Occupy Wall Street Movement

[Punish_her]

ted:
1) money matters
2) are you an expat?
austerus & denu:
1) you either don't give the average american voter enough credit, in which case if he is as uninformed and manipulatable as you think he is, that's depressing
2) I get what you're trying to say, but the math doesn't add up. People calling on behalf of candidate X (hypothetical incumbent) shouldn't matter. If someone lives in district X where representative X is, and district X is an incredibly conservative, catholic district, they wont vote for candidate X if he's pro-life regardless of hwo many signs are on lawns or what have you. Money does not really equal votes, and denu, i've taken my fair share of poli sci classes, and i dont have much respect for the field. So to recap: either voters its are so stupid they vote for whoevers name sounds familiar (and if they're that dumb, special interests groups aren't making a difference anyway), or the 99% likes things the way they are.
My opinion:
nothing will ever change because the average voter is not stupid per se, just really apathetic.
Oh and Ron Paul usually raises more on individual donations then any other candidate, GOP or Dem. It's not as if he's spending all out, it's that the only people who are polled are the ones who really care, the paul nuts 365 days a year

[Punish_her]

also, i wouldnt say the tea party and ows cancel each other out, but its a good example. In 2010, tea party candidates had a very strong showing, which reflects that grass roots organization is very much a force to be reckoned with.

[denuseri]

1) you either don't give the average american voter enough credit, in which case if he is as uninformed and manipulatable as you think he is, that's depressing

That's not it at all, in fact on average the current American voter is much better educated in some ways than his predecessors were from previous generations. However...the amount of choices he or she has other than a "write in" are limited by a number of factors, chief of which is who got on the ticket and how...the who is very apparent to the voters, its drubbed up sometimes over a year in advance for the big elections...the how (lobbyists actions and super pacs working behind the scenes) not so much. Also the "what exactly will you do about this or that subject" type questions are all neatly sidesteped with sophistry during the elections, or the candidate say they will do X, despite knowing doing X wont be something they can accomplish in that office etc. Though such things are covered extensively in political science, history, and sociology courses. As for not giving what ancient philosophers and other learned men in the past have revered as the "ignorant mob" enough credit....shrugs...the facts don't lie, historically the numbers add up. The corporate oligarchy is limiting the choices of the mob as they see fit to their clear advantage over that of the mob and money is the primary way in which they do it. I too agree that its depressing...at least from the perspective of those who are not super wealthy, but it is understandable, especially when one includes components of mass psychology into the mix along with actual statistical analysis.


2) I get what you're trying to say, but the math doesn't add up.

Actually there are very long historical trends conserning human behavior in this regard that predate the Roman Empire that totally make this all add up. So much so its information thats introduced at the intro level of a number of different courses that deals with issues of political science...its not just called a science to make it sound important.

People calling on behalf of candidate X (hypothetical incumbent) shouldn't matter. If someone lives in district X where representative X is, and district X is an incredibly conservative, catholic district, they wont vote for candidate X if he's pro-life regardless of hwo many signs are on lawns or what have you. Money does not really equal votes, and denu, i've taken my fair share of poli sci classes, (then you should know what I am speaking about) and i dont have much respect for the field. Thats very unfortunate and shortsited, but I would love to hear why not all the same. So to recap: either voters its are so stupid they vote for whoevers name sounds familiar (and if they're that dumb, special interests groups aren't making a difference anyway), or the 99% likes things the way they are. Its more of a mixture...when voters are polled concerning why they voted for some of the lesser offices they do give responses like "I recognized only that guys name" etc or "I didn't have any information on candidate X so I voted party line.

The media has much more to do with it than one may think too...Ron Paul sounds great to some people, they just love him around here...but...almost everyone I know isn't going to vote for him because they "precive" him as not having the same chance or better of ever winning his parties nomination, let alone a Presidential bid and that's totally due to how much media influence Ron Paul has...which is directly proportional to how much money his backers are slinging around. A certian district may be one sided in their views on average...but "collectively" they pretty much act and respond as expected to the certain applications of propaganda..as evidenced historically and starkly by what happened to Germany in the 30"s.


