Here's the ONLY way to take back America from the 1%. VOTE.

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/heres-the-only-way-to-take-back-america-from-the-corrupt-and-powerful-vote/

The link below takes you to a research study that proves what we already know in our guts: rich motherf***ers have bought our government and are using it to steal the rest of us blind. And they can do it because so few Americans vote. Here’s the money quote:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association,and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policy making is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

(Emphasis mine)

The reason this happens, Gentle Reader, is because the 1% have no competition for the attention of our “representatives”. Since the majority of eligible voters do not vote, the Governors, Delegates, Congresscritters and Senators around the country do not fear our disapproval. But they DO fear the wrath of the rich who have bought them.

The only way to change this dynamic is to rise up as one (“e pluribus unum”) and exercise our constitutional rights by voting. When millions of us cast the loathsome wretches out of office, and do so time and again, they’ll respond.

It takes each of us a few hours, twice a year, to vote. It costs the 1% billions of dollars to purchase and maintain their control of our nation. We can earn an enormous return on a tiny investment if we all just take a few minutes and make the investment.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[Autumn]

1. What sucks is that the ones we vote for have been bought by the 1%.

So we end up voting FOR members of the 1%

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. NO the ones WE vote for are NOT owned by the Koch Bros and Big Oil....

they are NOT all owned. That is a bullshit meme that needs to stop NOW. We have Midterms...

[Autumn]

3. Yeah right

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. Yeah Right.....

When are you going to put your hat in? I keep suggesting that those that think it is just SOOO easy and cheap to get elected to prove it by running for office themselves....

The Koch bros are going to buy local elections like School Board now....

[Autumn]

5. Can I vote for you??? Donate to your campaign?? I'm sure you are running

for something, at least your hat is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. I am not running....I vote for Democrats...

I don't need to run and I have nothing to prove. I hang around Democratic Underground and I happen to like the Democrats...

You however....

[Autumn]

7. Cool. As soon as I find a medal I will be sure and send it to you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. I don't need medals or Heroes and or Saints...

or sparkle ponies either....

[Autumn]

9. Of course you don't. You got all that.

Seriously, you were amusing for a bit but I'm bored now so I do hope you have a wonderful day!!!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. I don't have any of them.....nor did I expect them...

but you keep wishing in one hand.....as my grandmother used to say.

A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush!

[oneofthe99]

52. If they voted for this then they don't get my vote

This is how I determine my votes.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/article_redirect.cfm?ID=7170

[riqster]

24. That sort of thinking depresses the vote.

Counterproductive.

[Autumn]

25. I am all powerful! I control the vote with my thoughts

by posting them on an anonymous message board. Seriously if what I say has an impact on someone not voting then maybe they are too stupid to vote, like republican stupid. I don't know of one Democrat who would stay home because they have a problem with the process, would you stay home and not vote because someone says that there is too much money in the pockets of the politicians put there by corporations?

[riqster]

30. So, if your words have no impact, why do you post?

[Autumn]

31. Because it's a message board and I have found I like a lot of the posters here

that are liberal like minded people. I also like the fact that one can learn a lot here. Are you going to stay home and not vote because I said the ones we get to vote for are bought by the 1% , which by the way the article does touch on in some ways? Here's a couple of snippets.

"Our findings also point toward the need to learn more about exactly which economic
elites (the “merely affluent”? the top 1%? the top 0.01%?) have how much impact upon public
policy, and to what ends they wield their influence. Similar questions arise about the precise
extent of influence of particular sets of organized interest groups."


( I just really liked this)

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analysis suggest that majorities of the American public actually
have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features
central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association,
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated
by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s
claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

[Loudly]

11. Vote for those who are willing to take the pledge to support The Amendment:

It shall not be an infringement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for Congress to limit by law the raising and expenditure of money in public elections.

[mucifer]

12. Better Idea Join Wolf-Pac to overturn citizen's united:

Our Ultimate Goal:

To restore true, representative democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country. There are only 2 ways to amend the Constitution. (1) Go through our federal government (2) Go through our State Legislators via an amendments convention of the states.

Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our federal government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money. We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a sufficient measure to solve this problem. We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money and might actually do what 87% of the country wants...take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[theaocp]

61. ^^^THIS^^^

Getting money out of politics isn't a great thing; IT'S THE ONLY THING. We keep the system the way it is and the money will ALWAYS win, no matter how fucking much you happen to admire Hillary or whomthefuckeverelse. They work for who pays their bills and we. do. not. matter. Get the fucking money out and stop patting yourself on the back because you're a democrat. www.wolf-pac.com

[Bluenorthwest]

13. It takes you a few hours to vote? Why? Do you live in the 19th century?

Plus, if the only thing you can think of doing to make change is casting a vote, why the fuck do you write about so many subjects? You must see that as another method of working for change.
Voting is one aspect, but far from the only method of making change. What you advocate is apathy with intermittent vote showers.

[jwirr]

14. I agree but want to add. They are telling us we are an oligarchy and if that is true then we need to

vote carefully to be as sure as we can that our candidate is going to be the best damn oligarchy that can exist. In other words if I am to be ruled by others then I want those others to side with the people as much as possible.

In college in the 70s we were told that this country has always been ruled by an oligarchy. How did we manage to get this oligarchy to give us the 70s where we considered the needs of all the people and not just the few? Be very careful who you vote for.

[JayhawkSD]

15. HEY, READ WHAT RIGSTER WROTE.

"When millions of us cast the loathsome wretches out of office."

Those are very powerful words, and what is the first reply? "...the ones we vote for have been bought by the 1%." Of course they have if you are voting for the incumbents, so don't vote for the incumbents. Vote in the primaries and vote for the challengers who have not been bought by anyone.

Only 20% of us vote in primaries, and so challengers never have a chance. If all of us voted in primaries, as rigster so brilliantly suggests, and we voted for challengers, we could "cast the loathsome wretches out of office."

We don't need any constitutional amendments, we just need to do our constitutional duty, need to use the power the constitution gives us instead of sitting home on primary election day and then whining about how damned unfair it is that rich people have bought the legislators that we were too lazy to vote out of office.

[starroute]

18. And when challengers do win the primaries, the party doesn't support them

The oligarchs are just one part of the problem. Another is that the national parties are run by a bunch of fat lazy bureaucrats who would rather protect their own asses than allow any chance of insurgents taking over and upsetting the gravy train.

The Republican Party establishment has actually been shaken up lately by the fact that the Tea Partiers don't give a damn about them -- not that this is any use to us, except for the amusement value, since the Kochs control the Tea Parties.

But the Democratic establishment is thoroughly entrenched and nobody is seriously speaking out against it. They push Blue Dog candidates when they can, torpedo anybody who runs against them -- and on the rare occasions that a more progressive candidate wins a primary, they quietly withdraw funding, visits by national figures, and any other kind of support.

There are just a very few Congressional districts that are so thoroughly Democratic that an insurgent candidate can win both the primary and the general. And you're never going to take the country back with just that handful.

[riqster]

38. We get that shit in Ohio.

And pretty much work around the party.

[JayhawkSD]

46. Who cares who the party supports?

That's the damned problem. We leave it up to the party. We don't vote for people, we vote for the letter after their name.

Vote with your brain, not based on "who the party supports." THROW THE INCUMBENTS OUT, even though the party supports them.

Get some guy who has ideals and tell him "screw the party, we'll support you" and then go to work and support him.

[Autumn]

27. I have voted in every election in my adult life, have not sat out a single one.

It used to work, now we vote for what they allow us to vote for. The monied 1%. They don't get in office on the fifty bucks they get from us so who do you think they are going to represent? Pretty much what the article said. "...the ones we vote for have been bought by the 1%."

[JayhawkSD]

44. There are no challengers in your state?

Your state doesn't hold primary elections? No one ever challenges the incumbents? Wierd state.

