Operation Occupy Wall Street

[Timex]

You can't solely blame the electorate when the politicians are influenced by the same thing.

Sure you can, because those politicians are elected by those people.

That's the thing... the idea of a revolution is absurd, when the people already have ALL of the power to simply elect different people. But they choose not to take those steps.

[jason]

The people have the power to elect different people, sure. But when Option B isn't much different than Option A, you realize that different isn't always better. I do think that OWS should be advocating a vote against incumbency, regardless of party. Turn over all the seats they can and let the people who weren't up for re-election or managed to survive know that it can and will happen again.

I do hope that in a couple weeks, all those people occupying all these places take a little time out of their day and vote, if they haven't cast absentee ballots already.

[mrmolecule88]

He's right! In the next election, I will vote for the names with "incorruptible" next to them. Clearly, it is within my grasp! I throw myself upon the mercy of the American People. Forgive me, righteous chevaliers of justice.

[Timex]

Believe it or not, you actually CAN vote for more than options A or B.

[jason]

When I go to the polls, the electronic ballot only allows for the following options:
1) vote for a listed candidate (of which there are usually 2, but sometimes more).
2) don't vote

When I said Option A and Option B before, I wasn't being literal and mapping to a two party system of Democrats and Republicans, even though in many cases those are the only options on the ballot. I was making a generic remark of Option A being the person currently in office, and Option B being any person on the ballot not currently holding the office.

Being 3rd party doesn't make you immune to the corruption we see in both of the major parties. It just means that so far the corporations likely haven't tried bribing you yet because buying single votes is more expensive than buying your way into the party line. If you get enough of any 3rd party in office that they form a significant block of votes, the corporations will start treating them like they matter and buying their votes too.

[Timex]

When I go to the polls, the electronic ballot only allows for the following options:
1) vote for a listed candidate (of which there are usually 2, but sometimes more).

Hmm.. I don't think that's likely.

Even electronic voting machines include an option for write-in votes. I've actually used that feature in the past.

If you get enough of any 3rd party in office that they form a significant block of votes, the corporations will start treating them like they matter and buying their votes too.

And then.... you vote them out of office.

I realize that it's not likely that the electorate will suddenly get educated, but ultimately that's the problem. The kind of influence held by corporations depends upon voters being swayed by shiny things and flashing lights.

[jason]

Don't know what to say, other than when I voted the last couple or three years with electronic ballots, I had no write-in option. I would have loved one. If it existed, it was some sort of Konami code secret they didn't bother to share.

[Timex]

Don't know what to say, other than when I voted the last couple or three years with electronic ballots, I had no write-in option. I would have loved one. If it existed, it was some sort of Konami code secret they didn't bother to share.

I'm pretty sure they're legally required to have the option, so it's on there somewhere.

In my case, it was just a button on the screen that you hit, that brought up a virtual keyboard that let you enter in shitb0nerz or whatever you wanted.

[KWhit]

Great plan, Timex.

If the people want a change, they should just write in a candidate's name that they'd like to see in office and ta-da!

And miraculously that person will win, right? Because the people will all magically pick the same name, even though the candidate didn't advertise or anything like that. I mean, money doesn't matter in politics, amirite?

[Lorini]

The simple answer is that marketing is very very powerful which is why corps spend billions doing it, both to consumers and to voters. Same thing for politicians, the marketing is where the votes are at, not rational thinking.

[The Mad Hatter]

The mainstream media is suggesting that if nothing else winter weather will force the protesters out of Wall Street in the next couple of months. God knows it will do that here in Canada - I can just imagine shivering on Bay Street in Toronto when it's -25 celcius.

[Murbella]

I was under the impression one of the major parties was actively pursuing an agenda sabotaging the public education system so educating voters isn't really an answer to the current problem.

Voting out incumbents does nothing. I really hate to use this line as I don't like it, but don't hate the player, hate the game. You vote out politician X and he or she is replaced by politician Y who is exactly the same. If you vote out politician Y, they are placed by politician Z who is exactly the same.

In the worst case scenario you get something like with the tea party where you don't get the same, you get someone INSANE (but not insane enough not to be corrupt like the rest). These insane politicians than start believing that because you voted out Politician X, you fully support their insane agenda of worshiping Cthulhu and thus become a huge threat. The man who thinks he is righteous is the most dangerous because he knows everything he does is right.

[Jibble]

Yes, legally that's pretty much all they can buy.

