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

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I think mostly because I'm also an european, I agree largely with you.

But your last paragraph raises some questions.

Let's make "Nation A" an example. Around 80% or 90% of people in Nation A have Internet access. So in Nation A someone is very visionary and says "power to the people" and now everyone can vote on every issue that the Nation has to decide. Contracts, where to go in terms of social security and stuff like that.

Let's imagine a system where any citizen can log on, or be presented with a questionnaire online, and decide the fate of it's nation.

Isn't Nation A at the hands of anyone who wants to control it? Even more than with a single politician representative?

That Prime-Minister has a face, he has responsibilities, and you may like him or hate him, disagree or agree, but you can pinpoint the decisions.

I mostly fear systems like those because as a citizen of a country, you can't possibly know that the decisions being made by votes are actually being voted. What if a foreign nation hates Nation A, and hacks it's voting system, and disguises itself as voters and controls the outcome of the decisions?

You think that the system works, you think everyone else is voting, but the outcome isn't the one you wanted because you can't possibly ask everyone else what they voted. Maybe within your social circle, but not on a national level. People might just disagree with you, or someone could actually control the votes, foreign or domestic.

Also, I think that putting a lot of issues into the hands of the public is a bad idea. We get mad at stupid decisions made by authorities, but do we really want to be annoyed with all the details? Do we really want to vote on all pieces of legislation, and spend our free time doing governmental choices, or do we want representatives that agree with our general view and will vote forward reforms we want, doing all the small work for us?

I think we can visualize a different system, but the problems will always demand for a representative, which can only be in power if he is chosen by everyone, which forces down the path of elections again.

I think the current modern problem is that the political class doesn't originate from the average population, it originates from the elite. And we are the one's to blame. We want perfect people in power, but there isn't such a thing in real life. Nobody is perfect.

We can, as citizens, cast out a good president because he had a lover, or because he told a small lie, but at the same time, we can keep in power people who have white teeth and nod politely, has the perfect wife and the perfect family, even the dog is perfect, but then in secret rooms make negotiations that screw us all.

I think that the first step is to change the type of character we want in power. Real people with real ideas and real projects, or "perfect candidates" and "stand-up citizens"?

I'm not bothered if a President goes to power, makes wrong decisions and then leaves. If he was honest about it, if I can read that he made those decisions with the best judgment he could make, fine. He had his chance, made a mistake, others will take over.

What I cannot stand is a system where the people who are in power are nothing more than corporate representatives. And corporate is just a tag. It could be the banking system, the agriculture system, anything. Heck, it could be aliens. lol

The reason why we consider a candidate good or bad has to change. We need ideas, not faces. And we also need to drop the fear of change. Presidents, good or bad, anywhere in the World, even if they have good ideas, sometimes it's really hard to implement them because people just don't want their systems to change. Especially in socialist states.

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

Your post is mistitled. The correct title is: What you can do to ask SOMEONE ELSE to make a difference for you.

With all due respect, you are wrong. The way to make a difference is to set an example and work to solve the problem your self. If you are not focused on solving the problem your self, forget it. The government isn't going to solve it for you. They will make it worse, just like 100% of the time.

If you see a problem, work to solve it. Certainly one of the biggest problems the entire world faces is the foolish expectations that other people are going to solve their problems for them.

I have to disagree with your perspective here. The OP implies the general sentiment in your post. He is talking about an idea as opposed to the reliance upon government officials. Unfortunately, changes cannot be made from the outside. When we the people try to change things individually outside of government, we are even more divided and will descend into chaos. We will certainly fail this way. Therefor, we must spread the idea, and over time that idea will change the game from the inside. We have to start voting for our ideas for it to work. The system cannot be changed from the inside alone or the outside, but rather from both together. The idea grows on the outside (people) whereas the respective ideas will begin to flourish on the inside (government). Right now both sides are stagnant in the left/right system where it's all or nothing on both sides, and that's the problem.

a reply to: Meee32

I certainly don't think that some other group of sociopaths are the solution to the problem of how our "government" is run. As a matter of fact, I am specifically calling for the pretense on which the government authority is based be dramatically undermined. Government dicks us around because it claims to represent The People. By voting for a diversified group of candidates (almost all of which, I admit, are sociopaths by clinical definition) would negate that idea. It would make it easier for people to call B.S. when they see it, and it would have politicians who today swagger around with impunity walking on eggshells as they are forced to own the fact that they do not represent anything close to a majority.

originally posted by: RobertAntonWeishaupt

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.

