warning
WARNING! Skip the next three paragraphs of this post.
Some of us seem to gravitate almost exclusively toward dramatic political measures, such as Constitutional amendments1 and impeachment, without contemplating practical and legal necessities; history; unintended consequences; etc. Sometimes, we are not even especially careful what we wish for, but allow others carry us away with them. Sometimes, it's "Let's you and him accomplish anything that, without much analysis, I now imagine I want."
I understand all that because we're desperate: Nothing we do seems to help, even with things that all of us, including pols, need desperately (slowing global warming, for example). However, we "rabble" have much to lose tilting at windmills. Investing finite time, money and energy in attempting things we cannot accomplish diverts resources from things at which we may have a shot2. It may divert us during the best--or only--window of opportunity that we may ever have to accomplish a particular goal.
Getting fired up, then defeated repeatedly can cause apathy, learned helplessness, etc. We may also become more vulnerable to those offering hope of change without much effort on our parts, beyond supporting them until election day. And heaven help us if we ever do accomplish a goal with serious pitfalls that we didn't consider beforehand.
1 http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution
2 Example: http://caucus99percent.com/content/time-re-fight-most-recent-battle-read...
Comments
What did I miss?
I did see on FB that "good" agencies,like ACLU and Planned Parenthood have been deluged with funds. That may be good, but asset-stripping continues that way.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I'm not fooled anymore. PP Action Fund has lost my support.
I haven't trusted the ACLU for awhile now.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Lost mine too when they endorsed Killary
Same here.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I have been framing this as, "What one thing can we do?"
We are like cats chasing a laser spot on the floor. It can move faster that the speed of light and change directions with arbitrarily large accelerations, so it is impossible for us to catch it.
We are doomed to thrash about micro-analyzing various aspects of the political system until we expire. To be effective we should find the "Achilles Heel" of the "Enemy" and slice it into several bits. In my opinion the "Enemy" is the "shadowy" group running Corporate America. The problem seems to be that there is no concessions with respect to this as out "Enemy", nor that the solution is to regulate them into "straitjackets".
Let me have a friendly rejoinder, please.
I think the enemy in this era of looming climate catastrophe is in plain sight. The system has become so corrupt that the malefactors no longer bother to hide. Our new Secretary of State, Tillerson is not a climate-change denier. His former company spent millions on research from compliant, corporate friendly top-of-the line Uni's like MIT and Stanford, but the evidence became so blatantly obvious that Exxon's lawyers warned Tillerson that share holders could sue because operating in the face of a united scientific front could damage their holdings.Even the scientists on the corporate grant-dole, could no longer deny the obvious. Tillerson made a choice: A habitable earth or limitless short term profit and he chose the latter, as cynical a move as has ever been made. Cynical but not shadowy.
Barack Obama held Death Panel Tuesday where he marked for assassination untold numbers of people, including American citizens, which is entirely against domestic and international law. No shadows.
Obama expelled children, without hearings, back to Honduras, which his administration destabilized, to face great harm or death, and he was proud of this fact.
The FED is openly doing the stock&bond holding class a huge favor by suppressing interest rates so that corporations can borrow money for stock buybacks. So far companies in the S&P 500 have spent over $3 Trillion since 2011 buying back their own shares, creating a financial bubble to cause the stock market to triple. 2/3 of net corporate income has gone to this market-manipulating scheme. The FED is holding growth to 2% which keeps workers from getting higher wages. Shadow free.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
One hundred percent agreement here.
The challenge then, it seems to me, is to identify an action item. What, one thing we can all do that will start to change this situation for the better?
It seems that having very large rallies for Bernie was not the critical action item. The future is not clear. What is possible is not clear. What is clear is that spiraling into the depths of despair is not a good option.
Yes - I agree. It's hard to know what, if anything,
will be effective. It seems all established entities are lined together in a lemming-like march off the cliff and what's to be done to stop it, I do not know.
The political class pays no attention to anyone, or any group, not in the 1% and many NGO's have sold out.
Surely we can come up with one action item we can both agree upon and pursue. Can't we?
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Tax strike.
National tax strike to refuse supporting illegal activity.
Federal Taxes Don't Pay For Anything
If we could work out a framing of the action with some concrete objectives, we might generate some interest. My only concern is that the message may get corrupted with the bogus notion that tax revenue provides the funding for federal projects, including bailouts for banksters, running Guantanamo Bay, et cetera. I, personally, would rather not do anything to reinforce this misconception. Others here probably have a different perspective and I would like to hear some suggestions.
(No subject)
Price Rip, I don't know about THE one thing, but I think
cleaning up election processes should be the next thing, or at least among the next things. Every single time Democrats have lost a Presidential election that I can remember, they claim foul play. All through the primary and the general, Trump fired up the right with talk of rigging. This seems like an issue on which our very divided country may be able to unite, if we act on it while claims of both the left and the right are still fresh in everyone's minds.
Paper ballots for patriots!
I'd even agree to a slogan like that. I think restoring confidence in the voting system is possible. It's easier than ridding the court system of corruption; and, it's easier than ridding the system of bribe money.
Sanders showed that a candidate could compete without corporate cash if the message resonated with voters who are suffering from forced austerity so that the rich can get richer. It's also an action for all citizens.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
So, that's three of us?
