late for 2012. But not for 2014 or 2016 if we last that long.
No one can herd votes when people are free to vote according to their own opinions and interests.
- -
Category Scale Power Voting
2012 Presidential Election (nightmare ballot)
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
Barack Obama X
Michele Bachmann X
Rick Perry X
Ron Paul X
Mitt Romney X
"write in candidate" X
Too pointlessly complicated.
Score voting is a far better system than category scale type voting or similar systems. Instead of voting on categories, you award scores to candidates. Candidates with highest score wins. You get more nuance, yet, at the same time, it is easier to understand and explain to people how the winner is picked.
(Part 1 of 2)
Category Scale Power Voting vs. Score Voting
- -
rfloh wrote:
Too pointlessly complicated.
Score voting is a far better system than category scale type voting or similar systems. Instead of voting on categories, you award scores to candidates. Candidates with highest score wins. You get more nuance, yet, at the same time, it is easier to understand and explain to people how the winner is picked.
- - - - -
Excerpt from “RangeVoting.org, The Center for Range Voting:
There's a better way: score voting (also known as "range voting").
You've all seen score voting in action as the Olympic scoring system. Judges give the competitors scores and the highest average score wins. Similarly, in a score voting election, voters would give the candidates scores, and the one with the highest average would win.
- - - - -
Excerpt from “RangeVoting.org, The Center for Range Voting:
Each vote consists of a numerical score within some score (say 0 to 99) for each candidate. Simpler is 0 to 9 ("single digit score voting").
- -
Excerpts webpage URL: http://rangevoting.org/
* * * * *
rfloh,
You may find Category Scale Power Voting too pointlessly complicated or perhaps suspect that your neighbors would find Category Scale Power Voting too complicated.
But then you don’t even seem to understand how Category Scale Power Voting works yourself or even the meaning of the words used in the Category Scale Power Voting category scale: “Most Oppose”, “Oppose”, “No Comment”, “Support”, and “Most Support”, and you problaby don't think your neighbors will either.
Given your support for Score Voting, a person might conclude that you don't even understand the meaning of simple words like “consent” and “dissent” or the meaning of one of the most basic of all words in the English language, the word “no.”
How else could you have come to the conclusion that Score Voting is easier or better than Category Scale Power Voting and that Category Scale Power Voting is pointlessly complicated?
Plurality Voting is easy to describe too, including how the winner is chosen. But Plurality Voting is an undemocratic piece of crap
Category Scale Power Voting is a consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure. Now that description does sound like a one sentence mouthful, but really it is not that hard to understand if you think about it just a little bit.
But before discussing Category Scale Power Voting further, let’s first consider your suggestion, Score Voting.
Score Voting is, if I may say so, also an undemocratic piece of crap.
Although I think that should be obvious, formally demonstrating the flaws in Score Voting does require a little analysis.
Not everyone is willing to do that. You apparently have not been willing to analyze either Score Voting or Category Scale Power Voting. Otherwise, you would not have described Category Scale Power Voting as pointlessly complicated, unless of course you consider consent and dissent pointless.
The consent of the governed provides legitimacy to democratic government and gives voters the power of sovereignty. Voting procedures used in elections should at least be able to determine whether or not any such consent exists for any of the candidates on the ballot.
Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and Score Voting are incapable of determining whether or not the consent of the governed exists for any of the candidates on the ballot.
I will use a separate Reply Comment for the analysis of Score Voting in order to keep the my comments within Common Dreams maximum character limitations.
"But then you don’t even seem to understand how Category Scale Power Voting works yourself or even the meaning of the words used in the Category Scale Power Voting category scale: “Most Oppose”, “Oppose”, “No Comment”, “Support”, and “Most Support”, and you problaby don't think your neighbors will either."
I understand how it works. The point is that it adds nothing to score voting. Rather, it is the poor cousin of score voting.
"Score Voting is, if I may say so, also an undemocratic piece of crap. "
Bollocks. Score voting is the most democratic voting system.
"Not everyone is willing to do that. You apparently have not been willing to analyze either Score Voting or Category Scale Power Voting. Otherwise, you would not have described Category Scale Power Voting as pointlessly complicated, unless of course you consider consent and dissent pointless."
*yawn*. I have analysed them. Pointeless.
