So You Say You Want a Revolution?

[MineralMan]

Well, you know...

The key to a revolution in the United States is to mobilize everyone and motivate them to go to the polls in every election, from the most local, through the primaries and on to the General Election. If the non-voters speak with their vote, the revolution will be a fait accompli.

We have it in our power to conduct a revolution at the ballot box. It's the only revolution we need, and you can participate right now:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[MohRokTah]

1. The GOP will regret naming it "Obamacare" this year.

It's already going to cover more people, cost less, and have lower premiums than originally predicted.

And the GOP is STILL running against it.

We stand a very good chance in 2014.

[MineralMan]

2. We have a very good chance if we are willing

to help make it happen. If we're not, you can count on the Republicans to get our their vote. That I can guarantee.

We need to act and we need to act now and continue right through until the November election.

[MohRokTah]

4. The GOP ALWAYS gets their vote out. ALWAYS.

We win or lose by our ability to get our folks to the polls.

That holds true in every year.

The GOP counts on us failing to bring out our voters.

[rug]

3. Name one revolution that came from a ballot box.

The U.S. had one revolution to date. It didn't come from a ballot box.

[MineralMan]

7. OK, rug.

Whatever you say. No sense in even trying. I give up.

[rug]

9. That's fine. Facts generally trump hyperbole.

[saidsimplesimon]

67. Facts are hard to come by these days.

Do you think the hyperbole of your definition of revolution trumps a vision of ridding our US political system of corruption and greed using the power of the ballot? Should we abandon all efforts to register everyone eligible to vote, regardless of their political beliefs? Should Americans continue to ignore their obligation, as citizens, to participate in government?

Some of the world family seek a resolution without the violence of a military, or armed revolution. I believe the power of the word is greater than the power of the sword. For those like yourself, negotiated peace looks like compromise? Am I right?

[rug]

70. That is not hyperbole.

To answer your questions:

When the major political parties benefit from the corruption, it's naïve to expect the ballot to change it. Since you didn't define "corruption", I'll simply refer you to FEC records.

No, but you should be realistic about the efforts and keep dishonest hyperbole out of the rhetoric.

Politics is a lot more serious than social studies slogans.

The viability of negotiated peace depends on how well you understand the other side. In a time when class warfare is becoming more pronounced, it is more than foolish to peddle hyperbole. If they lose at the ballot (assuming there is a stark choice), they'll adapt and laugh at the campaign buttons while the war continues.

[jeff47]

26. Since you're defining revolution as successful armed rebellion

Alternatively, you could list a host of other revolutions, as defined by radical change to our country. Such as that itty bitty civil war that changed our country pretty radically. There's the new deal, the great society, WWII, the Reagan revolution and so on.

[rug]

28. I didn't define it all.

Nor did I characterize a midterm election as revolutionary.

I will say, especially after seeing FEC donor records, that the former is a lot closer to it than the oatter.

[jeff47]

29. Actually, you did by restricting it to the one in 1776.

For example, at worst the civil war was an unsuccessful revolution. Still a revolution. Yet you excluded it.

[rug]

42. The OP limited it to the U.S. History limits it to one.

The Civil War, if it was anything, was a failed reactionary, not revolutionary, effort.

[jeff47]

44. The OP makes no such restriction.

The OP just says revolution.

You're the one adding restrictions. Now you're down to successful liberal military rebellion.

[rug]

48. "The key to a revolution in the United States . . . ."

He's not talking about the Winter Palace.

[jeff47]

52. And he's also not calling for violence.

Which should have been your clue that he was not only talking about liberal military rebellion.

[rug]

54. And he's also not calling for a revoltion, headline notwithstanding.

It's rank hyperbole.

[jeff47]

58. Only if we use your definition of revolution.

But sure, let's wander off into pedantic land.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Arevolution

1. a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.

Hrm....doesn't seem to say anything in there about arms. Or that it can only be a revolution if the result is more liberal. Golly, it's almost like you don't have the only valid definition of the word.

[rug]

62. Using that, you have a skewed view if you think 2014 will bring a "new system".

Maybe if you paint your face blue and yell "Scotland!" when you pull the lever.

[jeff47]

88. If we get a majority to show up, it will

If we don't, it won't.

[BlindTiresias]

97. Lol

Come on jeff. A new system from a more votes in 2014? Everyone here including you knows this is not true and is an impossibility.

[jeff47]

98. Keep pushing down turnout. I'm sure you'll get rewarded real soon now. (nt)

[BlindTiresias]

100. No you misunderstand

You said a totally new system if enough people vote in 2014. Jeff, please, this is impossible and you know it. The system is not designed to work that way and everyone realizes this.

[Scootaloo]

76. Participating in the system as usual is sort of the antithesis of "revolution," you know

[jeff47]

87. Only if you're following "the system".

Significant changes do not require manning barricades and toppling governments.

