Forum Post: The completely useless and meaningless 2012 elections should be canceled and replaced by a NATION-WIDE REFERENDUM to overhaul the present, corrupt-to-the-core political system.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 9:27 p.m. EST by TIOUAISE
(2526)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Such a referendum would IMO be VERY useful and meaningful. And the reason for demanding such a referendum would be that THE NATION IS IN A STATE OF CRISIS that threatens its very survival.
To me, that is THE DEMAND that OWS should focus on, and I think that the American people are so SICK of the two main parties that they would actually WELCOME the possibility of overhauling the whole corrupt system in order to start anew.
I have a feeling that a strong majority of Americans would vote "YES" in a "REFERENDUM FOR A NEW AMERICA".
Time to put back on the blue coats and call ourselves minute men, Time to take to arms for our country, I'll be glad and honored to be the first to die.
hmm, well I had an idea (even though I am not American).
Start a new political party, call it the 'Occupy' party. The Tea party people would probably start their own as well. See how many votes you can take away from the Republicans and Democrats. This will completely confuse their strategy.
Then, if and when you get elected into Senate, you can have a party platform with your current list of grievances.
If my car has a blown head gasket will replacing the alternator make it run any better?
I don't know, I am not a car mechanic. I am guessing the answer is 'No' to your rhetorical question? It's just a suggestion. You could even just be like the Rhinocerous party and if a candidate gets elected, camp out in the Senate building. If anything, a new 'Occupy' political party would at least break that stalemate of voting for Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Remember that the entire electoral structure seems to be based upon that right now. A new and powerful political party just might completely throw a wrench into the works, bringing that whole metaphorical engine to a stop.
I'm in favor of more parties but the Supreme Court and corrupt politicians keep changing the rules to benefit corporations, special interest and themselves. We have to remove the incentives that cause these things to happen until then it won't matter who we vote into office.
I know. I agree with you. The whole system is broke. Not only in the USA, but EVERYWHERE...all over the world. We have a multiple party system in Canada, and in Europe too, but it really changes NOTHING. The main problem (I think) is that the power of money creation is in the hands of private banks...so no government will get any money unless they cater to the banker's demands.
I don't know. Obviously these are complex problems with no easy solutions. I remember Abraham Lincoln stepped around the problem by creating 'greenbacks', a government minted currency that sidestepped borrowing money from the banks for a while...at least until he was assassinated. (Easy enough for the 1% to hire all the goons and assassins they need, after all).
I agree. I think there should be a nation wide, state by state recall of most all of our congress people and senators. With the numbers of occupy supporters we probably have enough signatures to make a petition to demand a recall.
Good to see someone using their head.
We need a better way to fight back. Protesting is courageous! But we have to do very big things to solve our very big problems. What worked in past is not going to work now. This is different.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
Free people shouldn't act or live like slaves...
This NATION-WIDE REFERENDUM idea would 1st cut-out the LOBBYIST middlemen, and RE-DIRECT the constant campaign CASH FLOW towards persuading the public: White House website sponsored petition re public vote on the competing versions of a Congressional bill, before they get watered down http://wh.gov/bhC
PUBLIC VOTE on the COMPETING FINAL DEMOCRATIC vs FINAL REPUBLICAN vs INDEPENDENT VERSIONS of a CONGRESSIONAL BILL. For example, both the Republican and Democratic parties claim to have tax code and healthcare reform plans. It is time to show these plans to the public in writing. Here the media polls and media talk shows would have something real to talk about before submitting the competing versions to the final decision-making responsibility of We the People.
We the Signers demand a PUBLIC VOTE OPTION be incorporated as a new legislative continuing JOINT RESOLUTION. Binding on Congress itself to pass along the public majority winning version of a bill to the President. The legislative precedent being no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill.
Petitions receiving 25,000 votes in 30 days, are referred to evaluation followed by OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT. Website RULES are sponsored petitions CANNOT be SEARCHED until receiving 150 VOTES. http://occupywallst.org/forum/public-vote-option-on-competing-democratic-vs-repu/
The problem with third party options are they are knock offs of the Democrats or the Republicans. Some mentioned that we must stop riders from being placed on bills so nothing is stuck in and people can do something with the main issues at hand. A party that stresses freedom shouldn't try to sell it with gun control, or prohibiting abortion. None of the third parties get passed the whole liberal, conservative polarization. We simply need a party that is a working compromise. The democratic position of no guns and abortions makes little sense, just as no abortions but gives guns makes no sense. A party that leaves these issues up to the candidates but is solid on other issues would let the people have a party that serves their needs and allows their vote to matter and encourages more diversity.