"The consent of the governed provides legitimacy to democratic government and gives voters the power of sovereignty. Voting procedures used in elections should at least be able to determine whether or not any such consent exists for any of the candidates on the ballot. "
Which is precisely the point of score voting. You can add a negative component to it if you want.
"Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and Score Voting are incapable of determining whether or not the consent of the governed exists for any of the candidates on the ballot."
Wrong. Like I said, you can add a negative component to score voting if you want. Instead of say, voting scores of 1 to 10, have scores of -10 to 10.
See Part 2 of 2.
PT writes:
"The consent of the governed provides legitimacy to democratic government and gives voters the power of sovereignty. Voting procedures used in elections should at least be able to determine whether or not any such consent exists for any of the candidates on the ballot. Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and Score Voting are incapable of determining whether or not the consent of the governed exists for any of the candidates on the ballot."
Ballot access is key. There should be a simple set of qualifications to get on the ballot, and any candidate who meets the qualifications gets on. There should never be an election with just two or three pre-screened or nominated candidates! (Along with basics like proof of citizenship and residency, include a demonstration of support from a minimum number of citizens, NOT based on total money raised like they do for access to the debates, but based on a minimum number of citizens indicating support, through petitions, donations, or other process.) Political parties should get zero recognition or support from the state. Parties can form, organize, run candidates, but not through any state-run primary system! And party candidates only make the ballot by meeting the qualifications, like any other candidate, not just by being party-nominated. (And, all ballot-qualified candidates get the same access to not only the voter guide, and to public debates, but also to the public airwaves!)
i'm sure you've thought about it, but what is your preferred process for granting ballot access?
Also, there is NO "perfect" voting system, and smart people in comment threads are coming up with ways to demonstrate potential "wrong" outcomes or complications for every system yet devised. "Evolutionary" steps toward more sophisticated voting systems are a good thing, yes? Another jurisdiction adopting IRV is a good thing, yes, even if range voting or category scale power voting might be even better?
PT,
Under any voting system, if ballot access is limited by entrenched interests, the sham continues in different clothes.
If you have a minute, i'd like to hear what you think a good way to determine ballot access.
I started to write a reply to your comment yesterday evening, but was too tired to finish it. I'm exhausted right now, but I will reply later.
webwalk,
My opinion of the function of political parties is briefly summarized below in a response to dave gresham.
I think ballot access rules should encourage serious multi-candidate competition in elections, and that political parties must be freed from corporate control and democratized.
If a get the chance, more on that and re-working ballot assess rules tommorrow.
- - - - -
The following exchange was previously posted under "This Labor Day We Need Protests Marches Rather Than Parades
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/25-11
* * * * *
Posted by dave gresham
Aug 25 2011 - 10:38pm
How about no political parties? Many years ago I suggested to my representative (who had served 11 consecutive terms) that political parties should be banned. I was VERY polite with the suggestion. (The idea was if everyone was unaffiliated, maybe the voters would listen to the issues more.)
He literally stopped talking to me, turned away, and struck up a new conversation with another voter. (At least I had the satisfaction of seeing him not get re-elected for the first time in two decades. What an asshole.)
Posted by PuffinThrush
Aug 25 2011 - 11:41pm.dave gresham,
I certainly sympathize with you.
Most of my adult life my registered political party affliation was "non-enrolled" (i.e.independent). In my opinion the major political parties have always done more to limit and control the choices on the ballot and the debate about issues than anything else.
From what I've seen of politics I'd say that politics is more likely to work well without official political parties at the local level. Everything about politics seems much more difficult as the numbers of people and the geographic distances increase.
In theory political parties when they are democratically governed could serve a useful political purpose in a democracy when the community or society is larger.
Unfortunately. the way that the two major political parties which are largely controlled by wealthy people and large corporations are used to contol governments, I still consider them a menace to democracy.
It was the actions of Democrats after the 2000 presidential election that finally got me to give up my "non-enrolled" status and register as a Green.
Your conversation with your state representative reminds me of a conversation I had with Barry Commoner sometime in the fall of 1983 I believe it was, before he spoke to a CPPAX (Citizens for Participation in Political Action) audience.
Barry Commoner had run in the 1980 presidential election as the nominee of the Citizens Party and I had attempted to contact him even before I knew he was scheduled to talk to the CPPAX audience. But my attempt at "conversation" prior to his speech was about voting procedures not about political parties. Given what Commoner had to say in his speech I found his reaction to me simply mind boggling and bizarre. But these days the agendas of politicians, or people assuming the role of a politician like Barry Commoner, just don't surprise me so much anymore.