How do we get more people to agree that this is the one thing we can actually accomplish?
4 including me
There's going to be a bunch of local elections around the Country before the 2018 mid-terms. If these elections become followed by a lot of informed, concerned people, who want preference voting on paper ballots, then the number of informed, concerned voters in these districts with upcoming elections, would grow. Perhaps we could help start a chain reaction of money and effort towards this.
@duckpin
"Paper for Patriots" is a nice catch phrase
Beware the bullshit factories.
The first step . . .
The first step, in my opinion would be for a significant fraction of caucus99percent users to agree that forcing all precincts in this country to implement preference voting on paper ballots is an action item that needs to be "sent up the flagpole to see who salutes".
It is critical that the issue not be clouded with subsidiary points. A simply worded action item has a chance to succeed nationwide. If the issue gets diffused as it picks up regional variations, it will die.
Yeah
Keep it simple and easy to catch on to.
Beware the bullshit factories.
IRV - Instant Runoff Voting Is a Solid, Core Issue...
- I've pitched this as the end run around corporate sponsored public policy for about a decade now.
I'm sure some real nice hay could be made from the political history from the last several elections on both the Left and Right in a positive argument for IRV.
The demise of political parties could completely be highlighted this public discussion as well.
A main pitch could be to protect elections from corporate sponsored duopoly as well as to protect ourselves from Drumpf.
I do think this issue could grab hold in all Demographics but the solidly Corporate Center. That would mean Kos and Vox would downplay it, but everyone else could be convinced to be gung ho.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Why can't those of us who do agree start working?
We can try to come up with specifics. I disagree that paper ballots is all we should focus upon as counting and chain of custody are important, too. I just keep thinking of that guy at one of the caucuses who drove off with the paper ballots in his car with Hillary 2016 license plates on it. There was also a story about another election, with a woman being found with boxes of ballots in her trunk. Also, Boston went to paper ballots marked by the voter by hand and then counted by somebody by hand, but that did not last long. The next election, there was a choice of pencil or machine, but the voter still got a paper ballot that the voter could check before turning in--to a machine for counting.
Maybe we can work out exactly what we want, then try to write a statute we would like to see adopted. And maybe we can also write a petition that we will try to get people to sign with the idea of delivering or mailing them to the state house. (Weather will be getting nice before long. Most of us can sit at a small table somewhere and bother passersby for at least part of the week. A press release would be good, too.
Finally-though perhaps I should have said this first, we're not the only ones who want this. Maybe some of us can look into who is already working on this and what they are doing.
A working Draft
This would seem to be the place to start. A succinct statement of uniform polling law (at least for national elections) specifying a bill of particulars. I am not much of a wordsmith but I would really like to be involved in producing just such a document.
If a reasonable fraction of users here could promote such a document about a bit it could catch on and result in real national reform.
I think we should take a couple of days first to look into
the groups already working on cleaner elections and what they may have done. A draft statute of some kind may already be in the works.
BTW, do you know of any states that already have preference ballots or laws? We could look to their laws/ballots when drafting. I am okay with writing as a general rule, but I have no idea where to begin with preference.
I will start poking about to see what I can see.
@HenryAWallace
Thanks for making essential points, as usual!
There's also the requirement of wresting from the comprehensive grab by Homeland (In)Security of all electoral infrastructure, to be sealed - in the name of 'National Security' - away from any future hope of citizen and other independent oversight/verification of electoral processes and results. Plus whatever else they're doing to ensure that only the right Corporate Party candidates gain public office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN-cYCjAAXI
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Tell them what the payoff would be.
I'm not sure what it would be.
IIRC, Big Al, you are the one who posts that
Americans should get to vote on more things. I agree. However, what is the point of increasing the number of things on which we vote without knowing who or what is counting our votes, who is flipping them and who is putting them in a dumpster?
If I am mistaken that you are the one who wants more voting, I apologize.
Oh, I agree with paper ballots,
I think that's a no brainer. But I don't see where that would change anything relative to the entire political system. That's why I asked, what's the payoff? What will happen if we have paper ballots instead of electronic voting? Are people saying that if we had paper ballots, Bernie would have won the dem primary and beaten Trump? Are they saying that with paper ballots, the democratic and republican parties will be more accountable? I see paper ballots as essential for the integrity of a voting system, but it won't matter with this system, we still won't have democracy.
Who remotely suggested it would change the whole system?
@
Of course a clean vote will not instantaneously change the entire system. Nothing will, including any of things that I've seen you suggest in your posts. So, are you positing that we should never attempt to improve anything? (Maybe you are, whether you realize it or not.) Moreover, I never said let's get clean votes, then go comatose and never attempt any other improvement. I said, I think we may have a realistic and possibly bipartisn shot at this good thing, esp. in the near future.
Nonetheless, the payoff of a majority of people getting what they actually voted form instead of whatever the few who rigged the voted wanted them to get should be self-evident, especially to someone who advocates that people get vote for more things than they vote for now. Why ask anyone to vote on anything at all, if the vote is going to be rigged? At that point, you're only inconveniencing voters. And, if you, too, do want a clean vote, why jot encourage people saying that they want to work on that?
