Forum Post: OCCUPY THE VOTE: What if someone built an online hub where we can define the issues and vote on a candidate to run as a third party for the 2012 presidency? They already did. lets co-opt that shit.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 1:43 a.m. EST by occupypitt17
(24)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
www.americanselect.org AmericansElect.org is a serious attempt to have the first online direct vote for a third party for the American presidency. You can vote on issues, nominate candidates, and eventually vote directly online in the third parties primary election. I've seen many people on here calling for us to write in third party candidates for office. I questioned that directions effectiveness simply because of how hard it is to run a national campaign, how hard it would be to find candidates, and the kind of political networking that it would take to really make a serious difference. I believe this solves most of those problems. You can create an account right now and begin answering polling questions that the site uses to match the party with the right candidate (based on their stances on each issue). Our movement is very young, tech savvy, and highly networked. The exact kind of people needed to make something like AmericansElect.org work. Without large campaign donations you need lots of people having conversations, and if there is anything this movement has succeeded at it is starting a national conversation. With enough support AmericansElect could be the Occupy party in everything but name.
Two things that I know are going to get brought up are
Our political process is broken, thus even our own candidate would not be effective in changing the system from the inside. This I think is a correct observation. We should still work to address our grievances from outside the system, but at least attempting to work with the system goes a long way to add to our credibility and would persuade a larger proportion of the 99% to join our cause. Many people are under the understanding that you make the sort of change we are asking for at the voting booth. This would be a great way to get those who have no interest in protesting or camping in a park out to "Occupy the vote."
Third parties don't ever win elections. This is also true. In all actuality though we don't have to win an election to make a big difference. Lets take a look back at our history for a second. In 1992 Ross Perot ran against Clinton and Bush with one main issue in mind, the national debt. He only received 18.9% of the popular vote, but he was a central part of the national campaign for the presidency. Americans watched the national debates between himself and the other candidates and although his candidacy failed, his cause did not. One of Bill Clinton's first acts as president was to cut the federal deficit by 500 billion. By the end of his presidency the country was running a surplus for the first time in decades. Another example is Theodore Roosevelt's second run for the presidency. He ran on issues such as direct elections for senators, direct primaries, women's suffrage, regulations for business, a minimum wage, etc. He lost the election with only 27.4% of the popular vote but almost all of his causes were taken up by the victor, Woodrow Wilson.
Let me say again, I don't think our movement should put all its eggs in this basket, but it really is remarkable how all of this is just lined up for us, ripe for us to reap the rewards. We can build the political arm of the Occupy movement overnight at next to no cost. All it takes is a little coordination and spreading the word.
If you run a third party, you may as well hand the election over to a Republican. I cannot stand behind that. You may have to do it from the ground up, as in start local.
[Removed]
yea man, lets co-opt dat shit
Ralph Nader has described the difficulty of running in a third party. The biggest problem is that the big party will file all sorts of legal challenges to any thing a smaller party tries to do. Thus the smaller ends up with no money . for campaigning. What has worked for other movements is to single out a particularly corrupt congressman ( a tool of the Oligarchy) particularly and focus on him with either another candidate or with a flood of information that would inform the public about his perfidy . Do that enough times and you create a climate of fear amongst the corrupt which tends to create compliance to your demands.. This method has actually been made to work.. It can be called leverage.
Yes, yes and Yes!
Why not expand this idea...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/yourtopia-your-official-final-beginning-perhaps-no/#comment-425188
Check this out.
Wilson also signed the Federal Reserve Act, making all of us debt slaves. We fought the English and they came back with bankers, instead of soldiers and took our government from us.
Demand that each voter gets a paper receipt that:
Yes, yes, and YES! Critically important. Good point.
People of the Occupy movement need to face the facts, as hard as they may be to swallow. Conservatives HATE us. Therefore, the Occupy movement is not going to influence Republican voters or steal any votes from their nominee. The only person the movement is going to be able to steal votes from is Obama. Like him or dislike him, I think that many of us will agree that his virtues are more aligned with ours than that of the GOP. You want to make a statement? Make it to the GOP who stands for everything we are against. They would like nothing more than for all of you to do what is being discussed above. Not that it's a bad idea, but I highly suggest targeting the 2016 election. Doing this now -- so close to the 2012 election could be disasterous for middle America. So I am pleading with you... DON'T DO IT.... NOT NOW!
Occupypit17,
Great article. I think it would be such a breath of fresh air to have a 3rd party candidate for president who really supported the people instead of corporations. I too am very frustrated by how the current 2 parties seem to ignore anyone who can't drop a $10,000 donation at a dinner.
But I still have to say that I think an "Occupy Candate" would actually be a disatrous thing for the movement to push for - for purely political reasons.
