How about a Voters' Revolution?

[MineralMan]

I see various people on the Internet making statements about the need for some kind of "revolution" as the only possible means of changing the course of nations and making them better attuned to the needs of typical citizens. Rarely, though, do I see anyone defining how such a revolution might be conducted. Here's an idea that mobilizes the very people who most need change to happen:

Creating a Voters' Revolution

What if that revolution happened through that 50% or so of citizens of a nation abandoning their complacency or despair and showing up en masse to vote in an election? What if those who wish for a revolutionary change devoted themselves, their talents, and their energy to convincing all of those non-voters that they actually can change things by participating in the simple act of going to the polling place and making their opinion known through the voting booth.

Even in the most active of jurisdictions, it's rare for more than 70% of registered voters to actually vote in an election. And that's just 70% of roughly 50% of the population. Half of the adult population in most places are not even registered to vote, so their voices go unheard. Are these not the very people who most need change? Are they not those without a voice? Let's give them a voice that cannot go unheard.

Why do we not foment a revolutionary tactic of getting that 50% who do not vote to register and vote? Revolutions are almost always populist in nature, so why not recruit the actual population to take part in plotting their own paths? Among those who call for revolution on the Internet are talented writers, speakers, thinkers, organizers and activists. Why not put all of those talents to work to encourage a Voters' Revolution and enlist the mass of people whose voice is not now heard?

Are we ignoring the most basic way to create change? I think we may be.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[socialist_n_TN]

1. The Second International discussed this a long time ago......

A bourgeois political system under capitalism will not ALLOW itself to be voted out of power. And even if it DID allow the vote, the judiciary would not allow the change to be instituted.

Under capitalism it's a rigged game all around and that INCLUDES elections. However as a Trotskyist, I'll never stand in the way of people who want to vote. If nothing else, just to prove to them that they're wrong about what it will get them. It's called "putting to the test".

The problem is NOT that revolutionaries (in most cases anyway) stand in the way of elections. The problem is that reformists don't stand with revolutionaries, even if they disagree with them. It's a historical fact that the ONLY time there are REAL changes made to the capitalist system to the benefit of the working class is when the system itself is under realistic stress from a revolutionary movement that wants to do away with capitalism itself. THEN the capitalists will grudgingly give up part of their power in order to save the whole rotten system. So if the reformists want to see a real change and a more humanistic version of capitalism, they should support the revolutionaries.

[MineralMan]

6. You know, I think you're incorrect in this.

So, our opinions differ. If, in fact, everyone showed up to vote, their decisions would stand.

[Maedhros]

102. Here's a thought experiment:

Huge numbers of normally non-voting people show up at the polls and elect an atheist socialist.

Would that stand, given that the SCOTUS has already demonstrated it will override the will of the voters and install a president?

[MineralMan]

104. It would stand. And I'm not talking about Presidential elections

in the first place. Is Al Franken sitting in the Senate? How about Bernie Sanders? With AL, he only won his seat after a long, long recount. I don't remember the SCOTUS ruling in that case against Franken.

You're talking about the 2000 presidential election. When else has SCOTUS done anything of the sort?

I'm talking primarily about legislative elections, both state and federal. Show me where SCOTUS has overturned such an election. I can't think of one.

[Maedhros]

113. I'm considering a hypothetical (and entirely unlikely) scenario in which

an openly Socialist/Marxist candidate is elected President. This would require a large-scale rejection of both the Democratic and Republican candidates. I have my doubts that the system would allow that. I could see the "discovery" of "widespread voter fraud", with evidence of voting machine "hacking" that would disqualify the candidate.

Democrats and Republicans may fight tooth-and-nail against one another, but if an outsider were to beat them both, each party would have an interest in invalidating the election result.

It goes without saying that I don't trust the Federal election system after the 2000 and 2004 elections, which were most likely manipulated to produce Bush wins.

[MineralMan]

123. I don't really deal in extremely unlikely hypothetical situations.

It's just not the way I think. In the first place, what you are describing is essentially an impossible situation. This is a big, diverse nation, and it's divided pretty evenly on a political basis. So, what you are worried about is almost impossible.

I'm talking about another scenario altogether.

[Maedhros]

131. Impossible, yes, but it does say something about the true nature of our democracy

and the reluctance of entrenched power to relinquish control.

I'm not worried about such a scenario actually occurring, but about the comforting assumptions we have about our system of government.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

33. Interesting point. Seems it's already been put to the test, multiple times...

2000 FL, 2004 OH, and I suspect shenanigans in WI's failed attempt to recall Gov Scott Walker. And that's just in the years ADU.

[socialist_n_TN]

40. Yep..........

It won't happen by voting. But have at it and see how long it takes to change things. Society will devolve into barbarism because of resource depletion and/or climate change before thing will change by voting.

[Nay]

46. Gotta agree, too. If we got the other half out there voting, we'd be just

as likely to be overrun by Fox talking points directing the votes as anything saner. And even if we got everyone out to vote, they'd have the choice of a crazy RW or a semi-crazy blue dog. Both of whom are raking in corporate cash.

Barbarism and climate change will soon sweep it all away, as you say. We have squandered the last 30 years (time, money, energy, will) on bullshit capitalist crap and will reap the rewards.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

72. Where would we be today if Americans didn't let the wealthy ruling class...

scare enough of us, yet again, into believing the Apocalypse would befall us if we didn't do everything they wanted us to do to rescue the banksters and Wall Street. That was 6 years ago, now. I think we'd be on the right track by now.

But, you know Americans, we can't think of alternatives when the uber-wealthy have too much to lose.

[TBF]

77. Agree 100% nt

[Zorra]

144. Nailed it.

I'm totally down with voting for incremental progress as a break from engaging in revolution.

[Zorra]

41. Well said. I vote to try to make incremental social progress and "revolt" to

try to free the world from the control of plutarchs.

ALEC EXPOSED

We need to surrender to this very large phenomenon and join with it. We need to trust each other, the causes, and the organic, emergent nature of what is happening . . . this is revolutionary. This is a way of participation that is radical in our society. The long history of invasion, conquest, genocide, wars of aggression, and abuse of people and the planet has indoctrinated us in false beliefs that we must organize everything in order to survive. But these old patterns of competition and control are a worldview perpetuated by the wealthy elite, who profit from such mentalities at our expense. To this end, they have abused the theories and philosophies of the Judeo-Christian God and Darwin, alike. They school us in fear-based, violent mindsets to ensure that we will never pose a serious threat to their dominance. If we do not emancipate our minds from their worldview, we will remain blind to the greatest strengths of our movements.

Building a Movement of Movements seems to be the logical, strongest, and wisest approach to breaking our opponents’ power, but our real strength may lie in our myriad movements. The empowered elite are fighting us on all fronts. We have them surrounded on all sides. Our plethora of issues distracts them, divides them, and weakens their centralized position. They sit in the fortress of wealth and power, staring wild-eyed into the living, breathing, diverse jungle of opposition. There is nothing they would like more than to see us assemble all of our strength in one place and march down the road to their fortress. Then they could destroy us in one swoop. So, from the balustrades of their socio-political system, they taunt us and mock us, calling us disorganized and inefficient.

“We are the ivy crawling up the buildings, the moss breaking down the bricks, and the dandelions shooting up in the sidewalks. We’re as vast as the planet and as microscopic as infectious disease. The Dandelion Insurrection isn’t a handful of radicals. It’s all of Life itself!” – from The Dandelion Insurrection

We must learn to look at the interconnections of our myriad causes and wage struggle through collaboration, not control. Our causes are not at odds with each other, nor do they need unification under one name or coordination from a central command. Instead, we need to collaborate strategically, using our diversity of issues as our strength. If we look at the overlapping issues of health, economy, jobs, peace, surveillance, education, energy, housing, environment, democracy, and so on, we will see that every movement is working to replace destructive, corrupt systems with constructive, life-supporting, sustainable alternatives. Our strength lies in our inherent unity, not in the label attached to it. Our only weakness is in our uncertainty . . . and the fact that we remain unaware of the power of our situation.

http://occupywallst.org/

[socialist_n_TN]

59. Actually I think that there IS a fairly easy interconnection....

to be found in almost ALL of the social, economic, and political movements out there, at least on a macro-scale. Whether it's wage theft, worker oppression, societal oppression of women, people of color, or gender identification and sexual attraction, et.al., at it's base ALL of these oppressions are the result of the capitalist economic system in place. BECAUSE THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM IS NOT JUST ECONOMIC. Economics drives it, but it also involves the politics under capitalism AND the societal norms under capitalism. So even if it's not DIRECTLY an economic issue, societal issues are driven by what's best FOR capitalism. I know this is an old fashioned view and it doesn't fit the meme of the people who want to discover some sort of new "ism". But there's no sense in reinventing the wheel. There are only a few ways to organize society, at least in the relatively short term.