BTW, I recommended more than only paper ballots, but that is not relevant to your point.d
@PriceRip I'll fight for that
I'll fight for that, but my problem, as always is that every one thing seems connected to a whole bunch of others.
In the case of election fraud/voter suppression, pretty clearly, the problem is the corruption of the courts. If we had a working legal system, one could prosecute and jail people for committing election fraud. If we had a working press, one could, in the absence of a just legal system, at least use the court of public opinion to destroy the reputations of those who participate in election fraud and voter suppression. In the absence of both, I'm not certain what to do. Not saying we can't do something, but there has to be an impact, there have to be consequences, for election fraud. If there are no consequences, then we won't be able to stop it. Will we?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
You are so painfully right. And there never have been consequences for electoral fraud. Or, seemingly, anything else criminal done by those - not 'in power', that being something not possible within a democracy - but in the public service and in betrayal of their oath to uphold the Constitutional rights of The very People delegating the powers of their office to each current holder to be used for the public good and that of the country and to uphold the Constitutional limitations of government.
It's unfortunate that this pathological corporate/military/political culture wasn't obvious enough to the average Joe/sophine to have been addressed earlier, while there were still some shreds of uncorrupted checks and balances remaining, but better now than leaving it until after there's literally nothing left to work with or salvage, which may soon occur.
There must still be a way to enact that pacific revolution without literally moving to the guillotine we're still joking about... but it is the corporations and billionaires who must be removed from public policy and control over the public service, not merely their current lackeys, adding to the difficulty.
And unfortunately I fail to see how even the success of any single issue such as the paper ballots - which once might have made all of the difference in the world - can alter this current situation...
If anyone hasn't yet watched this, please do. If you cannot vote them in or out, you cannot make electoral change, and as has been pointed out, votes only count if they are accurately counted and results can only be verified when verifiable and not merely announced by corrupted agencies with the evidence potentially altered/fictional or declared Top Secret.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN-cYCjAAXI
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
That problems are interrelated somehow does not
mean they must all be tackled at once and by the same people. I can say there is no point worrying about a few people being kept from voting if hundreds of ballots are going to get thrown in a dumpster. And you can say, there is no point worrying about ballots not being counted if people are prevented from voting. And we can go around in circles, doing nothing at all and improving nothing at all. That seems like the least desirable outcome.
Or, we can agree that we will both work on both problems simultaneously, or that you will work on the one that speaks most urgently to you while I work on the one that speaks most urgently to me. Or we can agree that we will both tackle the simplest one first, then the harder one. Or, we can find out that other people are already working on one problem or the other and we should help those people instead of re-inventing the wheel, duplicating their efforts, etc.
Of course, the initial premise is false. There is a point in reducing voter suppression even if we never improve ballot counting and there is a point in improving ballot counting even if we never reduce fix voter suppression. Improving something is usually preferable to improving nothing.
Your first sentence says it all.
This is precisely the point. So, where do we start, what well defined action can we take to effect a well defined change. A change we can all agree i for the positive.
The point of having preference voting on paper ballots is to create a more transparent process that can be more easily monitored.
If no one likes paper ballots, how about a federal agency charged with running a nationwide system of computer polling stations. If properly managed we could have continuous voting on every aspect of our political process. (Bonus Points to the first person to name that Science Fiction story and its Author.)
You'd lose a lot of people with a federal agency doing this,
both on the left and the right, including me.
There was a time when the left trusted the feds, while only the right wanted "states' rights," including the "right" to Jim Crow. However, many on the left now also distrust the federal government (think global, work local)and the right still distrusts it, or distrusts it more than ever.
Whenever the federal government (as opposed to federal courts) have messed lately with traditional state powers, like marriage, family law, wills, etc., the results have not been good. (Think DOMA, Schiavo, etc.) At least some blue states do those traditional things better.
Remember, civil union first came out of a blue states, as did equal marriage, which was even better. (Court at first, but the court gave the state legislature a shot at doing something about its decision. However, the legislature sat on its hands for two sessions, leaving intact the Court's decision).
It's not that I trust state and local government, either. However, I can keep a closer eye on them, meeting with my state rep or senagtor (or demonstrating against them) in the capitol or at city hall requires less of a "schlep," etc. And the power of my vote here, such as it is, is less diluted than when I vote for President with tens of millions of others.
Besides, it could be a selling point for the right. Point out that Hillary tried to get federal control of state elections with her "Count Every Vote" bill and it's only a matter of time until someone else tries it. So, the states should beat them to it. Badda bing!
This could be the key.
The timing might be just right, and if the sentiments are genuine, maybe this could work.
@PriceRip
I would not want to be the state legislator who speaks against cleaning up election processes.
Again, I don't know if this is THE one thing to attempt, but it sure is an important one. Unless we can have a fairly high level of confidence (nothing is perfect), where do we begin?
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state
legislators don't have to be for cleaning up the process
They can, and do, simply ignore the issue. Then they can't be blamed. They didn't know about it! We've seen this too often. Crickets, it's called.
That is why I'm thinking petitions, press releases, letters
to the editor, etc. If anyone can get access to their local access cable channels, that would be great, too.
