The Best and Simplest Thing You Can Do to Actually CHANGE the System

I say something along these lines every election year, but I feel that this year and 2016 are truly the years to make this happen, so let's lay this out.

In 2012, Barack Obama won the election with 51% of the vote. (Which worked out to 61% of the electoral vote)

In 2012, 58% of eligible voters cast ballots.

NOTE: This is NOT a post about the possibilities of voter fraud. I am working with the official numbers for illustration purposes.

In 2004, George W. Bush won the election with 50% of the vote. (Which worked out to 53% of the electoral vote)

In 2004, 60% of eligible voters cast ballots.

This means that, on average, 30% of eligible voters are selecting our president.

Numbers for Congress and State Legislatures are similarly dire (though gerrymandering does help Congressmen look a bit more popular).

And when you consider that turnout in mid-year elections hovers at around 40%, you realize that Congresscritters elected in non-presidential election years are basically being elected by numbers so small they could practically be nothing but people who know the politicians personally.

But wait, there's more! (And yes, I know you folks are aware of this stuff, but I am laying out the fundamental problem to put forth an appropriate solution.) Many voters out there who cast a vote "for" one party or another are not voting FOR "their" candidate. They are voting AGAINST the "other guy."

Now I don't have official stats to back this one up, but think about the conversations you have with people around elections.

"I'm not thrilled with Romney, but I'm sure as h3ll not voting for Obama."
"Obama seems unqualified, but I don't want Sarah Palin one heart attack from the Oval Office."

Then there's the bumper stickers: "Anyone but _______ 2012"

The election game is as much (if not more) about mobilizing "your" voters against the Other guy as it is about putting forth a compelling argument that makes people want you in government.

SO. Compound this with the horrid turnout numbers and you have our leaders "elected" by 30% of eligible voters of whom maybe 1/3 don't actually LIKE the candidate they're supporting. This means we have a nation run by people who at the time that they are elected MAY have 20% of eligible voters who actually agree with their policies and think that they will do a good job.

So what are we to do about this grotesque clusterforniction of a political system?

We must advocate for "third parties." And let me stress this fact: THE POINT OF THIS PLAN IS NOT TO GET A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE ELECTED IN THE SHORT TERM. I am well aware of the fact that the Republicrat Duopoly is too well entrenched to be ousted in a just a couple of election cycles. I ALSO realize that the big money interests that control government will most likely sink their fangs into anyone and everyone who ascends to power. What I am talking about here is the humbling of our "elected" figureheads.

The most powerful word in the arsenal of a newly elected official (or controlling party in Congress) is "Mandate." These scumbags love to act like they have been issued a divine writ by We the People blessing their every action and whim. The party that "wins" an election acts as if ever plank in their ridiculous party platform is a sacred and special because they have a so-called mandate.

Every president since Reagan has said it. Republican. Democrat. Makes no difference. Bush and Obama both swaggered into the White House on "waves of popular support" (the math of which we know to be FUBAR) and started acting like they knew what was going on. Likewise, every obstructionist sociopath in Congress has convinced himself that he anointed by God and the People.

If the 40-45% of eligible voters who stay home (presumably out of well justified disgust at the sorry options on display) came out and voted for a third party, ANY third party, we can start to take away the illusion of a mandate. I'm not crazy enough to think we can unseat the entrenched swine so easily, but I would love to see them slink into office with their tails between their legs admitted to winning with only 35-40% of the vote.

Long game? As the other parties raise their profiles, we might start to see people breaking out of the two-party mindset and starting voting their actual conscience. People can stop voting against those they find slightly scarier than the mainstream candidate they throw their vote to.

This is how the game can be changed from within.

So this election season, if you tend to stay home, hit the poles. Don't passively withhold your vote. Let the major parties KNOW that you are actively taking your vote and giving it to someone else: Libertarians, Greens, Communists, Constitution Party, a write-in for yourself or your neighbor. Make them account in the election numbers for all the people who DON'T want them in power.

If you do vote, free yourself from the lesser evil mindset. Vote outside the box.

If you evangelize to non-voters, don't try to sway them towards a specific figurehead, talk to them about actively voting for non-traditional parties.