And the underpinnings of the capitalist system is the concept of "private property". Note I said private property, not personal property. There IS a difference. Private property is so enshrined in our judicial system that any attempt to actually negate the concept will be declared illegal. Which is why the OP's premise of everybody voting and transforming society that way WILL NOT WORK.

[Zorra]

145. If I can possibly ease my oppression by voting, I'm going to vote.

It's so much easier to revolt against the things I can't change by voting when some religious fuckwad isn't trying to force me into a self-protective closet in order to avoid imprisonment.

I wrote the words to this song when I was a kid, I think you might appreciate them, especially the last verse.

[Demeter]

58. k&r YOUR POST!

As we have seen several times in the past several elections...the conspiracy is manifest, and it's not a theory, it's a practice, from the funding of candidates, through the primary process, and into the administration itself.

[yeoman6987]

76. I think the country is too divided for a Revolution

When you have 50 percent that are some sort of Republican and 50 percent that are some sort of Democratic, it makes it difficult to get everyone on the same page and message.

[Warpy]

110. It's a rigged game because it's so staggeringly expensive to run

that people need backers who will expect quid pro quos all over the place once they've donated enough bundled contributions to allow the guy to win.

We can only vote on those candidates we're offered by the plutocracy. We're effectively voting on the oil industry versus the banking industry versus big pill and on it goes.

[99Forever]

2. How about some candidates actually worth voting FOR?

Instead of those that just don't stink quite as bad?

There's a "revolutionary" game plan for ya.

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. How about those that DEMAND better candidates.....FIND some...

or run themselves....now THAT would be revolutionary...

[MineralMan]

7. How about you encourage some of those to run,

in the process of the Voters' Revolution? Do you think they'll just appear from nowhere? In many districts, the people in those districts select excellent candidates for office. That's certainly true for my districts. We also turn out high percentages of voters.

I cannot create candidates. So, if you'd be a good one, how about running for one of those offices or encourage people you believe would be excellent choices to run?

[99Forever]

12. Perhaps if the...

... top dogs in the Democratic Party would start supporting actual DEMOCRATS instead of Third Way DINOs that might happen.

But, as per usual, you've got the cart in front of the horse.


Yay, status quo!

[MineralMan]

18. The Democratic Party is organized from the

bottom up. Replacing those top dogs must begin from the local organizations, and those are completely dependent on local participation. In Minneapolis, for example, where precinct caucuses are typically poorly-attended, one precinct was completely taken over by a large group of Somali-Americans, who came and insisted on representation. The caucus had to be rescheduled and held in a larger venue.

In the precinct caucus in my St. Paul precinct, three people showed up. At the state Senate district convention, only 75 delegates were there. Guess what? Those 75 delegates elected the entire slate of District leadership and state convention delegates. My precinct alone had the ability to send 17 delegates to the district convention. We could only choose three, because those were the only ones who showed up.

It grows from the bottom. Show up at the bottom and be counted. Be a delegate. Vote for the leadership you want. Or, don't. If you don't you'll have the leadership you get.

Activism means being active.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Nahhh, It's easier to whine about what they won't/aren't doing. eom.

[MineralMan]

29. So I've noticed. And when a workable idea is

put forward, some of the same people who are calling for some sort of "revolution" show up to tell us why it won't work. They have no alternative, but are happy to tell us that nothing will work.

Screw that.

[99Forever]

28. Give it a rest.

I don't know who it is you think you are fooling.

I've "been a delegate." It was a complete waste of my time. Same bunch of party hacks made sure they keep all of the meaningful positions for themselves.

Yay status quo!

Want my vote?

Earn it.

[MineralMan]

30. Yeah, I've been a delegate, too.

Every party official in every Democratic organization was elected by those delegates. You tried it. You decided it wouldn't work. Try again, and keep trying. Get some others who agree with you to also become delegates. Be willing to be elected as one of those party officials.

It's way, way easier than you think. Try again.

And no, I won't give it a rest. I promise.

I'll be right here, advocating. I'll be advocating in my own district, as well. You will do whatever you choose. But, don't tell me to give activism a rest. I won't do it.

[polichick]

13. Candidates who haven't been bought...

would be "revolutionary" in today's political environment.

[Exultant Democracy]

34. Cause people are stupid and will vote for the hedge fund manager over the school teacher

every day.

They will line up to vote for a DA but will shun a public defender.

They will vote for a vet but not a anti-war activist.

I can just keep going.

[99Forever]

37. I won't.

I will vote my principles and never feel I did so in error.

If the Democratic Party doesn't offer me a choice that meets that standard, then that's on them.

[Exultant Democracy]

48. One smart person doesn't mean people aren't stupid in general.

In under 30 years we have elected a Bush to the highest office 3 times.

[99Forever]

88. Don't forget Ronnie Rayguns TWICE.

In my opinion, our slide into corporate rule began with that evil asshole.

As an atheist, it almost makes me hope for an afterlife where he's burning in Hell, with the whole Bush Crime Family joining him soon.

[MineralMan]

74. No, they're not, and they won't, necessarily.

The congressional representative from my district MN CD-4, was a teacher. She's not a banker. She was a teacher. Her name is Betty McCollum. She's also a progressive and represents our district very well, indeed. We picked her, campaigned for her, and voted for her. We will do the same in 2014 and re-elect her.

The people in my district are not stupid. They elected an excellent person to represent us. If you think voters are stupid, you will not try to get them to vote for good people. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Start thinking of the voters where you live as smart people and help them select and elect great legislators.

Your assumption is incorrect. And your assumption is harming the chances of some very good candidate for office.

Help the voters in your own community to understand why they should vote for a candidate and they'll do that. Ignore them or call them stupid, and they will not.

Cynicism is not activism. It is the opposite of activism.

[zeemike]

68. And that will never happen until there is a grass roots takeover

Of the Democratic party...and with all the money involved that is unlikely...because the PTB have all the money they need to control who is who.

[99Forever]

85. True that.

Don't forget the star-struck enablers, they are every bit to blame for nothing getting done for the people as the con-artists they cheer on.

[RKP5637]

3. The system works! Problem is, the people Americans allow to slither into the

political system. Many should be nowhere near any positions of power/authority. People whine about congress, for example, yet they vote them in, or indirectly allow them in because of their apathy.

I've never understood some people being so weak, passive, apathetic and information limited that they submit to others running and controlling their lives.

Yes, we have the tools to change this already. What is needed is a "Voters' Revolution!"

[MineralMan]

14. Thank you. Far too many people have disappeared from the pool of

voters. In order for the Voters' Revolution to occur, we need those activists and organizers who are calling for change to go out and organize the disenfranchised and discouraged to take their place in line at the polling place. We need to bring them to the caucuses and conventions and empower them to choose candidates who have their interests as their highers priority.

In Minnesota, this year, a large group of Somali-Americans in Minneapolis did just that. They organized and came to the precinct caucus meeting in their neighborhood and insisted on being part of the process of selecting candidates. That unfamiliar group threw the entire caucus into disorder and it had to be rescheduled and held in a larger facility. Change occurred because the disenfranchised insisted on their franchise.

Where caucuses are not the system, the same thing needs to happen at meetings of the Democratic Party organization. People must show up and demand to be heard. When they do, they will be heard. Numbers make the difference.

A Voters' Revolution is possible, but it won't happen if people don't want it to happen or don't believe it can happen.

[Jamaal510]

105. Not too long ago,

"People whine about congress, for example, yet they vote them in, or indirectly allow them in because of their apathy."

one of my professors actually touched on this, and she basically said that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of Congress BUT they approve of their own Congressman/woman.

[RKP5637]

119. Yes, quite true, I've heard that too. Sadly people become brainwashed, group

think, that their guy is OK, but it's the "other" that is the problem. And politicians make good use of this divide to continue their stranglehold on a congressional district.