[Bjorn Against]

16. Voting is very important, but it is not the only way to take back America

Grassroots activism is even more important than voting, your vote does have a small impact and it is very important that people get out and vote but I also think it is important to recognize that voting only does so much to bring about change. In order to bring real change people need to do more than vote, they need to get involved.

Voting can get us the better of the two candidates, and make no mistake about it that can make a very important difference, but our votes only give the person we vote for a say in what happens they don't really give us a real say. If we want to have a real say we need to realize that there is one thing even more effective than voting and that is citizen activism.

[riqster]

39. Citizen activism and GOTV are not mutually exclusive.

And I'd say that we need to vote in the best candidate, and then stay on their asses.

[Bjorn Against]

48. I never suggested they were mutually exclusive

[riqster]

49. Sorry, my error.

Must have taken the wrong impression from your post. No offense meant.

[99Forever]

17. I always vote. Every time.

Almost always only to be forgotten until the next go around of false promises and outright lies. Then, all of a sudden they pretend they are listening to us.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[riqster]

40. Applause. Voting is important. Getting others to the polls is good too.

The problem isn't so much activists, it's the apathetic masses. If we can get more dem voters to polls, we can drive our agenda.

[JayhawkSD]

45. Okay, so I wasn't talking to you.

I was talking to several hundred million other people who don't vote in primary elections.

[Stuart G]

19. Voting...the difference between peace...and war...an example:

In 1960, Illinois was the crucial state in the Presidential election. Kennedy won Illinois by a few thousand votes. I recall the difference was about 1 in 500.. If Nixon would have won, how would that asshole handled the Cuban missile crises.?...What do you think..??

[merrily]

28. The reason the crisis is studied is that Kennedy's reaction was so unusual for both parties.

Wilson was a Democrat. So was FDR. So was Truman. So was Johnson. None of them took JFK's route. And several years into the Obama administration, we're still in Afghanistan. We also tried to stay in Iraq beyond the date Bush had negotiated for our withdrawal. There was also Libya. And there's still drone killing.

I'm all for voting, but let's be realistic.

[treestar]

20. Highly recd

How can not voting be described any other way than shooting self in foot? It is not the way to get what we want.

[Progressive dog]

21. K&R--That does make sense to people who

don't believe that Obama and Bush are equivalent.

[Jamaal510]

22. The GOP pushing for voter suppression laws

has made that pretty obvious.

[riqster]

23. True. But we still have lots of Americans who preach apathy.

Obvious isn't very, these days.

[merrily]

26. I'm all for voting, but that is not how you take the country back from the 1%.

Who do you think is in Congress?

[Louisiana1976]

29. Well said.

[riqster]

33. That is surrender, to assume thus.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Lemme see some facts

My own delegation includes number one net worth and number six net worth in Congress.

I guess they are not part if the 1% and they are not voting to protect their position in society. Excuse me while I barf in the corner.

[riqster]

56. You are acting as though change is not possible.

I reject that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Au contraire, change is possible but the booth is not the all encompasing solution

in fact, it is a very small part of it. History is on my side on this one. We have retaken our government back before, and it was NOT in the booth. It was in the streets. People did vote, don't get me wrong. But they did not, in any way shape or form, expect that change to come from the voting booth. That is mythology.

It works when we the people control the show, when we don't, and we don't right now, vote to keep in practice since that is not the place change will come. And it is not because those on the ballot are approved by the oligarchy. Less so at local levels, so you want to make a real difference at local levels, RETAKE the bloody school boards, planning boards and fire boards, which are curiously ignored by local Democratic parties. Tell me why is that? That is where you create farm teams, but also where you can have the most effect, even in an oligarchy.

I have seen real activists get elected and get thrown out with forces that are nasty. You know a City Lawyer, who is thrown out of office with close to a million purse. The pay is in the high five figure. He somehow got in, and was challenging the oligarchy. So they spent seven figures to get rid of him. That are the forces at play here.

