Provocative, friendly thread on EVIL

wrath
41

Yeah, I’m aware of the National Popular Vote Bill - I mentioned it earlier :slight_smile: I guess if you can’t beat the system, subvert it.

To be honest (I recognize that as a Brit I could cause offence here and I’m not trying to) this is part of the problem I have with written constitutions - they’re inherently limiting and a drag on progress; obviously there are some benefits to having rights codified (although that means you don’t have a right to anything not listed), but I don’t really see why the best thoughts on how to run a newly independent 18th century country with less than 4 million people should necessarily represent the starting point for trying to run a major 21st century democracy.

The electoral college might have been a good idea at one time, but it’s an anacronism. I’m more than a little dubious about every state having two Senators regardless of population, too.

1 Like
42

To clarify, you’re saying that we should show up at the polls on election day, no matter where we live, even if our national vote won’t matter because our state and local level votes can still make a difference. It’s a better message than encouraging non-participation. By staying home, you give more power to those who either sincerely believe they’re not actually voting for a greater evil and those who vote for the greater evil out of spite.

1 Like
43

With a caveat. If you are in an area and state where your vote is as worthless as a snowball in Hell to all your causes, you can stay home. You and your affiliates already failed a long time before Election Day. But if on any of the issues, at any level, that your vote matters, then vote. Or if you’re Russell Brand, mouth off some more and stay home!!!

44

So, Cow, in the larger context I do agree with you somewhat, depending on the locale. And you probably agree with me, based on your statement that I put up front. Put your effort into where we can make a difference. The rest is just distraction.

Yes, I think we’re in agreement. I’ve consistently said that voting for a third party candidate is always ideal as long as is doesn’t end up ushering in more Republicans.

I also think if we analyze greater evil they often inadvertently tell us where their greatest weaknesses reside.

Obviously, voting matters. If it didn’t matter and status quo wouldn’t fear it and they’d never spend so much time, money and effort with the insidious, expert gerrymandering of districts, voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement.

Often when someone tells me that voting doesn’t matter to the current power structure and it’s useless, I point out those voter suppression facts and they never seem to have an answer for it. That’s because the answer is clear. Voting is still feared by the status quo in this country because of its potential to tilt the balance of power from the monied elite towards average Americans. A potential that, in my opinion, is getting frighteningly less and less viable as time goes on and voter suppression becomes increasingly enhanced and entrenched by Republican wins throughout the country.

Obviously, education matters. If it didn’t matter to the current power structure, there wouldn’t be such a concerted effort to distract the public from real news and information with worthless infotainment, corporatist right talking points and right wing propaganda. There wouldn’t be right wing radio stations being allowed to run at a loss by corporatists who see long-term profit via its indoctrination instead of from its advertising revenue.

Americans need to learn what the real problems are, who and what really causes the problems along with what can be done to solve or at least mitigate the problems. My fear is that before the Internet reaches a saturation point where it unseats or at least competes with the influence of television an radio media, the Republicans and bluedog Democrats will have already so solidly entrenched themselves that even educated, motivated voters will be powerless to unseat them due to gerrymandered districts and various forms of voter and third party candidate disenfranchisement.

That’s why I’m so intent on making sure that some core truths are learned by the American public:

  1. Voting really does matter. It’s vital.

  2. Voting for the lesser evil today is vital for future progress tomorrow. If people want a third party down the road, they’re shooting themselves in the foot by allowing a party known to have voter disenfranchisement down to a science take hold.

  3. Internet neutrality is vital. Without it, the Internet will become yet another corporatist vehicle for influence like we already see with television and radio today. Millions of Americans still need to be reached with information that offers an alternative to the corporatists talking points that’ve been drilled into their heads since birth. The Internet is a printing press for the masses, don’t let the corporatists take that away from us or further neuter it with Internet slow lanes.

  4. Educate each other on issues thorough the Internet while we still have it. Those who mock social media, etc. as vehicles for change are delusional or have nefarious intentions.

  5. Educate each other on issues offline. Those who think only online vehicles are needed aren’t seated in reality.

45

I think there’s an argument to be made that Republicans and even Democrats will shift further to the right when there’s low voter turnout. Republicans see that no one is turning out to the polls to support anyone on the left and they double down on right wing agendas. When a Democrat sees so little support at the polls, they may decide to shift right to try and pluck out some of the more moderate conservatives their way. The end result is everyone shifts right and that’s why, in my opinion, why were in that position today.