Like you said in your article, 3rd party candidates are not likely to win...but they do influence elections. Yes, Ross Perot steered the debate in 1992 in an important direction. He was popular, especially with independent voters - particularly conservative-leaning independents. And his presence(pulling center-conservative voters) played a big part in Bush Sr.'s loss. Then fast forward to 2000. Remember Ralph Nader? I liked him. I think he would have actually made a great president. But as a 3rd party candidate, he had no chance. But what he did do was attract voters who otherwise probably would have voted for Al Gore. Result: election of President G.W.Bush. We all know where that took us. Can you imagine how much different & better the world and our country would be today if it had not had to suffer through 8 years G.W. Bush's presidency?
So although it is VERY tempting to field a 3rd part candidate to more closely represent our views, watch a few Republican debates first. I really don't think we should do ANYTHING that would make it ANY more likely that ANY of those crazies could become our next president.
I am frustrated by President Obama's failure to carry out a lot of his promises (though I do think that is largely due to House Republicans who blocked ANYTHING he tried to do just for that purpose). But I shudder to imagine the horrible road someone like Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachman might steer this country down.
If anything, I think the Occupy movement should work to field a 3rd party conservative candidate. Solely to draw votes away from the Republican candidate. Split their vote, re-elect President Obama, and push to give him a Democratic controlled congress to work with, and we might actually see some things get done without being muddled by stupid attempts to "compromise" with un-compromising, corrupt, greedy, elitist Republicans. Does that make sense?
Keep up your passion, fire, and motivation. Whatever happens, it's nice to know there are people who are devoted to fixing the many things that are broke in our nation right now. Keep up the good work!
I think your constructive post is the real breath of fresh air. I cant thank you enough for actually listening and thinking over my post before responding. I've thought the same thing many times before getting on board with the idea because I too think Obama represents our views more than any other. The reasons I backed off my original position is that I think in our current political climate you could expect close to an even number of voters from either side defecting to a third party candidate and also because Occupie's central issue of getting money out of Washington is an issue that voters on both sides can rally behind. The politics also lend themselves in Obama's favor. I read the other day that he has a base level of support of 44% where each of his Republican rivals is much lower. In a three way race 44% is more than enough to win. Also as you can see from some of the posts below, many on here have no inclination to work within our political system to accomplish our goals. I think this could be a good way to meet them half way. My final reason is that even though its risky, the rewards are just too great. Can you imagine two of the candidates in the presidential debates taking on income inequality or corporate interests in Washington? Also the implications of electing a representative online could be groundbreaking. This could do to politics what Itunes did to the music industry. It could flatten the old top down structures and make running for office an open playing field. It could spark the idea that we can use technology to enhance our democracy, something I think could be far more beneficial than a second term for Obama.
hmmmm.... it's close. It would definitely be nice to watch a general election phase presidential debate with the candidates actually discussing corporate influence in Washington and income inequality. But I'm not sure if Pres. Obama is really comforably enough ahead or not. He may have greater base support now while the other side is split among their primary candidates, but I've seen polls already making hypothetical matchups between the president and potential individual opponents such as M. Romney, and H. Cain (while he was still relatively popular) and they were all within 5-10 pts.
I'd say if the Tea Party fields a candidate, then OWS could safely do so. But if the conservative vote is not diluted among multiple candidates, then we still should not risk dilluting the liberal vote. Mike Huckabee for President! Go Huck!
As for the computer thing, are you talking about having a computer voting process serve the role of a party convention? That would be pretty cool. Maybe Sarah Palin could be induced into running if nominated by such a process. Everyone knows she would love an opportunity to recieve more campaign attention without actually having to worry about ultimately being elected. And she would WONDERFULLY split the Tea Party voters away from the Republican nominee. Now I'm getting excited! :)
That's exactly what they are doing. Electing a candidate by popular vote online. They already have half the signatures they need to get the candidate on the national ballot. I think your concerns are definitely valid, but again I think if the parties were forced to adopt a primary system like this one far right/left candidates wouldnt be able to take advantage of the primary system like they do now to get elected. Moderate candidates could do a lot of good. Also encouraging Palin to run for our advantage is genius. We could easily mount a campaign to flood her email/facebook wall in support of her running as a third party "tea party" candidate. I do wonder if she would risk ruining her parties chance at the presidency, but stroking her ego would definitely be the place to start.
Field a 3rd party conservative candidate. That's playing some hardball. I like it. And you're correct, a 3rd party candidate competing for democratic votes would be dangerous.
I'm starting to think we could make this work for everybody. Convince Dr. Paul to be our conservative candidate once its apparent he can't win the rep. nomination. He has already stuck up for our concerns once in the Republican debates. He would also take more conservative than liberal votes so we wouldnt risk putting a Republican in the presidency. It would be a tough sell, but it's fun to think about.