.
(Part 2 of 2)
Category Scale Power Voting vs. Score Voting
- -
rfloh,
Even if Score Voting, which you for some reason believe is better, actually permitted voters to use negative numbers, Score Voting would still produce election outcomes that violate the consent of the governed so long as only the highest score is used to determine a winner.
Consider this three person “We Hate Them Test” example.
Person 1: Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Supports Candidate A and opposes Candidate B
Person 2: Prefers Candidate B to Candidate A
Supports Candidate B and opposes Candidate A
Person 3: Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Opposes Candidate A and opposes Candidate B
If voters vote according to their preferences Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will elect Candidate A, but if you look carefully both Candidate A and Candidate B are opposed by a majority of the voters.
If either Plurality Voting or Instant Runoff Voting is used, the only alternative a voter has to voting according to his or her preferences is not to vote. If Person 3 decides not to vote, both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will result in a tie. Some sort of tie breaker procedure would probably be used to pick either Candidate A or Candidate B as the winner. But both Candidate A and Candidate B are opposed by a majority of the voters.
Suppose our Score Voting election allows voters to express themselves using integer numbers on an 11 point scale ranging from -5 through 0 to +5
Let’s say our Score Voting voters vote as follows.
Person 1: Assigns 5 to Candidate A and – 2 to Candidate B
Person 2: Assigns 5 to Candidate B and -5 to Candidate A
Person 3: Assigns -3 to Candidate A and -5 to Candidate B
Since the candidate with the highest score wins, Candidate B wins with a score of -2 to Candidate A’s -3. But remember both Candidate A and Candidate B are opposed by a majority of the voters and Candidate A not Candidate B is preferred by a majority of the voters.
Well, Person 1 might have assigned -5 to Candidate B. Then Score Voting would have elected, Candidate A, the candidate preferred by a majority of the voters even though Candidate A is also opposed by a majority of the voters.
If Person 1 assigned -4 to Candidate B the outcome would have been a tie. But some sort of tie breaker procedure would probably be used to pick either Candidate A or Candidate B as the winner.
Whether Person 1 assigns -3, -4 or -5 to Candidate B, even though both candidates have negative total scores, and given some tie breaker procedure, either Candidate A or Candidate B will be declared the winner despite the opposition of a majority of the voters.
Let’s consider another example. This example is based upon the Majority Rule Voting Paradox.
Person 1: Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Supports Candidate A and supports Candidate B
Person 2: Prefers Candidate B to Candidate A
Supports Candidate B and opposes Candidate A
Person 3: Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Opposes Candidate A and opposes Candidate B
If Person 3 votes, both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will elect Candidate A even though the preferred Candidate A is opposed by a majority of the voters, while Candidate B who is not preferred by a majority of the voters is supported by a majority of the voters.
If Person 3 decides not to vote, once again both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will result in a tie. Some sort of tie breaker procedure will probably be used to pick either Candidate A or Candidate B as the winner.
But whether or not Person 3 votes, nobody will ever know that Candidate B is supported by a majority of the voters.
Let’s say our Score Voting voters again vote as follows based on their desire to maximize the probability that their preferred candidate will win.
Person 1: Assigns 5 to Candidate A and -5 to Candidate B
Person 2: Assigns 5 to Candidate B and -5 to Candidate A
Person 3: Assigns -3 to Candidate A and -5 to Candidate B
Well, as we saw before Candidate A will win with a -3 to Candidate B’s -5. But this time Candidate B is supported by a majority of the voters, while Candidate A is of course opposed by a majority of the voters.
Once again nobody will ever know that Candidate B is supported by a majority of the voters. Score Voting, Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting cannot determine whether or not the candidates on the ballot have the consent and support of the voters.
Of course, this analysis has used a hypothetical version of Score Voting, because Score Voting is not defined to permit negative integers. But that does not really matter, because Score Voting, with or without the use of negative integers is not designed to determine whether or not the consent of the governed exists.
If the size of the scale is expanded to a 101 point scale ranging from 0 to 100, what we will get is not more “nuance” as you might express it, but in fact meaningless b.s.