Those who remember the US before 1980 can attest to large-scale changes coming without violent revolution. Or 1933, if you'd prefer a leftward version.

[chrisa]

27. If you define "revolution" purely as an armed rebellion, you're excluding

the possibility of voting as a means of revolution purely by the word's definition alone.

The civil rights movement wasn't a revolution? I, and many others would argue that it was.

[lovemydog]

84. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, the labor movement

to name a few, came from the ballot box. Yes, there were people in the streets. I support (and have been involved in) that kind of direct action. Putting people into office who supported these advances and turned them into law also played a significant part. They may not be revolutions under a strict definition. But under a broader humanist definition they are, in my opinion.

[former9thward]

111. Neither civil rights or the labor movement came from the ballot box.

One can argue about gay rights and women's rights but the other two had many, many , many violent episodes. Nothing came from the ballot box.

[lovemydog]

114. In oral histories of the labor & civil rights movements

most participants say the ballot was, and is, effective. A very small percentage claim nothing came from the ballot box.

[former9thward]

115. I don't know what oral histories you are talking about.

Show me an election where voters gave civil rights or labor rights. Sorry, you are really lacking in history if you think this came from the ballot box.

[lovemydog]

117. Oral histories like Solidarity Stories

(An Oral History of the ILWU) by Harvey Schwartz, Hard Times by Studs Terkel, Voices of Freedom by Henry Hampton, Freedom on the Border (Voices of the Civil Rights Movement) by Catherine Frost et al. Oral history archives at many universities (most are available free online). Those who attended the March On Washington didn't go home and say 'screw it, voting sucks.' They voted, and encouraged others to vote, at local, statewide & federal levels. Legislators respond to voting blocs. I'm not discounting street action or the ballot box. I believe they work symbiotically. Do you think street action works in a vacuum? If social change does not also need ballots, how do you think meaningful change is accomplished? What history supports your view?

[former9thward]

124. No meaningful action has ever been voted in.

Again show me an election where voters approved a civil rights measure or a labor measure. This is a link to some events in labor history. Many violent incidents -- which occasionally scared politicians into voting for some progressive change.

http://www.lutins.org/labor.html

[haele]

125. No, but political change and cultural shifts are voted in. "Reagan Revolution", anyone?

That was a serious revolution in our lifetime that was begun by a well-funded vocal minority who took control of messaging and advantage of the confusion that cultural and political events in this country - from the Civil Rights fights and Vietnam to Watergate and the Arab Oil Crisis/post-Vietnam recession - left us with.

There were a lot of questions that needed to be addressed, and we were almost at the point that there was a progressive future similar to that that is being experienced in Scandinavia, but the Reagan Revolution was a comfortable "blanket" that the country covered itself with via the ballot box and media-driven dis-enfranchisement. It was the worse possible blow to this country that was ever orchestrated.
And yes, it was a revolution - by spoiled, selfish, small-minded people used to being petty rulers in their small circle of influence and wanted to keep their personal status quo as the US began to perceive itself beyond regions into becoming a country. People who are still against the painful progress that was being won for everyone in this country and were willing to become fellow travelers when it came to the destruction of a United States of America, so long as they could keep their own little slivers of personal power over others in their communities.

Y'know, "Greed is Good"? - that revolution.

The revolution I fought against, where my side kept losing between 1985 and 1998, because it had become too hard for the average American to wade through all the lies, greed, and just plain economic shit that was being thrown at people who weren't into finance or real estate development or some other business where only money made money and hard working people became just disposable tools. Where the average American just gave up against the onslaught of money.

They won through the ballot box. We can do so, too - but it's going to be hard work because we also have to start working our ground game hard to get all the infection from the Reagan years out of our local governments and community boards.

We're up against a lot of roadblocks. It's much easier for powerless, stressed people to give up and hate than to fight, and the US is full of powerless, stressed, anxious people who just want to go home at night and not be bothered. The modern Tea-baggers and GOPPies - and their handlers - amplify and use that hate as a weapon to keep their revolution going.

Haele

[lovemydog]

126. Thank you for that link

I see the correlations between meaningful action and progressive change. Agree with you on that. I'm also suggesting that from that list, the laws enacted (for example, in 1949 amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to outlaw child labor) also were passed because of legislators who were elected by voters. What also scares politicians is the threat of losing their job if they don't get reelected, and that pressure can, in addition, come from progressive voting blocs. We probably won't change each other's minds regarding the effectiveness of progressives voting. But I enjoy the dialogue. Have a good weekend.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Who the hell WANTS a Revolution?

In 2002 thru, say, 2005 I was part of a group that examined, in detail, *some* of the software used in elections.

It stank. To high heaven. I, with a group of genuine computer scientists from the local universities attended any and every public HAVA meeting. We were very clear and very ignored.