My opinion:
nothing will ever change because the average voter is not stupid per se, just really apathetic.
Oh and Ron Paul usually raises more on individual donations then any other candidate, GOP or Dem. It's not as if he's spending all out, it's that the only people who are polled are the ones who really care, the paul nuts 365 days a year

Herd like complacency and voter apathy also greatly angered the great philosophers of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. Xenophon even wrote a nice little book about it.

[denuseri]

also, i wouldnt say the tea party and ows cancel each other out, but its a good example. In 2010, tea party candidates had a very strong showing, which reflects that grass roots organization is very much a force to be reckoned with.

Which shows that we can still have some hope that once conditions get bad enough human beings will rise up and seek the blood of tyrants to water that ole tree of liberty from time to time. The only problem is how at this stage even the Tea Party's demagoguery wasn't sufficient to allow it to maintain independence...publicly its precieved directly due to the media as having been swallowed in part or whole by the GOP. Which one may have failed to notice was plastered all over the media almost at the first mention of the Tea Party...even though it was initially a completely independent movement, the media "spin" made the reality conform to the lie.

Welcome to 1984 only clothed a bit differently.

[tedteague]

1) no im not
the tea party isnt one united group, and there's quite a bit of differing opinions from within it. Half of the tea party is neocon and the other half is staunchly libertarian, and the two factions think one another are nutjobs. (for example the tea party began as a libertarian/anarchist movement, and ended up wanting palin to run for office)
and once again, if you're implying that voters know nothing about the issue (which you seem to be if equivocating politicians can sidestep issues so well they never say anything meaningful) or that voters don;t remember simple things like breaking promises (obama said hed close gitmo), then you assume the average voter is uninformed.
either way, there is no conclusion to be reached, and even though i question the words relevance in this sense, it sounds cool, so i wil also say no catharsis will be achieved
happy holidays

[Hamishlacastle]

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE SIMPLE SOLUTION.if the banks have the technology to protect my identity the government should be able to duplicate this. What I propose is simply that every citizen can vote on all government
business from their home computer or a library one. They would have a secure ID that only they can use. the elected
representatives would be expected to inform us on issues. we can vote on all government legislation thro DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Also there would be a summary page of upcoming business of the day which we can choose which we prefer to vote on.

[Hamishlacastle]

B]DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE SIMPLE SOLUTION.[/B]if the banks have the technology to protect my identity the government should be able to duplicate this. What I propose is simply that every citizen can vote on all government
business from their home computer or a library one. They would have a secure ID that only they can use. the elected
representatives would be expected to inform us on issues. we can vote on all government legislation thro DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Also there would be a summary page of upcoming business of the day which we can choose which we prefer to vote on.

[js207]

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE SIMPLE SOLUTION.if the banks have the technology to protect my identity the government should be able to duplicate this. What I propose is simply that every citizen can vote on all government
business from their home computer or a library one. They would have a secure ID that only they can use. the elected
representatives would be expected to inform us on issues. we can vote on all government legislation thro DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Also there would be a summary page of upcoming business of the day which we can choose which we prefer to vote on.

I'm not sure about voting directly on every issue, but we could certainly do with a lot more direct democracy - in particular, something like California and Switzerland's initiative process: get enough voters to endorse a question, it gets put directly to the electorate in a referendum, the results of which will be binding on the government. In the same way the threat of a Presidential veto can be enough to influence legislative actions, just having the option of overruling the legislature if it gets out of line would be a positive influence.

[Thorne]

The problem with a direct democracy is that you run the risk of a majority group legislating minority groups out of the system. Civil rights for African Americans probably would not have been able to get past a direct democracy. It took legislators doing what was RIGHT rather than what their constituents may have wanted. You would run into the same thing with gay rights, religious minorities, almost any group with insufficient votes to sway the majority's minds.

[js207]

The problem with a direct democracy is that you run the risk of a majority group legislating minority groups out of the system. Civil rights for African Americans probably would not have been able to get past a direct democracy. It took legislators doing what was RIGHT rather than what their constituents may have wanted. You would run into the same thing with gay rights, religious minorities, almost any group with insufficient votes to sway the majority's minds.

