Dave:
You wrote;
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
[endquote]
Sure, but usually emotionally-charged movements like this consist
only of letting-off-steam, and their members never apply their anger
or
reform-desire to their voting. If they did, they'd all combine to
elect
non-Republocrats to all offices. Don't necessarily expect that. At
least don't
expect it to happen spontaneously, without lots of encouragement.
On the other hand, of course the electoral possiblity should be
pointed out
to Occupy participants. If there's any chance that they _might_
direct their
energy and anger toward voting Republocrats out of office, then that
solution
should certainly be suggested to them.
You continued:
, along with the many other
problems to improve on, getting improved via politics.
[endquote]
I should have included that clause in the text that I replied to
above. What I said
there of course applies to this last clause as well.
Comments on Stephen Unger's e-mail, quoted in Dave's posting:
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.
[endquote]
Yes. That's why I suggest that we must, right now, use correctly the
voting
system that we already have, Plurality. Plurality with Condorcet
polling
can be equivalent to Condorcet.
So that's why I've been suggesting that we do Condorcet polling of
candidates
for the 2012 presidential election of the U.S.
But we could even get useful information from Pluality polls. By using
obvious assumptions about political-spectrum-order, we could look for
the voter-median candidate.
But, either way, we should report the CW or voter-median candidate
to the political
parties, progressive media, and progressive organizations. Ask all
progressives to
come together by voting for that candidate (whom I expect to be a
progressive candidate).
Unger continued:
. Not clear whether a new party, working with the Greens or
Libertarians, or working within the Republicans or Democrats, is best
[endquote]
Working within the Democrats or Republicans is not best. If there's
one thing
we should learn from decades of experience, it's that.
Work with progressive voters. Show them (from polling) that they
have the power
to elect a progressive instead of a Republocrat. Tell them about
Nader's consistent
wins in Internet polling. Show them the results of our 2012
presidential polls too
(We must do those polls).
Greens or Libertarians, sure.
Greens and Libertarians agree on much. I won't go into details,
since this
mailing list isn't for political promotion. I'll just suggest that a
compromise
between Greens and Libertarians should include policies advocated by
both, without
those policies objectionable to one or the other. You know which
policies those
are.
But, relevant to coalition between Greens and Libertarians, one
can't avoid mentioning
the Boston Tea Party (not to be confused with the Republican-policy-
promotion "The Party Movement").
Look at the Boston Tea Party's platform. It looks like the
compromise between Greens
and Libertarians. Well, I don't know if they have any policies that
would be
unacceptable to Greens, but it would be worth checking out.
Regarding the Greens, the U.S. has two "Greens" organizations:
1. The original Greens (G/GPUSA)
2. The replacement "Greens".(GPUS)
Read their platforms.
The replacment "Greens" are a much bigger party, due to their
heavily mainstream
character. They have some good suggestions (a subset of the original
Green' suggestions), of course, and would be ok for
a coalition, if they can bring themselves to accept one.
Unger continued:
- 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.
[endquote]
That's where pre-election polling is essential--to determine which
progressive
candidate is the one that all progressives should support.
Divisiveness is a really big problem among progressives, including the
replacement "Greens".
The other quoted writer said:
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.
Quite so. All true.
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.
Quite so. Today's Democrats are a lot worse than yesterday's
Republcans.
Unger continued:
When an approach fails repeatedly, it makes no sense to stick with
it.
Again, that's quite so. "If you want something different, then don't
keep
voting for the same old parties that are giving you what you want to
get away from."
I am hopeful that the Occupy Movement will wake up enough people to
turn things around.
There have been similar movments in the past, and so I wouldn't
count on that,
at least not spontaneously.
The sentiment of the Occupy people is encouraging. But someone must
show them
that they have got to turn their anger and energy toward voting the
Republocrats
out of office. If enough progressively-inclined voters (that
includes pretty much
everyone who falls for the Democrat compromise) would vote for
candidates better
than the Republocrats, then the Republocrats would immediately be
history.
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.
If you're suggesting working within the Democrat party, then you
need to re-read
Unger's e-mail.
Telesca said:
Why do you think that starting a new third party would be more
feasible?
More feasible than what? More feasible than reforming the
Democrats? :-)
How about this reason?: Because the latter is impossible. As Unger
pointed
out, it's been tried for a long, long time.
However, one progressive author pointed out that, structually, our
primary
system could be considered the 1st stage of a 2-stage voting system,
like Runoff.
It wouldn't be a matter of _reforming_ the Democrats, who are quite
unreformable. It would be a matter of using their primary as a 1st
election
of Runoff.
I'm skeptical about that, because I don't think that democracy or
voter input
has much to do with who gets the Democrat nomination. You've seen
the conventions.
In fact the idea sounds quite doubtful. But I felt that I should
mention it.
I rather think that it would be easier to reform an existing major
party
Nonsense. The corrupt, big-business-owned Democrats aren't reformable.
>>> On 12/7/11 9:26 PM, Stephen Unger wrote:
>>>> By overwhelming margins, polls indicate increasing
dissatisfaction
with both major parties.
Yes. The sentiment is "throw the politicians out". Revise that to
"Vote the Republocrats out"
I'd say "the corrupt Republocrats", but that would be redundant,
because
that's the only kind of Republocrats.
Speaking of polls, this is an appropriate place to repeat that Nader
has
won all or nearly all of the Internet presidential polls in which he
was
a candidate.
Many people believe that they, individually, are the only one who want
something better than the Democrats. Wrong. You're not the only one.
The average public sentiments and preferences are not as your tv
represents
them.
The media say that "the middle" is halfway between Democrats and
Republicans.
No, that's just the mass-media middle. The actual voter median is more
progressive than the Democrats.
Unger continues:
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.
Yes. Gore Vidal once observed that we don't have two major parties.
We have
one party with two right wings.
Their rivalry is
about as genuine as that of professional wrestlers.
That's exactly what I was about to say. The analogy is a remarkable
accurate one.
The Republicans
play the role of the nasty villains, terrifying liberals, while
the
Democrats act as the clean cut heroes.
Exactly. It's the old "Good-Cop/Bad-Cop" routine. The job of the
Republicans
is to scare progressive into supporting the Democrat, who says, "We
can't let
the Republican win. I can help you."
On most significant issues
their actual positions are essentially the same, tho they differ
in
rhetoric.
Quite so. The only difference is that the Republicans don't deny being
Republicans.
An author in _The Progressive_ observed that Democrat candidates sound
progressive when campaigning, but look Republican when in office. He
explained that by pointing out that they get their votes from one
segment
of the population, and their money and instructions from another
segment.
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.
But it will need lots of encouragement and advice, to support a 3rd
party or 3rd party candidate.
We already have some good 3rd parties. There's no need to start
another.
Find the voter-median or Condorcet winner among the 3rd parties we
already
have.
fight to
reform our election system (e.g.., score voting,
Score voting would be fine. I suggest that the 3-slot score method I
call "+/-" would be popular.
But Approval would be excellent too, and would spell the end of the
Republocrat regime.
Then there are various newer and more deluxe proposals (discussed in
recent postings here)
They include MMT, MTAOC, MMPO, MDDTR, Forest Simpson's modifications
of MMPO,
and a method proposed by Chris Benham.
These methods all meet FBC and avoid the Approval Bad Example problem,
also known as the "chicken dilemma" and the "co-operation/defection
problem".
Additionally, they all afford some majority-rule protection.
But if Approval or Score voting (especially +/-) is the most feasible
voting system reform, then either of those would be entirely adequate
Mike Ossipoff