For the record, I don't think this capability is USED every election. But when push comes to shove....

[Demeter]

60. NEED, for sure...want?

Well, if the system were not so corrupt as to prevent any self-correction through free and fair and publicly funded elections and a free, fair, and uncorrupted press....

the entire question would be moot.

The feedback loop on Democracy has been severed by the $$$ Elite, with the connivance of the racists and bigots and misogynists. I know of no way to break up that cozy relationship, because as far as I can tell, the $$$ are racists, bigots and misogynists, too, with few exceptions.


There are very few people born democratic. It's not a normal animal response. Nor does family life function as a laboratory of democratic process.

Democracy is an acquired skill, acquired to satisfy an acquired, educated taste. And too many people no longer even get a whiff of it, to try it out. Modern religion is all about suppressing democracy...in the Enlightenment, America's mainstream religions fostered democracy and science and education. But then, the fundies came into vogue, and it's been downhill ever since.

[BlindTiresias]

6. On the other hand...

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[MineralMan]

8. Give me a precis

of that. I'm working.

[BlindTiresias]

12. Ok

It is a quantitative model for the elite preference theory. The paper shows that there is a preferences of the elite and policies that are enacted have a strong correlation with the preferences of the population as a whole having a very weak correlation. More disturbingly, really only those preferences among the population that are -also- joined with the economic elite get passed. Stated differently, unless the will of the population is matching an economic elite preference it basically doesn't happen.

[GliderGuider]

20. Yes, that's how it works.

That's why there is no universal health care in the US.

[MineralMan]

22. OK. I believe it is true only because the majority does

not vote. I'm suggesting we get the majority to the polls.

[BlindTiresias]

31. ???

You are going to have to explain the extremely weak correlation with popular will being enacted and the substantially higher voter turnout, then. You would also have to explain why there is such a significant split between what the representative actually votes for and the preferences of their constituents.

I suspect you are assuming that the link between voter and rep is perfect or at least not being modified after they are voted for. However that is assuming what is already being questioned: That popular preference is being represented. In this sense even if you had 100% of the population voting it would still be the case that the popular preference is going to go through the elite preference filter before it goes anywhere. In this way while you may get some of what also coincides with economic elite preference if your interests and the economic elite's interests contradict one another you are going to lose that contest when the representatives decide on how to vote.

[MineralMan]

33. That study did not address that at all.

I don't base my actions on a single study, ever. You're using it to explain why what needs to happen won't happen. That gives you an excuse. If that works for you, fine. I disagree with that study, frankly.

[BlindTiresias]

40. Why do you disagree with the study?

Is it based on real analysis or emotion?

Also I would really appreciate t if you stopped attributing motivations to me that I ave not expressed or even implied, which has happened several times in our exchanges so far while I have not treated you so unfairly. In order to really enact change you must have a clear picture of the political landscape, which means having a firm grasp of where democracy is breaking down isolating that, and changing it. This study, if true, would be invaluable to progressives as it actually lets us know where the changes should be made and will lead to more coherent solutions than "vote more".

[MineralMan]

43. My advice is not to waste your time on me.

Your avatar and your studies do not convince me of anything. My life experience does.

[BlindTiresias]

47. Oh come on

Mineralman that is a real cop out and a sophist move.

[MineralMan]

75. No. It is selective use of my time.

I still have to earn a living. I have no time to argue with people whose minds are already made up. You'll have to excuse me.

[U4ikLefty]

121. good to run away

[jeff47]

50. If there was higher turnout

then that turnout would overwhelm the oligarchy.

That popular preference is being represented. In this sense even if you had 100% of the population voting it would still be the case that the popular preference is going to go through the elite preference filter before it goes anywhere.

Which would cause the politicians implementing that elite filter to lose the next election.

Popular opinion is weakly correlated because only about 1/2 of the public bothers to vote. So you're down to 1/4 of the public battling 1/4 of the public. And it's not that hard for the oligarchy to sell their bullshit to 1/4 of the public.

OTOH, it's much harder for the oligarchy to sell their bullshit to half of the public. That's why they turned towards depressing turnout instead.

[BlindTiresias]

57. Nope

It actually doesn't matter if they do lose if the next crop are going through the same oligarch influenced selection process. As far as the oligarchy is concerned they can cycle through politicians indefinitely so long as they ave influence over who gets chosen and ensuring their continued voting along oligarchical lines despite what the public wants.

Furthermore, I am not sure your argument actually pans out. You still have people voting, around 50% as you say. Why would the correlation of their wills be close to zero? Further modifying this is the fact that only those popular preferences which coincide with elite preferences get turned to policy. This means that the right wing side is roughly getting some of what they want if it coincides with the economic elite. Why are left wing positions being drowned out if the split is as equal as you say?

[jeff47]

61. Yep.

It actually doesn't matter if they do lose if the next crop are going through the same oligarch influenced selection process.