I very much doubt that - and don't think it's a sufficient reason to oppose democracy, either. Do you really think a majority of the population would vote against racial equality? Yes, maybe right now gay marriage would get voted down by the public in a lot of places; I'm not convinced bypassing that either by judicial fiat or political subterfuge is morally or strategically right. If you can't convince the electorate your agenda is right, how can you say it is? Yes, there's a risk of a "lynch mob" in individual cases, which is why there are bans on bills of attainder (politicians are just as prone to that kneejerk reaction as the public, if not more so) - but on a policy level, I'm not at all convinced politicians are any better or more trustworthy than the electorate as a whole - and, of course, almost by definition the electorate is less prone to corruption than politicians.

[Thorne]

I very much doubt that - and don't think it's a sufficient reason to oppose democracy, either. Do you really think a majority of the population would vote against racial equality?

I didn't say I opposed democracy, only a direct democracy, with every citizen voting on every aspect of law. To be frank, most people, no matter how well educated, do not really understand law. Most think that it only applies to other people, not to them, and that what's good for them must be good for everyone. At least in a democratic republic, which is what the US is supposed to be, the people elect those who are, theoretically, well versed in law and rely on them to do what is right. Sadly, though, that ideal has been corrupted by mass media, among other things. We no longer elect the most qualified, but more often the most photogenic, or the most outspoken. And yes, sad to say that, given the situation as it was in the 50's and 60's, most Americans would probably have voted against the Civil Rights Act. After all, it didn't affect them, only those OTHERS!

Yes, maybe right now gay marriage would get voted down by the public in a lot of places; I'm not convinced bypassing that either by judicial fiat or political subterfuge is morally or strategically right.

How is preventing people from limiting or eliminating the rights of a whole group of people morally right? How is giving equal rights to gays any different than giving equal rights to blacks, or to Muslims, or to Catholics, or to anyone else you choose to name? Remember, the majority is not always right.

If you can't convince the electorate your agenda is right, how can you say it is?

So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

of course, almost by definition the electorate is less prone to corruption than politicians.

Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

[js207]

So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

Not frightened people - the populace as a whole, and yes, that is actually pretty much the legal situation, with slight regional variations: if something would be perceived as a significant threat by normal people then the use of (deadly) force is legal. Before you hold up politicians as solving that problem, I should probably remind you Congress has done almost precisely that on multiple occasions in the past - and only admitted to the Census Bureau's rôle in the process in 2007.

No doubt a lot of voters would have voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1963, given the chance, just as a lot of politicians did each time - but considering that the facts that they did elect the President who pushed it, that the House Rules Committee blocked the bill until after JFK's assassination gave LBJ political leverage to pressure them, then had to use backdoor procedural trickery to squeeze it through the Senate with "only" two months of filibusters, after Congress had already rejected the core Title III proposal 3 and 6 years previously, can you really tell me you're sure the same electorate which voted JFK into office would have taken much longer than those six years to approve his proposal?

Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

No - because corrupt politicians are screwing over the general population for personal benefit. For the population to screw itself over for its own benefit is a contradictory. They could of course reverse the process, with the broader electorate screwing a smaller subset, but you'll have a hard job convincing those who pay most of the taxes and anyone in an unpopular industry (tobacco, alcohol, fast food, insurance, energy) that isn't what we have right now. When you promise financial benefits to most of the electorate ... well, that's how both the current and previous occupants of the White House got there, and I don't recall anyone calling that corruption yet.

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

Do you really think politicians are significantly better than that? How many of them have even bothered to read, let alone fully understand, the laws they vote on? Remember ObamaCare, with Pelosi's line "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it"? Obama's speech earlier this year, exhorting Congress to pass a bill that hadn't even been written yet?

[Thorne]

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

Personally, I think the world would be better off if we didn't need governments. But given human nature I know that's a pipe dream. But rule by mob isn't much better than anarchy.

[js207]

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

No, I was just pointing out that your hypothetical situation has already happened on multiple occasions (only with smaller minorities than 45%) with the current indirect democracy, making it a fatally flawed argument against switching to a more direct form. Yes, in theory it might well to share this flaw with the current system ... so what? That doesn't make it any worse.

[Thorne]

That doesn't make it any worse.

