Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

What is voting?

Posted 2 years ago on June 24, 2012, 3:53 a.m. EST by jart (1091) from New York, NY

Voting - The slave's suggestion box

66 Comments

66 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

"What is voting ?" - Without an active, educated, engaged population, willing and eager to participate - very little but a sham and a scam and a license for disappointment - if not wholesale larcenous and parasitic Kleptocracy, Plutocracy and Imperial Oligarchy !!!

Also see JadedCitizen's post : http://occupywallst.org/forum/bottom-up-change-if-only-the-poor-voted/ .

respice ; adspice ; prospice ...

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Given the overwhelming monetary advantage Romney and the out and out racists now have it would speak very well of an awakening of the US people if the Republicans, the Mormons, the far right zionists like Adelson (who do not represent most American Jewish people) and their vast loud noise machine were to be defeated and would help morale among the natural base of Occupy.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. 'Mittens Romulan' & the subject matter you allude to :

Though narrowly off topic from the 'forum-post', the links above are relevant to your comment and to 'Democracy' in The USA in general.

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Exactly. Without an engaged public, there isnt a system that could be created that would work fairly.

Its why I was always such a sstrong supporter of the Social Outreach workgroup.

[-] 4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Something they use to keep the sheep from revolting

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I thought that was what TV, sports, and consumer products were for. Bread and circuses. No? Voting is the means to change the priorities. Don't let the 1% confuse you. They need most progressives to remain apathetic. They want us to stay home. Vote the issues. Protest and pressure your representatives to vote for progressive policies. Vote out anti progressive politicians.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Problem is, all the people that would actually do what we want dont get any air time, only those that align themselves with the two corporate parties get any exposure, because those that run the parties run the TV too, and Americans are too lazy to do their own homework on who is running.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Many Americans are. OWS has improved that a bit. More must be done in educating the electorate. We must protest/pressure all pols to pass progressive policies. The Dems can be dragged back to the left. Maybe enough if OWS grows and uses it's influence smartly. Do not surrender the country to the right wing 1%. They want progressives like OWS supporters to stay home. Don't fall prey to their tricks.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Some days I think the same way, other days (when I'm frustrated with the speed of progress) I wish a gang of lawyers would bombard the government with lawsuits from every direction (a little bias here, call it the residual wrath of Nietzsche still kicking & screaming its way out of my brain, especially if you feed me enough Jack), but most days, when my rational mind is firmly in control, I know this has to be (mostly) a bottom up effort :)

I wish I had more time to devote to this, but I just spent all day studying probability theory & crunching double integrals (fun stuff, the story of my life).

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Hang in there. I'm with you on the bottom up effort. I just can't surrender an election to the right wing repubs. So I'm gonna try to do both. Is that possible?

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Of course occupy supporters can vote their hearts out (and I'm sure many will vote, probably left of center), will it do any good? Put it this way, it probably can't hurt (although maybe it adds legitimacy to the system or whatever ... I don't really know anymore) :)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I hear the legitimacy thing. I just can't see letting the right wing get more power by having occupy progressive leaning voters stay home.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Given the overwhelming monetary advantage Romney and the out and out racists now have it would speak very well of an awakening of the US people if the Republicans, the Mormons, the far right zionists like Adelson (who do not represent most American Jewish people) and their vast loud noise machine were to be defeated and would help morale among the natural base of Occupy.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Defeating Romney certainly would be an important measure, but I think every right wing pol should be targeted!

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

I don't think so

demand elections be holidays

the sheep need to have their routine broken

619-400-7359

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Nice poster, jart. Yes, we have a huge democratic deficit. This must be replaced by real democracy; democracy built from below, where people participate in the the things they're a part of and are affected by: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

[-] 2 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

presidents aren't masters. other way around =) they are not reptilians either =) their trying to do any good. in fact, our top leaders already chosen, and their decision already pre-prepared. even if you are 4 times graduated and you have IQ 1.5times higher then normal which doesn't help you to proceed the right choice. this is like former soviet republic of Belarus, where voting bulletin has the only one candidate hehehe

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The problem with voting is not within Democracy. The problem is with those outside it, who by the enormity of their wealth, select the candidate of their choice, and amplify his voice, drowning out the voices over all others. To call this Democracy is an insult. When many voices are silenced, Tyranny has become it's proper name.

Not a single major office holder that I am aware of was honestly and fairly selected by the people. The candidate may wave the flag, belong to the major party, and say the right words, but his zeal to win overrides any sense of fair play.