You've somewhat identified the correct problem, but you've identified the wrong villain. The problem is, low voter turnout and the two party system. But the villain is not the two parties, they're a symptom, and raising voter turnout will not fix the problem, nor will voting third party.

Why? because of the way each state awards electoral college votes. All but a couple of states have a winner take all system for their electoral college votes. So let's say there is a third party candidate and they have a legitimate shot at the White house. Well now you've taken a required 50%+ vote for the winning president and turned it into as little as a few states. From needing 270 electoral college votes, to needing 181 to win. California, texas, new york, pennsylvania, and florida would give any candidate 171 of the needed votes. Six states could pick the President (and only 1/3 of the voters in those states would have to vote for the winning candidate). 4 of those 5 states went to Obama in 2012.

But what about congress!?? I mean, wouldn't it be worth it to have a less popular president to have a better representative congress? Sure, it's a decent argument, but it ignores the fundamental truth that all policies derive from one of two ideas; the power of the people comes from the government OR the power of government comes from the people. ALL legislation either empowers the people or empowers the government. We all know and understand this, even if we didn't think we did.

The big parties (D and R) for the most part represent these two positions with a good degree of accuracy. So, the big parties, being threatened by a third party will do what? Adopt a plank in their platform that appeases the group that will poach from them. This is seen at both conventions. If they didn't heres what you'd see: take the tea party movement and say that the republicans didn't take them in and they formed their own party. For the sake of this example lets say they made up 20% of the electorate, of which, 80% are going to come from the voters would vote republican, 10% are voters who would not vote if there was no tea party, and 10% are from the political left (IDK, maybe they're confused). Here's what happens in the election: 47% vote democrat, 33% vote republican, and 20% vote tea party.

So let's say that translates perfectly into the house and senate as well. What you have is a democrat controlled government of all three branches. Well, now not only are the republicans in the minority, but so are the tea party. If either of them want to pass legislation they will not only have to compromise with the left, but they'll have to compromise with the factions on their side. It would stop the gridlock, because the democrats would dominate in this scenario (there wouldn't be chance of a filibuster to stop them either).

Being humans, and not liking to lose, we would work our way back to the two party system really quickly. We would rather win something or lose a little than win or lose everything.

TLDR: Our government is set up as a dichotomy and there would need to be huge structural changes at the local, state, and federal levels to accommodate more than the two parties we currently have.

I remember for 2012, When asked about my choice, I told people I was going third party.

The general response was, "That's a waste of a vote."

I didn't really know how to respond to the degree of this thread, but I rebutted with a lesser effect.

Thanks for this thread.

S&F

originally posted by: VashKonnor
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Let's imagine a system where any citizen can log on, or be presented with a questionnaire online, and decide the fate of it's nation. Isn't Nation A at the hands of anyone who wants to control it? Even more than with a single politician representative?

Yes. But that holds true for any system. Conventional ballots have been forged too. That's why we sent out monitors which check if all went according to the rules. Now, of course, if you don't trust the monitors you will not trust their opinions either. In the end it's all a matter of (well funded) trust.

Any type of election needs trusted systems to aid the election. Such systems should be transparant hence easy to check while still maintaining the secrecy many like to maintain with regard to their vote. There should be control mechanisms in place which make it hard for anybody to commit fraud undetected.