So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

[js207]

So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

It would be better for everyone else, though - which is generally what we should aim for. Better that than the status quo, where they arrange things for their own benefit at our expense - ObamaCare exemption, generous salaries and other benefits of the job...

Term limits would be a big help I think - or actually, a slight modification of the Russian term limit on Presidents: require everyone running for office to be out of public office for the preceding term. No incumbents, they never get too comfortable living on the public purse - so every Senator would have spent at least six of the last twelve years living as a regular member of the public, dealing with the IRS, TSA and all the other fun things just like everyone else.

That said, I haven't seen any ways direct democracy would be any worse: it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?

[Thorne]

it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?

Just a thought, here. I've never watched those "reality" programs, where people call or text to vote on their choices, but haven't there been some spectacular fails from some of those? Cases where an obviously better performer was tossed because the public voted for the flashier, but less talented, contender?

The other thing to consider is time. How many people would really want to spend the time studying all of the nuances of a particular issue before voting on it? How many would even bother?

[js207]

Just a thought, here. I've never watched those "reality" programs, where people call or text to vote on their choices, but haven't there been some spectacular fails from some of those? Cases where an obviously better performer was tossed because the public voted for the flashier, but less talented, contender?

The other thing to consider is time. How many people would really want to spend the time studying all of the nuances of a particular issue before voting on it? How many would even bother?

Yes, those elections tend to select for popularity rather than merit - another flaw of the system you're defending/advocating, as it happens...

Of course not everyone thinks it through fully before voting - just look at the catastrophic debt burden of the last few years for proof! I suspect voting on issues rather than candidates would improve that a little, though: easy to vote for party X without thinking, or the candidate with the bigger grin, but yes or no on prop 123?

[Thorne]

easy to vote for party X without thinking, or the candidate with the bigger grin, but yes or no on prop 123?

Don't you think that most people would simply accept the rantings of the few people who have done the research, and are mouthing off, either for or against, on ridiculous grounds rather than rational thought? How many people will still rattle off lies (about Obama's birth certificate, about gay marriage, about abortion, about almost any hot topic) despite those lies having been debunked over and over and over again? Instead of learning for themselves, they latch onto a mouthpiece (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Riley, Al Gore) and spout the same, stupid, misleading garbage.

[denuseri]

That still doesn't mean we couldn't have directed voting on different issues and if its something important we can always make it require a 2/3 majority or a complete consensus.

I say cut the corporate owned politicians out of as much as possible!

[js207]

Don't you think that most people would simply accept the rantings of the few people who have done the research, and are mouthing off, either for or against, on ridiculous grounds rather than rational thought? How many people will still rattle off lies (about Obama's birth certificate, about gay marriage, about abortion, about almost any hot topic) despite those lies having been debunked over and over and over again? Instead of learning for themselves, they latch onto a mouthpiece (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Riley, Al Gore) and spout the same, stupid, misleading garbage.

Probably true, but not to a greater extent than they do right now with elected representatives - who, in turn, often vote on issues based on nothing better as well. I vaguely recall an experiment someone did in the lead up to the 2008 election, asking those who identified themselves as a supporter of one candidate or the other if they supported their choice because of (opponent's view, misattributed). Some Obama supporters were really enthusiastic about his campaign finance reform legislation and sticking to the public financing system while his opponent opted out, while others were definitely voting for McCain because of his strong pro-choice credentials ... shame they had the two candidates confused there. At the very least, voting directly on issues instead of proxying it by people's names would eliminate that.

I'm not saying to use direct democracy exclusively, voting on every technical detail of every law - just to put the electorate at the top of the chain of command, so taxpayers can override the worst decisions the same way the President can veto them now. If CA can vote to recall bad governors, why can't the US vote to recall bad laws?

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put The TEA Party is for the Religious Right, The Occupy is for the Liberal Left

[Punish_her]

Herd like complacency and voter apathy also greatly angered the great philosophers of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. Xenophon even wrote a nice little book about it.

No, itsl called a science becaye asshole like sounding important. You cant empirically prove anything, therefore, its not a science, and what numbers add up? ou didnt even say anything. you cant empirically show that more money from superpacs equals more votes, and if you can showa basic, relationship, you cant even prove its causual.