However, if Democrats see that there’s more numbers on the left, they tend to stick to their guns and instead focus on building their base and fighting a long-term strategy instead of giving up and going bluedog. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to tell the candidates on either said that you’ve given up entirely by not showing up to the polls. Even when it’s not going to result in a win, the influence matters, in my opinion.

The only advantage in a fearless Republican that sees very little support for the left with their jurisdictions is they sometimes keep going so far to the right that they start saying batshit insane stuff that draws ire nationally and damages the Republican brand.

Actually, if it wasn’t for their masterful gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement that helps keep their claws in office even as public opinion turns on them, I’d say that’s worth it in the long term. But, unfortunately, all we end up with is batshit far right politicians who are extremely difficult to remove from office.

46

We probably disagree here. If my vote is truly worthless, for example in very skewed races, or primaries where one candidate has it locked up, that means if you oppose the candidates/issues then you already lost long ago. Regroup, fight again another day. Isn’t that in your Art of War reference?

47

The Art of War certainly references conserving resources, etc. - But, I don’t think that staying home from the polls achieves that. The Art of War also references utilizing long term strategies, focusing on externalities and achieving goals where you can, even if they aren’t ideal.

It may not be ideal to have a Republican in office and voting against the Republican in a solidly red area won’t unseat that Republican, but as I said, it’s better to have a Republian that’s aware that there’s a leftist base (however small) that has a potential to grow. A potential threat, if you will, that one may not want to provoke into organizing and increasing its numbers.

If they don’t think the “bewildered herd” is watching them, they tend to lose all restraint. I’d rather have minimal restraint than no restraint at all when it comes to Republicans. We’ve already seen what they do when there’s not enough restraint and it’s disastrous in the short, middle and long term for everyone except the elitists few who cashes in.

And, once again, what better way to keep Democratic candidates from ever even bothering to try and build a base if the polls show that there’s no base whatsoever to begin with. A least a small contingency of leftist voters shows there’s potential to build from. If all the leftists stay home, it gives the illusion that they don’t exist at all and also tells other leftists that they’re all alone and cements apathy.

I don’t agree that votes are ever truly worthless when it comes to influence.

Even as horrible as Obama has been, there’s been one huge benefit that I wish more people on the left would realize. What Obama’s election showed is that there’s a huge amount of leftist voters in this country. Keep in mind that while Obama hasn’t later followed through on many of his pre-election promises, people did vote on those leftist promises (especially in his first election) and they voted in huge numbers that created two landslide victories. That shows us something critical – that the votes are truly there for a left-leaning administration if enough people become informed of it and come to understand that their votes really do count.

The mission now is to find another candidate that not only promises a leftist agenda, but also follows through on it. The mission now is to also shift the congress to the left, so Democrats and/or Independents, etc. can’t use Republican obstructionism as an excuse for inaction either.

The votes from the left are there if we’d just bother to look at recent history. I can only imagine how many more are out there, but didn’t bother to vote because they errantly think their district is “too red” and never bother to show up at the polls.

That kind of strategy, to me, follows very accurately under the guidelines laid out within The Art of War.

1 Like
48

Is the National Popular Vote bill something that Republicans fear and therefore will thwart at every turn?

For example:

I think a lot of Republicans prefer things like unethical gerrymandering along with heapings of voter disenfranchisement and suppression as apposed to something like this.

In other words, will Republicans support this and, if not, can we do this without much of their support?

49

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

By state (Electoral College votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

Alaska (3) – 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
Arkansas (6) – 71% ®,  79% (Independents).
California (55) – 61% ®,  74% (I)
Colorado (9) – 56% ®,  70% (I).
Connecticut (7) – 67% ®
Delaware (3) – 69% ®,  76% (I)
DC (3) – 48% ®,  74% of (I)
Florida (29) – 68% ®
Idaho(4) - 75% ®
Iowa (6) – 63% ®
Kentucky (8) – 71% ®,  70% (I)
Maine (4) - 70% ®                                        
Massachusetts (11) – 54% ®
Michigan (16) – 68% ®,  73% (I)
Minnesota (10) – 69% ®
Montana (3)- 67% ®
Mississippi (6) – 75% ®
Nebraska (5) – 70% ®
Nevada (5) – 66% ®
New Hampshire (4) – 57% ®,  69% (I)
New Mexico (5) – 64% ®,  68% (I)
New York (29) - 66% ®, 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
North Carolina (15) – 89% liberal ®, 62% moderate ® , 70% conservative ®,  80% (I)
Ohio (18) – 65% ®
Oklahoma (7) – 75% ®
Oregon (7) – 70% ®,  72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20) – 68% ®,  76% (I)
Rhode Island (4) – 71% liberal ®, 63% moderate ®, 35% conservative ®,  78% (I),
South Carolina (8) – 64% ®
South Dakota (3) – 67% ®
Tennessee (11) – 73% ®
Utah (6) – 66% ®
Vermont (3) – 61% ®
Virginia (13) – 76% liberal ®, 63% moderate ®, 54% conservative ®
Washington (12) – 65% ®
West Virginia (5) – 75% ®
Wisconsin (10) – 63% ®,  67% (I)
Wyoming (3) –66% ®, 72% (I)
NationalPopularVote

