4 ms·

It drives me nuts that the "opposition" party is not responding to this with calls for mass action to demand fair elections, including occupations and strikes i

by 0x262d 6y ago

It drives me nuts that the "opposition" party is not responding to this with calls for mass action to demand fair elections, including occupations and strikes if necessary, but by exhorting unlikely voters who feel apathetic to vote harder against voter suppression.

specialist 6y ago
Any reform will come from outside the system. Said from experience. I share your frustration. I worked on election and voting issues for a decade, fulltime for two years. I was slow to realize that my Mr Smith Goes to Washington folk theory of politics has no basis in reality. The only successes me and mine achieved were thru bringing pressure. I highly recommend Camp Wellstone's training for organizers. (Please share recommendations.) Electeds, leaders, and partisans to effect change is a misunderstanding of what they do. They are in a neverending knife fight for power. Any actual policies are merely the playing cards in the game. Sure, many pols do hold one or two firm positions, for which they will expend "political capital". Leah Stokes' recent book Short Circuiting Policy is a very good, data driven explanation of policy formation. I collect books about politics, policy, etc. Mostly to better understand and learn from own experiences. Many very good. That said, Stokes most closely matches my understanding of how legislators behave wrt policy.
- 0x262d 6y ago
  Totally agree about inside/outside the system. I'm in this org and we won an unlikely major victory this year (not voting rights but still cool) because our city councilor member has a clear understanding her power to negotiate and legislate for positive change is virtually nil, but her power to agitate and build mass movements to bring pressure is high. Unfortunately almost no other orgs/elected officials embrace this strategy right now (yet). I think the article neglects this fact for some reason but the actual tax legislation that was passed was written by Democrats, not us, and they try to frame it as their own idea... but the reality is they passed it literally the day after we announced we had enough signatures to put our somewhat larger tax on the ballot, in response to it. https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/09/amazon-taxed-lessons-of-the-tax-amazon-victory-in-seattle/ https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/09/amazon-taxed...
  - specialist 6y ago
    Congratulations. Nicely done. There's a droll quote from a political to the effect "I have to find out where my voters are going, so that I can lead them." As you know, waterdowned legislation is sometimes passed to blunt or diffuse a competitor's initiative. And the rest of Seattle absolutely does not want Sawant's name in headlines. Other Councilmembers may not like Sawant, but they absolutely respect her as a politician, especially noting that she does a great job representing her constituents. (Source: served on local Dems e-board, have had many sidebar convos.) For my part, I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of backseat drivers. I expect the person I vote for to do the work. But given her successes, I need to reassess Sawant's decision making process. Thanks for nudging me.
    - 0x262d 6y ago
      Oh cool, you're in the Seattle area? I moved away from there this summer. > I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of backseat drivers I assume this is referring to her being accountable to Socialist Alternative? I understand why this sometimes seems weird to people. But it's impossible get anywhere as a politician without a base of support. Kshama is open about who hers is. Corporate Democrats (and Republicans of course) are not, and tend to surprise people after the fact with their governance when they refuse to, for instance, tax the rich, or hedge on the question indefinitely. I think Kshama's ability to campaign for things and then consistently fight for them after getting elected is closely related to having SA, to not just do necessarily collective political analysis, but also do the work of mass campaigns. By contrast, traditional politicians also offload a lot of political work, but to an array of personally appointed policymakers, lobbyists, private-company executives, and others; while SA is democratically run, the corporate lobbying groups are only accountable to capital. I don't think there is a sustainable path in between these two options.
      - specialist 6y ago