Some fifty years or more ago experimental research discovered that people are not capable of reliably and reproducibly assigning a category whether that category is labeled with a number or with words when people are required to make complex distinctions based upon multiple criteria when the size of the category scale is larger than 5 to 7 points.
In any case if a voting procedure is based upon determining the consent of the governed, then that voting procedure must first determine whether or not the number of people who support a candidate (Most Support or Support) exceeds the number of people who oppose that candidate (Most Oppose or Oppose).
The way Category Scale Power Voting does this is to first consider whether or not one or more candidates has received majority consent and if not then to consider whether or not one or more candidates has received plurality consent.
This procedure for determining whether or not the voters consent to the election of any of the candidates on the ballot closely follows the standard procedure commonly used when hiring someone for a job.
I expect that most of us can understand that.
What’s more the way voters express their opinions and exercise political power through Category Scale Power Voting uses the same type of 5 point category scale commonly used in surveys and questionnaires inquiring about people’s opinions regarding all kinds of things.
Now, please don’t tell us you have never filled out a survey or questionnaire that uses a 5 point category scale or that you had a great deal of difficulty in doing so.
"Now, please don’t tell us you have never filled out a survey or questionnaire that uses a 5 point category scale or that you had a great deal of difficulty in doing so."
One, the "diffculty" is not in the voting, the filling out. The difficulty is in the explaining to someone else, without resorting to pencil and paper, how the winner is picked. In contrast, you can explain score voting to someone drunk, or even a child, and they would understand.
"Even if Score Voting, which you for some reason believe is better, actually permitted voters to use negative numbers,"
It does. You can use any range of numbers. 1 to 10, 1 to 100, -10 to 10, -100 to 100. Etc
"Since the candidate with the highest score wins, Candidate B wins with a score of -2 to Candidate A’s -3. But remember both Candidate A and Candidate B are opposed by a majority of the voters and Candidate A not Candidate B is preferred by a majority of the voters."
That has nothing to do with the flaw of the voting system. That is due to the selection of candidates available. If your argument is that candidates who are disliked by should not win, fine: anyone with a negative total score cannot win, if all candidates have negative scores, the election is void, it is held again.
Simple, basic.
Your long winded objection is overruled.
"Of course, this analysis has used a hypothetical version of Score Voting, because Score Voting is not defined to permit negative integers."
Wrong. The beauty of score voting is that it is on the one hand very simple, yet, OTOH, it can get as complicated as you want. You can have negative numbers if you want.
"If the size of the scale is expanded to a 101 point scale ranging from 0 to 100, what we will get is not more “nuance” as you might express it, but in fact meaningless b.s."
No it isn't. It allows voters to express a degree of preference that no other voting system allows.
"Some fifty years or more ago experimental research discovered that people are not capable of reliably and reproducibly assigning a category whether that category is labeled with a number or with words when people are required to make complex distinctions based upon multiple criteria when the size of the category scale is larger than 5 to 7 points."
Cite that experimental research. Especially since it is from 50 years ago.
"In any case if a voting procedure is based upon determining the consent of the governed, then that voting procedure must first determine whether or not the number of people who support a candidate (Most Support or Support) exceeds the number of people who oppose that candidate (Most Oppose or Oppose)."
No. You are ignoring nuance. You are offering people only a very limited range of choices, support vs oppose. In some cases, some people might just not care at all / all that much.
Second Series of Responses to rfloh (Part 1 of 3)
- -
rfloh,
Sorry, I haven’t able to respond to your comment more promptly. But I had to attend to other matters.
Sorry, also that I didn’t cite the research I mentioned. I had reached the maximum number of characters limit, and I as I mentioned I had also had run out of time.
Besides, there is more to the argument against the 100 point and other large sized scales, than just the research which I cited in the earlier comment. That citation and the full argument will be posted later in the third of three responses to your reply when I get the chance to finish that argument.
However, I would like to response to two things you have said without further delay.
You may find the second of these two posts regarding consent more interesting or perhaps more important than this one.
* * * * *
rfloh wrote:
One, the "diffculty" is not in the voting, the filling out. The difficulty is in the explaining to someone else, without resorting to pencil and paper, how the winner is picked. In contrast, you can explain score voting to someone drunk, or even a child, and they would understand.