Sadly, far too many people think inwardly than outwardly IMO ... maybe it's endemic to human nature, survival of the fittest, survival of the herd and all.

My hope is in the the 21st century people will allow their minds to become more expansive. Maybe the Internet can help provide more diverse points of view. I also have hope in the youth of today, the Millennials.

[polichick]

5. 2008 was a "voters' revolution" of sorts.

[MineralMan]

9. Actually, you're partly correct.

Many unregistered voters were moved to register and vote. That happened in my precinct, as well. It was not enough, though. Adding a small percentage of non-voters to the voting pool is not adequate to make major changes. Instead, we need to recruit everyone to register and vote, especially those who are the most affected by the outcome. We don't do a great job of that, and maybe that is one area where we need to work the hardest.

A Voters' Revolution is not going to happen without commitment by those who are calling for change. Are you committed? Will you help get out the vote of those who feel disenfranchised in your own district? Will you make that effort?

[polichick]

11. I'm committed to not falling for any more Trojan horses...

I've worked for too many over the years - they campaign for the people and govern for the corporations.

[MineralMan]

15. What are you doing to get better candidates, polichick?

That's my question. What is your plan?

[polichick]

21. Unlike you, I don't believe the normal routes work in this environment...

There's too much money and not enough accurate news reporting for honest people-serving candidates to thrive.

I think Bernie Sanders is correct that there has to be some kind of "political revolution" - a way around the path both parties currently take. If a movement arises, as I believe it will, I'll play an active role as I always have. Will I lift a finger to elect more corporate Dems in this current system? Not a chance. And I'll take a barf bag with me next time I vote for the lesser of evils.

[MineralMan]

23. So, your answer is that you are doing nothing to help

choose better candidates? Really?

You're telling me that something you have not even tried will not work. We have had poor participation in elections for as long as I can remember, and my voting began in 1966. Less than half of the eligible population is even registered to vote and only about half of those who are registered bother to vote in most elections.

In primary elections, where the actual candidates are chosen, the turnout is usually under 20% of registered voters. And you're telling me that organizing people to register and vote won't work? Really?

Well, I don't agree. You say you want a revolution? Well, a Voters' Revolution is a revolution, and a bloodless one. You won't help with that? Then what will you do, for goodness sake?

[polichick]

24. I knew you'd spin it like that but gave you the benefit of the doubt...

Keep pounding the pavement for your Trojan horses - Viva Third Way!

[MineralMan]

25. The Third Way is calling for total enfranchisement and turnout?

Not that I've noticed. You are confusing me with someone else, I'm sure.

Have a pleasant weekend.

[PotatoChip]

78. Well, how about working for publicly funded elections in your state, then? (nt)

[MineralMan]

79. There's an excellent idea. Thanks!

[BlindTiresias]

92. Ok

If we agree it was partly a voter's revolution then why the sub-optimal outcome? This alone punches a hole through your more votes=voter revolution=populist outcomes argumentation as the process is significantly more complex than you are presenting.

[DevineBovine]

118. Yes! n/t

[Brigid]

8. I have said more than once around here . . .

That short of the torches and pitchforks, the most terrifying sight the 1% could see would be the rest of us lined up down the street and around the block to vote. It would mean that we have finally awakened, and they are at least smart enough to get that.

[MineralMan]

10. Thank you. You are correct. We've seen some of that already,

in states like Ohio and elsewhere. Voters were not willing to be denied and we all saw the images of long lines of voters. We need those lines to be much, much longer, though, if there is to be a Voters' Revolution.

[Autumn]

125. Like these lines?

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2012/12/19/u-s-senate-to-hold-hearings-on-voting-problems.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-12-09-voting_N.htm?csp%3D15

There are more and they delight in making it hard to vote.

[mmonk]

16. Speaking as a gerrymandered voter, it won't work.

We've gone past that possibility now.

[MineralMan]

19. You're wrong. In your district, what is the turnout

of eligible voters? Not registered voters. Eligible voters. How many of those who are not registered would vote for change? Do you know? I maintain that you do not know. If every eligible voter registered and voted, your gerrymandering would not make a whit of difference. A real Voters' Revolution would make district boundaries irrelevant.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. +1 ...

This is exactly correct.

[MineralMan]

36. It's also very obvious.

What is surprising is that so few people recognize it. What if the 99% actually turned out? That seems to be ignored by those who claim to represent that 99%.

Let the 99% speak for itself. If they do, the revolution will happen automatically, using the tools already at hand.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. It goes unrecognized ...

by many because (I'm finding) their concern is mainly just stirring sh!t up and breaking stuff (from behind their computer keyboard), not winning elections, not advancing political change, not any sort of recognizable activism.

[okaawhatever]

54. ^^this^^. What if everyone here on DU did as much political work as say, StruggleforProgress? nt

[mmonk]

129. We've done voter drives. We increased voter turnout.

But there are redistricting jobs so perverse, it will be another generation that straightens it out. I live in a new shitstain on humanity.

[sufrommich]

17. Not sexy enough for the armchair revolutionary,

but yeah,that's what would truly change the course of this country.

[MineralMan]

20. Not sexy enough, and a lot more work.

Activism that is not active is not activism at all. And writing posts on the Internet is not activism. It does not reach the very people it needs to reach. It reaches only current activists and people already concerned with elections.

Another type of activism and organization is needed. That will take work, though. Not everyone who calls for change is interested in that kind of work. They should be.

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Sometimes "apathy" is mistaken for "fatigue"

I have observed that you may have one year where great efforts are made by large groups of people who were perhaps previously "non-voters".... driven or cajoled to have their voices heard, resulting in something around 60% turnout (versus say what had become a "normal" 40% turnout in a more hotly-contested election). These folks are subjected to hours and hours of waiting in line to vote, only to encounter pages and pages of nonsensical ballots (e.g., like what happened in FL). And after finally completing that process and perhaps seeing positive change as a result, the following year they are not as willing to go through the same nightmare again (hours and hours waiting in endless lines only to find broken machines or their name not showing up on a polling place roll and more deliberately obtuse ballot initiatives mixed in with critical ones).

The issue of "voter revolution" often results in a short-term "sprint" without an infrastructure change to allow for sustaining the voter levels over the long-term "marathon" of being a regular voter. And the resistance to election reform is designed to keep things this way, starting at the local and state level (and ultimately impacting what happens at the nation level and Congress).

So there needs to be a push to reform and bolster the state elections and as a case in point, this is why the Kochs have decided to micromanage elections at the state and local level in order to build a legislative infrastructure beneficial to them and counter to what we are looking to achieve.

There needs to be a non-traditional way to reach out to those who have chosen, out of fatigue, to drown out the often-incessant noise of what they feel is "politick-speak", with what they feel is a more productive use of their time - even if many of us consider some of those activities frivolous.

Making it easier to vote is an obvious, but of late, an often difficult solution to achieve. The mail-in ballot system seen in a number of western states, is one that could be pushed elsewhere. It eliminates the need for a "polling place" and lines (although the option to come to a designated polling location could still exist for same-day registration/voting). And the option for (somehow verifiable) electronic balloting would capture a whole demographic (that DU often wants to ignore) who insists on structuring their activities around their devices.

Bringing back or enhancing "Civics" in the elementary schools with the emphasis on using voting as a means for change, can capture young minds ans encourage their participation when old enough to vote.

Just throwing some odds and ends out there...

[MineralMan]

26. Here's what I think about that:

You're right, in a sense. But, changing the things you mention requires legislative action. And the only way to make it happen is to elect better legislators. A single election could do that, frankly. We need only 18 more House seats to have a simple majority in the House of Representatives. With that majority, we'd be closer to implementing legislation that would improve the voting process.

The same is true in individual states. Democratic control of state legislatures will achieve a great deal. Here in Minnesota, we regained control of our State legislature in 2012, and the result was enactment of marriage equality, a budget surplus, and it looks like raising the minimum wage in our state is likely.

One election changed the nature of our state legislature and positive change resulted.

Our turnout in 2012 was higher than usual, but not as high as in 2008. But, the nature of that turnout resulted in Democratic majorities in our state legislature. In 2008, Republicans gained control, even though the state voted for Obama with a large margin. Why? Because there was poor coordination between the Obama campaign and campaigns for other offices. Al Franken, for example, barely squeaked through in a recount. He should have won with the same margin as Obama.

