I read of too much happening, such as apparently unreasonable arrests
or destruction of Occupiers' property, that Occupiers need to respond:
. If Occupiers truly earned such, they need to behave more
reasonably.
. If there is truth in what I read, the US desperately needs
better attention to public safety, including officers, and those
directing them, behaving better. The Occupy Movement needs to see
this as an important reason to see to such, along with the many other
problems to improve on, getting improved via politics.
Stephen Unger has thought seriously in the following email, plus the
article referred to at its ending. I would not agree to all, but add
to that:
. 2012 is an important election year - now time to consider
what is now doable.
. Not clear whether a new party, working with the Greens or
Libertarians, or working within the Republicans or Democrats, is best
- studying all the possibilities is a proper beginning, and laws in
various states affect what is practical.
. Starting competing efforts makes sense but, when they start
to compete in electing, time to drop the excess.
. Write-ins can be effective. I hold up proof this year. For
a supervisor race:
111 Rep - Joe - on the ballot from winning primary, though not
campaigning.
346 Con - Darlene - running as Con though unable to run as Rep+Con.
540 Write-in - Bob - who gets the votes with his campaign starting
18 days before election day.
On Dec 8, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Chris Telesca wrote:
On 12/8/11 5:24 PM, Stephen Unger wrote:
Forming a new party (or building up an existing third party, say the
Greens or Libertarians) is easier because all your work is of a
constructive nature, as opposed to having to devote great amounts of
energy to combat or replace those currently in command. This is not
made easier by the fact that the internal procedures of traditional
political parties are not models of democracy.
You can start up a party called the Left-Handed Back-Scratchers, but
it
doesn't mean you will be effective at gaining any political clout or
winning office.
...
Over my lifetime, I have seen efforts to make the major parties more
responsive to the public fail repeatedly. In particular, liberals
have
been notoriously persistent in sticking with the Democratic
Party. Most were convinced that their arms would whither if used to
pull down any voting booth lever not labelled "Democrat" (only very
recently have the old lever type machines been replaced). The results
have been getting worse every election. Eisenhower, and even Nixon,
look good compared to those now in the Democratic saddle.
When an approach fails repeatedly, it makes no sense to stick with
it.
....
I am hopeful that the Occupy Movement will wake up enough people to
turn things around.
I hope so too - but I don't think that a third party is the way to do
it. There is already so much momentum and mass behind a going-concern
that you'd have to do so much work with a third-party to raise up to
the
same level. Given the same number of people with the will to make
something work, it's always easier to take over a going concern than
to
start from scratch - just as in business.
Steve
............
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Chris Telesca wrote:
Why do you think that starting a new third party would be more
feasible?
I rather think that it would be easier to reform an existing major
party
- the plans for how to do so are right there. No one but party
officers
can run the party if enough good party members put their foot down
and
remind the electeds that they are nominated by the party - no party
by-laws or plan of organization allows for a candidate or elected
public
official to control a party.
Chris Telesca
On 12/7/11 9:26 PM, Stephen Unger wrote:
By overwhelming margins, polls indicate increasing dissatisfaction
with both major parties. People have been trying to reform both the
Republican and Democratic parties for decades. They have failed
miserably, as both parties have become less and less responsive
to the
people. They are both arms of corporate interests. Their rivalry is
about as genuine as that of professional wrestlers. The Republicans
play the role of the nasty villains, terrifying liberals, while the
Democrats act as the clean cut heroes. On most significant issues
their actual positions are essentially the same, tho they differ in
rhetoric.
Most of us agree that our system for general elections is in bad
shape. Intra-party procedures are considerably worse. Reforming an
established party means extensive mud wrestling with entrenched
party
hacks who control all the levers of power.
Starting a new party or beefing up an existing third party is more
feasible, tho it will not be easy. But, if the Occupy Movement
keeps
growing, it will soon have the muscle to take on the job. The
fight to
reform our election system (e.g.., score voting, and reducing the
role
of money in politics) should be pursued in parallel with the
fight for
a decent new party, as each depends on the other.
More detailed arguments can be found in
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/twoParty.html
<http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/%7Eunger/articles/twoParty.html>
Steve
Dave Ketchum
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