I'm apprehensive about his Foreign Policy, like it or not we still need to operate in the global arena and being isolationist would be disastrous.
works for me.
Although do I agree with you that we need Obama for another term only that there are no other viable candidates out there, we need to keep in mind that no matter what party is in power they are ALL corrupted in some shape or form. The government as it stands needs an extreme overhaul before any change can be appreciated...
We see it as corruption; but the reality is a hidden agenda, which we do not understand, because the 1% isn't talking.
Your vote doesn't count. Stop with this electoral politics nonsense. It just legitimizes the US government and diverts energy into meaningless theater.
At least one person in this thread has their head on straight.
Vote for the good Doctor. Lots of stuff he promotes is debatable, but overall, he's offering the best pkg. Sadly, since I came of voting age in the 70's, it's always been the lesser of 2 evils. Honestly, this is the first time I am actively FOR SOMEONE. And yes, it's the dreaded R Paul
Although I agree with many of Dr. Paul's stances on the issues, like the wars (including the drug war) and the patriot act, but I can't agree with some of his stances on the issues, one of them being the gold standard. The biggest reason I cant support Dr. Paul is that he essentially believes that the free market can solve all of our problems as a society. At one point during the debates he said the he thought the free market would insure everyone has acceptable health insurance. I know this wont happen, and I think it is a fundamental departure from the American formula. Traditionally we have struck up a bargain between public motivation and private enterprise. The transcontinental railroad being a good example. Government provided incentives for private industry to solve societies problems. In Paul's vision something like that isn't possible. I think in the modern world we live in our government needs to be able to adapt to new problems, and I think Paul would write a bit veto on almost all legislation that crossed his desk. This is a good discussion to have though, and the results of our discussion could result in directly electing a representative, over at www.americanselect.org
True. Getting Chinese people who couldn't be citizens to work 24hrs a day in dangerous conditions was a real nice bargain between 'public motivation' and private enterprise. It really solved a lot of societies problems. Maybe we can use the Mexicans this time around.
A bit of history:
"Many of the railroad's builders viewed the Plains Indians as obstacles to be removed. General William Tecumseh Sherman wrote in 1867: "The more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next year, for the more I see of these Indians the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers." Construction of the railroad provided many opportunities for financial chicanery, corruption, graft, and bribery. The greatest financial scandal of the 19th century grew out of the railroad's construction. The president of the Union Pacific helped found a construction company, called Credit Mobilier, which allowed investors, including several members of Congress, to grant lucrative construction contracts to themselves, while nearly bankrupting the railroad."
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=177
Ahh the good ole days! Oh wait it sounds just like now!
I also disagree with R Paul on many things including his stand on Roe vs. Wade but he's the most transparent and consistent politicians out there. With him at least you know what you're getting instead of the bait and switch that went on with Obama.
I appreciate all of the Paul support throughout this movement because it shows that it's not only a left wing movement. There is definitely a lot we can all agree on. What Is your plan after he inevitably loses the Republican nomination? He has signaled that this is his last presidential run and his son Rand has gone pretty far out of his way to woo tea party voters. RP supporters could convince him to run as a third party candidate through Americans Elect. If you really think he is Occupy's man this could be your shot.
My plan? I don't think RP is an Occupy man. There are too many elements within OWS that would never support a Paul, especially if they have an extreme leftist view of what the country should look like. R Paul is basically a fiscal conservative and a strict constitutionalist. What I admire about him is his honesty and consistency, he is right about so many things. I don't think that Occupy should focus on one candidate in this upcoming election like Obama for example. Perhaps it can form its own party that embodies certain goals like reinstating Glass-Steagall, election finance reform etc. A party dedicated to weaning out corruption from the system, both politically and financially and then maybe the right candidate would rise to the surface, someone who can pass muster with mainstream america. I would advocate voting for Paul if he said he would work on election finance reform, I believe that is the first step on getting the system back on track. I would be difficult for anyone, no matter how noble their ideas, to get into office when it costs so many millions of dollars, money that the average tax payer cannot afford to invest in a people's candidate. But then again maybe a miracle will happen, I'm told they do from time to time. But to set the record straight I would rather throw my vote towards R Paul than Obama.
Well yeah. The gold standard would bankrupt us all. It is certainly not pracical in the short term and by that I mean he couldn't do anything about it if he were a TWO TERM prez. Vetoing a lot of the nonsense our Legislature manages to pass lately would not be a bad thing. Who sent their reps to DC to discuss abortion, gay rights, and this bully stuff? That's just off the top of my drunken head tonite. Not sure what truly NEW problems we have today that you mention above. Federal govt is meant to first and foremost defend our borders and our life, liberty and pursuit. Alledged economies of scale have allowed a ton of scope creep.