One election can turn things around, even if not every non-voter votes. Imagine what would happen if we turned out a much higher percentage of eligible voters.

It's easy to say it won't work. It's much more difficult to actually find out if it will work. That would take a strong, organized, concerted effort. I say that's worthwhile. Others might argue that point, but it hasn't really been tried on a massive scale.

[socialist_n_TN]

39. 2008 and after was a change election that the Dems won.....

There were not only people who were new to registration and voting, but there were also people who rarely or never vote for a Democrat who in fact voted for Obama because they actually WANTED a change. I have an older cousin who was white and grew up and lived in MISSISSIPPI, for Pete's sake, who actually voted for OBAMA, a half black Democrat. This cousin probably hadn't voted for a Democrat for DECADES, yet he voted for Obama because he thought the country actually needed a change from the Republican rule and mind set of the last 30+ years. So what did the Dems, from the top down do with this ACTUAL mandate? They wasted it on "looking forward" and "bipartisanship". This was a strategic goal that was a total mistake and STILL hasn't been acknowledged AS a mistake.

And, following from my post above, even when the Dem did try some pitiful attempts at real change (which wasn't really change, it was merely nibbling around the edges of the neo-liberal mindset of Reaganism), they were blocked by obstructionists in the Senate who required a supermajority to get anything accomplished. I might also add that this obstructionism didn't ONLY involve Republicans. it also involved Democrats.

The current system is broken. It's always been broken and it always WILL be broken because the political system is set up to support the economic system of capitalism. For a brief time, brief in historical terms, the system worked better for the people than it did before or since, but that was only because there WAS a competing system of organizing society out there. Even if Stalinism didn't "walk the walk" (and trust me, Trotskyists KNOW it didn't walk the walk), it DID "talk the talk". And that was enough to keep the capitalist political MORE honest. Since the fall of the USSR, it has been a steady decline in western style democracy.

I'll reiterate what I said above. We could vote in a majority of Kshama Sawants in all areas of the country who could vote in a Socialist United States of America and the SCOTUS would overturn every election and law that socialists passed. BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS ONLY SET UP TO SUPPORT CAPITALISM. No other systems needs apply.

[polichick]

44. "The current system is broken." Absolutely.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. One thorn that would need to be overcome

is the truism uttered by consumate politico Tip O'Neill - All politics is local. The disjointedness of my neighbor state - New Jersey - is a perfect case in point. What ends up happening is that in some localities, the "politics" (in the negative sense) drives away good candidates who don't want to go through the hassle and what this leaves you with are the dubious ruffians (no matter what party), who barrel their way through the process, and end up being presented to skeptical voters.

I think getting younger folk more involved in the local communities in order to build up "street cred" and work their way into elective office, can help to bridge the gap of getting local potential voters to turn out.

So much of the U.S. operates with regional "mindsets" and "cultures" and learning and leveraging the strengths or foibles of these regions might help to "speak" to that constituency and move people to a more progressive agenda.

I definitely agree that "not trying" is ridiculous, even with the challenges. But it needs to start in the cradle because there are far too many who were born and raised in non-voting households and eventually produce children who are also born and raised in such an environment, making it more difficult to "sell" the power of the vote to such folks.

So it's a multi-faceted initiative, requiring many simultaneous efforts to build a foundation of civic participation.

[MineralMan]

47. I don't think it will be easy, but

nothing worth doing is easy. What's easy is simply dismissing the idea. That's really easy.

Today's school board members, city council members, precinct and district party officials, etc., are tomorrow's state legislators. Today's state legislators are tomorrow's members of congress, and so on and so on. You're right, we need younger people running for office today. That will take a commitment to service by people.

If people are not willing to take on the job at the lower levels, those who want those jobs will have them. And those people are not necessarily who should have them. At age 68, I'm too damned old to run for office. I wish I had done it long ago. I'm a minor party official, and discovered that pretty much anyone who is willing to take the jobs in local party organizations just have to say they will do it and they'll have the job.

In 2016, I'm going to run for a spot on the District DFL Board of Directors. I almost did this year, but have a huge pile of work lined up. There were several openings, and the people who put their names forward all were elected at the District Convention.

[BumRushDaShow]

52. Good luck with your run!

Sometimes "change" comes from people who "talk the talk" being willing to "walk the walk". And even if you have one who can only "talk the talk", it should at least be constructive, strategic, and solutions-orientated versus just "talking" and not "doing" or "contributing" in any meaningful way.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. K&R This is precisely what The Founders envisioned

They knew that things would periodically become utterly FUBARed no matter what they did. They designed a system whereby we could have a (hopefully) bloodless revolution whenever The People pulled their heads out of the sand and said "Oh dear! We're pretty screwed!"

[MineralMan]

35. There you go. In the United States, we can have

a revolution every two years. That we do not is a pity.

Thanks for your K&R!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

42. 2014: Voter Turnout vs Votes Counted

We've got the numbers on our side, they've got the tricks on theirs.
They scheme years in advance, we think GOTV.
We say "count the votes," they lose thousands of votes in key districts.
Trump Card: SCOTUS


12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back

1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.

2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall.

3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.

4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.

5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.

6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).

7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars.

8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.

9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.

10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.

11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.

12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/06/12-very-real-voter-suppression-tactics-experts-now-worry-will-come-back/6057/


We need a better strategy than just GOTV.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Why do you still have 'polling places' with 'polling hours?

Your entire list is basically impossible here because of our election laws, made by the people of this State. Your polling place is your sofa, the park, your friend's house, and the hours about about 2 full weeks.
Sounds to me like your State is doing it wrong. That's a great way to work on GOTV, working on the laws and regulations that hamper or encourage voting. Here we encourage voting.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

71. For the most part, no one is wasting time or resources in Illinois or the blue Northwest

I hope you're being sarcastic.

First, read MY words: key districts
Second, check the source for the list. I'm not taking credit for it which is why I provided a link.

Read up on Wisconsin, my friend. Got to look at key districts and states. Those most vulnerable to go to the Dems.


This shit's been going on for years throughout Wisconsin.

How WI GOP-Approved Ballot Restrictions Will Depress Milwaukee Vote

http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-wi-gop-approved-ballot-restrictions.html

[NBachers]

45. Mineral Man, your "No Brainer" call to get people voting is beyond the brains of many DU'ers

"It won't work"

"They'll sabotage my vote"

"Nobody will listen to me"

"They won't do what I say"

"The system is rigged"

"I have proof it won't work"

"It's easier to complain about it"

"Everyone's against us"

"They're all the same"

Mass voting is the most effective way to create the change we want. I thought it was a no-brainer. Am I wrong?

[2banon]

51. This is an example of what NOT to do. n/t

[MineralMan]

64. All of those things you put in quotes are saying:

"It's too hard. I won't help."

And that's the bottom line.

[2banon]

49. I appreciate the tone, intent and content of this post, and so I rec'd it.

This one avoids demonizing or casting negative aspersions on the more left progressive activists who've advocated for a complete paradigm shift in the system, especially with regard to campaign and election process.

The low voter turnout is a very significant point and is often overlooked and disregarded in terms of the Nation as a whole. I agree with advocating voter turnout as a potential for the kind of 'revolutionary' change some of us have been struggling to come to fruition.

Apathy is a deadly and insidious disease in any democracy. We have to always struggle to over come it, but that struggle needs support vis a vis acknowledgment of why it exists, and validation of legitimate grievances, a comradeship if you will, a reaching out, in this process of moving our struggle along..

I read you attempting to do that here, in this OP and I appreciate that.

[h2ebits]

50. Let's get behind Represent.Us

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/all-is-not-lost-how-to-wi_b_5084786.html

Josh Silver's blog is well worth the read and then, of course, follow through.

[Vashta Nerada]

53. Voting can change things?

You're funny.

[MineralMan]

66. Yes. It can, and it does.

I give you the Minnesota legislature following the 2012 election.

It changed a lot of things. Go look it up.

You're just making excuses, and you're wrong.

[Lifelong Protester]

80. And I would also echo...

Yes, It can and it does.

I give you the Wisconsin legislature following the 2010 election.

It changed a lot of things. Go look it up.

I agree, we need to get in the game. The Dems of WI ran a crappy campaign in 2010. I literally had to go looking at yard signs to see who the Dem candidate for governor was. That is NOT GOOD. And I would consider myself politically involved, so it wasn't like the information was all around me and I missed it. It was not there.