We have a situation here where we continue to allow all State and Federal government to control the masses knowing that they are not representing the people that support them or we realize how insane that is to allow this to continue and we do something about it.
The problem is there is no real viable solution with this many people living today on the planet. There has never been 7 billion people living at any time in the history of our species.
Focusing on changing a corrupt system when this system has been in place since civilization began only masked by the continuous brainwashing through the decades by keeping us so busy working and raising our families that very few noticed that we have been herded like sheep.
As sheep we are conditioned by following blindly until we reach the gates of the slaughter house - meaning lost of jobs, civil rights, no hope of succeeding, etc the people that got their first are screaming to the billions of sheep that do not know what lies ahead for them when they get there, but as sheep that are conditioned to follow and no experience as to how to be leaders is where we are today.
Our ancestors have never had to deal with what is happening today and while we realize that the system we have is not capable or do not desire in finding the solutions we so desperately need right now, we as the masses of sheep have to put our petty differences aside and realize that the sheep herders have abandoned us.
Comments like, "replace with what" should be comments like, "maybe we should try this" by attempting to take control of your destiny and to stop being sheep.
Wow, a powerful concept! Must mill this one over. Something dramatic is desperately needed. As the poster says, we are running out of time.
It IS a powerful concept and may sound frightening at first.
But look at the dire straits we're in... As you so aptly put it, "something dramatic is desperately needed". YES!!!!!!!
And I think something as dramatic as a NATION-WIDE REFERENDUM would have the power to galvanize, to electrify the nation and rekindle hope of a NEW BEGINNING.
What if the demand is simply ignored (which is what's happening)?
Those were the Bush years, Things have gotten much better, and the public knows who's corrupt and who's gonna lose.
Maybe useful, but unconstitutional. In a political environment where even a relative centralist like Obama may not win reelection, you're more likely to end up looking like a fool then get anything done.
Overhaul and replace with what?
Hmm, well you could 'replace it' with the direct democracy of the General Assembly, and apply it for the whole country.
The whole 'representational democracy' system in the U.S., as pointed out above, was deliberately designed to limit and restrict democracy.
Every four years, you 'get' to choose between two candidates which are virtually identical, who will pretend to cater to the needs they think you want from opinion polls, then once elected they just do what the bankers want. How is this democracy?
Also, if you do have a job you probably spend most of your time there, 8 to 10 hours a day. Is there democracy in your workplace? Or, is it a system where the boss is a dictator, and the employees do what they are told, or they are fired? Did you elect your boss? Do you get a say in what you do at work?
If democracy is so wonderful, why not extend it to the workplace too? Fire the bosses and the CEOs, and let the workers form a General Assembly to run the company themselves.
If you truly love democracy, the General Assembly is direct democracy in it's purest form.
It makes sense to me therefore to hold this National General Assembly to talk about this:
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Yes I think so.
However, it is too draconian to simply fire bosses and CEOs from companies and corporations that they themselves started. It's also too much like the Stalinist Soviet Union that so many Americans are terrified of.
It's better to let the workers decide for themselves, if they have a 'bad boss' and want to say go on strike until their companies go bankrupt, then take over their companies themselves (as a bank might do), and run the company using the General Assembly as a model. Well, then there is nothing to prevent the workers from doing this.
I don't believe any employee demands a democracy at their job. There has to be someone in charge or chaos is the result. I don't elect my boss but I did choose the job to apply for knowing what I was getting into.
If OWS can't agree on a specific agenda how do you expect a population of 350 million to all agree on a specific agenda? Do we just go with a majority rules type government?
Well, it depends on whether you prefer a dictatorship or a democracy in your own workplace then I guess. I mean, if you love democracy then why not have it in your workplace too? Isn't that where you spend most of your day?
How does a dictatorship benefit the workplace? I think it only leads to huge faceless corporations, where misdirected authority can run amok unopposed, and mistakes are made on a huge scale. Think Maoist China or Enron.
A democratically run workplace works quite well in some places in Europe, specifically Spain. In these places, the highest authority is the General Assembly.
Could a general assembly run the whole country? Probably not. You would probably have to revert back to the 'Town hall meetings' that you still have in small towns in the U.S. In large cities like NYC, the voting would take place in neighbourhoods, and work upwards to the whole city...each neighbourhood representing one vote.
So if i own a business and you are my employee I need to allow you a vote on the direction of my company?
No.
If you are a boss, and you are a nasty boss, I have the option to
1) quit 2) join or start a union 3) quit, become a competitor, and try to steal all your employees away with the promise that they will all be equal partners in co-management.
