OWS is doing a good job of making people aware that there

[MineralMan]

are problems. They're forcing the media to discuss those problems. However, I'm concerned about one thing. From polls taken at Ocuppy sites, it appears that a sizable percentage of Occupiers did not vote in 2008 and are saying they don't plan to vote in 2012. If they do not, and if they encourage others to forego voting in 2012, they will disenfranchise themselves and potentially defeat their own purpose.

Elections aren't just about the Presidency. They are about all levels of legislation and governance. Skipping elections is not a strategy for success. It is voluntary disenfranchisement.

Occupiers need to vote. We all need to vote. In fact, we need to do more, by participating in the process by which candidates are chosen for the general election. That process is underway in some jurisdictions and will get underway soon in others. If we want good people in our government, we must work to get them there. Any other course is simply to allow what happens to happen. If we do not participate fully, we have only a tiny voice that will go unheard in the noise.

Please, everyone - do not disenfranchise yourselves. Rather, begin now to select candidates who will do what you want. It is the only way the changes we all need will take place.

[valerief]

1. Were they old enough to vote in 2008? Besides, as long as there's money in election and proprietary

software that can flip however many votes they want, does voting the way it's done today really matter?

What's needed now is outrage.

[MineralMan]

4. From what I can see, yes, they were mostly old enough to

vote in 2008.

As for your second point, we just had an election. It went well, even in states where you'd expect problems. Progressive candidates were elected, and a number of reactionary ballot measures failed, even in heavily red states. Was there election fraud in place? I don't know, but the election turned out OK for the most part. Yes, voting today really does matter. Outrage is fine, as long is it is reflected in election results. Otherwise, it is just so much noise.

Our system of government isn't going to be overthrown by small protest movements. That simply is not going to happen. And, by small, I mean movements that number far less than 1% of the population. Occupy fits that category. It's excellent. It's making good noise and it's being heard. But it's not going to actually create change. That will have to be done through our political process.

You may disagree with this, and that's fine, but I can promise you that government, from local and state to federal will operate based on the 2012 elections. Occupy is simply not a large enough movement to change that.

[pnwmom]

20. Voting still matters. Outrage isn't enough. n/t

[flamingdem]

2. It would be a disaster if people chose not to vote

A republican takeover is the end of our freedoms and will make the current moment look like the good ole days. We'll be impoverished by their policies and the middle class demolished.

[arcane1]

3. I'm hoping that's not a wide-spread sentiment

One would expect they'd at least want to vote out the mayor when the opportunity arises!

[MineralMan]

7. I'm just going by some polls that were taken of the actual

Occupy groups. Not all Occupiers in, say, NYC, vote in that city. And, even though the numbers of Occupiers aren't large in comparison to the general population, many elections hinge on small margins - sometimes very small margins. It is essential that people participate in those elections in this country. It will be governed by the results of the 2012 election. There's no question about that.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Can you share any of these polls so other can see the stats?

The second hand 'stuff I say I heard' routine is not really respectful of the people you are discussing. 'Some polls that were taken'. This suggests you have access to more than one poll, yet here it is just you telling us what you say you saw. Why is that?

[MineralMan]

31. They were posted here on DU. As such, they became part of

my information. You can find them, if you wish. Or, you can believe that I'm saying the thing that is not and do as you please.

BTW, 50 points to the house who can identify the source of the phrase "say the thing that is not." If you can, without Googling it, you're a student of literature.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. So you can not actually cite them. Nor quote them. Nor name

them. It is not, dear MM, that I think you are making it up, it is that almost all retold tales change in the telling, and most are aware of that. I'm sure you read something, but I am also sure there is reason to not quote, to not name, to not cite. Not sure your conclusions from the polling would be the same as my own.
How many of those polled were old enough to vote in 08? Without that information the percentage that did not vote is a meaningless number. Were they asked their age?

[MineralMan]

43. Here's a cite:

http://theweek.com/article/index/220529/the-demographics-of-occupy-wall-street-by-the-numbers

[MineralMan]

47. OK, here's a cite:

http://theweek.com/article/index/220529/the-demographics-of-occupy-wall-street-by-the-numbers


It's one that I read here on DU.