I will do all I can this time around.

[MineralMan]

81. Thank you. Information is key.

That you had a hard time finding out who the candidate was is telling. Apparently the Democratic Party in WI didn't get its job done. That's a damned shame, and I hope it is never repeated again.

[Lifelong Protester]

83. Correct!

That is why the few donation dollars I have go to candidates directly, like Kathleen Vinehout for one, and not the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.

BTW-I am a MN born 'transplant' so I have a hard time not saying DFL here!

[TheKentuckian]

55. This is the pool that must be tapped, they are not going to be attracted by the offerings in pursuit

of the mystical middle and they are not going to be sustained to keep hammering away at the polls by faith and here is the problem there is no vehicle to attract them to.

I got new voters to the polls in 2008, and we have generated new levels of cynicism among them.

Who else you gonna vote for?
Ponies!
Don't let the tolerable become the enemy of the only somewhat unacceptable.
"Eat your peas."
The surge.
"We must listen to the stakeholders".
"We don't have the votes".
"Look forward".
"All of the above".
"Embrace the suck".

All are great pitches to to the politically cynical to stay the fuck home not a sirens call to the process.

Of all the reasons I am upset with the party, this is one of the greatest driving away the converts we desperately need from the couch in pursuit of regressives that just voted for Sarah fucking Palin and telling those we had just got into the swing to shut up about their "ponies". Those people are lost, the next ones up don't give a shit and/or think it is all bullshit making them harder to get than the people who care but are cynical to nihilistic about the system and process.

You need fervor to sustain any kind of revolution and the only fervor I see is around personalities on the nominal left and for really stupid and wicked philosophy on the well funded right, guess which one creates the most die hard motivation cycle after cycle? Duh...The faces change as does the make up of the ardents that go with them, meanwhile the ideologues we oppose keep on coming no matter what. They also want nothing by training and so can be sustained by nothing a hell of a lot longer, they aren't growing new members quickly enough to offset the ones they lose to the reaper but they are relentless and can be because setbacks to the agenda don't hurt them (and actually may mitigate disaster enough not to shatter their bubble).

They want minorities treated as 2nd class at best. They want to tell women how to run their bodies. They hate social spending and love the wealthy getting more wealth.

They favor an unwieldy military bent toward acquisition of resources for corporations to exploit and "free trade".

They like "fee for service" schemes that make it seem like they have choices.

As such they are either winning despite elections or have no actual skin in the game they want to impose and can always keep pushing.

Now, the environment is even worse with all the unchecked and unopposed money in the mix.

The system is corrupted and is in a deadly feedback loop now. It is not truly quiet beyond hope but it is close if there is no party not wallowing in the filth. Lesser evilism is not a fix here, it leaves us with neither cart nor horse to build from.

[Android3.14]

56. This is naive

Normally I find your missives enlightening and insightful. but not this time.
What you are describing is exactly what campaigns and GOTV efforts do every election cycle.
Until we change our party leadership, every election, whether there is a voter's revolution/GOTV, will just result in more of what we have.
Everyone knows what our Democratic leadership should be doing, what they should actually stand for, and if they actually acted, as a party, on what everyone knows they should, I feel certain GOTV would be a revolution. Until that time, we will continue to have the current apathy.
The lesson of the Tea Baggers is that a motivated few people can change the character of a political party. Imagine if the Occupy movement voted in primaries and took over local Democratic Party leadership?
There's your revolution.

[djean111]

61. + a million.

The big DNC/Third Way money has already shown its ass - Elizabeth Warren is "out of hand". WTF?????!!!!!!

Although I am sure Hillary would adore a groundswell of voters thinking they are voting for change, and calmly informing us all that she obviously has a mandate.

Imagine if the Occupy movement voted in primaries and took over local Democratic Party leadership?
There's your revolution.
Yes. And this is why the Occupy movement is belittled to this day - just in case they go for it. They were reviled when they would not align with the DNC, I believe.

Anyone who thinks the DNC/Third Way is going to put their money and influence behind people who are not Third wayers is not paying attention, IMO. We can have all the local people we want - but getting to Washington needs DNC support.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. You understand that your 'imagine if the Occupy Movement' idea is basicall the same

as the idea put forward in the OP, which does not mention Occupy but is all about voters taking over local Parties and having giant primary turnouts. You call it naive then you restate the same idea....

[djean111]

73. Occupy is not and was not interested in aligning itself with either the Dems or the GOP.

And the mass GOTV, I assume, means mass voting for Dems - mostly Third-Wayers.
How about a mass vote for "none of the above"?

[Bluenorthwest]

126. I did not say they were, it was you who 'imagined' that. The OP is not so different

from what you are talking about, controlling local parties and making vast turn out. Here, my Democrats are DeFazio, Merkley and Wyden. I support all of them. So I'm not on board with 'none of the above'. Sorry. I'm glad they are in DC.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024778171

[Android3.14]

111. Read the OP again

He only mentions GOTV, nothing about retaking the party.

[mountain grammy]

57. K & R for the OP

and every Mineral Man post on this thread. Get to work.

[MineralMan]

69. Thank you, grammy, for the support.

I appreciate it more than you know.

[world wide wally]

62. But you forget that Americans are far too busy with Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty,

Real Housewives, and March Madness to waste their time with bullshit like Supreme Court rulings, civil rights, out of control greed, and wars.

I don't think we are known for our intelligence.

[MineralMan]

65. More excuses.

There are a million of them.

[radiclib]

67. Sorry. We can't vote away our problems

Not as long as all the candidates are beholden to their owners…er, "donors". Get the money out first, then maybe positive change can be possible. BTW, I'm not saying don't vote, but always for the lesser of evils is grindingly disheartening and suppressive.
Get the money out. It's the only way.
http://www.wolf-pac.com

[MineralMan]

70. Oh, yes we can.

We just don't do it. I'm calling on us to do it.

Anyone can run for office. Check your state's requirements. You can run for office. Once you do, it's up to you to get people to come out and vote for you in the primary elections. If they do and you win, then you get them to come out in the general elections.

In my State Senate district in St. Paul, MN, I watched that happen, and helped make it happen. We had a State Senator in our district, elected in 2008, who ended up being pretty anti-labor in his votes. In 2012, when he was up for election, he had two opponents. In our caucus and convention system, we did not endorse the incumbent at our district convention. In fact, we endorsed nobody. The incumbent, faced with no endorsement, withdrew his candidacy.

The candidate I supported in the caucuses and district convention came in third in convention voting. From the Hmong community here, he just didn't look like a winning candidate to a lot of people. But, he was a progressive Democrat. Through a very strong local campaign, which I participated in, he ended up winning the primary election and then the general election. He is our State Senator now, and is doing a great job for the district.

Don't tell me we can't change things through the election process. I know that we can and I've seen it happen and helped to make it happen. You're incorrect. Just go do it. Make change happen where you live. You can do it. One freaking district at a time. One election at a time. It can be done. It is being done, and it will continue to be done.

If you're not part of it, you're not helping it happen. I recommend being part of it.

[BlindTiresias]

100. Mineral Man

You are whitewashing the massive resistance that actual progressive candidates would get if they became an actual threat. Look at how the center right dems are treating Elizabeth Warren and extrapolate that into a scenario where there really was a massive surge of voters and progressive candidates. The pressure you wold experience from the third way dems would be intense and crushing

[djean111]

106. You have that absolutely right. And this is not being taken into consideration. Or is ignored.

[MineralMan]

75. Here's an Example of What Voters Can Do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_McCollum

She's the congressional representative from my district, CD-14. She's not a banker. She's not a member of the 1%. She's a former teacher, who worked her way up from being a city council member. She is a progressive. We elected her. I know her, and just talked to her recently at our DFL district convention.

She is the type of candidate we need in every district. We selected and supported her through Minnesota's caucus and convention system, and she will continue to serve our district in 2014 again.

Voters decide who represents them. Voters choose their representatives. Voters rule!

[ReRe]

82. It's the best idea I've seen here in many a long moon, MineralMan

K&R

Disregard the nay-sayers. They aren't real Democrats.

How can this be done? My suggestion: Each of us take a vow to get 100 bran-spanking-new registered voters to the polls this fall. Physically take them to city hall to get them registered. Guarantee them a ride to the polls in the fall. Have a barbecue get-together sometime in the summer. Have sample ballots available, if you can get some from the election board office. Etc,etc., etc. What think?

