Anonymous has made an announcement of sorts, found in the Business Insider website:
If the “party” Anonymous suggests came into being, the process would be interesting to watch. True, a republic is not a democracy. A true democracy would require the entire population to vote on every single issue that came up in the legislature for consideration, including procedural votes and so the Founders chose a republic model. The implementation of a true democracy is fraught with problems and would effectively isolate most of the general population (which is why the two major political entities have monopolized the process). Is this a good idea or a bad idea?
Would online voting be implemented? What about security issues that have plagued the Internet and its users? Would the participation be broad and inclusive or would handful of regulars effectively control the dialog and the vote? And more importantly, would they have the numbers to influence the committee process which effectively prevents voting to ever take place. Remember that to function within the existing procedures that allows commttess to bottle up legislation, a third party would have to lobby the Republicans and Democrats to push for a vote on any particular issue.
The Constitution is prevailing law and those that want to change the process are obligated to abide by its procedures until a Constitutional Amendment is passed; not impossible, but a difficult process to be sure.
However, kudos to Anonymous for a very constructive addition to the process that is taking place across the country.You can vote at this link:
18 Comments
online voting
Submitted by daniil on
can be more secure than private voting, if an ONLY if: anybody can inspect the votes in real time. This does not mean everybody knows who voted for what, it merely means that the results are calculated in as they come in and are displayed for all to see. This is possible on the internet whereas it was impossible before the internet.
The problem with our current off-line voting system is that the numbers are counted when a) the registrar of voters in each district have manually counted the votes and return the numbers and b) when the electronic voting boxes, which have been revealed in a court of law to be fraudulent, have reported the results. The electoral college system further complicates the system; under the electoral college, your vote has significantly less power than under a direct democracy.
The electoral college system is a vestigal feature of the slave economy. Direct democracy would have given the northern states more power, as their population was far greater than that of the southern states. In order to ensure the southern states would join the union, the electoral college system was a compromise devised so that states with lower voting populations (i.e. slave states, in which slaves could note vote) could have more voting power. We need to get rid of the electoral college system; it is no longer useful now that all men and women are free, can represent themsleves, and all have the right to vote.
3rd Party?
Submitted by alrightypewriter on
I don't understand what they think would be so different about their system. The U.S. is already a democratic republic and we elect officials to represent us and they are supposed to work for us. The framework is already here. It's how it is put into practice that is the problem.
Adding a 3rd party would fix what, exactly? Having a public servant execute the will of the people based on a popular vote may seem like a good idea but what happens when the popular vote leads to things like institutionalized homophobia and racism?
how does one vote for institutionalized homophobia and racism?
Submitted by jamestheweston on
i have never seen those proposals in a bill. that is a personal attack on human rights, you don't vote for those, you breed those in a culture. lucky we are on our way out of that culture
james weston
Parliamentary System
Submitted by LisaV on
America's two party system is a bunch of money controlled b.s. (at its core).
We need a constitutional convention and a parliamentary system. None of this "I can have a beer w/ you, George" nonsense.
People need to get focused on issues and accountability.
Democratic politicians are just union backed vote grabbers who are still controlled by the top 1% (at the end of the day). They really don't care about the 99%. They care -- like the Republican politicians they supposedly oppose -- about relections and about power. Power.
America has just become a vehicle for power hungry monied elites (here and around the world).
--
Lisa ; http://occupylosangeles.org/
Interesting...
Submitted by LovingFighter on
I have no idea if this is true (is it?????). I'm not too familiar with Anonymous. But the idea sounds interesting. Can't wait to see the kind of discussion it sparks here.
Third parties don't solve the real problem
Submitted by JoviMan on
which is that those with money can buy politicians and hence, control public policy. History shows that third parties don't stand a chance in elections. What is needed is not necessarily a revolt, and certainly not a violent one, but the 99% to stop what they're doing, head to their closest (and largest) Occupy movement and not leave until campaign finance and lobbying laws are fundamentally reformed. Only then will a third party be effective. Obviously such a mass uprising is far easier said than done, but the more that get involved, the stronger this movement will be.
fight the system with the system
Submitted by jamestheweston on
check this out, it's interesting and could be constructive - https://secure.americanselect.org/debates
we can't stop moving toward our collective goals, but we also must be wary of excluding people as well. this is a global movement, and must be accepted as such. I for one would love to see another option come 2012, this might be a way to achieve that goal if it becomes unified. tell you what.. i cant vote either party in next time.. its one and the same
james weston
Well the third party is a
Submitted by Fallout2man on
Well the third party is a means to channel our numbers peacefully into direct control of the establishment. The problem with a third party is that there's a barrier you have to permeate before it is able to make a difference. A third party only works if you can somehow grab the ears of the nation but the current cycle all but is built to destroy the appearance of a third party, we face a collective action problem.