Actually in my country voters are welcome to witness the counting of votes in any polling station. You can be there right when they close the station, see them open the seals on the containers with the ballots and are allowed to scrutinize the counting procedure. A problem here - related to the problem you mention with the total absence of knowledge about crucial problems in the general population - is the total lack of interest of people to actually use this right. Last time we had elections I was the only one that actually witnessed the counting of the votes (which, may I add, was done properly, but you'll have to take my word for it ).

I mostly fear systems like those because as a citizen of a country, you can't possibly know that the decisions being made by votes are actually being voted. What if a foreign nation hates Nation A, and hacks it's voting system, and disguises itself as voters and controls the outcome of the decisions?

There are various ways of making it hard to crack any system. Firstly, you don't want a big monolithic system, but a fairly large number of loosely interconnected systems. This also allows local and regional decisions to be made and monitored locally. Secondly you should have a very rigid monitoring an auditing policy which is vigorously implemented, checked and as transparant as possible. Thirdly, there are a number of technical issues to be resolved. The good news is that we have all tools we need to, it's just a matter of combining them. If you are IT savvy, think about encryption, anonimization, protocol changes, compartimentalization, study the way the TOR network works. If you are more interested in academic work being done on this topic, you might like this article - a full version of it can be found on the Internet too but before you do, please ensure you are not infringing the rights of copyrightholders if you download it.

So, there can be systems that make it possible to directly and trustworthy perform secret on-line ballots.

You think that the system works, you think everyone else is voting, but the outcome isn't the one you wanted because you can't possibly ask everyone else what they voted. Maybe within your social circle, but not on a national level. People might just disagree with you, or someone could actually control the votes, foreign or domestic.

As said, there are systems that make this very difficult. Sure enough any system can be manipulated. But it should not be overly simply. The system should be such that even if a cracker would succeed in cracking one part of the system - which should take infeasible amounts of effort - he has only gained very little and has almost certainly been detected. If groups of crackers conspire the system should be such that they would be better of simply casting their votes. In the end a forceful armed takeover of the country should be more feasible, easier and grant better results than breaking the ballot system. Which gives conspirors an obvious choice

Also, I think that putting a lot of issues into the hands of the public is a bad idea. We get mad at stupid decisions made by authorities, but do we really want to be annoyed with all the details? Do we really want to vote on all pieces of legislation, and spend our free time doing governmental choices, or do we want representatives that agree with our general view and will vote forward reforms we want, doing all the small work for us?

But that is not what representatives of the population do either.. that's why we have civil servants.

Anyway, how often and on which level the opinion of the voters will be queried when trustworthy online systems are in place - well, I guess it depends on the voters themselves. But any frequency better than once every four to seven years and better granularity then "which party do you favour" is a huge improvement in my book..

I think we can visualize a different system, but the problems will always demand for a representative, which can only be in power if he is chosen by everyone, which forces down the path of elections again.

Again, granularity and frequency can be debated. But the current system is a farce, it has served us well, but it is time to say goodby to it and use something that gives the people a real sense of control.

Another system that might be used is "forced representation". A random generator appoints one in every 10.000 people to be a 'representative". These representatives gather and decide for us. Like the jury system. Maybe we need a simple exam that you'd need to pass before being eligable, to establish a baseline of intelligence - but that's a slippery slope already.

I think the current modern problem is that the political class doesn't originate from the average population, it originates from the elite. And we are the one's to blame. We want perfect people in power, but there isn't such a thing in real life. Nobody is perfect.

Agreed. My suggestion of 'random selection of representatives' would solve that problem, introducing another one: lack of sufficient skills an capacities. Hence my suggestion of the need for an exam. But then you'd be back to 'the elite governs'.

heck, it could be aliens. lol

Sometimes it are. Must be. People would not decide like some politicians do

people just don't want their systems to change. Especially in socialist states.

Some would say that is because these systems work well where others insist these systems are run by dictators.

However, I yet have to see a real socialist state, let alone a real communist state or even better a real anarchy. There never was a socialist, communist or anarchist country for as long as we can remember. We people barely manage to rise above the chaos and seem uncapable of establishing much more than a system in which "strong men" lead us.