Only if they want to lose too.

Someone's going to want to keep the job.

As far as the oligarchy is concerned they can cycle through politicians indefinitely so long as they ave influence over who gets chosen and ensuring their continued voting along oligarchical lines despite what the public wants.

Which they can only accomplish in low-turnout. Higher turnout means they can't control who gets chosen - they don't have enough votes.

You still have people voting, around 50% as you say. Why would the correlation of their wills be close to zero?

Because they're opposing wills. About 1/4 of the population will vote for whatever the oligarchs say. That leaves 75% of the population to vote against them. But only 1/4 of the population that opposes the oligarchs bother to vote. So the two cancel each other out.

Why are left wing positions being drowned out if the split is as equal as you say?

Because much more of the people who hold the left wing position do not bother to vote.

There would not be nearly so much anti-turnout efforts, such as the dozens of "don't bother voting" posters on DU, if turnout was as benign as you propose.

[BlindTiresias]

64. Ok

I really need to see evidence that this massive voting bloc is as progressive as you suggest.

Furthermore, you are really kind of glossing over the fact that the study says much more about what happens before and after the election than voting itself. Who gets voted in and who influences them after they take office has the most significant effect on policy. In this regard it wouldn't matter if 100% of the population voted, as if who they are voting for is going through an oligarchical selection process and that the oligarchs have the constant attention of the rep in a much more dramatic sense than the population tends to override the whole voting thing.

In order for voting to be effective you have to address those two short circuits.

[GliderGuider]

71. Good insights. I agree with you.

If a significant number of the elected politicians are suborned by the post-election process (a process that is heavily influenced by unelected elites and their lobbyists) then voter turnout is a red herring.

Besides, the principle of voting in a democracy is that statistically significant samples of an electorate will usually represent the overall will of the electorate. It's the same principle as polling. So whether the election returns are based on 51% of 100 million people or 51% of 200 million should (most of the time) make little to no difference.

I suspect that if the will of the people was actually being represented in the USA, the social landscape would look quite a bit different.

Voting is political soma as far as I'm concerned.

[jeff47]

93. Because there is never another election.

Good insights require thinking about what happens next. Stopping history the day after a candidate is sworn in is not a good insight.

[GliderGuider]

94. It's what happens to candidates after the election that is the problem.

They get suborned by the bagmen. Not all of them, but enough of them to derail most major agendas for justice. You can change parties and people all you want, but the agendas of the bagmen stay intact though it all.

As a Canadian with no skin in the American political system, I think something like this happened to Obama.

[jeff47]

89. Again, the before-and-after is only stable in low-turnout.

I really need to see evidence that this massive voting bloc is as progressive as you suggest.

It's the basis for your claim that "the public" is not being represented.

Furthermore, you are really kind of glossing over the fact that the study says much more about what happens before and after the election than voting itself. Who gets voted in and who influences them after they take office has the most significant effect on policy.

And if there was never another election, that would be a big problem.

There will be more elections. A candidate who gets elected and then radically changes their positions is not likely to get re-elected, if turnout is decent. If turnout remains at about 50%, then it's quite easy to stay in power for a long time.

In this regard it wouldn't matter if 100% of the population voted, as if who they are voting for is going through an oligarchical selection process and that the oligarchs have the constant attention of the rep in a much more dramatic sense than the population tends to override the whole voting thing.

Already covered that in the previous four posts. Reading. Try it!

That selection process is only stable in low-turnout. High-turnout, and the oligarchs do not have such power because they don't have control of enough votes. There's lots of not-in-office mainstream Republicans who were favored by the oligarchs. The teabaggers showing up in large numbers knocked them out of primaries......and then the teabagger lost in the general. For example, Harry Reid vs. Sharron Angle.

Control after the election? There will be more elections. So if they take control after an election, that candidate loses in the next election - If turnout is high enough to overwhelm the votes controlled by the oligarchs.

[BlindTiresias]

95. Hey woah

Massive progressive voting bloc =/= weak correlation of public preference with actual policies enacted. I am making no claims of a massive voting progressive voting bloc, that proof is upon you to demonstrate that this additional 50% will not just mirror the preferences of the first 50%.

Jeff, no, I'm sorry. Politicians say things during campaigning and then do things very differently so often its become an American political cliche. To be honest I am having some difficulty parsing your argument as it doesn't make a lot of sense. You seem to be saying that people would not re-elect someone who does things differently than they say they would when... this happens all the time? Surely you recall the jokes about campaign Obama versus president Obama, and Clinton's positions also changed once he gain office. Even Bush campaigned on a much softer platform than he actually enacted. This exists at more local levels too, Devall Patrick is pretty different from Devall Patrick the Governor.