I am sorry this is not what you would like to hear. But that is the truth. Get your shoes, comfy preferably, and get ready for some down and dirty activism because telling people to JUST VOTE and that will solve things, nowhere near the truth and that will disillusion voters even faster and ensure they do not vote. That is why the 1% thanks you.. Oh and this is generational.

And I notice you still refused to tell me what do we do with members of congress who are anywhere from the top 3% to 1%... and they are not there to advance YOUR poor measly middle class needs.

[merrily]

58. To assume otherwise is self-delusion.

My statement would be surrender only if I had also said that neither voting nor anything else is the way to take the nation back from the rich. However, that is not what I said.

Can you refute the statement of my prior post, or only mischaracterize it?

As long as you claim or imply that voting (or signing internet petitions, or calling your Congressional Rep, etc) are your only tools, you are kidding yourself.

Look up some of Brooklynite's posts, for just one of the examples. He claims to be a main fundraiser for the DLC and I have seen no reason to disbelieve that. Every time he mentions recruiting new candidates, he ties it to their ability to fundraise. The ability to raise money as an unknown is most often tied to having money or hanging with people who do. And people who have money tend to hang with each other.

[Vashta Nerada]

32. He's funny.

The 1% are the ones who run for office and win.

[Autumn]

34. Over twenty three pages that dance all around that idea but can't seem to get there.

More study is needed Wonder who paid for this one

[L0oniX]

35. I like corporate candidate B ...because corporate candidate A sucks more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. I wish it was this simple.

I vote to remain in practice for when it matters, but to defeat an oligarchy takes a lot more than voting, and it will take blood, sweat and tears. I speak from experience here, and history.

But if you think voting will be the only thing needed, the 1% truly thanks you.

[riqster]

37. Politicians listen to those who can take away their cushy jobs. No

The reason the 1% currently dominate the selection process is because a relatively small number of the rest of Americans use their power to influence that selection.

Our votes are the only tool we have with which to break the current paradigm. The only tool, that is, that does not involve people getting killed.

Simple it isn't. But workable? Yep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Keep that fantasy

That is not the way it works in an oligarchy. We have been here in the past. Go on, crack a book on the guided age, nor just any book, a history of labor will work, and read what it took. People voted, but that was the last thing that any of those people expected to work.

From experience, I came to the USA from an oligarchy, one that is less so but it still is. People marching, people protesting and at times people dying is what took for that to lessen it's grip. You keep that fantasy that only voting will work, again the 1% thank you.

[riqster]

59. I will continue to advocate for voting/voting rights, no matter how many people like you scoff.

It is the only non-violent tool at our disposal. And fuck violence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. It is part of the toolset

but far from what will work. Not now. (And I will vote but just becuase I need to stay in practice not because I expect that vote to change anything)

And violence, trust me, the Occupy folk were not the ones bringing violence to the equation. Neither did the workers who went on strike in the 1890s and 1920s, that was the State.

They understood though that it took that blood, that sweat and those tears, for voting to finally start working.

The same goes for the Civil Rights movement. It was not earned in the ballot box. It was earned in the streets. Selma was not a voting booth.

You can continue to advocate for it. It just does not work the way you believe in an oligarchy. Crack a book, because you know what? People who only vote, since they were promised this will work this time, get disillusioned and never vote again. This is why the 1% thanks you. Those disillusioned voters care very little about city hall, let alone Congress.

[riqster]

67. You assume people will remain the same.

That is defeatist.

[BlindTiresias]

41. The people are always at a severe disadvantage

In democracies/republics. It is trivial to cooperate with one another if your number are few (the rich) or your targets are singular (representatives). It is very difficult to get masses of people to vote in the numbers required and along the lines necessary in a manner consistent enough to get people who are resistant to persuasion from the economic elite and ensure that those in the party who do side with the economic elite do not crush the rep in question.

I will pose this question: What evidence do you have that the additional 50% of the voting public will not just be a mirror of the first 50%? Statistics would seem to suggest that we have enough of a sample of voters for the other 50% to be of similar composition.