[Scuba]

8. +1 Voting can have a positive impact in a very short time. nt/

[leftstreet]

10. What has been the positive impact of voters throwing the GOP out in 2006 & 2008?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

12. I'm not going to post the list.

I'm sure you can find it.

I can assure you that there will be many changes, however, if the Republicans win. Many very ugly changes.

[pnwmom]

21. It was undone by voters letting the GOP back in in 2010.

But imagine who would be on the Supreme Court now if Obama hadn't been there to appoint Kagal and Sotomayor.

[leftstreet]

26. If we could have just kept the GOP out, we'd have Single Payer healthcare now

Darn voters!

[MineralMan]

11. Yes, it can. I'm hoping it does exactly that, and in the correct

direction.

[Fumesucker]

5. Doesn't exactly coincide with their message that the system is corrupt..

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

6. !

snap!

[MineralMan]

9. I suggest you review the results of the 2011 election.

The results demonstrate that the electorate wants change. How much change? We'll see in November, 2012.

[Fumesucker]

14. Bad cop, good cop..

They're still cops..

OWS is going to have to go on a lot longer before any fundamental changes are going to happen.

I don't share your rosy view of the Democratic party apparatus, not any longer I don't.

[MineralMan]

19. OK. Whatever you say.

Do as you please. Personally, I think OWS has peaked. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but considering the time of year and the holiday season looming, I don't see a lot of growth in OWS over the next months.

[Romulox]

13. It's legal in the US for a corporation to give money to a politician in order to secure his/her vote

That is a fundamental problem.

[MineralMan]

17. It is. We have the SCOTUS to blame for that.

And yet, we saw two Republican state senators in Wisconsin get recalled and replaced by Democrats. Even now, a recall petition is circulating to replace the Wisconsin Governor. Corporate money cannot override the will of the people, if the people simply exercise their right to vote. Let's do that. What do you say? Let's elect people who will see to it that the makeup of the SCOTUS reflects the will of the people as new justices get appointed.

That corporate money can only do so much. We can override it, if we have the will to do so. We cannot, though, unless we participate fully in the process. That's why, in my OP, I suggested starting by helping to select good candidates. That process is just getting started for 2012. There's some activism that can make a difference you'll be able to see.

Are things screwed up? You bet. But we can fix them, in the same way we've fixed them before. But, only if we're willing to do the work.

[pnwmom]

22. That's why we need the next appointments to be made by a Democratic President.

[MineralMan]

24. Precisely. I'd like to see the next several appointments made

by a Democratic president, to the point that we rid ourselves of a conservative majority and replace it with a strong progressive majority. That will take some time. So, lets keep electing Democrats on a national level. At the State and local level, too, for that matter. Every state also has a Supreme Court.

[Zorra]

15. Agreed. At the very least, IMO, we need to recognize that

Democrats will at least do some good things. I'm pretty upset (that's saying it PC mildly) with the Democratic legislators for not making a collective sincere effort to bring about the changes that are obviously necessary to significantly improve the state of the nation when they had large majorities in congress, as well as a Dem POTUS. I realize that a good many of them have been compromised by taking bribes from, or holding office due to the influence of, the 1%. In fact, it is apparent that a primary catalyst for the birth of OWS was this lack of obvious lack effort on the part of Democratic legislators.

But Republicans, every single one of them, are owned by the 1%, and will never do nothing that is positive whatsoever. Less than zero, in fact. We get a republican Prez, and a republican congress, we kiss our tushies goodbye. It will be way worse than the Bush era, guaranteed.

It's a no brainer: Gain at least a little something, or lose everything.

[redqueen]

16. I almost hate to say this... and I am not advocating anything...

but it does help to know history. The only reason we got the New Deal was because the People's Party was drawing more votes, and so the Dem party adopted some of their socialist planks.

So not voting at all won't do anything, of course... but voting for a party which may not be considered viable yet which would actually serve your interests might eventually be an effective means of changing the New Democrat party. If (and that's a big if) it would even change as a result of losing again.

[MineralMan]

18. You know, I'm not sure we have time for that, really.

I'm not sure that we have time to let the Democratic Party fail, and then rebuild it. The amount of destruction the Republicans can cause in just a single term is almost beyond belief. I know what you're saying, and I wish it were possible. I think we stand a better chance by renewing the Democratic party by choosing candidates who will take their place in the Party and lead it in a new direction. We can take advantage of the disgust of the electorate with the current incumbents, and choose good candidates in our primary or caucus systems, state by state.