You are more or less ignoring the whole of the policy process here, placing all the action in the vote without considering exactly what goes into making policy and who has the most influence at different phases. The economic elite have the ear of politicians of both parties far more than the average citizen, able to fund campaigns and give them extremely lucrative jobs after their terms are up. They can also shape media messages before and after elections, casting doubt on good candidates or shape populist policy into something more beneficial to their interests.

Finally: "Already covered that in the previous four posts. Reading. Try it!" Don't do this crap, its rude. You also haven't demonstrated that this additional 50% will not just mirror the views of the first 50%. Until you substantiate your claim your claims of more voting=more progressive policies are just a sentiment.

[jeff47]

104. Yes, you are making such claims

Massive progressive voting bloc =/= weak correlation of public preference with actual policies enacted.

You can detect that weak correlation because polling shows the public is to the left of the policies actually enacted.

In other words, if there is no significant voting block, you have no argument - public preference would match policies.

Politicians say things during campaigning and then do things very differently so often its become an American political cliche.

Within limits. Run as a Democrat and then flip to Republican after the election? You lose the next election. It's happened multiple times.

The economic elite have the ear of politicians of both parties far more than the average citizen, able to fund campaigns and give them extremely lucrative jobs after their terms are up. They can also shape media messages before and after elections, casting doubt on good candidates or shape populist policy into something more beneficial to their interests.

Which is why the New Deal never happened. Great Society? LBJ never got that passed. And we certainly torpedoed any attempts at health care reform after Kennedy passed away.

Oh wait....none of that happened.

Finally: "Already covered that in the previous four posts. Reading. Try it!" Don't do this crap, its rude.

So is repeating the same crap in post after post, demonstrating that you are hitting "reply" without bothering to read the post you are replying to.

You are making posts as if being the last in the reply chain means you win, instead of bothering to have a discussion.

You also haven't demonstrated that this additional 50% will not just mirror the views of the first 50%.

If they don't, you do not have a point. In order for you to have a point about weak correlation, the views of the public must not match policy.

If additional turnout did not result in additional votes against the oligarchs, then there is no disparity between public sentiment and the oligarchs. Leaving you with perfect correlation and no point.

There's also the minor detail that higher turnout elections have favored Democrats for the last 50-or-so years. Might possibly be relevant to whether or not higher turnout results in electing more people from the left political party.

[BlindTiresias]

105. Question

Did you read the study I am talking about? Before we proceed I'd like to clear that up.

[jeff47]

108. And now for the appeal to authority.

Yes.

A question for you:
You realize that you are working quite hard to get people to passively accept oligarchy, right?

"There's this policy process that you louts can't possibly understand. So you all just go about your day and screw voting. It's a huge waste of time because nothing can ever change. I'm gonna make vague comments from my basement about revolution, but you people trying to make the situation better are totally wasting your time."

[BlindTiresias]

109. I am asking

Because I feel like we are talking past each other to some extent. The study itself says nothing about progressiveness in the public opinion, merely that their preferences were not being met compared to the economic elite. I'm not willing to extend the basis of my argument beyond the confines of the paper so I am asking you to provide evidence that this additional voting bloc is progressive in character. If you can indeed prove this then I will happily join your evidence with this study and we can meet in the middle with a better version of both of our arguments.

Also please don't engage in ad hominem attacks, I'm not your enemy and it's just bad behavior.

[Doctor_J]

55. That's the truth. We got huge turnout in 2008 for pushback against the status quo

All those people wanted UHC, Bush Crime Family prosecutions, end to war, serious trimming of the PATRIOT Act, and so on. Didn't quite work out that way.

[TBF]

10. A Wendy Davis volunteer came

to my door this weekend

She got a very warm reception & a promise to help as we get closer to the election (when the kids are back in school - then I am free during the day for data entry, food delivery, driving people to polls etc).

I think Goodhair being investigated gives us every reason to question whether his side-kick Greg Abbott has any reason running for governor.

And I think there are many moderates who will be willing to look at both candidates as well.

[Rex]

11. I want solutions, I am tired of the sloganeering.

People need to get their asses out of the house and in the polling booths in November! Simple, elegant and straightforward. Revolutions are for people that are incredibly desperate.

We are far from incredibly desperate.

[MineralMan]

116. And that is the entire point of GOTV activism.

Getting people out of their houses and to the polling place. What has worked for me is convincing them that voting is how they get what they need. Not voting lets other people decide what they get.

I find that argument quite effective in the kind of one-on-one GOTV activism I engage in.

[GliderGuider]

13. I don't think that will work...

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

To put it short: The United States is no democracy (GG: or even a Republic), but actually an oligarchy.

What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell.

So what's Plan B?

[JoePhilly]

14. Give up and stay home ...

... apparently.

[GliderGuider]

15. Or do something else useful outside the political system?

There are more than two answers to any human question, right?