[riqster]

42. Increasing citizen involvement is always a good thing.

Because people who DO something expect to GET something.

Right now, the 1% do, and they get. If more Americans voted, they would have expectations.

[BlindTiresias]

43. You didn't answer the question

You need to prove that this additional 50% will not just mirror the first and lead to the same scenario playing out. If both parties get the same or nearly the same amount of voters that is still a win for oligarchs.

[riqster]

47. I disagree with the premise of your question.

The study linked pointed out that the USA is not a majoritarian nation. My solution is to change that paradigm via GOTV, thus creating a majoritarian democracy.

It is not possible to predict with certainty the results of such a cataclysmic change, so to insist on such foreknowledge before taking action is a specious notion at best.

[BlindTiresias]

50. Hmm, not sure I am following you there

If we are having trouble currently with 50% of the voting population currently doing so, more or less, how does an additional 50% voting change the current situation? If we assume that direct attempts to contact congresspeople will remain the same, how does the number of votes simply doubling change the mind of the politician? They still see roughly the same number of people contacting them, that more people are voting means nothing to them. What matters is who they are voting for not that there are many voting.

Would you agree with this assessment? If not, why?

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. You have history and modern oligarchies on your side

Riqster is confusing citizen involvement with voting. Oligarchies are never brought down by voting alone, and I am betting he is not including in the vote the bums out one of the two parties. (Then I would give him points for commitment). But he is not.

The one percent loves this sum of all involvement equals voting, since it means nothing else. He is also approaching it the wrong way. What we need is things like Moral Mondays to go nationwide. Occupy also has led to a lot more of the kind of citizen involvement that the oligarchy fears.

Voting usually is secondary but will come after people do things like get arrested for civil rights.

But to people like riqster the solution is very simple and they point as evidence the voting suppression laws. Those are insurance by local oligarchies who also control, ultimately, who gets on the ballot.

We cover local politics. We know how disengaged the American people are from sausage making. I mean people piss and moan about education and schools, go ahead and ask your neighbors, do you know who is on the school board? Hell, you know where the school board meets?

The same applies for city council.

Yesterday we covered a rep coffee with citizens. She just happens to be mine, but this is an opportunity for people to talk to their Assembly Member in Sacramento, including press, there were twenty people at best.

So when riqster raises this vote will solve all, I laugh. He has no idea what forces are involved. I was cynical before. After occupy and covering local politics far worst. The asshats we cover walk the streets every day, and local interests still make them dance like puppets. Every member of the council knows these special interests have a megaphone is they vote the wrong way. And the little independent media is called the Penny Saver by even people here on DU that should know better.

[marions ghost]

65. ^^^^^

totally agree.

Voting is the way to try to stop the worst from happening. It is not the way to bring about the real changes we need. We have to vote, but we need to do more.

The big money two party system is not working well for us. Liberals/progressives really are marginalized.

[riqster]

60. A majoritarian democracy does not necessarily = my agenda being chosen.

And I question your assumption that increased voter activity would stop at the ballot box, and the underlying assumption that the act of voting would exist in isolation and would have no other impacts.

[gopiscrap]

51. Exactly

[FSogol]

63. It never ceases to amaze me that a post advocating voting on DU would have

so many folks that hate the idea.

[RandoLoodie]

64. It's because the system is fundamentally corrupt

How can you use one of the levers of a corrupt state (voting) to correct or rehabilitate a corrupt state?

Money talks, bullshit walks. The only thing the oligarchs understand is mass violence and political destabilization.

[FSogol]

66. BS. Voting is the only way to change it. Every other suggestion sounds like rat fucking to me.

[riqster]

68. Those who advocate violence as a first resort can kiss my hairy old kazoo.

Assuming violence is the only tool that will work guarantees violence. And lots of innocent people die when these revolutionaries are in the saddle.

Fuck violence. We owe it to the people to exhaust all legal and Constitutional methods to create change. Like, say, mass mobilization of voters as a first resort.

Anyone who tries to stop GOTV is increasing the likelihood of violence. And fuck that. And them.