Please Help Us Grow!

[WeThePeopleVote]

Who is "We the People?" It is all of us, not just Republicans, Democrats, or other political parties. It is not the lobbyists, or the staffers, or the think tanks. It is not a political elite. “We the People” are the majority and we are regular everyday people living lives day-to-day without thinking we are somehow better than others. Why do 66% of us believe that our Nation is heading in the wrong direction? Could it be because those who wield political power are ignoring the majority to push their personal agendas?

How do we change things? How do “We the People” get the politicians to answer to us? We do it with our votes. But, many don’t like the choices brought forward by the political parties for our votes. It seems like we vote against more often that we vote for a candidate or a party. Why vote for any political party, or the candidates they select for our consideration?

I have read lots of discussion about the need for a 3rd party to break the hold the two major parties have over the political process. We have heard this many times, yet a viable 3rd party still eludes us. Why, because people don’t want to “waste” their vote? But what if they had an option to vote for someone they believe in and trust? They might be willing to do that!!! The problem is, where do we find such a person? And, if we found that person, would we be able to send a message to the entrenched political parties with that vote. Would enough people vote along with us such that it got their attention? I know who we could vote for, who the vast majority of Americans would be comfortable voting for, and who would send a powerful message to the Nation and the Political Elite. The person I propose would be a vote for “We the People,” and everyone would know it was a vote for “We the People.”

My idea is quite simple really. I call it "WE THE PEOPLE VOTE!" I propose that, just once, we actually vote for ourselves. My idea is based on people believing in themselves, believing in regular folks just like you and me, and believing in our Country. Our Nation was founded because “We the People” wanted to establish a government of, by and for the people!!! So why not vote for “We the People” by voting for ourselves. After all, when you add up all the votes for ourselves it becomes “We the People!” Instead of voting for the Republican or Democratic candidate on the ballot for the House and Senate, vote for “We the People” by getting a write-in ballot and writing in your own name for the House of Representatives and for the Senate!

What kind of message would the Republican or Democratic winner receive if he or she won with only 40% of the vote, because “We the People” got 30% of the votes? They’d be thinking about job security, and they might want to catch that wave by ignoring the special interest groups and listening to “We the People.”

Anyway, that is my idea. Vote for “We the People” by voting for ourselves so the political establishment realizes who we are, how many of us there are, and that we want to be heard!!!

[gwenmand]

My idea is quite simple really. I call it "WE THE PEOPLE VOTE!" I propose that, just once, we actually vote for ourselves. My idea is based on people believing in themselves, believing in regular folks just like you and me, and believing in our Country. Our Nation was founded because “We the People” wanted to establish a government of, by and for the people!!! So why not vote for “We the People” by voting for ourselves. After all, when you add up all the votes for ourselves it becomes “We the People!” Instead of voting for the Republican or Democratic candidate on the ballot for the House and Senate, vote for “We the People” by getting a write-in ballot and writing in your own name for the House of Representatives and for the Senate!

I support the sentiment of what you're raising fully! In fact, I spend much of my time doing the hard work that it takes to build an up-from-the ground movement that would give expression to "We the People" being able to vote for ourselves, but I think the serious question is how do we continue to create that movement that expresses it, and while I'm not at all saying there's a right way and a wrong way - there are endless creative ways to do this - I think the process issues and barriers that make it difficult for "We the people" to prevail have to be engaged in an ongoing way. What does the activity look like that we would organize even handfuls, let alone hundreds or thousands of people to do what you are saying? I am currently working on a letter-writing campaign to stop corruption in the debates and simply asking people to write a letter to some of the journalists who have begun to talk about the possibility of an independent candidacy, pointing out to them the barriers which make it difficult for any serious candidacy to emerge - one big one being the debates (see www.independentvoting.org) - This is just one effort which seeks to push the envelope on this issue. As I said, I support your sentiment 1000% - Lets talk about how to work together to make that mechanism a possibility, and not just an idea.

Gwen
www.independentvoting.org

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Oct 28 2009, 04:27 PM

[Steve Cimino]

The problem, therefore, isn't with the system. Or with any process issues or barriers within the system.
The "problem" is that most people want something different than I do.

Which raises the question (for me it does, anyway): What do the people at IndependentVoting.org want?
Which leads you to the Committee for a Unified Independent Party.
Which leads you to Dr. Lenora Fulani.
Which leads you to Fred Newman.
Which leads you to the New Alliance Party and the International Workers Party and the Centers for Change and "Social Therapy."

All of which makes for an interesting little hour-long trip through Marxist-Leninist-Maoist political, psychological and social theory, and the history of the political and psychological machinations of some - how shall I say this? - rather "interesting" characters.

I'd suggest taking that particular trip to anyone who is thinking of getting involved with this movement.