[JoePhilly]

16. What is this "something else" you speak of then?

[GliderGuider]

17. Community involvement, teaching, support of chosen causes - stuff like that.

Actions where I am directly involved with whatever I decide needs changing, not delegating my authority to someone else to do with as they (or some unknown third party) wishes.

[JoePhilly]

18. And that gets us Universal Health care how?

By not voting, you delegate a great deal of your authority, because those decisions that you pretend have no effect on you, will get made anyway.

See, you can walk (vote) and chew gum (be active locally) at the same time.

Well, some of us can.

[GliderGuider]

19. It gets us wars and trickle-down economics, not universal health care.

I'm of the opinion that every political party out there has been suborned by money and power. For me, voting would amount to legitimizing what I see as a fundamentally corrupt process. I voted 30 years ago, now I will not.

My position is laid out in an article I wrote about 5 years ago: The Guardian Institutions of Hierarchy

[MineralMan]

39. So, you're not going to vote?

Seeya. I have people to talk to who haven't made that decision. I don't have the breath to talk to you. You are irrelevant to our political future.

[GliderGuider]

72. I'm indeed irrelevant to your political future, but not in the way you think.

I'm Canadian. I don't vote up here, not down there.

[MineralMan]

36. Please elaborate.

[GliderGuider]

68. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024820769#post17

[MineralMan]

21. I reject that argument, since we have had such low turnouts in

the past and since large turnouts make big changes in how government is constituted.

[jeff47]

23. That's 'cause the economic elites show up and vote.

Sure, they're also paying tons of money in donations to get their issues before Congress, but that only works if their Congress keeps getting elected.

They do that by spending a lot of money telling people like you that it's rigged, that you can't change anything. That you should just stay home.

You could decide to stop letting that work. 'Course that would require giving up the "too cool to be part of the system" thing.

[BlindTiresias]

37. no, wrong

The economic elites do not posses the numbers to influence anything by voting, their influence comes -after- the voting for representatives is done and -before- the voting starts by giving preference to certain individuals who are most amenable/amicable to their preferences and then shaping the popular opinion by media they nearly entirely control.

[jeff47]

41. And those people stay in office

only because half of the country doesn't bother to vote.

The public is far more liberal than Congress. But the public doesn't bother to show up, because there's an army of people telling them that voting doesn't matter. That it's all rigged. That it's so much cooler to say "I'm not part of the system, man!"

[BlindTiresias]

46. What?

I'm not following you here, can you please explain the relation between the very low correlation between public opinion and policy and the substantially higher rates of voting?

[jeff47]

51. "Elites" can fool about 1/4 of the population.

Since only 1/2 of the public bothers to vote, you have a competitive battle between the elite's position and the "non-elite" position.

If 75% of the public bothered to vote, the elites would lose. They'd be overwhelmed by the public. Hence all the efforts to depress turnout.

[Chathamization]

69. People aren't forced to follow the media, nor are they forced to vote for people who don't represent

their views. The fact that they often do suggests that the OP is correct - if people were to pay attention, there'd be a sea change. You seem to be saying that voting for better candidates won't work because people won't vote for better candidates, which seems pretty circular.

[BlindTiresias]

79. Not quite

I am saying that voting alone isn't going to cut it. You need to correct the democratic short circuit located in candidate selection/promotion and who influences the representatives after they are elected. As stated above, just having more people vote is not enough as statistical sampling demonstrates that a large enough sample correctly estimates the composition of the whole. You would have to prove that this untapped voting bloc is statistically more progressive, otherwise we can assume it will closely resemble the 50% that do vote.

[Chathamization]

85. Of course just voting isn't enough; the OP wasn't saying voting for Tea Partiers would fix things

You naturally have to vote for the right individuals. You also have to show up to the primaries (candidate selection) and pay attention, which almost no one does. A small group of people choose who we get to pick in the general? No kidding, that's what happens when you have primaries where turnout is in the teens, and most of those voters don't care enough to spend more than ten minutes researching the candidate. And that's of eligible voters, there are a number of Dems who won't register as such.

Yes, people also should be volunteering and helping the right candidates get in power. But the OP is correct, if people made full use of the power of the voting booth there'd be drastic changes. If people are too lazy to use the power they're already given, it's highly unlikely that any other kind of revolution would bring us something better.

[Demeter]

65. Democracy has to start at home

In your local community. Just like the Tea Party did. Take over the local government and fix it. The local schools. The local police, the local unions and contracts.

Then work up the ladder: county, state legislature, governor, federal legislature....all 50 states.

It's a mammoth task. But it won't get done Top-Down, unless FDR returns. And he had TONS of grass roots support.

[leftstreet]

24. If only millions of voters were motivated!

[jeff47]

25. Turnout: 61.6%.

That remaining nearly half of the country would kinda be the point.

[MineralMan]

32. That was just the turnout of registered voters.

Half of eligible voters aren't even registered. That's part of the job we have to do. We have Congress and state legislatures to win. We need a larger turnout of voters overall and everywhere.