I am trying to set things up so as to make them an offer they'll look awful refusing.
In my state, you, as a citizen, can submit legislation only if you get a state legislator to submit it for you. So, really, you can't submit it, but you can make it easy for someone else to do that.
I'd like to go into my state rep with a group of people and a stack of petitions after at least trying to get press coverage. But, that is down the road. We have quite a steps to complete first before we start talking about that stage.
If your message is this may not work, thanks, but I already know that, as wording in my short essay like "might have a shot" reflects. IIRC, I've read posts of yours saying you are at a point where you just want to lay back and I understand and respect that. In fact, I've been there before, for years at a clip. As my short little essay says, nothing we've done so far has worked, a reality each of handles differently.
I am not sure know why people who don't think this is worth their effort feel they have to convince me that it's not worth my effort or anyone else's. I'm not happy giving up or doing nothing until I can solve everything. Price Rip and a few others seem to share that view. Given that, I think we have a better shot at this right now than we do at most other things. And I think cleaner elections are more than worth my taking shot--me and anyone else who feels the same--especially when the only other alternative on the table is doing nothing.
Thanks for including my name
as my connection has been a bit slow today. I did grab a link to the Legal Language for a similar (ranked-choice voting) measure in Maine.
In Nebraska, getting a measure on the ballot is actually very easy. I have yet to investigate same in Oregon.
I included your name because of your posts on this
thread saying things like "spiraling into despair is not a good option: for you at least it isn't at this time. I have, in the past, made conscious decisions not to even think about politics. But, obviously, that is not where I am right now. Right now, I feel as though I must at least try something. And it seems we may have a window of opportunity now to at least begin.
I don't think Homeland Security is going to arrange for me to be tortured at Bagram or Gitmo for trying to get a clean vote. So, I think my worst case is trying and failing. With that, I can deal. We've been failing every day as it is because every day we haven't succeeded in making something better, we've been failing at making anything better. Failing is not as obvious when you're "turtled" and not sticking out your neck, but it's still failing.
Anyway, I'm going to give it a go. If people on this board or others or IRL want to join me, great. If not, I do what I can on my own.
Me Too
I will try to put some stuff together over the next few weeks. I will be tailoring what I do for the Oregon environs, so a first goal is to make appropriate connections there and see what happens.
@PriceRip
I would not want to be the state legislator who speaks against cleaning up election processes.
Again, I don't know if this is THE one thing to attempt, but it sure is an important one. Unless we can have a fairly high level of confidence (nothing is perfect), where do we begin?
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state
We could start at the beginning.
I think this is the place to start. I have no clue as to how many caucus99percent users even would agree to help start this as a campaign.
If enough (whatever that number might be) demand it, it will happen. We actually have the power. We just need to keep our eyes on the prize. [I steal from the best.]
Election cleanup is farther away now. Trump EO's.
We can't just ignore what is going on. The Reps are in crazy undo mode, more than I thought they would be, even. Going home to die still seems like the worst option. But as PriceRip said, what action can sting? Now? Are there enough of us? And what IS it? I think it might rely on hackers. Odd group, if there is even a group who agree. I know we have internet shutdowns likely, but this seems the best route in to power to me. Strip assets, block them. I have no skills.
Money, money is running the tables. Time for people to take it back. If possible. Pitchfork under snow still.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
And sting it must!
I have always liked the idea of preference voting on paper ballots. Would this sting? For a significant portion of those that matter, the answer is yes. Would it be significant? For a significant number of districts, the answer is yes. Could we actually get it implemented nationwide? The answer is less clear to me because it would involve people across the political spectrum. So, for me it is a qualified, yes.
So · · · if we of caucus99percent pushed this "simple to explain" demand into the various channels of discussion, could this become a completed action item in the near (as in months rather than years) future? To me the answer is obvious, but your mileage may vary.
It is simple to explain and it
transcends partisan politics to a great degree. It means everyone's vote counts (although whether the votes get counted is something else) but it's an unhackable system and allows poll watchers to have something to watch.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Could honest hackers create
a freestanding, unhackable national voting system?
Why must it be in months? The next mid-term is almost
two years away. Besides, we've had potential for very rigged voting ever since we've had voting machines, which is a very long time. Is giving up the alternative if we cannot get it done in months?
I think we need counting oversight in addition to paper ballots. I am not sure to accomplish that. Maybe that is something we can spitball about.
Virginia has a governor's election *this* year
and some other states may be similarly out of step.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
We have an important election in November of
of this year, too, but I was obviously speaking of national elections. There is probably a scheduled election of some kind every year somewhere and special elections in months other than November, too Idon't think that is a realistic time frame for people with responsibilities and no special education or training in this field doing this in their spare time.
States don't typically implement new legislation that quickly ever anyway. A statewide switch of an entire voting system is an expense and an undertaking. There are practical realities to be addressed- purchasing, which requires a bidding process in most states, training people in the new system, etc. IMO, if we somehow miraculously got it passed in every state with voting machines tomorrow, the states would not have it implemented by November.
I just don't get the notion that it has to be through all state legislatures and implemented by states by this November or it's not worth even starting. Americans have put up with the status quo on voting machines since the Sixties. The fight for cleaner elections will take however long it takes.