2 Likes
50

From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to  Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie.  Republicans
have done very well in the national popular vote.

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.   It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.

On March 25, in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2;
Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party
of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans
endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

In May 2011, Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in “National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans:” "I
strongly support National Popular Vote.   It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America.    National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.

It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States [that then existed in 2011].

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans.  . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . .  We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar
(R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt
Gingrich (R–GA)

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson,

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State
 
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:“A Conservative Case for National
Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote” http://www.every-vote-equal.com/  include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly.  He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010.  He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

4 Likes
51

Based on the current mix of states that have enacted the National Popular Vote compact, it could take about 25 states to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the compact.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral
votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North
Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado
(9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

4 Likes
52

Hm. Deja Vu. And I don’t feel like Vuing that one again.

And yet it is a provocative friendly thread on evil …

Studies have shown that using conservative styled language to “inoculate” your audience so they’ll accept leftist ideals is actually counter productive. They, instead, hew closer to conservative ideas when you do that (e.g. not only is there no value in calling undocumented workers “illegal immigrants,” it actually encourages people to take even harsher stances on undocumented workers). I believe this holds true in a larger sense.

As I have Vued before, centrism has cost the Dems more ground than it has ever won them. Swinging hard left (actually, in my case, simply not pretending to be a Democrat (I am a socialist and the Democrats are not nor are they compatible … though we can occasionally be allies such as the Seattle $15/hr fight)) is the only way to teach them to stand their ground, take a firm position on something, and start fighting for victory instead of fighting for slightly-less-terrible versions of defeat.

Though, to be honest, I shouldn’t have this argument with you. You’re a fully convinced Democrat and I’m a fully convinced Socialist. The most we can hope to agree on for this subject between the two of us is that the Republican party is terrible and that $15/hr is an improvement.

53

Studies have shown that using conservative styled language to “inoculate” your audience so they’ll accept leftist ideals is actually counter productive. They, instead, hew closer to conservative ideas when you do that (e.g. not only is there no value in calling undocumented workers “illegal immigrants,” it actually encourages people to take even harsher stances on undocumented workers). I believe this holds true in a larger sense.

I’m not sure I understand your point in regards to how that relates to my post (or strategies) specifically, but I’d like you to further explain it to me because it sounds interesting and it may be something I very well need to utilize.

As I have Vued before, centrism has cost the Dems more ground than it has ever won them.

I agree. I think if Obama had stuck to at least trying for things he promised before he was elected, the Democratic party would have a much stronger, more supportive base right now. Instead, there’s quite a lot of disillusionment with Obama and his party from the left.

Obama ran on a fairly left-wing platform (by Democrat standards, anyway) on some issues and that’s what people voted for. Despite the tremendous amount of Republican filibusters, we still can’t put all of the blame on Republican obstructionism. There were things that Obama should and could have stood for at least on principle that he far too easily caved on or didn’t even try.

Status quo, bluedog Democrats and DINOs love it when they can both appease their corporatist right masters and pander to their constituents at the same time by being in a position to lamely blame Republicans for their actions and inactions.

Though, to be honest, I shouldn’t have this argument with you. You’re a fully convinced Democrat and I’m a fully convinced Socialist.

I’m not surprised you may think I’m a Democrat if you haven’t read my previous posts on this topic in other threads and I apologize for not being more clear within this one. The “corporatist right” I mentioned in my reply to you consists of most Democrats (with very few exceptions) and all Republicans (with no exceptions).