The problem is not the vote, the problem is with the people. They are too blind to see the most basic principle of Democracy broken and trampled, unknowingly cooperating with it's destruction by actively supporting the candidate who is corrupted from the beginning by accepting campaign contributions the common man could never match.

If they are foolish enough to vote for a candidate who receives millions of dollars from a small group of wealthy individuals, and thinks that candidate will truly represent the common man, it is no wonder that the result is greater inequity in wealth. The common man, instead of voting in his best interest, votes for the weathy individuals best interest!

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

reg·is·tra·tion noun /ˌrejəˈstrāSHən/ A combination of stops used when playing the organ.

What is voting? A combination of registered votes, via gerrymandering and other electoral stops, used when playing an election.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Open primaries to break the 2 party monoply,

Enlarge the House of reps to allow better representation and more possibility of other parties.

Eliminate the electoral college. One man/woman/lgbt, one vote.

shorter publicly funded campaigns, no ads, weekly debates with all parties. Money out of politics, no lobbyists.

verifiable electronic voting over several days with paper trail and election day holiday every year.

Mandatory voting for all eligible voters. (the 1% fears this the most, end the low turn out. It is mostly progressive leaning voters who have become apathetic (by 1%design)).

These things will help. Don't stay home! the 1% wants that. The right wing will benefit because OWS supporters are naturally progressive left wing voters.

[-] 2 points by jart (1091) from New York, NY 2 years ago

One of our editors said something pretty smart about this on the st.org mailing list a week ago. Someone in the group suggested we put "End Two-Party Dictatorship" on our list of priority issues and she responded:

Im fine with all but the last one. Ive lived in plenty of places with multiparty systems, and it is no better. Political parties are political parties whether there are two or 23. If anything it can be even less democratic -- in Britain and Canada alike the Tories came to rule with only around 30% of the popular vote simply because theyre the biggest parties and/or formed the largest coalition governments. And because its a parliamentary system, its equivalent to controlling the Presidency and both houses of the US Congress. That means they can just pass austerity measures at will without ever having gotten a ¨majority¨ vote. Not that I believe in majoritarian democracy anyway, or that having 51% of the vote is equivalent to 51% of the people endorsing you, given the high level of absentenionism. Point being, if anything it has the potential to be less democratic and at least is no better. I have never understood the USAmerican fetishization of multiparty systems.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I would like to see better representation of course. My comments regarding the party duopoly are mainly in response to the consensus on the site, as well as the corruption in our system. Most of all I want a strong progressive/left wing. We've only had that partially with FDR. If we can co opt the dems great. If we can have multiple parties joined together great. I do however recognize the difficulty of many parties. Germany, italy, others struggle to avoid splitting votes. And it always seems that the right wing is more together. They follow more blindly. And they don't create one issue parties like green or working party, or socialist, Progressives are more independent thinkers, and harder to gather to one party. I don't have the answers. I'm willing to try much. But not staying home on election day, not voting "no consent." Whatever we do we cannot let theright wing gather more power!

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 2 years ago

http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/07/market-failure-of-economics-profession.html

Q12b Would you say that your vote is more FOR Barack Obama or more AGAINST Mitt Romney?
Results shown among Obama voters
More for Barack Obama .........................................72
More against Mitt Romney ......................................22

Q12c Would you say that your vote is more FOR Mitt Romney or more AGAINST Barack Obama?
Results shown among Romney voters
More for Mitt Romney .............................................35
More against Barack Obama ..................................58

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2401) 2 years ago

A charade so you'll think you're free. People who think they are free don't fight back.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Most people are ignorant when it comes to voting. They listen to talking points instead of voting records. They pay very little attention to all the option in the primaries. The media does the same. Some newspapers and media organizations only considering covering candidates based on funds raised to determine their popularity, which in a sense keeps independents completely silent due to lack of corporate and special interest financing.

This is why in 2008 the democrat citizens chose Barack Obama the pro-war and pro-patriot act Goldman Sachs backed candidate over Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, the only democrat running that tried to impeach Bush.

This is why in 2012 republicans chose the tool of the 1% Mr Mitt Romney and all the other corporate backed candidates over Gary Johnson, someone who better represents their "views."

So now the media says it's down to 2 people, completely disregarding coverage for third party candidates. The 2 party system hijacked the government a long time ago.

People need to wake up. While the 2 parties share many differences, voting records prove a majority of both work for the banks and war.

Wake up and vote smart. Better options have run every single year. Not just for president, but congress, governors, mayors. Everything.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, what passes for a 'democracy' is far from,. participatory.