Oh, well, that seals it. We all know there's no dirty money in politics.

Now, some of the stuff you suggest here is simply illegal, or minimally banned by the supposed code of ethics.

And I'm sure someone will get a very sternly worded letter every time it happens.

Look, my entire point was that saying money can only buy ads is ludicrous. Money can buy lots of things. It can buy cable channels. It can buy newspapers. It can buy think tanks. It can be used to groom candidates before an election starts. "It can't buy a vote" is simply a nonsensical distinction you're putting out there to pretend that all of the rest of this doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

Since people don't, all of the suggestions for "fixing" the system are pissing in the wind, because you're ignoring the fundamental issue at the core of everything... which is an uneducated and apathetic electorate.

I always love the excuse that the problem is that everyone else is stupid. It can't have anything to do with money, because money can't do anything. People are just dumb. That's all it is.

[Timex]

I always love the excuse that the problem is that everyone else is stupid. It can't have anything to do with money, because money can't do anything. People are just dumb. That's all it is.

If your voting is decided by whoever shows you the flashiest commercials... then.. ya, that kind of IS what it is.

If the problem is that the electorate is easily swayed by misleading campaign ads, then the solution isn't to try and make less campaign ads. Why? Because the people trying to influence the electorate will just find some other avenue to achieve those ends.

For instance, on these boards we have a fairly large majority who believes that Fox News is essentially a propaganda tool for the right wing. They aren't funded by campaign contributions. They'll still influence an electorate which doesn't exert any effort to find something akin to the truth on their own.

Imagine, for a moment, that you suddenly banned 100% of private money from politics. Campaigns become limited to only public funds, with everyone getting exactly the same amount of money for their campaigns.

You just dramatically increased the power of media organizations by Fox News. They (and their contributors) can basically spend infinite dollars to say whatever they want about any candidate, and those candidates are limited in what they can spend in response. Certainly that isn't an outcome that you would want.

[mrmolecule88]

Chicago police doing what they do best. Or not. I don't live in Chicago.

Also, apparently a Maine protest was bombed? Nobody was hurt, and I doubt it was more than a little firework, but really? Like, seriously? I suppose we should be thankful the Tea Partiers haven't decided to start wearing grenades to rallies, as opposed to assault rifles. (Although the phallic irony is, as they say, delicious).

[Jason McCullough]

You just dramatically increased the power of media organizations by Fox News. They (and their contributors) can basically spend infinite dollars to say whatever they want about any candidate, and those candidates are limited in what they can spend in response. Certainly that isn't an outcome that you would want.

This was historically the case before the rise of television; newspapers were incredibly influential. Parties and factions almost as a rule had their own newspapers. Fox is a throwback to that era.

They aren't funded by campaign contributions.

It depends on how you look at it. I'd say they're funded by Rupert Murdoch as a decades-long influence buying project.

[Dawn Falcon]

And now for something completely different. Fox (guest) Op-ed, and not what you might expect.

Here too;

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/10...ed-against-us/

(reporting what was said on BBC Radio 4)

[lesslucid]

Has this already been linked here?
http://www.alternet.org/story/152811...t_?page=entire

Not great writing but putting those graphs together tells a pretty clear story. First one - on the relationship between productivity of labour and wages over time - is especially important, I think.

[Zane0]

So, again... those corporations aren't putting those people into power. They don't have that ability. They cannot buy the election of anyone. They can only buy attempts to influence the electorate.

Now, some of the stuff you suggest here is simply illegal, or minimally banned by the supposed code of ethics.

The answer to this stuff is to... simply not elect those people. But that's presumably impossible?

Look at Charlie Rangel, for instance... Somehow that guy is still in office. Not because the corporations which gave him mountains of money made it so.. but because people went out and voted for him to be there. The fault is on them, not on the corporations.

I understand why such things are necessary.. mainly because voters in the US are incredibly apathetic. But that's our own fault. You shouldn't need a GOTV effort to come and drag you to the polls. You should go to the polls because you actually care what's going on in your country.

Since people don't, all of the suggestions for "fixing" the system are pissing in the wind, because you're ignoring the fundamental issue at the core of everything... which is an uneducated and apathetic electorate.

When the voters can be won by tv commercials, then the election will be decided by who can run the most commercials. But that's not how it needs to be. It's just how it is. If the electorate were not so easily swayed by people jingling shiny objects in front of them, then much of this corporate influence would be expunged from the political scene.. and if the electorate cannot change, then frankly, we get what we deserve.