- - - - -
My Reply:
Actually, I think explaining Category Scale Power Voting to someone like my “redneck” Florida neighbor, who by the way is a very nice person, is considerably easier to do when talking face to face than with pencil and paper or by typing an explanation into the comments section on Comment Dreams. Not that this guy has ever posted comments to Common Dreams, of course.
In fact, recently during a conversation with a Quaker friend up in Vermont, this Quaker even anticipated where I was going with the explanation before I got there.
My seventeen year old daughter understands it.
Heck, all kinds of people have heard me talk about this for years and have had no trouble understanding it.
I am sure you can too.
Saying that someone who is drunk or even a child can understand something is not necessarily a good recommendation for whatever that something is.
People “understand” and get the message of propaganda even when they don’t understand that the message is propaganda.
Both Plurality Voting and even your “enhanced” version of Score Voting which uses negative integers can easily serve as propaganda, by giving the appearance that the voting procedure is fair and can determined whether or not the consent of the governed exists even when it cannot possibly do so.
It is of course critically important that every voter knows how to express themselves when using a voting procedure, and hopefully also knows how to effectively exercise political power when using that voter procedure. Most voting procedures in one way or another severely and unnecessarily limit how much political power voters may exercise at the ballot box.
There is a difference, however, between knowing how to use a voting procedure and knowing whether or not that voting procedure is a democratic voting procedure that produces election outcomes which are consistent with the consent of the governed.
Clearly, a drunk adult and most young children are capable of using Plurality Voting, but most drunks and young children wouldn’t be able to accurately tell you whether or not Plurality Voting is fair and democratic and produces election outcomes consistent with the consent of the governed.
Whether or not a voting procedure is fair and democratic and consistent with the consent of the governed is the sort of thing that should be thoroughly and intelligently discussed in government civics classes.
As you said the difficulty is not in the voting. The difficulty is not in filling out the ballot. I suggest that the difficulty is also not even in understanding how to determine the outcome of a Category Scale Power Voting election, which after all involves a process very similar to the process commonly used when hiring someone for a job.
If there is a difficulty, the difficulty appears to be in understanding why a procedure that is similar to the standard hiring process commonly used when hiring someone for a job must be used in single member district elections, if those elections are going to genuinely empower voters and produce election results that are consistent with the consent of the governed.
* * * * *
P.S.
rfloh wrote,
No. You are ignoring nuance. You are offering people only a very limited range of choices, support vs oppose. In some cases, some people might just not care at all / all that much.
- - - - -
My Reply:
Actually, expressions of support and opposition are rather basic and awfully important.
But I just want to clarify something. Category Scale Power Voting enables voters to grade candidates on a 5 point grading scale. That means voters can rank candidates according to preference in a way that expresses four levels of preference.
This enables voters to express a preference between the major party candidates, while they oppose both of the major party candidates in a way that accurately resolves the "lesser of two evils" dilemma, while these voters can at the same time support or oppose any of the other candidates on the ballot as they choose. This ability gives voters considerable power.
Certainly, a 5 point grading scale does not enable voters to flounder around while attempting to express 100 levels of preference. But the argument against that large a grading scale, which may appear to enable the nuanced expression of that many levels of preference must wait until a later post.
Second Series of Responses rfloh (Part 2 of 3)
- -
rfloh (quoting PuffinThrush) wrote:
If your argument is that candidates who are disliked by should not win, fine: anyone with a negative total score cannot win, if all candidates have negative scores, the election is void, it is held again.
Simple, basic.
Your long winded objection is overruled.
"Of course, this analysis has used a hypothetical version of Score Voting, because Score Voting is not defined to permit negative integers."
Wrong. The beauty of score voting is that it is on the one hand very simple, yet, OTOH, it can get as complicated as you want. You can have negative numbers if you want.
* * * * *
My Reply:
The reason for including both negative opinion and opposition to individual candidates as well as positive opinion and support for individual candidates in voting during an election is to determine whether or not any of the candidates on the ballot have received the consent of the governed.
Consent questions generally have “Yes” or “No” type answers.
If someone asks you whether or not you consent to let them punch you in the face, I only need to hear from you whether or not you say “Yes” or “No”, not how much you enjoy or hate being abused.