Remember the five steps towards enlightment:

1. chaos
2. strong men, kings and emperors
3. democracy
4. socialism
5. communism
6. anarchy

.. we never got beyond the second step..

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

The problem is that we still can't get past the Electoral College.

www.archives.gov...

Here is a list of states where those in the Electoral College can still vote however they want. I believe that in order for your idea to work,we need a constitutional amendment that says that ALL Electoral College members MUST vote by the peoples popular vote only.
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA


MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA

States not listed ,they either vote by popular vote or most of them is by political party pledges. So we do have little say in what one wins. You generally get into the position of Electoral College as a favor granted for years of service. So its your pay off for being a good stooge. Of course your going to tow the party line no matter what the people think.
Therefore we have to stop it there in order to be truly heard. Yes we can all go and write in a candidate,but they stand NO chance of ever winning until our Electorals must vote how we say.

a reply to: Dimithae

Excellent point about the abomination that is the electoral college. That outdated institution needs to be destroyed.

originally posted by: keenasbro
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

I agree more people need to vote... but in all honesty I don't want people voting who can't even name the people running for President. Here in the U.S. there are any number of videos you can find of people who don't know who the current Vice President is. I'm not sure those people voting really benefit the country in any way?

Also adding my country is full of people who think real life candidates actually said stuff done in a Saturday Night Live television show or jokes from The Daily Show. I am all for showing a valid picture identification of some sort and having to answer a few brief simple questions about the government. According to a certain political party I'm obviously a racist for not wanting voter fraud and low information voters.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

Doesent en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) completely destroy your idea?

I mean unless this is passed or disbanded what would be the use on a national level?

I am gonna throw my two cents in here

A vote doesnt matter

Im omw to work but off the top of my head I know of none

Zero polictcal entities aka governments

That went peacfully into the night

They were all brought down from the outside

No votes

Just guns and blood

Why do we think this one will be any different?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

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

No it's not, and with that mindset I should be surprised to see you on ATS, but I'm not.

I may have to write a response to RobertAntonWeishaupt's examination of the situation/system.

Pretty much, this right here:

originally posted by: Another_Nut
I am gonna throw my two cents in here
A vote doesnt matter


Zero polictcal entities aka governments
That went peacfully into the night
They were all brought down from the outside
No votes
Just guns and blood
Why do we think this one will be any different?

It is my opinion that we should not waste time trying to fix a system that has deviated so far from the ideal. It would be imo the best use of time and resources to buy up a very large tract of land by private means and to build a new self-sustaining infrastructure. It is imo feasible that such an infrastructure could be constructed with present/past technology and would be a system that would pretty much run itself. Important components to such a system would be very low energy consumption per capita transportation systems. The fuel for these systems would be from renewable sources such as bio-mass, wind and solar. Also educational systems would be in place to train ANYONE that displayed the desire to fulfill any of the jobs that existed within the system. It would be advantageous to cross train people in as many capacities as would be reasonable. The reasons for this would be to give people as much variety as would be reasonable in order to generate fulfilling lives and to eliminate job burn-out

Let me give a brief outline for what I envision such a system would look like. Imo Narrow guage steam powered railroads fueled by bio-mass pellets would be a critical part of the transportation system. It would be used primarily for the transportation of freight. I say steam because imo there is no more functionally beautiful piece of machinery then a steam locomotive. It's simplicity and display of raw mechanical power derived through the four basic elements ( Earth/Iron, Water, Air and Fire) of life is unsurpassed and timeless. I say narrow guage because it would be more conducive to keep the system to a moderate size and would be altogether of a more manageable size regarding the repair and up-keep of equipment. The only reason railroads became as large as they are is because the focus was on maximum efficiency/profit as well as maximum growth of economy. Our focus now should be maximum quality of life for ALL people. I feel it important that the system should be looked at as a cell of self-sustainability that once established would multiply by creating other cells of self-sustainability.