Or, 4) Keep my mouth shut, do a shitty job, maybe steal from your company, or sabotage your company, or any one of the thousands of ways a disgruntled employee can get back at their employer.
Your business, your choice.
My choice to start a business which competes with yours, where the employees are treated fairly.
You are obviously unemployed. You believe an employee should have equal say with the owner of a company deciding the direction the company should go but bear none of the risk if the decision goes bad and the company loses money or fails?
What makes you say I am obviously unemployed? Why can't I be self-employed, or even working for university?
Yes, I do believe that an employee should have an equal vote in how a company is run. What does the phrase 'Democratic country' mean to you? Is Democracy so frightening to you that you cannot abide it in the workplace?
What would your company do if you had no employees? Do you think you could do the exact same job that your employees do? Ever wonder why a strike is the only effective bargaining tool that labour has available? It's because when your workers stop working, so does the company.
The boss needs workers, more than the workers need a boss.
Also, if the employee that votes in a company (and the General Assembly) make a bad decision, they take the same risks that a bad boss would take, namely losing their jobs.
So far, the tendency has been for bad bosses and CEOs to make bad decisions for the corporation, and bear NONE of the risks. They are not the ones that get fired, they are not the ones suffering health risks from an unsafe work environment. They just fire some workers and give themselves bonuses!
How's THAT working for yah? How did Enron work for yah? Savings and Loans scandal? Did the jobs ever come back from China?
So an employee loses their hourly wage job but the business owner loses their investment and is responsible for unpaid debt after the business folds. You believe this to be fair?
Isn't it the way thing are now?
Not even close. Name a successful business where the owner who has invested the money to start and maintain the business allows the employees (who have not invested any money in the business and are not responsible for any business debts) to make policy decisions for the business.
No.
I meant "So an employee loses their hourly wage job but the business owner loses their investment and is responsible for unpaid debts after the business folds."
That happens regardless of who makes the decisions. That is what I meant "Isn't that the way things are now?"
Name a successful business that uses this model? How about any co-op?
I don't know Harry. If you don't believe in it, then you don't have to try it.
"Overhaul and replace with what?" you ask.
With something intelligent and well-crafted that would actually give the power back to - guess who? - WE THE PEOPLE!!!
Thomas Jefferson actually called for "a revolution every twenty years" in order to adapt to changing times. How many of those have we had since 1776?
Generalities are fine at cocktail parties, but you are stating a position and have nothing as a foundation.
Thomas Jefferson was just a man. No reason to follow his position of a revolution every 20 years. he also supported slavery, are you fine with that position?
No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but so did most everyone else at the time.
No they didn't. It was a minority of people that owned slaves.
As I have pointed out ad-nausium, he owned slaves, released some of them, married one, although he could not do so legally at the time, lived with her for 23 tears, took her with him to Europe and had a family. He worked tirelessly to repeal slavery through a constitutional amendment. You are now wearing clothes made by slave labor. We cannot simply step out of the reality of our times into some alternate universe.
Yes good point. The one percenters of their time.
Nah, it was like Imperial Russia, where the civil servants who lived in hovels had footmen who lived in closets.
Our country is going down the drain VERY fast. It is urgent that we be CREATIVE. Choosing between Obama and Romney Is NOT my idea of CREATIVITY - more like a grotesque waste of precious time, energy and money. STOP this useless process!!!
So your answer is that you really don't know what you want as a government after you overthrow the present system.
Maybe you should work on that before you overthrow anything.
Do you still carry your grade-school dictionary? Check "overhaul" and "overthrow". BIG SURPRISE! They're not synonyms... :o)
overhaul and replace with what? Is that too difficult for you to answer?
If you are going to bring in a completely new type of system then you are overthrowing the present system and replacing it.
Overhauling the system is still keeping the old system but fixing it in some way.
Which one is it going to be and what are you going to specifically fix or overthrow?
I repeat : "Do you still carry your grade-school dictionary? Check "overhaul" and "overthrow". BIG SURPRISE! They're not synonyms... :o)
I have no more time to waste with someone who is clearly NOT interested in meaningful conversation.
So essentially you agree with me that you have nothing to replace the overhauled or overthrown system. Now you can go back to banging a drum.
out of the platitudes and bitchfest going on here there have been a few concrete action plans go fleeting by:
http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
[-] theghostofthomasjefferson 3 points 4 days ago
No, I wrote the Declaration of Desperation. I believe the 99% Declaration is an ineffective document. The Occupy Movement will fail if it is adopted. For it will alienate the American People. This is not a question of politics, of right or wrong. This is a question of intelligence. We must be smart. We enjoy popular support, for now. But to preserve America's good will, we must keep our demands narrow: end the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is something a majority of Americans can get behind. That is something a social movement can achieve. And then, and only then, can the other issues be successfully pursued.