A candidate is considered to have the consent of the governed, when a majority of the INDIVIDUAL VOTERS consent and support the election of the candidate to office, or if in the absence of a majority then a substantial plurality of INDIVIDUAL VOTERS consent and support the election of the candidate. In the case of plurality consent more INDIVIDUAL VOTERS must consent and support the election of the candidate to office than the number of INDIVIDUAL VOTERS who dissent and oppose the election of that candidate to office. This last plurality consent requirement is of course true by definition for majority consent.
Simply including negative integers in the range of integers permitted by Score Voting, and then adding up the integer values does not satisfy the purpose of determining the consent of the governed. If fact it violates and corrupts it.
In order to preserve the one person one vote principle, the strength of a voter’s opinion or the intensity of a voter’s emotion must be given no consideration whatsoever WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED EXISTS.
This is why Category Scale Power Voting treats a “Most Support” voting statement in favor of a candidate as equivalent to a “Support” voting statement in favor of a candidate WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED EXISTS. Similarly, a “Most Oppose” voting statement against a candidate is treated as equivalent to an “Oppose” voting statement against a candidate WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED EXISTS.
Of course, when determining whether or not the consent of the governed exists with Vote Scoring the number of positive integers assigned to each of the candidates by the voters can be counted and the number of negative integers assigned to each of the candidates by the voters can be counted.
If this were to be done then Score Voting would become more like Category Scale Power Voting and would be capable of determining whether or not the consent of the governed actually existed for any of the candidates on the ballot, and also would become more like the standard process used when hiring someone for a job.
When a single hiring manager or perhaps a group of people responsible for hiring, or more likely these days a computer program evaluates résumés to determine whether or not an applicant for a job is qualified or is somehow otherwise suitable for the job, a simple up or down “Yes” or “No” decision is made. Years ago the résumés of unsatisfactory applicants ended up in the so-called “circular file”, more commonly known as the trash can.
One way or the other unsatisfactory applicants are put in the rejected pile with a simple up or down "Yes" or "No" decision, when the “short list” of qualified applicants is created. The creation of the “short list” of qualified applicants is where the “Yes” or “No” (consent or dissent) power of the boss is exercised.
If there is more than one applicant on the “short list”, then the hiring folks pick the best, most qualified person for the job. This is where the intensity of opinion or preference or the grade that an applicant receives becomes part of the decision making process.
If there are no qualified applicants on the “short list”, then the hiring folks have several options: 1) Seek new applicants, 2) Lower the qualifying standards, 3) Decide not to hire anyone, 4) Pass the decision along to someone else.
The Majority Rule Voting Paradox example provided in an earlier comment described one set of circumstances where the version of Score Voting which permits voters to assign negative integers to candidates does not identify the candidate who has majority support from the voters and instead results in the election of the candidate opposed by a majority of the voters.
Here is perhaps a better example of the same sort of thing.
Person 1 prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Supports Candidate A and opposes Candidate B
Person 2 also prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Supports Candidate A and opposes Candidate B
Person 3 prefers Candidate B to Candidate A
Supports Candidate B and opposes Candidate A
Suppose these three people using Score Voting, with negative integers on a -5 to + 5 scale, vote as follows.
Person 1: Assigns Candidate A +3 and Candidate B -2
Person 2: Assigns Candidate A +2 and Candidate B -2
Person 3: Assigns Candidate B +5 and Candidate A -5
Score Voting will elect Candidate B with a integer sum of +1 to Candidate A's 0 even though Candidate B is opposed by a majority of the voters and Candidate A is supported by a majority of the voters and is also preferred to Candidate B by a majority of the voters.
The important point, however, is that once again Score Voting fails to accurately determine whether or not a candidate is supported or opposed by a majority of the voters when a comparison of each candidate's sum of the values of negative and positive integers is used to determine the election outcome.
Of course, as mentioned earlier Score Voting could be modified further in order to make it both more like Category Scale Power Voting, and consistent with that universal and fundamental standard which gives legitimacy to democratic government known as the consent of the governed.
rfloh,
P.S.
One might ask why would Person 1 and Person 2 cast their Score Voting ballot this way. The answer might be that they are expressing the "nuanced" intensity of their opinions about Candidate A and Candidate B. Maybe there are other candidates on the ballot who are influencing how Person 1 and Person 2 have chosen to "nuance" their exercise of political power.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. But the expression of "nuanced" opinions or a "nuanced" exercise of political power should not and need not come at the expense of determining whether or not the existence of the consent of the governed exists for the individual candidates on the ballot.