But, we can't do that if we're not in the process when that selection is going on. That's why I'm active in Minnesota's caucus system. I can leverage my abilities to make changes in that system. We all can do that, since few people are really involved in the early stages of most elections. I'm not talking about the Presidency. That's a side issue. I'm talking about state legislatures, city government, and Congress. Those are all local elections, even at the state level.

We can do something or we can march around while others make the choices. It's time to do something, I believe. So, that's what I'll be doing. Go look up Betty McCollum and Al Franken. I was involved in their election and selection as candidates. Anyone can be involved in that process and can leverage their individual power into something that makes a difference.

[Fumesucker]

25. You must be one of those "natural leaders"...

Because every time I've ever been involved with an organization there's a few people who make most or all of the decisions and the rest of us who were grunt labor.

Unless you're the lead dog the view never changes, evidently you're a lead dog.

[MineralMan]

28. Am I? I'm capable of making myself understood, it's true.

I'll tell you what happened in 2008 in our state Senate District convention. Maybe you'll begin to understand. In that convention, we not only endorsed candidates, but we also selected delegates to the state convention. There's an internal political core at the state senate district, and that's a fact. In my district, it happens to be a very progressive one. But, that's not my point. State convention delegates are chosen by ballot. Any delegate to the district convention, who is anyone who cares to go there from the precinct caucuses, since there are never enough to fill all the seats, can run to be a state delegate. State delegates are chosen by votes from sub-caucuses at the convention. What that means is that if you can convince 20 people to vote for you, you go to the state convention. District officers are also elected at the district convention. In 2008, most of the offices were won by new people. Each gave a brief speech and an election was held. Those who made their case were elected. Those who did not were not.

Now, Minnesota is a caucus state, so we may use a different system than in your state. In California, we didn't do it that way when I lived there. Even so, I quickly gained a leadership position at the local level. Why? Because I was willing to take the job. That was all it took.

You must be willing. You must be articulate. If you're both of those things, you can have a leadership position. If you're lacking either one, you won't be. It is that simple.

[Fumesucker]

36. The last organization I was part of was band boosters for my daughter's HS..

My ex and I ran the concession stand at football games for four years, it was much like running a restaurant with new help every night since we were dealing with volunteers that rotated through. We did a great job, the band made a lot of money to support the program

At the last awards ceremony on the last year every single parent there got some kind of award or plaque but for two people, my ex and myself and we had worked at least as hard as anyone else and a lot harder than many.

The difference was we weren't involved in all the politicking standing around gabbing, we did the grunt labor of actually accomplishing physical goals.

I learned a valuable lesson that night.

Edited for speling.

[MineralMan]

46. Political organizations require communication. I'm not sure what

your school band organization has to do with anything I've said.

[Fumesucker]

50. Political organizations also require grunt work..

I was relating my experience in a volunteer organization, it is my understanding that what you were talking about was volunteer organizations, perhaps I misunderstood your meaning.

You would have been one of the ones doing the talking, the ones that were recognized for their contribution, that's why you don't understand my point.

It's strange that you think someone can run a concession stand that brought in several thousand dollars per game and not communicate, we communicated fine we just didn't lollygag around flapping our gums when there was actual work to be done.

[MineralMan]

53. If you want to influence an organization, there's a certain amount

of "flapping your gums" that is essential. I'm surprised you see that as a negative. Ideas are the currency of political organizations. If you have some, and can articulate them, you'll be noticed. If you don't, and you just put labels on mailers, you'll still be noticed by some, but you won't be in the hierarchy of the organization. I've done my share of sticking labels, too. Grunt work and idea generation are not mutually incompatible.

There's nothing wrong with either way of serving in an organization, but there is a difference between the two.

[redqueen]

29. There are certain types of people who are entrenched...

dug in like ticks... and they are happy with the status quo. The party seems to always side with those already firmly enmeshed in the establishment, and this seems to be a large part of why things don't ever really change (e.g. voting laws, so many people know they're bad, nobody in any kind of a leadership position seems to want to do much about it).