GTVO 2014!

[MineralMan]

84. Thank you, and your idea is an excellent one.

I always have voter registration forms with me, wherever I go. I ask people if they're registered, and if they're not, I help them get registered. I've been doing that for decades, wherever I've lived.

Thanks for participating in the most important activism available to us.

[BlindTiresias]

86. Mineral Man

You are a bit of a Polly Anna, yeah? You are having a hard time mobilizing voters because little in the Democratic platform stirs the spirit, and what does stir the spirit and is of a populist character either gets dropped at the first sign of a fight or bargained away in the interests of bipartisanship. How can you possibly mobilize voters whose interests by nearly any sound measure are routinely defeated? Get better representatives you say, but this is missing the point, why would people want to be representatives of something that doesn't even stir them?

This is why your claims are simplistic and only trivially true. Expect a Republican comeback unless the Democratic Party gets its act together and starts seriously pursuing progressive policy and especially in the economic domain.

[MineralMan]

89. You know, I'm not really having a hard time mobilizing voters.

I'm actually pretty successful at it.

I'll take your calling me a pollyanna for what it's worth, and that's not much at all.

[BlindTiresias]

91. You

As in the plural, as in the democratic party leadership in the year of our lord 2014. You do seem to be a polly anna though, as you have some grossly out of date ideas and to young dems like myself look to be woefully out of touch. Maybe you should listen to what the young dems are saying instead of repeating "GOTV" and acting dismissive regarding any criticisms.

[MineralMan]

93. Yah, I'll keep that in mind, as I continue to do what has

worked for a very long time. You can do whatever you wish to do. Everyone in the districts I live in who is holding elective office is a progressive. How about where you live?

Have a good weekend.

[BlindTiresias]

94. uh, yes?

Not sure what your point is but your predilection to move towards impasse and make parting shots does a disservice to your own position.

[MineralMan]

95. Again, thanks for your advice.

I will take it under consideration, but will continue to engage in GOTV activism, as I always have. As I said, you should do what seems right to you.

[bvar22]

87. That is exactly how the voters in Venezuela threw OUT their 1% Oligarchs,

...and replaced them with people who thought the government and their should work for the majority.
What they accomplished was nothing short of a near bloodless Ballot Box Revolution.

Venezuela has one advantage we don't enjoy in the USA.
Venezuela has transparent, verifiable elections.


Spread the WORD!
VIVA Democracy!
I pray we get some here soon!

[MineralMan]

124. The validity and transparency of our elections varies from state to state.

The Constitution puts states in charge of elections, within some limits. In some states, election validity and transparency are certainly questionable, but there are limits to how far election manipulation can be pushed.

In my scenario, where the non-voters actually come out in force, election manipulation would not be possible. The sheer numbers would overwhelm any such shenanigans. Manipulating elections works when elections are close, but not so well when they are not.

Many states actually have very well-run elections. My own, Minnesota, stands out in that regard.

[questionseverything]

128. mm minn does have a good election system compared to many states

I disagree with this quote tho....

where the non-voters actually come out in force, election manipulation would not be possible. The sheer numbers would overwhelm any such shenanigans. Manipulating elections works when elections are close, but not so well when they are not.

///////////////////////////

there are tell tale signs when elections are manipulated but msm either ignores them or calls them glitches and nothing is done to change the system

with the press of a button 1000's of votes can disappear or be added....that is what we are fighting

I could give you many examples but here is a favorite example of results no one can verify, results that gave the primary to Lincoln in Arkansas and a loss to bvar's candidate, the progressive

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875

A total of 1,465 votes seem to have suddenly showed up in the Dem Senate race! And then there are the disappearing votes in the Republican race...

/////////////////////////////////

and it has just gotten worse since 2010, with reporting systems that are more complicated and farther from citizen oversight than ever........google soe software and learn about the foreign owned reporting systems that determines winnings and losers in our elections

/////////////////////////////////

I support your get out the vote idea but would like to add this advise....count yourselves....count your precinct...be there at end of day, watch the machine results if they seem wrong, stop and hand count them in public with all eyes watching...sadly this would be illegal in most of the good ole USA but it is not illegal YET to count ourselves

vote and stand I call it

imagine a 150 dem voters watching results together at a precinct and the tape only shows 100 dem votes...if this happened everywhr surely we could change it...and it costs nothing but time

[MineralMan]

130. A lot of people feel as you do. I disagree, though.

While there is, no doubt, some manipulation, I don't think there is nearly as much as some people believe. As you suggest, the answer is very careful observation of every polling place, right through the voting and counting process. That's in place in many areas, but should be in place in every precinct.

The thing is that if there is a large margin, it's virtually impossible to turn that off, and that's what's behind my idea of going out and registering and encouraging voters who are not now participating. If, and that's a big if, we turned out a huge percentage of current non-voters, I believe it would be impossible to thwart their will on a national basis.

The goal is to create an unbreakable majority in our legislatures. Once that happens, the changes needed to the voting system could easily be put in place, except for a few red state holdouts. And even they would end up losing their quest in time. We need changes, but changes can only occur through legislation under our system. To make those changes, we need a majority that can override any local inequities and implement what is needed.

I'm not suggesting that every jurisdiction will suddenly be fair. I'm suggesting that we can achieve that majority, regardless of those inequities.

[questionseverything]

137. i showed you an example where

votes were manipulated in front of our eyes....why ignore it?

I want to make it clear I believe overwhelming turn out CAN overcome a rigged election, IF people are paying attention and make moves to correct the record...the recent election in Virginia with the dem winning the ag office ONLY after activists insisted that the ptb were MISSING 3000 VOTES

//////////////////////////

we know there are programs that help "fix" elections, quoting blackboxvoting here.....

I also posted a Tennessee file with work orders and release notes which shows the Accenture software has a history of tripling votes in certain ('random') voter histories, going back to 2004. Except it is not random: Other files I discovered prove it is with primarily suburban Republican precincts that votes are somehow being recorded twice and sometimes three times for certain voters in the voter history report, and this didn't just happen in 2004; it also happened in the 2008 presidential primary and in May and August 2010, and according to election commission notes in Shelby County, also in the 2012 presidential primary.
>
> http://politics-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/06/21/168207/bev-harris-of-black-box-voting-releases-accentures-voting-software
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> when people say reps vote more in mid terms, I always think, well the program votes for them
>
> but even tho this info has been out there for years even here at du there seems to be a disconnect
>
> //////////////////////////////

the rep party cheats people in every imaginable way, demanding picture ids, moving polling places days before an election, less machines for dem neighborhoods......so why is it so hard to believe they cheat in the counting and reporting of votes?

I have heard people explain that they are afraid to depress turn out and that is not my intent, my intent is to let people know what they are up against which would hopefully make people angry enough to turn out to fight them (at the ballot box)

[MineralMan]

138. I'm not saying that such things do not happen.

It's a state-by-state thing. The federal government should step in when clear evidence exists of election manipulation or fraud. Beyond that, the people living in those states must do all they can to stop such practices. Again, huge turnouts are pretty much the only solution, really. Such laws and practices are created in state legislatures and signed off on by Governors.

I wish I had a better answer, but that's the only one I have. For myself, I would not live in such a state. I do not live in such a state, and never have. Election manipulation is a symptom of ills far more deeply ingrained and intractable than I can deal with.

If, on the other hand, we can send a powerful Democratic majority to Congress in both houses, federal laws making such election manipulation almost impossible can be created, despite the wishes of those who want them to continue. That is my goal, on a national basis. If Tennessee or Georgia, or some other state is doing such things, then it will take federal laws that are properly enforced to end such practices.

The answer for all of these ills is for every state in the US to:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

Nothing else is going to work.

[questionseverything]

139. thank you for admitting it happens

but YOU do live in a state where it happens....the franken/coleman result was manipulated......thank goodness franken stuck with the recount and that minn had great laws for the recount

except for the electronic vote counting, it could be a model for the nation

////////////////////////////

look at sc, the rawl/greene race ,that had to be a huge flip, to his credit, judge rawls did take it to the elections commission which did nothing

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890

One potential red flag: A significant difference between the results of absentee and election day ballots.
According to [Rawl campaign manager Walter] Ludwig, of the state's 46 counties, half have a disparity of greater than 10 percentage points between the absentee and election day ballots.