We should be debating, and building consensus on issues, and then implementing them,. not voting for 'elected representatives' to work with their military/corporate/bankster bosses to implement the policies that suit only the 1%.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Voting?

It's an exercise performed in a democracy from time to time.

Every once in a while, it produces a Lincoln or an FDR.

We could use one of those these days.

So no matter how futile it can feel to vote?

It's even more futile not to.

Concentrate on your State first, and you will begin to see the changes you desire.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Guess whats going to be my facebook profile pic for the month of october and november?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

A representative democracy that doesn't represent ... it imposes, coerces, manipulates, feigns appeasement to placate, buys votes with frivolous goodies that are more about inducing compliance and complacency than actually helping people, etc. etc. Deep down inside, we all know it's true; but for those of us (myself included) who were fooled by the mantra, we don't like to think we were so stupid for so long, but reality has a way of not giving a fuck about what we think or wish.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 2 years ago

Under the form of government agreed upon by the Founding Fathers, the electing body must obey the laws of the elected body. The electing body cannot create laws for itself. The electing body cannot revoke the laws of the elected body. And the most that the electing body can do to affect the elected body is to continue electing members to the elected body. In short, while people talk of fascism as a growing danger to American freedom, the Founding Father republicanism of restricting the people to a representative democracy had been detrimental to American freedom from the start. What just and selfless cause in the interests of liberty could a group of men have had in establishing themselves (or their class) above the collective will and revocation of the people? As they had plainly known, a representative democracy is a restrained democracy, an imposition upon the political freedom of the people to truly affect change.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/none-are-more-hopelessly-enslaved-than-those-who-f/

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Isn't voting where the highest bidder wins the auction? Or is that just in the US?

“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free.” -Albert Camus

"It's not the vote that counts. It's who counts the votes." - Josef Stalin

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Voting is force. The problem is the way voting is organized, so we need a new constitution, as follows:

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Clever poster. But this is the system we have. If we don't work within it then we must overthrow the govt. Can't do that violently. Military too powerful. We can wait until it crashes, but will it crash? or will the right wing just consolidate control, suppress progressive voters (w/ ALEC) strengthen anti dissent laws further. Eventually it will crash but why sit arund and wait. Why not agitate for our pols to support progressive policies that help the 99%? Drag the dems back to the historic left wing principles that they have betrayed while we sat on the couch while we let the right wing pass every policy the 1% wanted. We can't surrender the ballot box to the 1%! Vote the issues! Pressure your reps to support a progressive agenda. Vote out anti progressive politicians.

[-] 1 points by jart (1091) from New York, NY 2 years ago

We have more choices than vote, do nothing, or overthrow the govt :P From the perspective of an individual, ANYTHING is more effective than voting. But if you're going to vote, vote local.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

40% of the electorate stays home every election day (mostly left leaning voters who have given up for good reason) The1% love that. If more progressives do that the 1% are gonna explode with pleasure. Ifwe can overthrow the govt I'm there. Show me how and where. In the meantime, the in between time we cannot surrender the elections to the right wing 1%'rs. We can vote and continue all the various efforts/tactics I've seen among OWS. I do recall something about "embracing all non violent tactics". I'm with that! Mandatory voting for all eligible voters.!!

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

What I find quite disturbing is, American foreign policy is all about "spreading democracy", but there is none of the same in America.

This is not lost on those countries that get "regime change".

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

I'd like the UN to monitor our next election

I think

if we switch to representation by party

that would prevent a lot of present.bipartisan all or nothing contests..

I house could manager since that mean representatives by population and the party divides could still be done by state

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

we have a write in choice in CA

not that write ins get counted

San Diego had a write in mayoral candidate

and they found every excuse to discount the write in votes

failure to check the box

mispellings

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The coming election allows us to repudiate racist birthirism, gay bashing, and the all out frontal attack on living standards of the 99 percent. For all sorts of historical reasons the most progressive elements of the US population still turn to the Democratic Party. A defeat this time would be very demoralizing to many of them and could seriously set back the necessary struggle that Occupy now spearheads.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mitt-romney-is-weird-and-sheldon-adelson-is-not-fu/#comment-770580

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the only purpose of ows is to foment civil and violent unrest leading up to the nov. elections. they are soros funded and obama approved.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

the US shall not be permitted to commit further violence

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

silly shit

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

No, truth.