@riverlover
Oooooo, I like your thinking!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I see it very differently. I think Trump's yapping about
the Democratic primary being rigged and the general election being rigged helps this cause.
ETA: I am in the dark as to how ignoring what is going on figures into it. No one said we should ignore what is going on--as if we could.
Why must we ignore what is going on in order to work toward elections in which we can have a higher degree of confidence?
But... let's assume we do drop the subject of elections entirely so we can focus even more of our attention on what is going on? What then? What will you or I do next to remedy what is going on?
@HenryAWallace It was rigged. No
It was rigged. No doubt the Dems will use the fact that Trump is yapping about it to discredit the idea that it was rigged, replacing it with the idea that Trump rigged the general, as if those two things are mutually exclusive.
Just watched this happen with Nader. History has been rewritten so that for most people on the left, the Bush election fraud barely raises an eyebrow--they start to explain how it wouldn't have mattered and the real problem was Nader running, legally, for President.
I think what happened last year will take a lot shorter time to be rewritten in people's minds. We should try to keep it in memory.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Trust vote
Thank you so much. I had completely forgotten about Trustvote, even though I was posting about them elsewhere during the primary. It may be a good resource. Or not. I will look at trust vote's website to see what they've actually attempted and accomplished since 2003, other than lawsuits and "getting the word out." I can't help with lawsuits and I'm nowhere near ready to get the word out about a bill I don't yet have any idea how to write.
I'll also say this, whether or not it applies to trustvote: People making money, whether a salary or donations, out of a problem may not be all that eager to see it solved. Maybe they're not even making money, but are getting some degree of fame or respect. The ones that always come to my mind are those who have been most prominent in the Middle East "peace process" for literally decades, like Hanan Ashrawi.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanan_Ashrawi I have to wonder: if the matter miraculously got totally and finally resolved tomorrow, how happy would they really be, and for how long?
Anyway, I know that state legislation has to require paper ballots, marked by hand, then a solid chain of custody and counting by hand, plus oversight during counting. If anyone can help me in a focused and specific way to flesh out the specifics of that, great. If anyone wants to suggest something specific to add to my list, like preference voting, great. However, the more issues we try to piggyback on it, the more we lessen its chances. And one bill is not going to solve everyone's pet political issue anyway.
I did listen to the video you posted while I was doing something else. I'm sorry, but I did not find one thing said that was useful to me. Its contents may be news to someone else, but this is not Day One for me on this topic. I've heard and read about the existence and pervasiveness of the problem since at least 2000, articles by bradblog and many others, maybe too many. I also read transcripts of the Waxman hearings on voting machines before Obama ran.
I've not learned anything really helpful about this topic in several years. As I posted elsewhere about the thread, I'm already steeped in people bloviating about the problem, its existence, its precise nature, its pervasiveness, etc. I have no interest in people bloviating about getting the word out about the existence of the problem, either. At this point, I am interested only in specifics relating to potential solutions.
I've known since nothing happened after the Waxman hearings that the feds will do nothing but bloviation and dog and pony shows. Therefore, I know the states are the only hope. Some states have already gone to paper ballots, so I know it's not impossible to get a state to do something about this. However, many states have not gone to paper ballots, and some of those that did go to paper ballots are having their paper ballots marked and counted by machines, either throughout the whole state or in certain jurisdictions within the state. One statute, however, if adopted, would solve all those kinds of issues.
Once we have a statute, we can think about the next step. This is not my day job, so I don't need anything to distract or delay me. My life already have plenty of distractions and diversions. I also don't need anything telling me I'm going to fail or I shouldn't bother.
This is copied from a comment by Ellen North
Not sure how to link to the comment/conversation, but I think it really is very important:
When you listen to what is being said on the video, it is even worse than described here.
@gustogirl
Thanks! I hope you repost this all over the universe.
I'm so often tired and fuzzy-headed and not up to much, but people need to understand this and not be side-tracked into pre-stymied dead-end paths when there must be some pacific solution brain-storming can find!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Thank you.
Lots of issues of all kinds exist that touch upon elections and many of them are important. Right now, I personally am going to focus on a clean process because I think we may have a window of bipartisan opportunity for that and because I think it's something I can contribute to. After that, I'll think about what might be next for me. Meanwhile, if other people think corporate interference with public funding is the issue for them to be working on, great.
@HenryAWallace @HenryAWallace
This has probably been covered already further down-thread or elsewhere, but it didn't appear that - at the time of a post just upthread from this - you were aware that the Department of Homeland Security has taken control over elections away from the States. Not that they could all be trusted with them, either, under current circumstances.
On another thread, gustogirl posted a link to this site which laid the issue out nicely (emphasis mine):
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/this-is-a-coup-the-homelan...
Because, along with the view of the rest of the corrupted government in all branches, Homeland Security believes that National Security consists of whatever TPTB want while the citizens are nothing but a real Basket Of Disposables, soon to be completely replaced by robotics.
Edited because I absentmindedly capitalized gustogirl's user-name. And again because I typo-ed. When a life-long night person turns into a pumpkin-head after midnight, things are, indeed, dire. Bet my glass slippers are broken, too...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Synchronize your computers . . .