"The election day ballots all favor Mr. Greene. We don't know what it means," Ludwig said in an interview. "We did significantly better on absentees than Election Day, which is according to the mathematicians, quite significant. The other reason is, it didn't happen in any other races on the ballot."

In Lancaster County, Rawl won absentee ballots over Greene by a staggering 84 percent to 16 percent margin; but Greene easily led among Election Day voters by 17 percentage points.

In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count.

"In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got plus the number we got equal the total cast," Ludwig said.

Greene also racked up a 75 percent or greater margin in one-seventh of all precincts statewide, a mark that Ludwig notes is even difficult for an incumbent to reach.

////////////////////////////////////////////////

so telling folks in SC gotv really means nothing but, if they counted themselves while doing gotv efforts they MIGHT have a tool that could lead them back to true representation, the two efforts do NOT have to work against each other , they could bring unity

[MineralMan]

140. I live in a state where recounts actually work.

We have paper ballots that are retained, making a real recount possible. We also have laws that make recounts transparent, public, and closely monitored.

Election manipulation does not work in Minnesota. The Franken and Governor Dayton elections proved that our system actually works. I recommend it to any other state wishing to assure fair elections.

[questionseverything]

141. minn is definately better than most

and in those two races the recount system worked

maybe not every manipulation is caught?

but why allow the electronic manipulation at all? why not use that open transparent closely monitored system on election night?

hand counting ballots in full view of the public is really the only self defense we have

[MineralMan]

142. Did you follow the MN recounts?

They took a very long time. In Minnesota, in every election, a number of precincts are selected randomly and the paper ballots are counted and compared with the tally from the ballot reading machines. The precincts are chosen after the election in a random selection process.

Hand-counting ballots is not a practical solution, and election monitors to observe the process are not generally available in the numbers required for a thoroughly observe manual count.

I have been an election monitor in both hand-count and machine-count elections. Neither process is foolproof or devoid of opportunities for monkey-business. Minnesota's methods have proven themselves for some time. Again, I recommend that similar methods be used elsewhere, including the random precinct recounts in numbers high enough to provide a good sample. Automatic hand recounts should always be done in close elections closer than 1% difference between candidates. That's how we do it in Minnesota, and the results demonstrate the validity of our recount system. But such recounts take weeks in statewide elections, and often last beyond the date the winner is supposed to take office, as in Franken's case. The process was streamlined for the 2012 governor's election.

Here is the process for automatic review of elections in Minnesota:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/PostelectionReview.pdf

[questionseverything]

143. i followed frankens recount

was thrilled with the transparency, loved that the first question was ,how many voted and do we have that many ballots

most states never look at this

personally I do not think random sampling is enough and setting a low number (like 1%) differences leaves a rig like the rawl/greene result in place

running out of time for today but I have enjoyed the discussion and want to leave you with one last example of a huge rig because just because they haven't totally subverted democracy in minn does not mean they will not keep trying

http://www.sweetremedy.tv/fatallyflawed/media/RTA_Fraud_Flyer_3_7_12.pdf

At the present time, it is easy to cheat using our election computers and impossible to challenge
a rigged election. And because it is illegal in Arizona to hand count paper ballots, the computer
results must be accepted. The ease of cheating when matched with the impossibility of
challenging any specific election requires court intervention to protect the purity of elections
and public confidence in election results — a cornerstone of our democracy.
Proposed New Requirements For All Local & County Races
Our primary choice of remedy is independent graphic scanning of all ballots — scanning of
early ballots as they are tabulated and scanning of precinct ballots at a receiving station after the
polls close. These ballot images would then be posted on a public website starting no earlier than
one hour after the polls close so anyone could count the ballots via the images. Fast turnaround
is necessitated by Arizona’s tough requirement that challenges to an election occur within 5 days
of the final canvas.
This scanning must be publicly observable and done by an “independent” system — not by the
same system that generated the original tally. In addition, the scanning station’s capability should
be limited to “taking pictures of pieces of paper” and not interpreting the meaning of ballot
marks. That way, the graphic scanner cannot be programmed to cheat. Arizona law requires that
voter anonymity be preserved but does not require ballot secrecy. Posting the ballot images
publicly does not violate this requirement and is the best way to achieve election transparency.
/////////////////////////////////////

[NuclearDem]

90. What's needed more than anything is a change to the very structure of the electoral process.

Winner takes all and the district system are a joke.

[MineralMan]

99. That might be needed, but such changes have to have

their origins in state legislatures and beyond. Until we elect a majority that feels that way, such changes will not occur. We do not have a system that allows such changes. We have a system, though, that enables the population to vote people into office.

I'm recommending that we use that system better than we currently do.

[brooklynite]

96. the "revolutionaries" aren't the people not showing up to vote...

[MineralMan]

97. I realize that. I'm talking about getting all those people who

don't vote out to vote. The "revolutionaries" aren't a large enough segment of society to vote change into office. They just aren't. We need voters who aren't voting now to come out and vote in their own interest.

I thought I was pretty clear about that. Perhaps not clear enough.

[BlindTiresias]

98. Yes, but..

You have to give them platforms that are in their own interest first, which means excising the center right democrats.

[MineralMan]

101. Yes. And if everyone turns out, the primary election system will take

care of that. It's all part of the same system. In our primaries right now, a very small minority decides who the candidates will be in the general election in most jurisdictions. Suppose turnouts were very high in primary elections.

I believe you are missing the point of my entire thread. That's OK, but our system of elections extends far beyond general elections in presidential election years. We need active participation by a large majority of eligible voters to make it work properly. That is what I'm encouraging here.

The only way to "excise the center right democrats" is to not vote for them in primary elections. We need more people voting, which is what I'm recommending. Maybe you can help with that, which is also what I'm suggesting.

We choose our candidates. We do it differently in different jurisdictions. WE choose them. I think more of us should be doing the choosing.

If you disagree, please suggest another means of doing what you think needs doing.

[brooklynite]

112. Once you've "excised the center-right Democrats", how do you plan to win...

...the Senate races in Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina?

...and pick up seats in Georgia and Kentucky?

Rousing your base might work in a national Presidential election. it's still fantasy to imagine it'll make a difference this year.

[BlindTiresias]

114. Correct

It is already too late for the mid terms so I would expect significant Republican turn out as getting people to vote alone is not sufficient. Nate silver and others are already expecting a much closer race, a fact that should be disturbing to everyone here after all the talk of the Republicans being a "doomed party". They are not doomed precisely because the Democrats have o substantial alternative framework and are playing into exactly the same ideological framework as their opponents with predictable results: Unsatisfactory populist policies in the Democratic party which pushes people into or back into the party of Republicans or they opt out altogether. The WHY of people are opting out should be more interesting to concerned individuals like Mineral Man than his repeated attempts to get people to vote.

Status quo dems need to think long and hard about why many are predicting a GOP control of congress in 2014, and is isn't just because of lack of turnout. You need to consider why there is a lack of voter turnout which entails a much more thoughtful analysis than "Just vote!". This is uncritical, reflexive, and entirely unhelpful as well as being extremely divisive. In addition to this there is a real tendency of older dems to fall back on this "Just vote!" rhetoric without for one second investigating why young people seem to lack the eagerness to vote, while at the same time insulting us for not being sufficiently motivated. This does no work but assist the individual in their moral satisfaction in having served their team and is, as we speak, driving a wedge between the old guard dems and the millenial dems who do have the motivation but need something to be motivated about considering this very old guard entirely controls the ideological framework and has been historically hostile to both the left/centre-left and the significant generational presence who has attached themselves to this new left ideology.

[2banon]

103. "he "revolutionaries" aren't a large enough segment of society to vote change into office"

there would be if "non-voters" were encouraged by party workers to stand together. But that would require Party functionaries to stand with "revolutionaries"... you see that right?

[MineralMan]

107. Sure. That would be great.

In the meantime, we still have 50% or so of eligible voters who aren't even registered. The power in that group is overwhelming.

[2banon]

108. I'm specifically including that segment in my point...

the segment not voting is due to apathy, as you acknowledge in your op. (did you see my first response to your op?)

It's not going to be enough to say 'Hey people, it's really really important that you vote!'

Party talking points are no longer credible, people who don't vote, largely see the system rigged etc.. but it's not enough to say, the system is rigged because you're choosing not have your voice heard by not voting" It has be acknowledged that the system is rigged. They're point of view needs to be validated.. before it will be possible to offer the remedy and to get their support in seeking that remedy by participating.