Second Series of Responses rfloh (Part 3 of 3)
- -
honestly, if you want an actual democracy, you'll have to revolt, because that's the only way you're getting it at this point. The rest of the world is getting that message as we type.
As for vote herding, anyone with access to media manipulation science and professionals with their own tv and radio stations can do it, even in a functional, procedural democracy. We know how to engineer the human mind now, and there's no stuffing that back into the box. You can only design to minimize the impact of that knowledge. And our problem is that we need to completely redesign governments, including nominally democratic ones.
drone,
I agree. We need to join the rest of the world in revolt. What's more I have repeatedly supported in my comments on Common Dreams solidarity with others around the world who have risen in revolt. We clearly need to join them.
But what must come after (or as a part of) a successful revolt?
Getting the procedural part of democracy right is important too. Getting the procedural part of democracy right includes in one way or other overturning both Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
With respect to Citizens United that would involve legislation which is based on a "equal protection under the law" legal argument (i.e. rule synthesis) that utilizes among other legal elements the existence of consent / dissent based voting procedures to democratize and regulate the expenditure of money used by groups of individual natural human beings acting in some form of political association with one another for the purpose of disseminating political speech.
Such a rule would necessarily apply to political parties as well as other forms of political association and would essentially ban the expenditure of money for the purpose of disseminating political speech (which too often is in fact simply propaganda) by for profit and / or undemocratic (i.e. not based upon consent) organizations.
Surprisingly, according to Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion in the Citizens United decision, first amendment freedom of the press protection applies only to individual natural human beings and not to "trees and polars" to use Scalia's sarcastic phrase.
In this sense only with respect to first amendment rights, including freedom of the press rights first amendment rights, I agree with Scalia.
Antonin Scalia naturally takes this assertion in an unconstitutional direction, glorifying corporations rather than using the existence of consent / dissent voting procedures and the "equal protection clause" to democratize freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The Cherokee won their case before the U.S. Supreme Court. But President Andrew Jackson told the court that the court did not have the power (meaning actual police and military power) to enforce it. The U.S. Congress didn't impeach Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives much less convict him in the Senate.
The result was the genocidal Trail of Tears.
Obviously, we need to do more than simply tinker with procedure.
But ultimately democratic voting and election procedures are an important part of how people make decisions together in a way the respects each and every individual in society.
nice post, puffin.
in my view, the first order of business is to recover democratic processes and governance before they're snuffed out for centuries. this is an area where alliances across ideology can help a great deal. sadly, this project is greatly complicated by the rapid rate of environmental and social degeneration caused by global capitalism and the remains of the industrial revolution.
It's a tall order in front of us...:)
A "Thank you" to Ms. Stan.
I had a pretty good day, and wasn't pissed off to my usual degree.
She sure fixed that.
"...emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement.."
I beg your pardon?????
What a sanctimonious twit!
I've been fighting this fight since long before she was even a twinkle in her daddy's eye! And she has the pompous gall to dismiss MY view as "immature."
Not TOO full of yourself are you?
OK Little Ms. Know-it-all. You tell me. Who are YOU voting for? Pimping for Obama by any chance?
I'll fight against Paul's position on some things -- but that's better than having to fight Obama on EVERY thing.
Paul is anti -war ---- and I frankly don't give a damn WHAT his reason is for being anti-war. And I doubt that the people we're murdering around the world give a damn, either.
He's against the Patriot Act -- and if you're sniveling about civil liberties, there may be nothing more odious to liberty since the Fugitive Slave Act. Maybe since the Alien and Sedition Act.
And he's willing to bust out the nest of absolute vampires at the Fed.
I don't see ANY body else from either party willing to do those things.
If Paul would come out and say he'd prosecute Bush et al for their many crimes (and now, Obama, too), I wouldn't just vote for for him, I'd kiss him on the cheek.
Maybe both cheeks.
sj
So, you support the idea that government's main and only purpose is to protect property and capital rights?
If you answer no, and still support Ron Paul, then, you might not be emotionally immature, but, you are intellectually immature.
Unfair question to ask sort of. Both Obama and Paul support that but instead of attacking SJ like you did, you need to start asking Obama and his party why they're refusing to stop moving so far to the right that they're making Paul look like a leftist. Insulting people on intelligence like that won't help you or Obama. Nothing personal.