We won't get them by discouraging them or by sitting on our butts, either. We'll get them out by telling them why it matters so much. Each of us needs to be an educator.

[jeff47]

34. Actually, eligible voters

But that doesn't change your point.

[MineralMan]

30. Yes, and look at the result.

You make my point, quite frankly.

[FiveGoodMen]

66. More of those would still be motivated

if that guy on the stage had pushed for the changes that all those people were there to hear about.

[MineralMan]

74. He did push.

Maybe you weren't paying attention.

[jeff47]

90. Because we live in a dictatorship.

There isn't another branch of government that stymied efforts at stimulus, public options, or any of the other things "those people" wanted.

[jwirr]

35. While I think we are heading toward a revolution, I also think it is not just around the corner. In

the mean time we cannot afford to let another W win. Not only will we not accomplish anything if we default to another W but we will not get another chance to win. I for one do not want to lose what little we have accomplished in civil rights, health care and other areas. I want us to think about both of these ideas one in the future and the other now GOTV now. Do not let us slide back to pre-FDR days.

I and my daughter are totally dependent on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the SNAP program. Without them we die. We need to vote.

[MineralMan]

38. When you vote, bring others with you. That is what is necessary.

It is not enough just to vote. We already do that. What is needed is for more people to vote in the same way we do.

If you cannot afford to lose, then bring as many like-minded people as you can find to the polls.

[jwirr]

49. I agree.

[warrprayer]

45. I applaud your commitment

what you are doing is honorable and noble. Rec.

However, it is a sad fact that Citizens United and McCutcheon alone will do more to make us lose elections than all the other reasons you give.

[jeff47]

53. Yeah, that's why we lost 2012.

....oh wait.

[warrprayer]

63. no, actually we lost 2012...

because all the dirty hippies stayed home and didn't vote. That's who we are gearing up to blame for 2014.

[jeff47]

91. Apparently you needed the sarcasm emote.

Hint: We didn't lose 2012.

[warrprayer]

112. thanks

I would have used it but don't know how

[westerebus]

56. The key to a voter revolution?

NONE OF THE ABOVE...as a voter choice.

Elections are won on the inclinations of independent voters in national elections.

As there is no viable third party alternative due to the powers invested in the current system.

How about this choice to get the masses to the polls?

We could do a do over, until some one emerged as acceptable to We the People.

[Iliyah]

59. K & R

[marions ghost]

73. The antiquated dysfunctional voting system

needs to be revolutionized. Then talk to me about the power of voting. Sure we all need to vote but because the game is so rigged, we are only providing a collective finger in the dike. Status Quo prevails.
Elections bring very few solutions to serious problems we have identified for a long time.

We should not have to be killing ourselves to cajole, nag, and drag people to vote, or to try to shore up a dysfunctional system so we can vote for corporate funded candidates. But that's all we're allowed to do currently. Or not allowed to do, in the case of the national RethugliCon movement to prevent voting, period.

Of course we have to vote for Dems because the alternative is even worse. Yes GOTV is important in that. But progressives in government are so few it amounts to tokenism. We are not truly represented. So I don't see how you can possibly call it the only revolution we need.

[jeff47]

92. By more voting.

Turnout in primary elections is abysmal. You want a progressive on the ballot? You need more people to show up on primary day.

[BlindTiresias]

96. You haven't demonstrated

That an additional 50% of the vote will contain a hidden progressive majority.

[jeff47]

99. It's the basis of your claim that the oligarchy rules.

Your claim rests on polling of the general public not lining up with what politicians do. Meaning there is a hidden progressive majority.

If you want to claim you are wrong, that's fine. But you need the public to be left of politicians for either of us to be correct.

[BlindTiresias]

102. No, not really.

The statement is that public preference has weak correlation with what policies are actually passed. The study makes no further qualification about those preferences. I have made no claims about some hidden progressive majority, only you have. You have to demonstrate some difference between the the 50% or so and the current 50% that do vote, otherwise your argument is just wishful thinking merged with a naive view of the policy process.

Edit: Ok I think I isolated the source of our disagreement. You are placing primacy on the act of voting for representatives. However, policies are crafted and modified after the voting is already done. Within the policy process there is very little "pure" public input as if the policy has not achieved notoriety then the typical interest groups and economic elites have their way. If the policy is public knowledge then the understanding of the policy is shaped by mass media... which is owned by economic elites.

Not saying this to denigrate you or anything but how familiar are you with the policy process? I may be using a model you are unaware of.

[jeff47]

107. Yes, really.

The statement is that public preference has weak correlation with what policies are actually passed.

And what would be that correlation if the public was not significantly different from what policies are actually passed? Pretty damn close to a perfect correlation.