Another imo indispensible part of the transportation system would be all-weather bike ways. These would be the primary means of people transportation. They should be constructed from composite materials that would be made from renewable feed stocks. These bike ways would be constructed so that they have very slight grades and if possible power assistance in places where elevation changes needed to be made. Idealy you would construct them so that you could have them going downhill both ways. In other words depending on which way you were going to be going you may have to ride to the nearest exchange point where you would take a lift of some sort up to the bike way that you needed and would proceed down hill ( although very slight ) from there to your destination. If this proves to be too much of a problem during design phase I'm sure just having for the most part level bike ways would prove to be manageable. I did a search and saw that a company in Colorado promoted this idea. they also mention having drafts in the tunnels in order to provide assistance. I had thought of the same thing but I read a response to that proposal and it was saying that it was not feasible due to energy requirements to run the fans/blowers and also design issues that would stem from having to facilitate air flow. I'm not sure if it is an insurmountable problem or not but I'm sure there are other ways to "skin the cat" so to speak.

I would also not rule out some sort of futuristic type of transportation system that would provide smooth,silent and fast (relatively) transportation for longer journey's.

As far as food supply goes the land should be surveyed and catergorized according to best uses. All food grown would be grown in accordance with the needs of the people in the system so that waste is minimized ( of course allowing for reserves incase of emergencies). As I see it the preparation of the food would be done in public cafeterias/restaurants by people trained in the culinary arts schools that would be available for the training of anyone that had an interest in food preparation. The cooks/chefs as well as all kitchen staff would be on a rotating schedule so that you may only prepare food once a month or whatever you were comfortable with. There would be many cafeterias/restaurants and they would have different themes. People would have to make reservations so that only the amount of food necessary would be made. All of this would be free... this society/system would not have money. In this way people could eat well prepared/healthy food with the same convenience as fast food today.

The health care system would be similar in that it would be staffed by individuals trained by the societies medical schools. Emphasis on wholistic healh care would be prevalent. There are many other facets of such a society that would have to be worked out but I think you have an idea of what I envision. Now having said all of this ...unless there is a change in our hearts no system no matter how carefully planned will succeed. And in fact I cannot say that it is in the best interest of our soul development that a system of this nature should even come into being as it would not provide the types of testing and trials that our current circumstances provide. Nevertheless a system of this nature is our ownly hope humanly speaking of bringing about societal stability. It is also in my opinion the only work that we as a nation could embark upon that would be a work meet for repentence for the trespasses done against the Earth and it's inhabitants.

There was a time when kings and leaders measured their success by the contentment of their subjects but such time has long since passed. If the leaders of the nations do not repent and turn whole heartedly from their ways divine intervention is imminent.

Harry

This is what I did last election. I was accused of wasting, or throwing away my vote.
I''ll do it again if and when the situation warrants it

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

The best thing you can do is make people aware that their vote doesn't matter and the system is controlled by corporate interests.

1. The RNC and the DNC are a tool used and sponsored by corporate america to give you a list of candidates that they selected for you which they allow you to pick from. They are also in charge of keeping political cheerleaders from thinking with common sense and arguing among each other.

2. The Main Stream Media is a tool owned by corporate america to manipulate who you think is the better candidate and used for pr control. This is one of their biggest tools used to manipulate the public into picking their candidates and how to deal with current topics and issues.

3. The presidential debate are controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates corporation that is sponsored by the RNC and the DNC . They control what is discussed, to who is allowed to attend, to who can cover the topics.


So yes you get to vote but in the end because of manipulation you will end up voting for who they want and nothing will change as history has demonstrated over and over. The same issues discussed today are not new issues.


So the best thing you can do is wake up the political cheerleaders and temporarily team up to restructure the current political system. Do away with private candidate funding, Do away with private MSM coverage of candidates, do away with infinite term limits, and restructure the existing lobbying process.

As long as you continue to play in the system the system will stay the same and nothing will get fixed .

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

So the best thing you can do is wake up the political cheerleaders and temporarily team up to restructure the current political system. Do away with private candidate funding, Do away with private MSM coverage of candidates, do away with infinite term limits, and restructure the existing lobbying process.