@
Thank you EN. I encourage you to repost that link, pairing it with Sane Progressive's recent elections video, and, I hope, her take on the revelation of this immense subduction zone.
Laser Kitty...
- A laser with a cat or a dog is a really evil toy. It makes the flash and lash at shadows -- they are hunting the ephemeral, the shadow, and they cannot get satisfaction of the hunt and become far too acutely aware of ephemeral lights and shadows.
I think there is a strong metaphor there with 21st century American politics and corporate media driven society.
The comment you responded to, PriceRip, also makes a strong point about suiting up for failure -- apparently, when testing or competing, it requires a success rate of at least 30% or the subject stops trying. So you need to win at least 30% of the time to keep your faith and interest in the activity.
Learned helplessness, and Stockholm Syndrome, I believe are real behavioral attributes of the American people when it comes to politics, justice, and economics. The American people have been brutalized via politicians, the courts, and the market, and there is no respite in sight.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Worst Nightmare
I have never been so frustrated as on the day I was unable to stop two professors from destroying two students. It was the worst case of "chasing the laser" and I was totally unprepared for the situation. In graduate school it's referred to as NIGYSOB (Now I've got you, you son of a bitch.) and I never expected professors would do that to undergraduate students. And, y'all thought academia was an isolated haven from the crass reality of the real world.
I seldom lose and when I do lose it is usually on my terms. This relatively new version of political nightmare is rather new territory for me. It's like an amped up version of past bad behavior. Or, maybe, bad behavior writ large. And, I am not talking about Trump, the whole damn system is going to hell.
Sooner or later, imo,
we humans are going to have to make a major change in how we govern ourselves. Maybe it will never happen, but I think some of us need to think big. Whether that means a constitutional convention or something else, I don't know, but I do know that Rule by the Rich has got to end.
I can only refer back to my brief essay.
How many decades or centuries have Americans been thinking big? How's that been working on the "improve our lives" level?
IMO, plenty of people both think big and talk big. Like well over half the pundit community, for one. But, in my experience, they are very short on specific suggestions and even shorter on taking action.
It seems to me that too few willing to plant rice (metaphorically speaking). Moreover, nothing prevents anyone from thinking big while planting rice.
Copying letters to the editor and stuffing envelopes or getting signatures on petitions is semi-mindless work. So are many of the routine things we do during a day, like showering, watching TV, etc. The human mind can think big while taking action.
I did review those before I commented.
My thing is these fuckers are criminals at the top and have to be stopped. They're killing people, subjugating people, displacing people, RULING over us, and it will continue until someone stops them. So I'm not interested in small steps, although I understand that would be more practical. Unless I believed those small steps could lead to big steps. I don't believe that's possible with this political system.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
Or so someone wise said long ago.
Tell me step 1 I or you is going to take to "stop these people."
The problem I have with a lot of the people on the internet--not posters, but those that are actually getting paid to write. Everyone wants to tell us every day, day after day for years, about every thing that is wrong. There may be flies on me, but there ain't that many flies on anybody. I get it already. The situation is all effed up. How many specific examples do we need to get that?
Now tell me what I am supposed to do next to help improve the situation. But they don't. They just get us more and more riled up continually--and often over something unimportant, like Trump;s most recent tweet or something.
BTW, Big Al, I don't think you are ever going to have a guarantee that a small step will or will not lead to a big step. Or that a big step is going to accomplish what you think and hope it might.
On the subject of paper ballots for all elections
all the time...The slogan could be as simple as "I Count!"
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I like that very much
I Count!, it even fits on a bumper sticker.
I Count!
Thanks.
Trying to keep it simple and most people know that they plain don't count in this global system so it addresses both the voting by paper ballot and can be interpreted as an affirmation that I not only count but you - the politicians - are accountable to me.
Addressing the issue of making sure the votes are counted: We've had a tradition of poll watchers by party and NGOs for an awfully long time and unless it's been dropped, it's still a viable action.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Thanks.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Thanks.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Can't argue with ya on that Henry.
I think we've nailed down the fact that we have a problem, or problems. Focusing on the daily this and that's doesn't do much good other than to keep us informed on what the criminal class is doing. I think rather than steps, I'm more referring to goals. What is the goal? That's where I think we get hung up and become sort of gridlocked. What the hell is it that we want?
I'd like to start with a goal of honest
electoral processes, especially if the only alternative on the table right now is doing nothing at all.
@Big Al We want to
We want to replace the global system of corporatism with a system that promotes sustainability and allows humanity, the plants, and the animals, and the biosphere, to exist generation after generation. We want a system that promotes the ethic of only enough to coexist with the earth's metabolic systems. Within the system, human rights include food, water, shelter, education, health care, privacy, self determination,and others using the Bill of Rights as a starting point.
No one should profit at the expense of another.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
@duckpin Yeah, those are
Yeah, those are the ultimate goals. Shorter-term goal: getting the currently powerful out of power because they've got us on a suicide course.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
An alternate target
The premise that
is quite true. Like the invention of the light bulb, the first 899 attempts failed. The reason for that is because the correct approach must first be imagined or pictured, taking into account the preceding failures.