I’m not a “fully convinced” anything as my positions are subject to change as new, valid information is brought to me. I’m also not a Democrat. I’m far too socialist to be a filthy Democrat. :smiley: I would be absolutely thrilled to see someone like Bernie Sanders beat the pantsuits off Hillary Clinton for the presidency, for example.

I’m talking about long-term strategies. The point of my post is hacking the current power structure to make it possible to usher in third parties in the future.

I’d love to see something like a socialist third party or candidate put into place within the USA, but we must clear, overcome, side-step, mitigate and prevent obstacles (see Advantages of the corporatist right) to make that an attainable, realistic possibility.

Ushering in more Republicans that have rampant district gerrymandering, voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement down to a science won’t pave the way for third party penetration – it’ll put up nothing but more insurmountable road blocks. Among other reasons (gay rights, women’s rights, a bit less warhawkey overall, etc.) that’s why I want Democrats in power instead of Republicans. With Democrats there’s a crack in the door for third party penetration down the road – with Republicans that door is nailed shut.

The realities (I listed in ‘Advantages of the corporatist right’) aren’t insurmountable in the long term, but they are very real obstacles that any leftist third party (socialist or otherwise) will have to address now before any practical, successful attack upon the current power structure can be made in the future.

We need to attack the weakest links within the corporatist right and that weakest link is currently the Democrats. Democrats are the youngest, weakest wildebeest within our political Serengeti and that’s who we take down first. Otherwise, we keep entrenching and strengthening the current corporatist power structure by falling for false equivalence and ushering in more Republicans.

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War strongly emphasizes the use of flanking, although it does not advocate completely surrounding the enemy force as this may induce the enemy force to fight with greater ferocity.

If you haven’t recently read The Art of War, I strongly suggest it. The PDF links are within my first reply to you at the bottom of my post.

If you know of a better, faster strategy to overcome the corporatist right and/or disagree with some or all of the details within my list of advantages of the corporatist right, I’d sincerely like to discuss them with you. I’m always looking for suggestions for a better way.

The most we can hope to agree on for this subject between the two of us is that the Republican party is terrible and that $15/hr is an improvement.

I hope this post dissuaded you of that. :slight_smile:

1 Like
54

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans

Very excellent. Thank you for the details. I think I forgot the Republicans’ keen ability to see what they want to see especially when things get complex and they embrace faith over facts.

In relevant, modern history, higher turnout in presidential elections most often favors Democrats. But one has to look closely at the numbers, the timing and also analyze events surrounding the elections of the last 50 years to see it properly.

From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to

I think going back to 1932 is too far considering how the two parties have changed so much and even practically interchanged with each other within that time period. I think it’s more practical to look at the last 50 years or so after the two parties more stabilized and entrenched their differing positions and base.

Nonetheless, if Republicans want to believe that a popular vote will work in their favor in presidential elections in 2016 and beyond, I certainly wouldn’t want them to believe otherwise and stop the process of enacting it. :smile:

55

What I’m not seeing is your wisdom on targeting.

This is one of my favorite quotes from the Art of War, and I’m really glad you posted that annotated version. It’s really great to have all those notes in with the text, even if it isn’t translated in the most catchy English.

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”

[The first line of chapter 4, from a better translated source.]

As I see it, those smaller battles are not where the effort needs to go. I hear you saying, in effect, “No, give it a good showing! If our numbers dwindle in lesser fights, the Republicans will take it as carte blanche to rage all the harder.”

C’mahn. Republicans don’t need a Democratic defeat of 20 points vs. 2 points to ragefest. They are crazy rageful to begin with and it doesn’t matter what the margin is.

I see these lesser races as lost long before election day for a reason: the Dem in that area failed to motivate voters, because you are correct in your observation that there are far more D voters than R. The trick is to motivate them.

I think a better strategy than across-the-board get-out-the-vote is a highly tactical get-out-the-vote.

  1. Draw a color-coded map of the country.
  2. All the purple precincts need to be turned blue.
  3. All the blue ones kept blue.
  4. All the red ones watched very closely for an R misstep and then pounce on the ones where that’s the case.
    4b. Make a plan so that we can pounce effectively if pouncage is needed. Don’t leave it up to a chance one-off tactic: “oh shit we need to suddenly pounce! What do we do?”
  5. Leave the rest alone to natural causes. Sometimes viable blue candidates percolate up by nature’s way. If one does, pounce on that, too, with a pre-made set of tactics.
  6. Try to anticipate which places will be targeted by the Reds for flipping, why that might be, and divert some resources there.