As long as you continue to play in the system the system will stay the same and nothing will get fixed .

So your answer is to censor the media and other free speech? Ok...

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

So the best thing you can do is wake up the political cheerleaders and temporarily team up to restructure the current political system. Do away with private candidate funding, Do away with private MSM coverage of candidates, do away with infinite term limits, and restructure the existing lobbying process.

As long as you continue to play in the system the system will stay the same and nothing will get fixed .

So your answer is to censor the media and other free speech? Ok...

No not all. BTW MSM coverage is censored and biased to its corporate sponsors so they won't give you uncensored information anyways.

What I suggest is that once candidates make it to a certain position that they all get equal time and equal tax payer funds to debate and to discuss where they stand on the issues.

Anyone that wants to run for office should be able to apply and get access to a centralized gov't website that host the candidates website , blog where questions can be asked, videos and interviews from anyone, and all debates and televised debates should be done on CSPAN.

We have technology and we should start to look at ways to use it in order to do away with the rampant corruption in DC.

There is no need for a candidate to have to raise half a BILLION dollars to run for office like in the last election.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

We must advocate for "third parties."

Wait… what? It’s that easy?

If this idea is so simple, why hasn’t it worked yet? The third parties and independents already do much campaigning to little effect. They want people to vote for them and they try hard to win those votes. Obviously, there is absolutely nothing “absurdly easy” about advocating for votes, or they would have more votes. Even if they were to employ your quite reasonable rationality as their running platform, and spoke incessantly about this method being “the best and simplest thing you can do to change the system”, we would see that without the clout this advocating will simply go unheard. Ross Perot got as far as he did and into the debates because he was exceedingly rich and powerful. Sadly, a little rhetoric and throwing a vote is not enough, and is in fact the very least one can do to change the system.

First, one would have to convince others that the system needs changing in the first place. That in itself is a monumental task, and there is no shortage of literature advocating this subject already, with little to no noticeable cultural and political effect. Look at Ron Paul for instance.

Second, the third parties and independents are so marginalized that most people don’t even realize they are in the running. The candidates can barely advocate themselves. And any sort of “movement” or advocation behind any candidate thus far had little to no effect on any systems.

Lastly, even if your best and simple idea were to work, any drastic system changing ideas as a result will be met with so much opposition, not only by politicians, but by the people, that your candidate will have no choice but to become a part of the very system we all thought he would change. See Obama.

A third party is exactly what it is: just another political party vying for top spot and political power of a system within which they and the business of the state can flourish.

Any change to the system will have to happen culturally, so that the people will learn to stand together and unite under common ideals. Unfortunately, this usually occurs as a result of tragedy and war once the reactionaries—the actual doers who have had enough of the advocacy and rhetoric—put their ideology into practice. But we shouldn’t have to worry about that as people are too preoccupied by Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty. When the people want change, they will take it.

Do I advocate for violent revolution? Hell no; nothing could be more herd-like. Look at the day after any revolution, and besides a body count and a few people defecating in public parks, little of the system has changed, and worse, if a government does fall, usually a more violent and sometimes theocratic government takes its place.

Before any political coup can take place, a cultural one must first occur. The state is not a few shadowy men and corporations playing puppet master—the state is the people, the very same place where the funding, the man-power, and the demand to the supply, comes from. Every politician, lawmaker, official, general, justice, police officer, administrator, lawyer, and government employee are citizens; and the state is a direct mirror image of the very people it governs.

a reply to: RobertAntonWeishaupt

I believe this was the EXACT mission statement for Gary Johnson and the Libertarian movement. We know we wont win, but if we get enough votes (over 1 million), your party is automatically accepted into the next cycles presidential debates. It's not the worst plan in the world. The only downside is that it does depend on the everyday citizen caring and putting forth some effort.

This is why I don't have faith in this type of plan, it depends on the most flip floppidy of all components, people themselves.