Learned helplessness occurs when people become frustrated and despairing of finding the correct solution. All efforts heretofore, no matter how well-intended or reasonable, in the past 100 years or so have failed. Why? Lots of prior approaches to rectify inequality of rights and wealth were either attempted at the wrong time in history and/or aimed at the wrong target.
Ensuring paper ballots which are legitimately marked AND counted is necessary but it is insufficient. The sentiment is good, the methodology flawed. Not until the financial motivations are neutralized can the populace even hope that election reform will occur. Focussing on election mechanisms as the first priority in re-directing this political cesspool, is an inappropriate starting point.
"Money is the mothers' milk of politics". This has been true in every era of recorded history. It is true today and, if our species survives that long, will be true in a millennium. This is a time of growing instability. An equilibrium point has not been reached. By directing the disequilibrium to favor a specific outcome, one must, at the inception of such disequilibrium, determine the direction in which the present tenuous balance heads and ultimately collapses. (In physical terms, the direction of the lowest entropy must be determined by directional forces).
Facts: 1. This is a time of growing world-wide instability. The major outcoms of the conflict, quite simplified, are corporatist globalism versus reassertion of world-wide humanistic populism (not right-wing populism, which is simply corporatism with a good disguise).
2. Money is the key--alway and forever THE key.
3. Society is complex. Not even here at c99 do we have unanimity of the full picture of a successful overturning of the continuing elitist exploitation. For the purposes of my theory, that is a matter for LATER denouement. It is not the starting point.
4. Disrupting the money flow into politics is the FIRST order of action.
5. The weakest link in the financial support will be in industrial/corporatist affairs. The greed of billionaires will preclude their appropriate response to the changing political environment, as they already regard us serfs as insignificant except to provide to their obscene wealth and creature comforts.
6. Stopping the flow of income to the elites must be the first order (see #4) but how to do it? Boycotts may have limited effects, although sometimes very meaningful. But boycotts have limits too. Simply eliminating Ivanka's fashion line from stores is not even a reasonable approach; it is much too narrow.
7. Sun Tzu said "know your enemy's weaknesses...and your own" Attack the enemy at their weakest point.
8. Recent events have shown that the extreme over-reach of the Pharmaceutical Industry has angered people on all sides of the political spectrum. Even a dozen Republicans deserted the Red menace to vote with Bernie. If it wasn't for Blue Bastards, his measure would have placed a nice dent in the drug industry.
9. Judging from these recent developments, it is my conclusion that at THIS time and this circumstance, the biggest corporate target to attack is Bigpharma. Opposition is growing from all directions.
10. Assuming enough legislators can be coerced (they won't go willingly) into supporting a roll-back of Big Pharma prerogatives, Pharma's influence can be reduced (though not eliminated).
11. Seeing success in reducing one major branch of Corporate might could present an inducement to go after another corporatist domain. The success of Bernie's campaign proved that a large enough outpouring of populistic enthusiasm could thus overwhelm another selected corporatist target. Right now, I don't have one in mind. But if my suggestion were to prove successful, another target will suggest itself--maybe the media; maybe something else.
12. Let us not fulfill Einstein's admonition: "repeating the same action over and over, will not lead to a different result".
@Alligator Ed
I like your thinking. Still. And again.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
FYI: No evidence that Einstein's.
It's irrelevant who said it, if it's true. However, people love to tie names to aphorisms to give them more cred. And then the internet repeats the fake attribution endlessly.
In any case, I'm not sure what application that saying has to what I am suggesting. IMO, seeking a cleaner electoral process is not a mistake and I've not been repeatedly trying for it while expecting a different result.
I wish you well with your efforts to take down Big PHRMA before considering a clean vote, just as I wish others well on their efforts to do away with capitalism and change everything else in our system before considering a clean vote. Those plans seem to me to be doomed to leave us with capitalism and Big PHRMA and no clean vote. However, if you have any specific, finite tasks in mind for taking down big PHRMA, name them and I will consider if I can help. Otherwise, I'm not sure what's going on.
I am not saying that election repair is wrong.
What I did say is that it is the wrong starting point. The first target must be to weaken the financial underpinnings of corruption. Only when the bribes are reduced will we have a chance at election reform. The whole point of my comment is that the wrong targets have been selected.
While you may quibble about who may or may not have said something about the definition of insanity, the point is true: repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result is futile. It also leads to dispiriting a potential movement to repeat the errors of the past. The comments and implied premise of your essay simply reinforces failed past strategies.
Ed, I've read your opinion; you've read mine. Obviously, we
disagree and neither of us is going to convince the other. Inasmuch as you can work on your issue while I work on mine, I don't think we need to agree anyway.
I did not claim you said clean elections were wrong, nor did I suggest any order. I don't think any particular order is necessary. That was your claim, not mine.
As long as we're giving our personal opinions, though, what I think is impossible is getting money out of politics. It's been there since at least Biblical times, probably much earlier, even without a SCOTUS decision saying it's protected political speech. And probably as long as money has been in politics, people have been trying to get it out or reduce its impact, without a ton of success.