Let's make the numbers reflect reality. Let's take away the illusion of the "mandate". Force the swine to acknowledge points of view beyond the Republicrat Kabuki Theatre. Politicians who must admit to sneaking in to power with a minority of the vote will have little choice but to compromise. They will be forced to listen. It won't change the system overnight, but it just might diverge us from the current path towards oblivion.

NOTE: A humble request. IF you feel the need to tell me why this idea is so futile that it shouldn't even be attempted, that's fine. Just follow up your nay-saying with a clear explanation of what you are ACTUALLY going to do to try an improve our situation. By which I mean, I don't need to hear another masturbatory screed about an armed revolution you people are never going to actually start. I put this suggestion forward as something that can be useful and absurdly easy to actual execute. Urinate all over the idea if you must, but try to have something better to put on the table in its place. Cheers.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

Starred & flagged!

Encourage EVERYONE you know to vote (even if they disagree).

Abstaining from voting and then complaining about the outcome is stupid.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

Reaching the people on ATS is one thing. You should write an opinion piece based on your post and send it to every political publication you can find.

Very well-written, by the way.

They could make it compulsory for everyone to vote, as we have here in Australia.
They maybe wouldn't like the idea of not being able to fix the race so easily though.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

There is a global theory called Systems Theory.

At the heart of this theory which is used in nearly every discipline is that one person can change the entire system.

ie one vote does matter

Systems theory is like a wind-chime, all systems (including political) aim for homeostasis (staying the same)
just like a wind chime seeks to be at rest.

What can rock the whole system into movement? One little movement.

Just like you can tap a chime and the whole wind chime makes noise. Or a small breeze comes along and rocks one chime which sets off all the chimes.

One person CAN change any system through movement (in this case voting)
if disturbed enough the system will change to accommodate the one so that homeostasis is finally reached.

Think of it like the chime that ends up all tangled in an effort to achieve homeostasis (peace) It actually changes form.

The great fear of the political elite class, ruling class, current federal administration, is that people
will figure it out
one person can make a difference
one vote can make a difference

Even in the hardest of countries there has been one voice that shouted in the wilderness and made a change, Solzhenitsyn, Tiananmen Square

Can others of you name a tiny singular voice or small group of voices that changed entire systems?

One tiny voice among millions can change the entire system, those who say otherwise are just plain wrong.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

Well laid out, and nicely written! S+F. You make good sense here. Hopefully others will see that too. Syx.

Excellent thread sir!! S&F for you.

You speak a truth that has fascinated me since I began paying attention to politics, that being how many people actually voted!

I have always seen it as a positive argument to bring forth in pointing out the fact that the 2 party system is an absolute sham and everyone knows it. The figures speak for themselves, thank you for going ahead and getting them!

The third parties truly represent the people and considering the clear corruption of corporate influence upon our 2 parties better known as fascism, voting for a 3rd party is the only option we have!

How funny was it in 2012 that the only media to cover our 3rd party debate was RT. That evil horrible Russian propaganda machine was the only one to try and give our third party candidates a voice. Kinda makes you wonder about what real propaganda looks like!

A vote for anyone is a vote for the system which is corrupt as hell. Not the way its supposed to be, the way it is.

I can only be counted in the end as having not participated in that system to further the corruption.

Just my personal solution.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

I totally agree. I've been saying this for awhile. I also prefer voting every incumbent out of office!

I'm not entertained watching the votes come in on election night, but if voters everywhere did what you said, it would be one great night of entertainment. It would probably get more viewing then the Super Bowl, lol. I can picture all the stunned faces as party members try to figure out what happened. Twenty-five year geriatric career politicians booted out of office. Go get a job, instead of making a career out of using tax payers money to support you.

The icing on the cake would be seeing people standing outside of the capital holding signs chanting "You're fired - Go home!" lol. I really feel people everywhere would feel good about themselves and politicians would be shaking in their shoes realizing the public has had enough."

Well said. Hope more people pay attention to the message.

Personally one thing observed was imagine if all the people who went to rallies to 3rd party or 3rd party aligning ideal candidates actually voted for a third party person throughout. The rallies were way more active then any voting, while the voting turned out okay here it didn't match the rest of the state.