[js207]

Simply put The TEA Party is for the Religious Right, The Occupy is for the Liberal Left

The Tea Party's largely fiscal rather than social conservatives, hence their use of the eponymous original Boston tax protests. The OWS crowd don't seem to have as coherent a position, but much of the complaining I've seen so far was about the colossal bailout/stimulus payouts - which would actually mean common ground with the Tea Party on issues, if not party lines. Another flaw of representative democracy as opposed to direct...

[Thorne]

Another flaw of representative democracy as opposed to direct...

Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

[denuseri]

No, itsl called a science becaye asshole like sounding important. You cant empirically prove anything, therefore, its not a science, and what numbers add up? ou didnt even say anything. you cant empirically show that more money from superpacs equals more votes, and if you can showa basic, relationship, you cant even prove its causual.

lol...allrighty then...you go right on thinking its not a science if you want while the people who know it is use what they know to work the system.

Numbers don't lie. Cliometrics and it's uses in Political Science are well known factors that involve a lot of in depth statistical analysis.

If money wasn't a factor Romney wouldn't be pulling back ahead of Newt in the primaries right now.

On another note :

There is a lot of overlap in things the Tea Party and the Occupy movements want and I think they would be better served by combining their independent efforts and dropping or excluding the two primary parties from participation....haven't we seen this before with the Reform and Whig parties back in the day?

[denuseri]

Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

According to Political Science it happens in all forms of government...even small and primitive tribal ones.

The real question is how to make a system that takes all the greed and other bad factors out of play or minimizes them.

Something the framer's of our Constitution knew very well and were very concerned about making allowances for...when you read their personal musing during the process it becomes very apparent that even the most optimistic of them was mired in a very healthy dose of pessimism concerning the nature of their fellows and the effects holding power had upon the human psyche. They knew (as explained in the history of Political Science) that all governments have a tendency; no matter how well intentioned, to eventually move in directions that acquire and secure more and more power for the rulers at the expense of the ruled. Which is why Madison was so big on modeling us on the Romans...His hope was that by adopting what was useful from the worlds longest lasting Republic we would have time to figure this out and change as necessary (hence the elastic clause of the Constitution).

Adding a direct voting element is already in play in a lot of states on different issues and in the entertainment industry.

The main issue at play in the States is usually the item being voted on is an amendment of some kind and worded in such a fashion that only a lawyer can tell you in laymen s terms what happens if its passed or not.

[Omega22]

Which shows that we can still have some hope that once conditions get bad enough human beings will rise up and seek the blood of tyrants to water that ole tree of liberty from time to time..

democracy makes life of tyrants absolutely safe. instead of taking responsibility fro their actions tyrants just select random fools from big population and uses them as their own representatives, once something gets wrong all you need is to replace representative.

only solution today is going into anarchy, or else this situation will remain indefinitely

The real question is how to make a system that takes all the greed and other bad factors out of play or minimizes them.

current system is based on greed so if you take it out everything will collapse.
however we already had working system without greed in soviet CCCP.
it was quite good, but greed based systems are far more efficient than enthusiasm based systems when lots of resources are available.

Since resources are getting sacred there is no better option than communism, which favors laziness instead of diligence (which is synonym of greed) and if you are greedy then you are forced to feed all lazy ones around. This way resource consumption severely decreases.

[Thorne]

greed based systems are far more efficient than enthusiasm based systems when lots of resources are available.

"Enthusiasm" based systems don't work if there's no reward for the enthusiastic worker. In the CCCP (USSR) the only "enthusiastic" ones were the political leaders, who were able to get anything they wanted for themselves and their families. The average citizen could look forward to little but more work for no gain, while those who did no work still got fed, clothed and housed.

Since resources are getting sacred there is no better option than communism, which favors laziness instead of diligence (which is synonym of greed) and if you are greedy then you are forced to feed all lazy ones around.

So you're better off being lazy? You get fed, and you don't have to work! Sounds great to me.

This way resource consumption severely decreases.

Which means everyone but the guy with the resources starves. Sounds like the USSR, all right.

[Punish_her]

holy shit was i drunk last night