How Can the Richest 1 Percent Be Winning This Class War

[Coito ergo sum]

The notion of protesting an imperfect democracy by boycotting it is pathetic.

At various times in the past I've refrained from voting because I don't feel there is a candidate worthy of my vote, with policies I identify with. I sometimes vote tactically by voting for the one I dislike least, but then sometimes I find them all equally worthless. If I was in the US, I'd only have two options, Republican or Democrat.

That is untrue. In the United States our ballots are littered with third party candidates - Green Party, Natural Law, Taxpayer Party, Patriot Party, Libertarian Party, Independents and other third parties. They win a fair amount of the time in State and Local Elections. We have a socialist designated as an Independent, Bernie Sanders, who has been serving as a representative in the US House of Representatives for decades. For President, yes, it's typically Republican or Democrat, and the two main parties in Congress are also Republican or Democrat - however, in the US a lot of power is still disbursed among the States and the local governments.

I look a it this way - no one person's vote is worth very much, but it's worth the same as everyone else's in the voting district. So, you might as well vote.

Plus, voting should not be looked at as a vehicle to getting one's way. That's a childish view of the subject, and results in a lot of what we hear about the futility of voting: "it doesn't matter if I vote anyway, so why should I?" Or, "It's not going to change anything." Or, "My candidate has no chance, so why bother?" People who adopt those positions are failing to see that your vote isn't supposed to "matter," your vote isn't supposed to change anything, and your vote is not supposed to be "the" deciding vote that gets a candidate elected. Voting was never for that, and voting will never be that. If that's what you want, you'll have to figure a way to become dictator, because a dictator is the only person who can unequivocally say that his vote matters, his vote will change something, or his vote decides who gets elected.

We have voting in a republic as a civic duty of the citizenry. A way for the citizenry to participate en masse and make their COLLECTIVE voice heard to the powers that be, and it is a way to make the leadership in some way accountable for their actions. Voting, however, cannot be helpful unless the people are educated about who and what they are voting for. That's the defect. All the regulations about money and corporate influence is just so much window dressing. The reality is that we have people who don't vote largely because they don't know what the fuck they're voting for or who the candidates are.

Here in the US, there is much hand-wringing about why less than 50% of Americans vote. The answer is simple, though. It's just not politically correct to say. The answer is - people are fucking stupid and uneducated. in 2009, a mere few months after the election41% of the American public could not name who the Vice President was. Most Americans don't follow politics AT ALL. 60% of Americans did not know that Tim Geitner was the Treasury Secretary. 57% did not even know the name Bernanke. More Americans said they believe in the devil (59 percent) and angels (71 percent), than believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (47 percent).

We need to worry less about trying to figure out ways to disallow spending on political campaigns, and more on making the citizenry smart enough to warrant them voting. As it stands, I'm glad only 40% of the electorate votes. I think if the rest voted they'd fill in the ballot randomly, or they'd vote for the name that sounds most familiar.

[Pappa]

That is untrue. In the United States our ballots are littered with third party candidates - Green Party, Natural Law, Taxpayer Party, Patriot Party, Libertarian Party, Independents and other third parties. They win a fair amount of the time in State and Local Elections. We have a socialist designated as an Independent, Bernie Sanders, who has been serving as a representative in the US House of Representatives for decades. For President, yes, it's typically Republican or Democrat, and the two main parties in Congress are also Republican or Democrat - however, in the US a lot of power is still disbursed among the States and the local governments.

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I was intending to refer to just Presidential elections.

[Coito ergo sum]

That is untrue. In the United States our ballots are littered with third party candidates - Green Party, Natural Law, Taxpayer Party, Patriot Party, Libertarian Party, Independents and other third parties. They win a fair amount of the time in State and Local Elections. We have a socialist designated as an Independent, Bernie Sanders, who has been serving as a representative in the US House of Representatives for decades. For President, yes, it's typically Republican or Democrat, and the two main parties in Congress are also Republican or Democrat - however, in the US a lot of power is still disbursed among the States and the local governments.

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I was intending to refer to just Presidential elections.

Oh, well, I think in that case we have to acknowledge a key difference in US and British politics. You don't vote for your Prime Minister. You vote for an MP and the MP's pick the PM.

In the US, we have a separate election for the President. We each vote for our Senators and Representatives in our district. The President is elected wholly separate from that voting. If you folks had a separate election for PM - given that the PM has been either Tory or Labour for going on 100 years - do you think you'd have so many more choices?

[JOZeldenrust]

That does not preclude reforms to the whole process which could at least attempt to reduce the complete domination of money and political patronage on which candidates you are allowed to vote for...

What's interesting is that the "complete dominance" of monied interests (in the US) is largely a function of the voting habits of the American people. Every election, we don't just have 2 choices for President, there is always a slew of other candidates listed. They don't get the advertising, but Americans can still vote for them. If we would just vote for third party candidates in larger numbers, things would change.

Moreover - when people refer to the "domination of money" - in general I get the distinct feeling that what they mean is the domination of "conservative" money. Money from unions and left wing organizations are not considered in the same way. If we are going to remove the influence of "money" then one would also have to de-fang corporations like PETA and Moveon.org, and organizations like the AFL-CIO. Is that really what is desired?

Nope, the arrangement with an electoral college choosing the president will result in only two candidates with any real chance of winning, even without the influence of "corporate sponsorship" of political candidates. Thing is, through campaign contributions, teh economically powerful can essentially buy political influence. That shouldn't be the case. Parliament and other elected institutions should represent the people. That's why they have a democratic mandate. They shouldn't represent big capital. Big capital doesn't really need representation, because they already wield great economic power.