You've conflated volitional moral blame with the way people have always behaved - as a more or less pliable mass with a limited ambit of rational decision making and a lot of inculturated beliefs. This isn't the end of the world (see: history and sociology). In fact, good political change has always been effected in spite of this (example: collective action to destroy an institutional complex of behavior - several cases readily spring to mind). It seems you've taken an ultimately nihilistic reading of public life - whatever happens, the people are to blame. I feel you should reconsider these assumptions if only for your own sake.

[briankoontz]

Believe it or not, you actually CAN vote for more than options A or B.

Sure, but so what? Technically, the only time a vote matters is when it makes the difference between a candidate winning and losing.

Who cares if I vote for someone to give him 100 votes instead of 99, and he loses by a million votes? All I did in effect was to waste time and money voting.

Of course I could organize people and with dozens of hours of work get maybe 100 people to vote for the guy, so then he gets 200 votes and still loses by 999,900 votes.

In which case now I've wasted LOTS of time and money.

Given this reality, it's logical for people to vote for crappy candidate A or slightly less crappy candidate B in the sense that their vote might result in a slightly less crappy politician.

It's certainly possible to change this reality entirely, but it takes dozens of hours of work from possibly millions of people, the kind of thing that the occupy movements can result in, not the words of Timex or Brian Koontz.

[ShivaX]

I realize that it's not likely that the electorate will suddenly get educated, but ultimately that's the problem. The kind of influence held by corporations depends upon voters being swayed by shiny things and flashing lights.

We need more critical thinking in schools.

/cuts education funding for the 100th time

[Murbella]

We need more critical thinking in schools.

/cuts education funding for the 100th time

Don't forget to remove mention of subjects of questionable morality, such as evolution, homosexuality and non-American religions.

[Hanacker]

Sure, but so what? Technically, the only time a vote matters is when it makes the difference between a candidate winning and losing.

Who cares if I vote for someone to give him 100 votes instead of 99, and he loses by a million votes? All I did in effect was to waste time and money voting.

Why is it not a waste to vote for Candidate B so he beats (or loses to) Candidate A by 40,056 votes instead of 40,055?

[Lum]

Occupy Stormwind!

Been done.



(Technically, Ironforge, but same concept.)

[Damien Falgoust]

Actual quote from a libertarian friend: "The point is the tea party and occupy people make up about 85% of the public who believe our government is completely corrupt, the big question is, if you know that government is corrupt and usually gets corrupted... why would you want more of it?"

Which, of course, completely ignores the fact that the corruption existing between Washington and Wall Street works to keep government away from the financial sector by stymieing all efforts at meaningful regulation. In short, it's corruption that keeps government small, at least within the financial sector. Sheesh.

I get that he'll never, ever support OWS or more regulation, but how hard is it to at least try to understand the argument your political opposites are making?

[Jason McCullough]

Sure, but so what? Technically, the only time a vote matters is when it makes the difference between a candidate winning and losing.

Who cares if I vote for someone to give him 100 votes instead of 99, and he loses by a million votes? All I did in effect was to waste time and money voting.

This is what I thought for a while, but then I read someone pointing out that the calculation changes completely if you think voting for the right candidate benefits others. Amount the right winner improves peoples lives (very small) * number of people (very large) * chance of deciding vote (very small) gives you a substantial net positive.

[mrmolecule88]

Tea Party Candidate wants less government, more corporate monies.

I'm not angry. No, my eye twitches like this all the time.

[Lum]

Weyland/Yutani 2012!

[Jibble]

Why is it not a waste to vote for Candidate B so he beats (or loses to) Candidate A by 40,056 votes instead of 40,055?

Because putting your money on red or black results in a lower chance of you losing than if you put it on 00. Also, in politics the 00 slot is in a narrow alley three miles from the roulette wheel.

Sure, it makes a lot more sense not to step up to the table at all, but if you must...

[GatInDaHat]

You've conflated volitional moral blame with the way people have always behaved - as a more or less pliable mass with a limited ambit of rational decision making and a lot of inculturated beliefs. This isn't the end of the world (see: history and sociology). In fact, good political change has always been effected in spite of this (example: collective action to destroy an institutional complex of behavior - several cases readily spring to mind). It seems you've taken an ultimately nihilistic reading of public life - whatever happens, the people are to blame. I feel you should reconsider these assumptions if only for your own sake.

this is so awesome.. i'd love to watch you actually speak this passage