If everyone believed their vote would count, and voted third party we could elect whoever we want if we all realized to do it at once. If we did, we win. Problem is everyone gets so scared of the current system that they don't vote third party thinking it'lll be the end of everything if they don't vote for the "lesser of two evils." Well I say if your vote's going to not count anyway at least make it into a show of the legitimacy of the movement by getting us as a block to cast a vote one way or another.
If we did that we could really shake things up and all we'd need to do is prove via one election that we can convince the majority of voters (even a plurality's a victory really) to vote one way and that it'd work out in their best interests to risk destroying the world to note keep the "other guy" out of office.
Lesser of 2 evils
Submitted by jamestheweston on
i fully agree, but i think both parties are equally heinous.. time for progression:)
james weston
Fix the disease, not the symptoms
Submitted by Fex on
The problem is deeper than adding a political party even if that party is directly controlled by the people. The framework of our system is already corrupt and broken. The anonymous suggestion (remember, it's anonymous, so maybe only two people wrote that idea and are pretending to speak for multitudes) is a patch-fix. We don't need to be treating symptoms, we need to be finding root causes and finding cures. I say stick to doing what we have been doing, it's been working. Which, discussing this very topic, is also what we do :)
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Did the 1% write this blog? We need a revolution!
Submitted by 12345 on
The blog keeps saying we need to avoid a revolution and go for a third party. This sounds like the sort of thing the 1% would want us to do to weaken us from fighting their system. We have to beware of fakes. We don't need another party; another party isn't going to change anything. And it isn't going to help part of the 99% living in other countries. We need a revolution. I'm not saying a violent one. A third party would just be a way to keep us calm for a while, everything will still be ran their way.
Good point
Submitted by LovingFighter on
I think your point is very valid. Can I ask you, though, what's your version of a revolution? Non-violence is a given, but I'd like to know what kind of outcome you would consider revolutionary...
Revolution is the only way change has ever come about!
Submitted by meomyorama on
For hundreds if not thousands of years, the only way 'Change" has ever come about is by means of War or Revolutions, or I lkike to say, "Oranization of The People". This is a fact. We lost our Democracy decades ago. The word democratic literraly means "Power of the People". Democracy is dead. We live in a dictatorship folks. Dictatorship by the Corporations. Bainwashing Media. Corporations dictate what the media tells us. WE NEED ORGANIZATION BY THE PEOPLE. A REVOLUTION is the only way farward if we are to effect change. And it MUST BE NON VIOLENT or We loose.
Anonymous needs a civics lesson
Submitted by John P. Garry on
Anonymous doesn't seem to understand government very well. A republic is not opposed to a democracy.
A republic is a type of state, to be distinguished from a principality, duchy, commonwealth, confederation, kingdom or empire. "Republic" comes from "res publica," Latin for "a thing which belongs to the people." A Republic belongs to the people, a kingdom belongs to a king, and an empire belongs to an emperor.
Democracy, on the other hand, is a form of governance that can be employed in different types of states. You can have a People's Republic, an Islamic Republic, or a Democratic Republic, among other variations. The United States is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy.
Anonymous seems to have confused "pure democracy" (in which everyone votes on everything) with democracy itself and incorrectly refers to our present system--representative democracy--as a republic.
John
How to address counterrevolution?
Submitted by LovingFighter on
Regardless of whether it's a genuine Anonymous message or not--it doesn't really matter--I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the idea without engaging it.
Suppose no party is formed and the movement continues on its way. What kind of change would satisfy the movement??? Do most people think the powers that be will let their power slip away without fighting back? And what can the movement do without political power to address this issue?
It's fine if we choose to not get involved in politics. But then we need to be able to answer these questions, otherwise it's just a cultural fest.
the 3rd party anon propsal was not supported by the collective
Submitted by LastChance on
The anon collective have not supported this and as we all know anon are many but sometimes individuals make suggestions and it can be quickly misrepresented
Idea for Most Powerful March
Submitted by meomyorama on
Picture this for a Powerful March... Really Picture It!
Hundreds or Thousands of people marching IN SILENCE. Only Sound would be footsteps. Only words are written on signs and banners. What a message that would be!!! The idea being that "We The People Have Been Silenced". My vision is, if we can pull it off that this would truly be Thee Most Powerful March technique of all.
Thanks for Listening.
Peter.
Outlaw Lobbyists
Submitted by billstowe on
Obviously the solution here is to outlaw the profession - lobbying - which has the largest impact on our freedoms:
Get rid of the lobbyists and you return the power of democracy and a checks and balance on greed to the people.
Pages