It's good if that isn't the case in some places, and I wish anyone who wishes to fight from within to change things all the best of luck. Unfortunately, this can sometimes at least seem to be practically futile.

[ellisonz]

37. I wouldn't really judge that as being the cause of the New Deal...

...because it diminishes the shocking effect of the 1929 Stock Market Crash. In light of that event, it was more the philosophy of classical liberalism and Keynesian economics that guided FDR in his policies. The Populist party was seen as reactionary and was not viewed positively by the Progressives - who found them to be reactionary. So the argument that they posed a direct electoral threat to the Democratic Party in the New Deal is patently false - fears of a socialist challenge were overblown too as by the 1920s mass opposition to socialism had taken deep effect.

The People's Party dissolved in 1908:

The People's Party, also known as the "Populists", was a short-lived political party in the United States established in 1891. It was most important in 1892-96, then rapidly faded away. Based among poor, white cotton farmers in the South (especially North Carolina, Alabama, and Texas) and hard-pressed wheat farmers in the plains states (especially Kansas and Nebraska), it represented a radical crusading form of agrarianism and hostility to banks, railroads, and elites generally. It sometimes formed coalitions with labor unions, and in 1896 endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan. The terms "populist" and "populism" are commonly used for anti-elitist appeals in opposition to established interests and mainstream parties.

---------

Historians look at Populism

Since the 1890s historians have vigorously debated the nature of Populism; most scholars have been liberals who admired the Populists for their attacks on banks and railroads. Some historians see a close link between the Populists of the 1890s and the progressives of 1900-1912, but most of the leading progressives (except Bryan himself) fiercely opposed Populism. Thus Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Norris, Robert LaFollette, William Allen White and Woodrow Wilson strongly opposed Populism. It is debated whether any Populist ideas made their way into the Democratic party during the New Deal era. The New Deal farm programs were designed by experts (like Henry Wallace) who had nothing to do with Populism.<12>

Some historians see the populists as forward-looking liberal reformers. Others view them as reactionaries trying to recapture an idyllic and utopian past. For some they are radicals out to restructure American life, and for others they are economically hard-pressed agrarians seeking government relief. Much recent scholarship emphasizes Populism's debt to early American republicanism.<13> Clanton (1991) stresses that Populism was "the last significant expression of an old radical tradition that derived from Enlightenment sources that had been filtered through a political tradition that bore the distinct imprint of Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, and Lincolnian democracy." This tradition emphasized human rights over the cash nexus of the Gilded Age's dominant ideology.<14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Party_%28United_States%29#Historians_look_at_Populism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Party_%28United_States%29

:hide:

[redqueen]

40. They took the planks.

I don't deny the crash and the economy of the time helped... but where they got the planks from, as well as the fact that the People's Party was drawing more votes as things got worse, cannot be ignored.

[ellisonz]

41. You're mixing terms...

In 1932 - 3 Socialist-Communist candidates took about 3% of the vote. In 1936 - the Union Party took 2% and Socialist-Communist parties took less than an additional 1%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Party_%28United_States%29

You can make a really vague argument that Roosevelt was enacting rural reforms that had been part of the Populist movement - but you can also make an argument that the Republicans inherited many of those ideas through the lens of isolationism which stood in stark contrast to Wilsonianism.

Either way - the claim that anti-Democratic-Republican parties had growing strength is statistically false.

Many observers at the time felt that there was a place for a party more radical than Roosevelt and the Democrats but still non-Marxist in the political spectrum of the time.

Rumored political aspirations of Huey Long

Although many people expected Huey Long, the colorful Democratic senator from Louisiana, to run as a third-party candidate with his "Share Our Wealth" program as his platform, his bid was cut short when he was assassinated in September 1935.

It was later revealed by historian and Long biographer T. Harry Williams that the senator had never, in fact, intended to run for the presidency in 1936. Instead, he had been planning with Father Charles Coughlin, a Catholic priest and populist talk radio personality, to run someone else on the soon-to-be-formed Share Our Wealth Party ticket. According to Williams, the idea was that this candidate would split the left-wing vote with President Roosevelt, thereby electing a Republican president and proving the electoral appeal of SOW. Long would then wait four years and run for president as a Democrat in 1940.