Looking forward to CUIP's response. They've got a good issue in the presidential debates. But what's with these 'background issues'?

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Oct 28 2009, 04:27 PM

[Joe McQuade]

WeThePeopleVote wrote, “Instead of voting for the Republican or Democratic candidate on the ballot for the House and Senate, vote for ‘We the People’ by getting a write-in ballot and writing in your own name for the House of Representatives and for the Senate!”


gwenmand wrote, “I am currently working on a letter-writing campaign to stop corruption in the debates (which now limit participation to candidates with 15 percent support in the polls).”


Time for me to put on my curmudgeon’s cap again and point out that these ideas, along with the suggestion to boost voter turnout, are just plain silly.


Let’s say I’m a Pennsylvanian facing a stark choice between Rick Santorum on the hard right and Bob Casey on the center-left. I’ve got it! I’ll vote for Joe McQuade! That’ll show ‘em!

Sheesh. That’ll show ‘em exactly nothing about what I want for the future of the country. All it’ll show is that there’s a tiny band of feckless dreamers out there who can be safely ignored.

If gwenmand thinks the presidential debates are a farce now, wait’ll she sees how they look when the stage is stuffed with sorehead fringe candidates carping about national crises like fur coats and flag burning. Empowering splinter groups is what gave Israel its brilliant settlement policy and Italy about 100 failed governments since the War.

Finally, I might be persuaded greater voter turnout is a good idea as soon as I’m convinced non-voters even know who their congressman is, or can name a single Supreme Court justice.

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Oct 28 2009, 04:28 PM

[gwenmand]

Most people don't share my dissatisfaction with the status quo. And our system provides with merciless reliability what satisfies most people.

The evidence shows otherwise - 35% of the electorate choose to be independent in a system that puts a lot of pressure on them to be Democrat or Republican. Half the country doesn't vote. What binds independents together are our dislike of partisanism and belief that the political process is broken. The challenge is building the conditions for people to be able to express that dissatisfaction, and one reason why Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani and many others who I work with have been able to build some successful organizations (very modest, in terms of what we need to build, but nevertheless, impressive), is that we have devoted the hour by hour, day by day efforts (in terms of labor, fundraising and everything else it takes) to do that. Some people (mostly "the Talking Left" who are more interested in being "right" and "clean" than building anything) don't like Fulani and Newman - they've stepped out of the box to do something different. We can talk about our disagreements all we want but if we don't have any power to determine public policy, it's useless. Politicians know this - they're professionals at using issues people are passionate about and racialistm as political footballs.

Obviously, the history on Fulani and Newman is out there for anyone and everyone to look at. However, all you have to do is look at what they (we) have built and are doing now to get a sense (www.allstars.org, www.independentvoting.org, www.ipnyc.org,independentvoice.org, civca.org, www.independenttexans.org, www.castillo.org, www.socialtherapygroup.com, www.eastsideinstitute.org to give you just a few places to go) - or of course you can read the garbage put out by their detractors, who spend all of their time criticizing and attacking. (Serious people know that you don't get attacked unless you are building something that's threatening) - In my opinion, that's a waste of time, but then again some people have plenty of it.

By the way, I was Fulani's aide for years. I'm a first-hand source - oh yeah, and like some of her closest colleagues, I'm Jewish (but then again, everyone knows that the "anti-semitic" claim is a political ploy)

This post has been edited by gwenmand: Oct 26 2006, 01:59 PM

[gwenmand]

Let’s say I’m a Pennsylvanian facing a stark choice between Rick Santorum on the hard right and Bob Casey on the center-left. I’ve got it! I’ll vote for Joe McQuade! That’ll show ‘em!

Sheesh. That’ll show ‘em exactly nothing about what I want for the future of the country. All it’ll show is that there’s a tiny band of feckless dreamers out there who can be safely ignored.


I think we are in agreement on that.

If gwenmand thinks the presidential debates are a farce now, wait’ll she sees how they look when the stage is stuffed with sorehead fringe candidates carping about national crises like fur coats and flag burning. Empowering splinter groups is what gave Israel its brilliant settlement policy and Italy about 100 failed governments since the War.

No one's talking about fringe candidates - The journalists who are talking about this issue are talking about the possibility of a well-financed, mainstream independent who has the money to compete.


Finally, I might be persuaded greater voter turnout is a good idea as soon as I’m convinced non-voters even know who their congressman is, or can name a single Supreme Court justice.

Well, do you see something wrong with that? I think it says alot about the process.

[gwenmand]

Mr. Newman's approach seems to combine psychotherapy with political action. (Something to do with the struggle between the proletarian ego and the bourgeois ego. I offer no commentary on the psychology as I am not a trained psychologist - but then, neither is Mr. Newman.) Fairly or unfairly, the word "cult" gets tossed around quite a bit.