        Democratic Party members mostly hate their politicians. They're often seen as parasites. They just use the party to get elected. Dems would love to have the kind of relationship Socialist Alternative has with Sawant. Though, in truth, the delegation for Ballard & North Seattle has been pretty good during my direct involvement. Now that I've played the game a little bit, I don't understand the Corporate Democrat label. As Jesse James said, he robbed the banks because that's where the money is. Same for fund raising. That's been slowly changing on the left as parties wane and interest groups rise. That guy from QuarkXpress was an early pioneer of this model. I now think of The Struggle as entities defending the status quo (establishment, duopoly) and everyone else storming the castle. That's neither bad or good; it just is. And per Francis Fukamaya's vetocracy thesis, the connection between our party system and the widespread dysfunction in governance is fairly loose. Right now any one can do anything without much fear of repercussions, esp on the left. Said another way, I agree with Ezra Klein's thesis that if we make the (lowercase) democratic reforms to enable majoritarian rule, then the party system can grow to actually mean something. I recognize that I'm way to the left of most participants. I have strong affinity for MLK, David Graeber, Jonathan Rawls, and maybe some others. I started as a Green and still (probably) believe in its platform. But Nader nuked that party. (I'm still mad.) And like most Democrats, I joined with the intent to oppose Republicans. aka Negative partisanship. I think this setup is terrible. Back when I was attending all the third party meetups (Greens, Socialists, Libertarians), I was struck that those members were making an affirmative choice, standing for what they believed in. That's a much more healthy approach. To feel that vibe, I've focused more on issue based orgs, vs party politics. Gay marriage, weed, sustainability, etc. So I thank you for sharing some of your Socialist Alternative experiences. I need to go check them out.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> It drives me nuts that the "opposition" party is not responding to this with calls for mass action to demand fair elections, including occupations and strikes if necessary Whether or not that is justifiable by the level of offense (which I think it is), I don't see any indication that it would be tactically smart in the current context, and actually a lot of reasons to the think it would be catastrophically counterproductive.
notabee 6y ago
This is why, if the U.S. can avoid becoming a failed state in the near future where laws mean nothing for those in power, the most important priority should be to change how voting is done to allow ranked choice and end the duopoly. It's not rational in most cases to try to run third party candidates given how the math works out currently, but we desperately need to make that viable. Perhaps if a single-issue voting reform party was created and it deliberately and rigorously avoided all wedge issues it could work. The second you tack on any other platform agenda it'll be the same old story, though.
- jdmichal 6y ago
  I'd rather see approval voting than ranked choice. The outcomes are roughly the same, but the system is easier and less disputable. Which is very much a feature in the US; remember hanging chads in the 2000 race? If they can dispute that, then they can certainly dispute any unclear ranking marks. And also because ranked choice usually comes along with instant-runoff here in the US, which is possibly the only system with worse outcomes than first-past-the-post. http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ Note that the two weird graphs are always plurality, aka first past the post, and Hare, aka instant runoff. Also note that there's no obvious difference in any of the graphs between approval and Condorcet, even though Condorcet is ranked.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I would actually still prefer IRV to FPTP. The center candidate's boundary can be unpredictable, but the other boundaries are in basically the same place as they are for approval and Condorcet. FPTP shifts all the boundaries and drastically reduces or eliminates center candidates' winning regions. (I'd also prefer it to Borda, which drastically enlarges center candidates' winning regions). That said, I agree that approval seems to strike the best balance between simplicity and outcome, with the caveat that where possible we should also have proportional representation rather than winner-take-all districts, e.g. https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation
    - 6y ago