Prior to Long's death, leading contenders for the role of the sacrificial 1936 candidate included Senators Burton K. Wheeler (D-Montana) and William E. Borah (R-Idaho), and Governor Floyd B. Olson (FL-Minnesota). After the assassination, however, the two senators lost interest in the idea (Borah ran as a Republican, garnering only a few delegates and losing the nomination to Kansas governor Alf Landon) and Olson was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Party_%28United_States%29

A radical is a man with both feet firmly planted — in the air. A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. A reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards. A liberal is a man who uses his legs and his hands at the behest — at the command — of his head.

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Radio Address to the New York Herald Tribune Forum (26 October 1939)

[SidDithers]

23. K&R...

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Why don't you cite or name these polls you see?

Second hand reportage is not to be trusted ever. Odd to make an OP about polling data without the data or the name of the polls, much less a link. Odd.
Of course everyone should vote. Should everyone promise Democrats their vote a year out? Should people answer polls at all, and if they do should they be truthful? Lots of things to discuss, but to do so, we all need to see the polls you speak of. More than one, apparently.

[MineralMan]

32. They were posted here on DU.

I did not bookmark them, but I learned from them. Either I am telling the truth or I am making them up. I am not making them up, but I'm not going to hunt them down for you. Sorry.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Well then we can not discuss them.

It is not a matter of truth or making it up, it is a matter of retold tales not retaining the whole of the original. This would not be a fault nor yours alone, it is the nature of retold tales, and this is why when promoting a meme based on polling, it is essential to share the polling or the actual results. What you surmised from the polling might not be what others would surmise from the same data. Asking to see the information is not an insult to you, it is respectful of the subject matter. You introduced the subject of these polls. I asked to see them, you can not produce them.
We agree that everyone who can should vote. I do not tend to see protesting as an indication of apathy, but of engagement. I also don't take second hand words as replacements for numbers in a conversation about polling.
What have you witnessed at Occupations in terms of voter education? The Occupation is making new voters and will create new candidates on every level from what I've seen. I have no polling to back that up, of course. But then, Occupiers would tell me the truth, whereas we'd both lie to a pollster just out of principle. Which is a point to consider. Do you think they answer truthfully or politically? I'd think politically. Or nonsensically. Occupy the Polls.
Also, Occupy Your Ballot. No doubt about that.

[MineralMan]

42. That's why I didn't put specific number in my post.

Had I wanted to use actual numbers, I would have searched for those poll results again. I've been to the Minneapolis Occupy gathering several times. I didn't not see any voter registration there the times I was there, nor any targeted voter educational materials. I think that's unfortunate, but that's what I observed.

[MineralMan]

45. OK, here's a cite:

http://theweek.com/article/index/220529/the-demographics-of-occupy-wall-street-by-the-numbers

The data in this cite are what I remember reading on DU. I cannot find the post on DU, though...

[izquierdista]

34. Maybe they have a better idea than voting.

How about making decisions by consensus?

[MineralMan]

54. That works in small groups...sometimes.

Consensus isn't possible in large groups or larger societies. There are always those who have a different idea of how things should be done. I've been part of small organizations or groups where consensus was the way things worked. I've never been in any organization with more than 20 members where concensus worked. Even in the small groups, though, there were almost always some who would have preferred a different choice or action, but went along with the majority.

A national consensus on virtually ever issue is impossible. It cannot happen. In fact, the USA is almost equally divided between two diametrically opposite camps. There will never be a consensus.

[Wait Wut]

35. Great post.

And, seems to be well received all around.

[EFerrari]

39. Unrec for careless slander of a movement that is generating activism

and not the other way around.

[MineralMan]

48. I made no slander at all.

I support OWS. I'm suggesting that more will be required that OWS.

[TBF]

44. Unrec - changes can happen outside the voting booth.

[MineralMan]

49. You may notice that those people are armed.

That was a revolution, not an occupation. Are you seeking a violent revolution. I'm not on your side if you are, and I'm armed.

[TBF]

51. Personally I would not like to see it -

but I think the folks in charge need to realize change will happen whether they like it or not. Encouraging them to channel their efforts only to electoral politics is not going to work when they already feel that venue is useless. Nothing you or I say is going to change that. Mr. Obama, however, could change things with his actions IF he chooses to.

[great white snark]

52. K&R. Your message is important.