If resources were unlimited, I’d say pour ping-pong balls over the entire country and just keep pouring, pouring, pouring until election day. But we can’t do that, so we have to play smarter than we have been.

Strategy.jpg800×600 101 KB

Take Hillary, for instance. She has been non-stop campaigning for the last year. Jesus, what a waste. This is the old-school blanket-the-nation strategy again. This is not targeted, tactical campaigning. You can’t blitz the nation in a sustained way for two years. You’ll fuck up and she already has fucked up. Or people will manufacture a fuck-up just because. She needs to read the Art of War.

56

Yes, they do that; it’s a different mindset than the liberal/socialist mindset. I think they are in favor of NPV because they know they have the media locked up. The media as it currently exists.

I would love to see NPV become de rigeur. And then make them regret their mistake forever. I would love to see this nation become mostly liberal/socialist in outlook with only occasional conservativisms creeping in. Rather than mostly puritanical/conservative with a Hollywood liberal countercurrent that bite and gnash at each other.

How would we do that, if they have the media locked up? Change the medium. Strive to make the Internet the mainstream media of choice and leave print and TV in the dust. And when they screw up net neutrality, we need alternative internetworks that aren’t delivered by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.

57

National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots volunteers committed to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who earns the most votes in all fifty states.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls: : AK – 70%,  AR – 80%, AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CO – 68%, CT – 74%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, ID – 77%, KY- 80%, MA – 73%, ME – 77%, MI – 73%, MN – 75%, MO – 70%, MS – 77%, MT – 72%, NC – 74%, NE
74%,  NH – 69%, NM– 76%,  NV – 72%, NY – 79%,  OH – 70%, OK – 81%, OR – 76%, PA – 78%, RI – 74%, SC – 71%, SD – 71%, TN – 83%, UT – 70%, VA – 74%, VT – 75%, WA – 77%, WI – 71%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%.

Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow
this in any other election in our representative republic.

NationalPopularVote

1 Like
58

I think doing targeted campaigning is playing into the hands of the corporatists just as much as adopting their language. When things change - and I think they will - it will probably because someone has a broad message that appeals to a large number of people and then actually implements that when they are in power. The New Deal wasn’t struck on the back of a carefully targeted campaign, it was on a broad mandate from people who wanted to see their government working for them. One day widespread cynicism will turn into “I guess we should try something else,” so people have to be there when that happens.

I love the sound of this. Subversion tastes so sweet.

Having just read The Authoritarians thanks to some other BB posters, I was a little bit amazed to see how much evidence had been collected to back up this thinking. I had assumed that while there were unreasoning followers of the right, there were probably just as many on the left but I tended to not perceive them as often. Basically I figured I had my own biases that blinded me to how much rationalizing the people who agreed with me were doing.

Turns out that’s not really the case. There really are considerably more people supporting right wing parties who will do what they are told and forgive their leaders of any misdoing. But this is even more true in three party systems. In Canada the correlation between Conservative voters and authoritarian followers was absurdly high. Basically the more parties there are the more places thinking people have to go. But people who are just looking for a strong (amoral, psychotic) person to tell them what to do will still be able to flock together. Those do-what-they-are-told types are also going to get out the vote.

In Canada’s last national election the Conservative party got 24% of the population to vote for them. That translates into complete autocratic control of the country by their leader for four years thanks to the wonderful first-past-the-post system (and the fact that we are governed by a single legislative body with no elected senate or executive).

And this is why it is important to vote. Authoritarian followers have been mobilized into a voting block by political religious figures. They have a base of followers that are extremely hard to shake and that are extremely likely to vote. We can’t avoid drinking the poison, so we have to dilute the solution as much as possible. I had always thought that Conservatives were anti-voting, but I didn’t completely understand how it benefited them.

Plus, after doing a bunch of math on Canadian elections, I have realized that electoral results only tend to resemble the past until they don’t, and that could happen any time. Don’t think, "It’s a waste of time to vote because my district always goes the same way, " think, “Maybe this is the election where something unexpected happens.” I understand it’s different in the US again, because you guys seem to have much more accurate polling data. Still, we know it’s not always right.

59

I propose a bitvoting standard.
The weight of one’s vote is proportional to how many bitvotes one has mined (or purchased, if so inclined).
It’s exactly the same as the current model, but gets rid of those dirty greenbacks.

2 Likes
60

Har har. Also, we need actual karma taken into account. We can do it by snooping phones and email.

1 Like