In order for there to be a weak correlation, there must be a difference of opinion between the public and policy. So you either need an underrepresented left-leaning public, or an underrepresented right-leaning public. Since higher turnout elections favor Democrats, and has for decades, it's pretty clear there is an underrepresented left-leaning public. Polling on specific issues backs this up - Gun control has a large majority, single-payer gets about 50%, higher taxes on the wealthy gets a majority, and so on.

The study makes no further qualification about those preferences.

The study also does not demonstrate that 1+1=2. You're not supposed to need a study to figure out some things.

Ok I think I isolated the source of our disagreement. You are placing primacy on the act of voting for representatives. However, policies are crafted and modified after the voting is already done. Within the policy process there is very little "pure" public input as if the policy has not achieved notoriety then the typical interest groups and economic elites have their way.

And if you'd bother reading my posts, you'd find I already addressed that. Multiple times.

Guess what? There's more than one election. A politician where policy ventures too far from what the voters chose results in losing the next election. They have some room to maneuver, but not infinite room. Especially if you can boost turnout in a primary election.

Not saying this to denigrate you or anything but how familiar are you with the policy process? I may be using a model you are unaware of.

The model of "don't read the other person's posts so you can keep throwing out gotchas that are already addressed"?

[BlindTiresias]

110. Uhh

Listen I don't even know what you are arguing for anymore. The study says nothing about the composition of the preference merely that it is not being met to the same level as economic elite preference. I'm not willing to venture on a composition because I don't know, so I am asking you to provide evidence, not a priori statements, that this unaddressed non-voting public is as progressive as you say.

Compounding this is the fact that people voting for representatives is but a part of the policy process, as what representatives vote for is modified by many considerations, among them influence from economic elites, policy experts, and ground level administrators (in terms of selecting for policy alternatives).

So what confuses me about your argument is this: The current composition of the voters is about half conservative and half progressive. Ok, so if this is the case what evidence is there for the additional segment of the non-voting public being substantially more progressive than the sample we have of the voting public.

However, you now seem to be saying that the current composition is predominantly progressive, which also needs substantiation. If the current composition of voters is largely progressive and their preference is not being met, then doesn't this negatively impact the value of voting?

[U4ikLefty]

122. The goal is to wear you out so you'll stop making them look bad.

FYI

[babylonsister]

77. Ya know what? Just

thanks. Great message; motivate people to vote. It will make a huge difference if that can be done.

[MineralMan]

78. Thank you!

[Vashta Nerada]

80. You're funny.

When we vote, we're voting for more of the same. Voting changes nothing.

[JI7]

82. it did in California when we got rid of Arnold and now have Brown

even with any criticism of Brown he has been a lot better for the state.

[MineralMan]

86. Incorrect. In Minnesota, voting changed everything in 2012.

Your statement is ridiculous on its face, and there are many, many examples of elections where voting produced major changes. If you're not aware of those, you're not aware.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Necessary, indeed! But not sufficient.

We must also be candid about our problems, espouse valid solutions, and demonstrate that we can succeed. Or at least that we can fight like hell (for the 99%).

GOTV and agressive expression of the truth are not mutually exclusive, they are two halves of a pair of scissors; one without the other leads to failure.

[marions ghost]

101. Right

Necessary but not sufficient.

[JI7]

83. i don't know anyone on here who actually wants a revolution

i know there are those who like to talk about things like that because it makes them feel good about themselves and better than others who are involved in usual political activities. but not much more than that.

[marions ghost]

103. Could you

not take the word "revolution" so literally? A revolution does not only mean some kind of armed insurrection. Revolution can also mean substantial non-violent change that happens over a relatively short period of time. That can be accomplished many ways.

No need to be so smug. Yeah nobody here is stupid enough to call for confronting the US government with pitchforks. Any alliance with revolutionaries of the past is symbolic. But we do need real change.

[arcane1]

106. BUt then we can't be petulant and complain that they aren't solving our problems for us!

Where's the fun in THAT?

[yuiyoshida]

113. This thread needs music...

[lovemydog]

118. Who is playing the fuzz guitar?

I love that fuzzy sound.

[yuiyoshida]

123. I noticed that if you watch the video...

They aren't even lip synced correctly. I think this might be one of those videos where someone took the same sequences and played them over and over as if they were really singing the song.

[Zorra]

119. When we say we want a revolution, we don't mean more corporate revolution.

“Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness – and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe.

The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.

Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.

~ Arundhati Roy

Vote often, but carry a big "stick".

[lovemydog]

120. Thanks for that great quote

I looked up Arundhati Roy, and intend to read one of her books. I like what she says there. For me personally, voting is the least that I do. Not the most. I'm in the left wing of the democratic party. In primaries I vote green or furthest left democrat. I've love Naomi Klein's No Logo (and her other writings). I try my best to shun corporate bs. It's ubiquitous and noxious. Have a good night!