He and his adherents/political activists have raised the ire of more reliably doctrinaire leftist organizations by their association with certain organizations and candidates (Lyndon LaRouche, Pat Buchanan, the Reform Party), and there are some hints of anti-Semitism in their writings and associations which have been used to try to discredit them.

The history of the political organizations Newman and Fulani have established or associated with is a bit hinky too. Fairly regular name changes, dissolutions, alliances and expulsions. All of which could be just an attempt to find their niche. But which could also be seen as somewhat deceptive and/or opportunistic.

I agree that the debate issue is one where we find them with an apparently benign goal.
And I find nothing in the CUIP mission or activities objectionable.
Perhaps they and their philosophy have matured, moving beyond the ideological boundaries of their leftist beginnings thereby making some vocal and strident enemies.

Dr. Newman did not invent the relationship between politics and psychology, although I would beg to differ that his approach "combines" the two. He's helped build many kinds of institutions, but all of these organizations are separate, have their own bases and their own work. I think the "cult" accusation is ridiculous. Are there several hundred people who devote a good portion of their energy and lives to building these organizations? Yes. Is that a cult? Well, then you'd have to include the Democratic Party as one also, then.

Yes, reliably doctrinaire is a good way of describing these organizations you refer to. Politics is not clean. If you're going to impact and change things, you've got to tactically find ways to engage things. I wouldn't describe the building of various organizations "finding a niche" - I think it's more accurately characterized as building what has to be built at a particular moment which is relevant and will advance our movement for change. The New Alliance Party (and Fulani's first run for presidency in which she became the first woman and African American in US History to get on the ballot in all 50 States), led to the work in coalition with other independents in the Reform Party, where we learned alot about building a non-ideological political reform movement, and so on.

Steve and others - I would be happy to discuss any aspect of CUIP's history with you.

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Oct 28 2009, 04:28 PM

[gwenmand]

I should have been more explicit.
Most people don’t share my dissatisfaction with the status quo … enough … to vote for anyone other than candidates of the two major parties, if they vote at all. (Until that 35% who identify themselves in opinion polls as “independent” decide they are dissatisfied enough to back up their assertion with a vote, I’m taking it as evidence of satisfaction.)
---------------------------------------------------------

That's not evidence of satisfaction. That's evidence that the choices stink and that others haven't been sufficiently created.

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Oct 28 2009, 04:28 PM

[gwenmand]

In what way were these candidates not “sufficiently created”?

Well, one can argue that candidate options haven't been sufficiently created (you named a handful, but...) but I was referring to the conditions for independents (and here, I'm not limiting independents to people who only vote for independent candidates) to create a new kind of politic in this country, where the playing field is fair (Nader spent the majority of his time and energy trying to stay on the ballot because not only did he have to collect millions of more sigs than the Democratic and Republican candidates; then he had to fight state by state to withstand the Democrats trying to throw him off the ballot) and the whole gamut of viewpoints see the light of day.

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Oct 28 2009, 04:28 PM

[Editor]

Themes similar to those discussed in this thread can be found in "Election 2006" in Politics.

[Steve Cimino]

Ms. Mandell,

I've been thinking a lot about why I've been rather critical in this thread of people like yourselves who obviously share my view that participatory democracy is a valuable exercise.
And I can't think of any good reason. Just my contrary nature I guess.

I apologize.

I applaud anything you do that might inspire others to participate also.

Holy cannolli! CuriousOne and Gwen have both been ruthlessly exposed as exemplary citizens. Gwen stuck to her guns and defended her organization eloquently. I've read about it, listened to a conference call about it, and I wholeheartedly support its strategic goals to empower alternative voices in the public square.

CuriousOne asked the hard questions but was ultimately open to the face value of the project. Nothin' wrong with tough cross-examination. And, in my view, that discussion is still open. I'd like to hear Dr. Fulani and Fred Newman speak for themselves about their pasts -- where they've come from, what they've learned, and where they're going. Log on, this is a friendly and open audience. As for CO's voting strategy, I'll get to that . . .

And we also have to acknowledge Joe's persistent sentiment that most Americans are not to be trusted to cast an intelligent ballot.

There's something to that as well. I'm no elitist, I'm just acknowledging the facts on the ground.

So I'll try to play the moderator or 'integrator' in this discussion.

In my view, we can identify the greatest challenges that face political reform in the US by paying close attention to the posts of all three voices.

Joe's lack of faith in the average voter highlights the most fundamental problem in American politics today: the average American is quite clueless as to basic strategies for political organizing, analysis, and advocacy. We utterly lack a national civic education programme that empowers Americans with the skills and attitudes that are essential for meaningful participation in public life. Studying the Constitution ain't enough. Americans need to learn how to organize, how to discuss politics in civil and constructive ways, how to analyze political issues incisively, and how to advocate their views intelligently and persuasively in the public square.