[MineralMan]

109. Really, I wouldn't use the strategy of telling people to vote.

Instead, I'd be explaining why their vote could change everything. I've been convincing unregistered people to register and vote for many years. I don't tell them anything. I ask them what changes they'd like to see. When they tell me, I help them understand how to accomplish those changes. I talk to them, not at them.

It's all in the presentation, really.

Lots of people are in this thread telling me that what I'm suggesting won't work. I've seen it work, on a small scale. I'll tell you what doesn't work, and that's doing the same thing we've been doing. Discussing change among like-thinking people doesn't work, either. What works is talking to the people you want to go to the polls, listening to their issues and concerns and giving them reasons to do so. I learned how to do that years afo from a veteran GOTV worker who has been dead now for over 20 years. She showed me how to get people to register and convince them to go to the polls and vote for people who could help them.

It's a hands on thing, and it doesn't happen on the Internet. It happens in neighborhoods and precincts when people who are willing to listen to people help them become voters.

[BlindTiresias]

115. You know what has historically motivated large groups of people?

A larger purpose and system of meaning making, the structural means to accomplish that, and rhetoric that stirs people towards this belief and action. Just telling them their vote is important has historically been very weak as you are assuming as the basis of your argument something that is disproven in their minds: "Voting matters". What I am saying is their is very little vision in the current Democratic leadership beyond being an opposition to right wing social policy, whose victories will be fleeting when the Republicans invariably seize upon the Democrats lack of vision and meaning making and get to work at promoting their own vision of society. If you can construct a populist vision and propose it well this will do more for voter turnout than even the most crack team of GOTV activists.

[gulliver]

116. The processes that keep us at a near 50% balance...

...could not handle the kind of scale you are talking about. The levees would be breached. The Republicans would be wiped out.

They are hoping that people don't figure out that they have the power for this kind of revolution already sitting there. All they have to do is get registered and go vote. It's probably a total of a couple of hours of effort. If every left leaning eligible voter simply voted all Democrat, the political landscape would change immediately and dramatically.

Republicans would be forced left to survive. Democrats would be pulled left, which is exactly where they would prefer to go.

All this non-voting related activity on the part of conservatives shows just how scared they are...or should be. Republicans are doing their damnedest to keep people from voting, to dismay them, to depress and weaken their wills. They are raising their ad-buying power, attacking "government," trying to make politicians seem all the same or somehow uncool. None of that has anything to do with getting the will of the democratic majority exercised. It has to do with keeping that will contained.

[MineralMan]

117. And it is our job to counter that

Republican effort. That's my opinion.

[gulliver]

120. It probably needs to go viral.

I think we are pretty close to that now. Even though Republicans do their best to make voting inconvenient and a hassle, it is still not that difficult. If we could vote as easily as we can Twitter, the Voter's Revolution would be assured in 2014.

We have precedent in "flash mobs." An Internet-centered organizational effort spills over into the real world to produce flash mobs. We need a voting version of a flash mob. It would be a one-day revolution.

I plan on contributing and possibly canvassing this fall. But I really think that to get a revolution going, you need to get the voting attitude and make it contagious. People need to understand that this absolutely can be done, and it is not very difficult. I think it is close.

[BlindTiresias]

122. Question

What would the Democratic party even do with a coup like that? Assuming 100% complete and total control in the short term what would they try and accomplish? How would they sustain this temporary condition to ensure further sweeps at the ballot?

[gulliver]

127. Answer

I think no-brainers like raising the minimum wage and extending healthcare to the people that Republicans denied it to would be on the list. Marijuana legalization? Wiping out the gay marriage bans once and for all? Reducing the cost of education? Ending the debate on climate change? I think those too. An empowered Democratic Party would be able to do those things.

The first thing I would hope they would do is make voting easy going forward. Internet voting, weekend voting, voting by mail, etc.

"Total control" isn't really possible, imo, even if we had full voter participation in the democracy. The country would take a big step to the left, putting it back in sane territory. Democratic policies would pay off as usual, so there would be downstream potential for sustained improvements to the lives of Americans, much like the Roosevelt-through-Kennedy eras. But it would only last while it worked. But that is as it should be.

We need to put the country out of the reach of the Kochs and their ilk.

[BlindTiresias]

132. So

So that is all you would propose given a sweeping voting revolution? The Republicans offer sweeping platforms that attempt and succeed at fundamentally altering the structure of society and you are suggesting the Democrats offer boilerplate in the event of a complete and total decisive victory? That is a disturbing lack of vision and kind of demonstrates the fundamental lack of imagination among the Democratic party that I am talking about. People don't get excited about boilerplate, even if it does empirically benefit them.

[gulliver]

133. I do appreciate the concern of course.

A complete electoral wipe-out of Republican politics is on the horizon. I would stick to watching Fox News if I were them. They should just keep watching it all the way down. It's over.

[BlindTiresias]

134. Unlikely

Unless the dems have an alternative vision of society beyond pining for the New Deal and constantly on the defense and playing into right wing ideology I don't see the total destruction of the Republicans happening any time soon. The Democrats will perhaps make some gains, then after demonstrating a basic lack of imagination in policy and putting through weak boilerplate the a large segment of the voters will tire of it and swing back to the Republicans, and especially if they can propose something that stirs people.

To this day I have not seen a Democrat give a convincing argument as to why the Republicans are truly defeated this time. Sounds more like wish fulfillment to me.

[gulliver]

135. Again, I do appreciate the concern.

It could be that Fox News is right. I know that their remaining audience of frequently-amiable senile people and glowering half-wits would say so. I certainly don't want to dissuade them.

We really can't know the future, can we? It could be a big Republican win in November. It could be a devastating Internet-organized hurricane that wipes them off the map for a couple of decades. Who knows? A lot depends on people knowing that they can do it. My only point is that clearly they can. I'm sorry if that bothers you in any way.

[BlindTiresias]

136. Ok, listen

Its not about what Fox News says, it isn't even about the rhetoric of the right wing. Unless you take a good, hard look at structure and policy and understand their primacy in the political-legislative process you are in for a rude awakening. The right wing understands this which is why they can make repeated surprise comebacks and seem to emerge from crushing defeats consistently. The fact that the right wing can and does come back is what bothers me, and unless the left changes their game plan beyond weak boiler plate you can expect apathy in victory followed by a terrible defeat.

[lostincalifornia]

121. You need to get pele registered, and insure they have the proper ids, they help those that need it

Get to the polls on Election Day

That is how you win

Those who don't care to put that effort out, then they should get out of the way

[Chathamization]

146. This. It will be difficult but it will happen. But "political" people will need to become active.

I'm always surprised by people who demand better candidates/a better party but who don't bother to actually work for or even vote for said candidates. If you think the party is a mess, vote for better leaders. If you think the candidates aren't any good, vote for more progressive ones. If you have time, volunteer.

Naturally, things won't change overnight, but we can't just sit back saying, "things are a mess, I'm not going to bother doing anything until someone else fixes it all for me."

I also can't really say I've been too impressed by most of the people in the "netroots," who seem to enjoy chatting about elections as if they were sporting events, but spend almost no time talking about election activism or local politics (I remember Yglesias encouraging people to vote for a Norquist signatory Republican at the local level last year).

DFA does some good work at the local level, but they're small. If everyone who claimed to be interested joined an organization like that and started organizing for real progressive change, we'd be able to overcome whatever money was thrown against us and would see a huge difference. This will happen eventually, but it will take time to get people active and aware.

[JI7]

147. people enjoy talk of revolution on the internet too much

look at Rahm Emanuel and how much people posted about how horrible he was. yet there was no effort to challenge him in the election for mayor. and that was an open election and a candidate had to get majority or else the top 2 would run against each other in a 2nd election. this is what people claimed they wanted .

but my above comments are more about a certain type that you see on the internet .

there are people who actually do get out there and do the hard work. it's very difficult but they do it. sometimes it takes a number of elections to see the change. virginia is a good example of this . it use to be reliable red but has turned purple and gone blue in recent elections.

of course the internet revolutionaries complained about terry mcauliffe yet they did nothing to run a candidate against him in the primary .

[MineralMan]

148. Talking about revolution is a popular way to pass the time.

It has nothing to do with real politics, though, and never will.