[-] 0 points by GaryS (0) 2 years ago

Finally, people are seeing voting for what it is. If more and more people are aware of it, nobody will vote and a free society will begin.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Tell me how can a free society begin if nobody votes? What the vast majority of you don't understand is that the vast majority of our society is content with our government and how it works. And those who are not satisfied with whom is in office they will act.

When election time rolls around they will be out in force to vote - you can be sure the tea party voters will be out in force and as a result you will see the changes take place.

So, sit home and pout about who is running and how bad that person is but unless you get organized similar to that of the tea party, you will have no voice as you don't have one now and keep wondering why the rest of society doesn't join in with you.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

What changes do you see happening when the tea get elected?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Less government regulation, less taxes, less government intrusion and less government overall.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Well, regulation only continues its forever upclimb, regardless of who is in power. Some good, most just to drown out the competition for the multinationals.

Obie extended the Bush cuts on income tax rates. Taxes in every other arena are up, and will continue to go up do to the establishments unwillingness to control the bankers.

Gov intrusion increases every administration regardless of who is in power (why do you think this is bad? Are you for gov intrusion into women's rights?).

The gov has grown every single year since its formation. That trend is not going to change.

The main purpose of the Tea was to give the R base something to latch onto, while keeping them within the two party system. If the tea people ever went on their own, it would be disasterous for the cozy D/R relationship in DC. The establishmen MUST keep it only D/R in order to keep doing what I have stated above.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, look back at what the tea party did in the last election. They are slowly chipping away at the establishment. Why is that - it's because the people who belong to the tea party have a common goal as explained above.

Now, with regard to rapid change - it isn't going to happen - it's going to take time.

Already in this past election debate there has been more talk about changing the tax code then has ever been mentioned before - that is one example of how things begin to make change.

Regardless of going to the flat tax, fair tax or 999 tax anything would be better then what we have today.

To find out more about what the tea party has going on go to their web site to get more info. You can look it up for I don't have the link.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

What have they done to chip away at anything? Because I only see more of the same.

Sure there was lots of media drama with some stuff, but its always the same result, in my opinion.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Who's in charge - Obama - it's up to him to convince both dems and republicans to work together. He continually blames Bush for todays economy but yet he hasn't done anything to help it out except bail out banks, and give billions to failed solar companies.

So as you can see he has made change - change instead of dollars in peoples pockets.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the Bank Bail out occured before Obama took office. When Obama took office Bush had screwed up the economy so bad we were losing 750K job every month. So what the Pres has done (despite your repub obstruction and overuse of filibuster) is change that to job creation (because of the stimulus that repubs cut down) for the last 2 1/2 years. And we need to give many more billions to many more alt energy if we are gonna get out of the GWBush great recession. We had a Bush great recession and now we have the Obama recovery. It's too weak because of the repub traitorous obstruction.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Hey, you were the one that said the Tea have affected change, not me.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the dems only want to work with the republicans when the dems are in the minority. when they have had the majority, they want nothing to do with the republicans.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

we all know that obama has a majority of democrats in hte House and Senate for the first two years

and all he could talk was about compromise with the republics

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

All he talked about and focused on was the Health Care bill which is about to be turned down by the Supreme Court.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

I hope so

the government should focus on creating jobs on its own

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the dems shut the republicans out of obamacare. his talk of compromise was all talk, no content.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your delusional. The health care bill was closer to Romney care and bob doles suggestions from the mid 90's than it was like a dem/hilary bill. The dems wanted single payer, the repubs (heritage found, Gingrich) wanted the mandate. The dems compromised big time. You don't know what your talkin about. Hopefully supreme court will knock down just the mandate (see how the repub friends in health ins industry like that) then we can work on the public single payer option like the dems wanted.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the dems compromised on nothing. they never do.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wrong. The Dems compromise with your right wing wackos too much!

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the house has passed countless bills. HR 872,HR910,HJ res.37,HR 2018, HR 1315, HR2587,HR 2401,HR 2381,HR2250, HR2273,HR 1230,HR1229,HR1231,HR2021,HR 1938. reid has refused to schedule a vote on all of them. look them up.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

the dem and repo fight is for show

both shut out the government option for health care

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you're clear and to the point. you give the facts . the Taxed Enough Already party in not interested in a third party.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

There was talk about the Tea Party becoming a 3rd party if the Republicans didn't get their act together. Lets see how the upcoming elections go with regard who is going to stay and who goes.

Then we will see how things go after that. It has to start and end with voters - it is the voters who determine which way our government goes.

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

with 0bama &co. that includeds non citizens and the dead voting.