by 0x262d 6y ago

specialist 6y ago

Any reform will come from outside the system. Said from experience. I share your frustration. I worked on election and voting issues for a decade, fulltime for two years. I was slow to realize that my Mr Smith Goes to Washington folk theory of politics has no basis in reality. The only successes me and mine achieved were thru bringing pressure. I highly recommend Camp Wellstone's training for organizers. (Please share recommendations.) Electeds, leaders, and partisans to effect change is a misunderstanding of what they do. They are in a neverending knife fight for power. Any actual policies are merely the playing cards in the game. Sure, many pols do hold one or two firm positions, for which they will expend "political capital". Leah Stokes' recent book Short Circuiting Policy is a very good, data driven explanation of policy formation. I collect books about politics, policy, etc. Mostly to better understand and learn from own experiences. Many very good. That said, Stokes most closely matches my understanding of how legislators behave wrt policy.

0x262d 6y ago
Totally agree about inside/outside the system. I'm in this org and we won an unlikely major victory this year (not voting rights but still cool) because our city councilor member has a clear understanding her power to negotiate and legislate for positive change is virtually nil, but her power to agitate and build mass movements to bring pressure is high. Unfortunately almost no other orgs/elected officials embrace this strategy right now (yet). I think the article neglects this fact for some reason but the actual tax legislation that was passed was written by Democrats, not us, and they try to frame it as their own idea... but the reality is they passed it literally the day after we announced we had enough signatures to put our somewhat larger tax on the ballot, in response to it. https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/09/amazon-taxed-lessons-of-the-tax-amazon-victory-in-seattle/ https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/09/amazon-taxed...
- specialist 6y ago
  Congratulations. Nicely done. There's a droll quote from a political to the effect "I have to find out where my voters are going, so that I can lead them." As you know, waterdowned legislation is sometimes passed to blunt or diffuse a competitor's initiative. And the rest of Seattle absolutely does not want Sawant's name in headlines. Other Councilmembers may not like Sawant, but they absolutely respect her as a politician, especially noting that she does a great job representing her constituents. (Source: served on local Dems e-board, have had many sidebar convos.) For my part, I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of backseat drivers. I expect the person I vote for to do the work. But given her successes, I need to reassess Sawant's decision making process. Thanks for nudging me.
  - 0x262d 6y ago
    Oh cool, you're in the Seattle area? I moved away from there this summer. > I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of backseat drivers I assume this is referring to her being accountable to Socialist Alternative? I understand why this sometimes seems weird to people. But it's impossible get anywhere as a politician without a base of support. Kshama is open about who hers is. Corporate Democrats (and Republicans of course) are not, and tend to surprise people after the fact with their governance when they refuse to, for instance, tax the rich, or hedge on the question indefinitely. I think Kshama's ability to campaign for things and then consistently fight for them after getting elected is closely related to having SA, to not just do necessarily collective political analysis, but also do the work of mass campaigns. By contrast, traditional politicians also offload a lot of political work, but to an array of personally appointed policymakers, lobbyists, private-company executives, and others; while SA is democratically run, the corporate lobbying groups are only accountable to capital. I don't think there is a sustainable path in between these two options.
    - specialist 6y ago
      Democratic Party members mostly hate their politicians. They're often seen as parasites. They just use the party to get elected. Dems would love to have the kind of relationship Socialist Alternative has with Sawant. Though, in truth, the delegation for Ballard & North Seattle has been pretty good during my direct involvement. Now that I've played the game a little bit, I don't understand the Corporate Democrat label. As Jesse James said, he robbed the banks because that's where the money is. Same for fund raising. That's been slowly changing on the left as parties wane and interest groups rise. That guy from QuarkXpress was an early pioneer of this model. I now think of The Struggle as entities defending the status quo (establishment, duopoly) and everyone else storming the castle. That's neither bad or good; it just is. And per Francis Fukamaya's vetocracy thesis, the connection between our party system and the widespread dysfunction in governance is fairly loose. Right now any one can do anything without much fear of repercussions, esp on the left. Said another way, I agree with Ezra Klein's thesis that if we make the (lowercase) democratic reforms to enable majoritarian rule, then the party system can grow to actually mean something. I recognize that I'm way to the left of most participants. I have strong affinity for MLK, David Graeber, Jonathan Rawls, and maybe some others. I started as a Green and still (probably) believe in its platform. But Nader nuked that party. (I'm still mad.) And like most Democrats, I joined with the intent to oppose Republicans. aka Negative partisanship. I think this setup is terrible. Back when I was attending all the third party meetups (Greens, Socialists, Libertarians), I was struck that those members were making an affirmative choice, standing for what they believed in. That's a much more healthy approach. To feel that vibe, I've focused more on issue based orgs, vs party politics. Gay marriage, weed, sustainability, etc. So I thank you for sharing some of your Socialist Alternative experiences. I need to go check them out.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> It drives me nuts that the "opposition" party is not responding to this with calls for mass action to demand fair elections, including occupations and strikes if necessary Whether or not that is justifiable by the level of offense (which I think it is), I don't see any indication that it would be tactically smart in the current context, and actually a lot of reasons to the think it would be catastrophically counterproductive.

notabee 6y ago

This is why, if the U.S. can avoid becoming a failed state in the near future where laws mean nothing for those in power, the most important priority should be to change how voting is done to allow ranked choice and end the duopoly. It's not rational in most cases to try to run third party candidates given how the math works out currently, but we desperately need to make that viable. Perhaps if a single-issue voting reform party was created and it deliberately and rigorously avoided all wedge issues it could work. The second you tack on any other platform agenda it'll be the same old story, though.

jdmichal 6y ago
I'd rather see approval voting than ranked choice. The outcomes are roughly the same, but the system is easier and less disputable. Which is very much a feature in the US; remember hanging chads in the 2000 race? If they can dispute that, then they can certainly dispute any unclear ranking marks. And also because ranked choice usually comes along with instant-runoff here in the US, which is possibly the only system with worse outcomes than first-past-the-post. http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ Note that the two weird graphs are always plurality, aka first past the post, and Hare, aka instant runoff. Also note that there's no obvious difference in any of the graphs between approval and Condorcet, even though Condorcet is ranked.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I would actually still prefer IRV to FPTP. The center candidate's boundary can be unpredictable, but the other boundaries are in basically the same place as they are for approval and Condorcet. FPTP shifts all the boundaries and drastically reduces or eliminates center candidates' winning regions. (I'd also prefer it to Borda, which drastically enlarges center candidates' winning regions). That said, I agree that approval seems to strike the best balance between simplicity and outcome, with the caveat that where possible we should also have proportional representation rather than winner-take-all districts, e.g. https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation
  - 6y ago