McCain Feingold was one such attempt by Congress, a carrot-type attempt, rather than stick type. McCain used it in 2008, not counting dark money, while Obama raked in 3/4 billion, also not counting dark money. So, getting money out of politics is by far not a guarantied ticket out of the failure/discouragement spiral. To the contrary, people have been failing at preventing bribes for literally thousands of years longer than people have been trying to get the states to dump voting machines. Even worse,insisting on getting money our of politics before doing other things seems the way to ensure that nothing at all ever gets done.
On the other hand, I also disagree that any election reform being impossible while there's money in politics. Quite a few states have already 86ed their voting machines and enacted paper ballot statutes. I, for one, been voting with a pencil and a paper ballot since the 2004 Presidential. I think that is a vast improvement over a voting machine and would like to see the process improved even more in my state and see paper ballots in every state.
However, again, there is no reason we need to agree. We can each work on whatever each of us want to work on.
As far as the saying you posted, my post said.
That you characterized five words stating a simple truth as quibbling about whose statement it is surprises me. I just see no point in anyone of us believing or repeating something that is most likely false. Personally, I don't want to believe something false or put more false or dubious on the net. Had the situation been reversed, I would have thanked you.
Double.
In every discipline
with which I have any familiarity, the novice is taught that to succeed one must start.
This is my favorite mental exercise: Imagine you are standing in a relaxed, stable pose. You are well balanced, firmly grounded, and fully mindful of your state. What do you do, to initiate a step, so as to walk forward?
If you are a kinesiologist or a physicist you (should) know the answer, but I have met many unable to answer this question.
The first action is "thought" by which intent is formed.
And by its very nature
"thought" is spontaneous, uncontrolled (uncontrollable even), and creative. To impose arbitrary external constraints deprives us the very advantage we need and is antithetical to our very existence.
Of all our attributes, creativity (the ability to not be constrained) is the most valuable.
@Big Al
Can't you just imagine what the corporate/billionaire PTB would have their lackeys do to your Constitution, should they get the chance for altering the definition of democracy and removing your inalienable rights? Even though these pre-date and over-ride all predatory attempts at 'legally' overcoming them?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I think the word "vote" should be in a slogan.
@duckpin.
Someone's already been pushing "Count every vote," for some time. That isn't bad--and it's had a head start.
But to push a button, pull a lever, fill in the dot:
Does that not seem tiny? And now many Americans are unsure of vote counting. Nonexistent paper trail there. As some have noticed, after showing or worse scanning your ID you get a numbered ballot. Could be good, could be bad.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Thanks. I am not sure what you are trying to get across.
Getting money out of politics is number one
Because that's why no one will listen to us. And that's why corporations spend huge amounts of time and money to "buy" manufactured consent. As well as politicians. It's why we can't trust main stream media. It's why we're being force fed the idea that capitalism is the same thing as democracy and that God hates the poor. And why war just keeps on keeping on.
And yet when the Washington dufuses do something stupid that hurts corporate America, they end up folding and turning back.
So we use this "strength" against them. We organize ways to hurt corporate money. Bank of America has never really recovered from the time, a few years back, when they tried to up their fees. It worked for protecting net neutrality when websites went dark. It worked when conferences pulled out of Indiana. And most lately, Donald's ban is getting butthurt mostly because there are some major corporations who vehemently disagree with it.
Decide on the specific and then figure out what corporate entity we can "hurt" that will get it for us.
if money buys everything and we won't want to get bought
may be to develop an alternative currency would help to be more independent from the influence of the monetary system.
It just sounds so childish for an uneducted little person to make such comment. Just saying.
https://www.euronews.com/
I strongly agree (see my comment above)
Boycotts do work but they should be selective and well-focused. We must, absolutely MUST, find ways to hurt individual corporations or entire industries. When the money dries up, the elitist power goes with it. Prime example: C.G.I.
I like boycotts and will boycott anything anyone asks me
to boycott. Gladly.
Boycotts can accomplish a lot--though not as much as they did in the past. In the past, you could really hurt a company by boycotting. Now, many companies are consolidated under one parent. You boycott one department store and it doesn't matter as much as it used to because the parent owns maybe ten department store chains, plus hotels, plus a detergent manufacturer, plus producers of canned goods, plus appliance companies, etc. (Just describing a hypothetical company, not any real one.) And they're multi-nationals. So, say, MacDonald's will do okay if all of France boycotts it.
Still, I'm in. I'll boycott. However, I don't think a boycott will get money out of politics. I don't think we will ever get some of form of reward or another out of politics. It's probably been there in one form or another, maybe coconuts, since before we had opposable thumbs,sometimes openly, sometimes secretly. And we probably still don't know the full extent of how much money is involved, where, who, how, etc. and never will. Especially now that the SCOTUS said donors' names can be kept secret.
Contributions to a candidate; contributions to PACS; contributions to the Party's National Committee, made with a wink and an understanding that they will go to the candidate; contributions to foundations; making homes available for vacations, etc. There's just no end to it.
Public Banking
In Nebraska we have the only Public Power system for delivering electricity to every building in the state. We elect the people who make decisions like promoting clean energy.
In another column in the ledger book, North Dakota is the only state with a publicly owned bank the Bank of North Dakota.
Neither of these two institutions are perfect, but I wonder what our country would be like if these essential services were publicly owned in every state. Credit Unions are a good start, but they are only a start in the right direction.
Pages