Problem No. 2: We have lost a comprehensive vision of what a political party should look like. CuriousOne, in utter desperation, advocates voting for ourselves as a means of protest against the lack of attractive choices on our ballots. Now I can understand that frustration, but there is a better way forward. It is certainly true that the Democratic and Republican parties have both lost any sense of systematic coherence. We can thank the special interest Master Distorters for that. But the solution is achievable. It is a new, centrist party: an organization that espouses a clear public philosophy that is founded upon contemporary political theory and good science. And an organization that proposes a bold and creative policy platform that is firmly grounded upon its philosophy. And that is urgent need #2.

Problem No. 3: Even if such a party were to emerge, it would encounter huge obstacles that stand in the way of establishing itself in the American political system. CUIP's efforts to reform the rules governing participation in presidential debates highlight and address this enormous problem. There are plenty of other 'barriers to entry' that must be addressed if Americans are to enjoy the range of choices that they deserve. The overcoming of these structural barriers is urgent need #3.

These three problems, and the solutions that they demand, constitute a strategy. We can hope that some centrist candidate like McCain can 'stand in the gap' and serve the nation as a moderate, effective leader. But, I'm sorry, hope is not a strategy. The public square is a great big construction site that sits gaping before us.

We need to build foundations. New paradigms of civic education, a new party, and new strategies to open up the public square to all worthy voices. All hard, but all doable.

www.publicsquareonline.org
www.amproparty.us
www.independentvoter.org

Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.

[Steve Cimino]

Ms. Mandell,

I've been thinking a lot about why I've been rather critical in this thread of people like yourselves who obviously share my view that participatory democracy is a valuable exercise.
And I can't think of any good reason. Just my contrary nature I guess.

I apologize.

I applaud anything you do that might inspire others to participate also.

Holy cannolli! CuriousOne and Gwen have both been ruthlessly exposed as exemplary citizens. Gwen stuck to her guns and defended her organization eloquently. I've read about it, listened to a conference call about it, and I wholeheartedly support its strategic goals to empower alternative voices in the public square.

CuriousOne asked the hard questions but was ultimately open to the face value of the project. Nothin' wrong with tough cross-examination. And, in my view, that discussion is still open. I'd like to hear Dr. Fulani and Fred Newman speak for themselves about their pasts -- where they've come from, what they've learned, and where they're going. Log on, this is a friendly and open audience. As for CO's voting strategy, I'll get to that . . .

And we also have to acknowledge Joe's persistent sentiment that most Americans are not to be trusted to cast an intelligent ballot.

There's something to that as well. I'm no elitist, I'm just acknowledging the facts on the ground.

So I'll try to play the moderator or 'integrator' in this discussion.

In my view, we can identify the greatest challenges that face political reform in the US by paying close attention to the posts of all three voices.

Joe's lack of faith in the average voter highlights the most fundamental problem in American politics today: the average American is quite clueless as to basic strategies for political organizing, analysis, and advocacy. We utterly lack a national civic education programme that empowers Americans with the skills and attitudes that are essential for meaningful participation in public life. Studying the Constitution ain't enough. Americans need to learn how to organize, how to discuss politics in civil and constructive ways, how to analyze political issues incisively, and how to advocate their views intelligently and persuasively in the public square.

Problem No. 2: We have lost a comprehensive vision of what a political party should look like. CuriousOne, in utter desperation, advocates voting for ourselves as a means of protest against the lack of attractive choices on our ballots. Now I can understand that frustration, but there is a better way forward. It is certainly true that the Democratic and Republican parties have both lost any sense of systematic coherence. We can thank the special interest Master Distorters for that. But the solution is achievable. It is a new, centrist party: an organization that espouses a clear public philosophy that is founded upon contemporary political theory and good science. And an organization that proposes a bold and creative policy platform that is firmly grounded upon its philosophy. And that is urgent need #2.

Problem No. 3: Even if such a party were to emerge, it would encounter huge obstacles that stand in the way of establishing itself in the American political system. CUIP's efforts to reform the rules governing participation in presidential debates highlight and address this enormous problem. There are plenty of other 'barriers to entry' that must be addressed if Americans are to enjoy the range of choices that they deserve. The overcoming of these structural barriers is urgent need #3.

These three problems, and the solutions that they demand, constitute a strategy. We can hope that some centrist candidate like McCain can 'stand in the gap' and serve the nation as a moderate, effective leader. But, I'm sorry, hope is not a strategy. The public square is a great big construction site that sits gaping before us.

We need to build foundations. New paradigms of civic education, a new party, and new strategies to open up the public square to all worthy voices. All hard, but all doable.

www.publicsquareonline.org
www.amproparty.us
www.independentvoter.org

Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Oct 28 2009, 04:28 PM