I repeat (with drum banging) : "Do you still carry your grade-school dictionary? Check "overhaul" and "overthrow". BIG SURPRISE! They're not synonyms... :o)
This is one of the most ridiculous posts of every post that has been made on this forum since it opened.
This kind of thing is what has made me shake my head in despair at what OWS has devolved into.
Got a lot of people with some sympathies about money in politics and then turn off and drive away 98.999999% of the same people that have problems with our government, with this kind of crap.
The American people will never stand for throwing out our system of government. Forcing honesty by stop electing the same people over and over and over would be a good first step, but people won't even do that.
Your vision is a place that I would fight against literally and figuratively.
I don't like the way things are going, but have a majority rule referendum is nothing but a path to dictatorship in the long run. Screw the minority 49.9%.
Either you are mentally challenged or you really want to destroy the very system that made this the greatest nation the planet has ever seen. In either case, folks like you wanting this kind of thing are more dangerous than any lobbyist or banker could ever be.
I think a dictatorship is just what certain sectors of folks on this site want, if you get my meaning, and they've read their how-to history books. Some kind of mass dismantling and then swift takeover. Scary shit, and we ALL need to be ever-vigilant and keep talking about this openly. If something doesn't sound right to you, it probably isn't. Keep researching, keep the discussion going with trusted friends. There's a contingent of hate groups in our country who are always looking to swell their ranks by glomming onto groups to make their numbers appear larger. Some take a direct ambush approach and others are stealthy enough to seem almost credible. The Occupy movement, as it is for most people who believe in it sincerely, is NOT zealotry. But anything this huge attracts it from all corners. The real differences between most Occupy-ers and most of their fellow Americans across the political aisle is really not that much when all the idealogues and demogogues are not allowed to run roughshod.
"HarryPairatestes2", you need a dictionary.... and a cooler head.
An "overhaul" is NOT an "overthrow". YOU speak of "throwing out our system of government", NOT I.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. So overhaul the system in what way? Concrete solutions please.
14 hours ago, I wrote to you : "I have no more time to waste with someone who is clearly NOT interested in meaningful conversation." Life is too short, besides it's sunny outside. GOOD DAY, good sir.
Thanks for showing everyone here that you have no answer or solution. Keep on ranting.
"GOOD DAY, good sir." If you wish to continue babbling to yourself, be my guest.
If you reply to my posts am I babbling to myself? You should be working on answering the question you have avoided for the past 24 hours.
"GOOD DAY, good sir." If you wish to continue babbling to yourself, be my guest.
OVER AND OUT!!!!
You just don't get it and probably never will. Good luck with your "overhaul" of the government, whatever the hell that means. My friends have enjoyed your posts that take up space but really say nothing.
I wish you were right but you aren't. The strong majority of Americans are too busy watching Jersey Shore and American Idol.
Agreed..as long as nobody from the OWS movement is allowed to vote in the next election. I'm with you
It's time to replace free elections with a permanent president. He or she will be able to make decisions that will benefit the 99%. We control the country. The government is the only entity that can properly take care of all the people. Elections are overrated, what we need is a president for life.
That sounds more like an Emperor than a President.
Remember when Julius Caesar made himself 'Emperor for life'? Do you know when he did that? He was at the head of the Roman Army, and the 1%'ers of Ancient Rome were fighting each other with their own private armies for control of Rome. This was going on for hundreds of years, which is why the Romans were happy to let go of their democratic republic and tolerate a Dictatorial oligarchy.
The people can not possibly be trusted to choose their leaders, only the state has that ability. Wealth has to be redistributed to benefit all. A very wise man once said " from each by his ability, to each by his need" We need to live by those words.
You are beginning to sound like a troll to me.
Karl Marx, Marxism and Communism are not inherently dictatorships. In fact, when Karl Marx talked about a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', he was referring to a system where the concerns of the 99% come first...a democracy.
Once that happens, according to Karl Marx, the state will wither away...since there is no longer a need for it.
Right, you keep believing that.
Can you be more specific? What am I supposed to "go on believing?"
Are you being serious or sarcastic when you talk about a 'President for life'?
Are you being serious or sarcastic when you say 'only the state has that ability?'
Come out from behind the curtain, and say what you feel. Stop talking from two sides of your mouth.
You seem to forget that we, the 99% ARE THE STATE. They cannot govern without our consent, they cannot exist without our tax dollars.
The 1% will shrivel away to nothing if we ALL band together and withdraw our support.
We need no Masters.
Permanent president = dictator.
Call it like it really is.