Money isn't the currency of politics, people are, at least in a democracy.

[Pappa]

That is untrue. In the United States our ballots are littered with third party candidates - Green Party, Natural Law, Taxpayer Party, Patriot Party, Libertarian Party, Independents and other third parties. They win a fair amount of the time in State and Local Elections. We have a socialist designated as an Independent, Bernie Sanders, who has been serving as a representative in the US House of Representatives for decades. For President, yes, it's typically Republican or Democrat, and the two main parties in Congress are also Republican or Democrat - however, in the US a lot of power is still disbursed among the States and the local governments.

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I was intending to refer to just Presidential elections.

Oh, well, I think in that case we have to acknowledge a key difference in US and British politics. You don't vote for your Prime Minister. You vote for an MP and the MP's pick the PM.

In the US, we have a separate election for the President. We each vote for our Senators and Representatives in our district. The President is elected wholly separate from that voting. If you folks had a separate election for PM - given that the PM has been either Tory or Labour for going on 100 years - do you think you'd have so many more choices?

Because the PM is selected by the party before the election the electorate are often voting for the PM as much as the party. I'm sure the "personality contest" thing is a significant influence on voter choice. The PM is responsible for dictating the party line anyway, so you could argue that in many ways, it is right to vote for which party you think has the best leader. Hardly anybody votes for their favourite local candidate regardless of which party they're a member of (except in the case of by-elections). The Westminster System we have encourages a two party environment, making it almost impossible for smaller parties to get a foot in the door, though for some time the Liberal Democrats have been a significant if still minor player.

[hadespussercats]

That does not preclude reforms to the whole process which could at least attempt to reduce the complete domination of money and political patronage on which candidates you are allowed to vote for...

What's interesting is that the "complete dominance" of monied interests (in the US) is largely a function of the voting habits of the American people. Every election, we don't just have 2 choices for President, there is always a slew of other candidates listed. They don't get the advertising, but Americans can still vote for them. If we would just vote for third party candidates in larger numbers, things would change.

Moreover - when people refer to the "domination of money" - in general I get the distinct feeling that what they mean is the domination of "conservative" money. Money from unions and left wing organizations are not considered in the same way. If we are going to remove the influence of "money" then one would also have to de-fang corporations like PETA and Moveon.org, and organizations like the AFL-CIO. Is that really what is desired?

JimC, I agree with you.

Coito, in the situation as it stands in the U.S., candidates without a significant war chest, whether they be conservative, liberal, or moderate, simply can't get out the vote. That affects Republicans and Democrats equally, and adversely to the interests of the nation at large. It's also part of the reason alternate parties to the big two can't get off the ground.

[Ian]

in the situation as it stands in the U.S., candidates without a significant war chest, whether they be conservative, liberal, or moderate, simply can't get out the vote. That affects Republicans and Democrats equally, and adversely to the interests of the nation at large. It's also part of the reason alternate parties to the big two can't get off the ground.

I would agree that it's a problem, but it's a problem that isn't just rooted in the way the two-dominant-party system functions. It's also rooted in our whole society: ultimately, we're a nation of centrists. The Republicans and Democrats are often accused of being excessively similar to each other, but it's because American democracy has evolved to a point where we've basically got a yin and yang fighting over the middle of a fairly narrow bell curve. The outer ends of the bell curve just don't have much support to create robust third parties. Do the critics really want to see a Congress mixed with maoists, fascists, leninists, anarchists, statists, etc.? They'd bring some diversity, but for all the lip service paid to "American diversity", there isn't a district in the country whose citizens have that sort of extreme range. The two dominant parties have pretty big roofs of their own (lock Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders in a room with Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin, and I doubt more than two would get out alive), but they could be bigger. The bell curve isn't spread out quite as much as it could be, hence the development of two dominant parties, one center-left, the other center-right.

[hadespussercats]

in the situation as it stands in the U.S., candidates without a significant war chest, whether they be conservative, liberal, or moderate, simply can't get out the vote. That affects Republicans and Democrats equally, and adversely to the interests of the nation at large. It's also part of the reason alternate parties to the big two can't get off the ground.

I would agree that it's a problem, but it's a problem that isn't just rooted in the way the two-dominant-party system functions. It's also rooted in our whole society: ultimately, we're a nation of centrists. The Republicans and Democrats are often accused of being excessively similar to each other, but it's because American democracy has evolved to a point where we've basically got a yin and yang fighting over the middle of a fairly narrow bell curve. The outer ends of the bell curve just don't have much support to create robust third parties. Do the critics really want to see a Congress mixed with maoists, fascists, leninists, anarchists, statists, etc.? They'd bring some diversity, but for all the lip service paid to "American diversity", there isn't a district in the country whose citizens have that sort of extreme range. The two dominant parties have pretty big roofs of their own (lock Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders in a room with Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin, and I doubt more than two would get out alive), but they could be bigger. The bell curve isn't spread out quite as much as it could be, hence the development of two dominant parties, one center-left, the other center-right.

I'm not sure if the bell-curve you're describing is narrow because of the narrow concerns of most Americans, or because of the narrow range of viable options available to them. Few people who vote want to throw their vote away, as the saying goes, on a candidate who seems to have no chance of winning-- a cycle of perception becoming self-fulfilling prophesy. Couple that with the fact that few people know about candidates who don't have the money/backing to be in the media mainstream, and the field becomes even narrower.

I'm also not convinced that all alternate parties need be representative of the lunatic fringe of politics-- though those parties do get attention, if not support, on the basis of eccentricity.