Very well put, but I for one will not be voting again until the voting process in this country is reformed. Its hard to compete with dead people, convicted felons, and illegal immigrants. It shouldn't be, but it is.

I have long stated that a revolution, while it very well could fix certain problems if it succeeded, would only serve to create more problems. The system would be better fixed from within, rather than starting completely from scratch at this point. Well, starting from scratch has certain benefits, but less people would be directly affected negatively if the system were fixed from the inside out. Because of my beliefs I am always open to possible solutions, and although this is not a quick fix by any means, it is one of the more levelheaded and well thought out solutions I have come across.

I think the best thing to do is to spread this idea far and wide. And not only that, but attempt to unite the third party votes. I understand that it is not about winning the election for a third party, but changing the mindset altogether, but it could not hurt to attempt to unite those who are fed up with the system in some way. But it would be impossible to unite everyone behind a single third party candidate, but like you said it could serve to break the two-party stranglehold. I am down with this idea, and depending on who runs in 2016 I might just do this. I think I will just write in Ron Paul.

If we all do not vote would we have a clean slate and get a do over?

Just kidding. Well done.

The idea is all well & good, but human corruption will always win out in the end. The system itself doesn't work; status quo and long term conditioning are a bitch. We need full system collapse & subsequent population reduction for any "real" change.

US political marketing has become almost a science. There is a reason the lines are drawn 50/50 and there are only two choices. Classic divide and conquer strategy. It maintains a basic level of legitimacy in government so that no one revolts, yet while the rhetoric of presidents changes their governing style remains pretty similar. This is Obama's dreaded 2nd term, why hasn't he taken the gloves off? Why isn't he pushing that socialist agenda the REDS accuse the BLUES of? Politics in the US is all sports and theater. Obama, like any president in the last 100 years answers to outside interests. The president may change from decade to decade, but those interests remain relatively static.

Honestly. Given the nature of polling and statistics. It shouldn't matter all that much whether 1000 people show up to vote or 300 millon. As long as they can sway public opinion by greater than the threshold for statistical error, they will always get their way. And even if candidate #1 doesn't win, #2 has been groomed for the job a long time ago as a fail safe anyway.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

voting isn't the problem its the politicians that are liars

In theory and principle I'm all for this solution. Yet even a quick survey of attempts at developing a viable nationwide third party, left leaning and right leaning alike, over the last five decades has proved futile. Grass roots organizing has in every attempt ended up being co-opted by reasoning which promotes affiliation with one of the major parties.

At the opposite end of that spectrum we have examples of "parties of personality" such as Perot back in the 90's. A rich man who railed against the two party system. Though he created a big splash when he jumped into the pool of national politics, where is his legacy now? When voters passed him by twice, he went no further and the remnants of his party drizzled away to nothing.

The Green Party, after years of grassroots organizing, tossed their hat in the national ring with the famous consumer protection hero, Ralph Nader. in the late 90s and made two attempts at the White House but garnered what, 3% of the vote? And where is the Green Party now?

Any "real" attempt to develop a third party would have to have the support of disaffected people of both ends of the political spectrum giving support to a non-partisan figure with a high level of popular recognition. The problem with this idea though is we all know where this kind of popularity contest can easily lead.

Just my somewhat less than two cents.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

Reaching the people on ATS is one thing. You should write an opinion piece based on your post and send it to every political publication you can find.

Very well-written, by the way.

Your point is very good, but it is not written well enough for the masses.

You have to get it down to a soundbite, or at most a 15 second read that makes your point.

The masses won't read more than three sentences or a paragraph at most.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt A excellent point of view! Also, a well thought out diagnosis and approach to a solution to a grave problem affecting the system. If we assume that the average American recently woke up to the obvious manipulation by the 2-party system, then your thoughts will be entertained. According to the experts, only six percent is needed to throw a wrench into the cogs of the ruling elite. Everyday shows an increase in awaking in America. The youth are keenly aware of the problems and possible consequences of a dieing system. Your approach could possibly avert blood in the streets by creating a third solution that is an unknown blessing wrote from democracy. Good luck with it...cuz me need more good news in this ever darkening world.

a reply to: chr0nautTo some point i agree with your assessment. However, when you hear George Carlin's response to your point, because of the fact it's not original, his point makes as much sense as yours...if not better...lol.