Give a voice.
Or is there an overriding national party Political Judment Rule, actual or implied?
- Update 7.25.2016. A party national committee. this time Democratic, the DNC, in the news for acting to favor one party candidate over another.
- Is that not acceptable, like a board of trustees acting in their best business judgment for the good of the company, as ordinary companies organized for a task (and profit) do, even over wishes of shareholders and workers, at least to a degree?
- Apparently not. The DNC apparently is to be impartial in all things, a mere functionary, mechanical, to set up the steps to naming an ultimate candidate.
- Would like to see exactly what rule or charter the DNC violated, as it must be there. Stay tuned. Meanwhile, overall issues remain the same in post originally published in the context of voter revolts over opacity and misleading weight (sometimes zip) to be given to primary votes. Who do the committees represent: votes of their fellow elected officials, or national voters.
- Preference: Come out of the shade. Combine duties of trustee with transparency, and if not impartial, be prepared to explain why before damage is done. Expand the debate, not hide it. Serve long-term party interest but weight the present. DNC leader down. To read: Expert Political Judgment, by Philip E. Tetlock 2005; and The Business Judgment Rule as an Immunity Doctrine by Lori McMillan 2013.
Same other prior issues here: Voters have bee kept ignorant of exactly what their party VIP's are doing, what their standards are, transparency in whether or not they are doing it. Voting rules. Status quo. Keep the party procedures and internal manipulations unpublicized, keep voters ignorant, and the powers hold yet another tool for voter exploitation.
The issue there is not whether candidates themselves fully understand the playing board behind the scenes. The issue is harm to the voter, the actual party in interest, the true stakeholder.
Add to that yet another procedure: A candidate who never ran for the presidency can be drafted at a convention, even where the strategy was cannily to kept to the sidelines, just biding time, ducking controversy, while others risked self and position, and now will waltz in. Is this so, or to be dismissed, as the powers do, as mere conspiracy theory and sour grapes at losing out yet again. The duck walk. Just say no.
. Update: That was resolved at the RNC Convention. No such candidate maneuvered into such a position. But should safeguards be in place to prevent even the possibility of a duck-walker sidling in at the last minute. Or do we need the valve open.
So voter revolts fail because, is this so, voting has become a rigged game. Test the theory.
1. Voter revolts fail because the power deck is indeed rigged, stacked against them, of course. That is how power perpetuates. Any progress on issues that affect them take time, and more time, while some of their devotees then fall away (have to earn a living) and power regroups,its income broadly so vast they can afford the time. Is that so?
2. So, ask first, Is this concern with manipulation and exploitation of voters merely another conspiracy theory? Look at the broad picture before the specifics: Role of a conspiracy theory here? Discount or not?
- Do ballots that name a candidate, then the vote does not necessarily go there, violate any actionable misrepresentation as far as outsider voters (read: ignorant of power plays) are concerned.
- Is politics now sales, so that commercial rules for truth in advertising for politics applies? What is acceptable lying? All of it?
- Rules surprise. Voter deflection by design; the Duck Walk. The Duck Walk Candidate who waddles in after ducking the campaign confrontation crucible, did not expose himself to scrutiny as did the others; and should national party procedures exposed to some form of regulation so voter advance process information is high on political priorities.
- For balance, read The Conspiratorial Brain, by Adrian Chen 2013, see NYT review. The book lays out concepts to make conscious, and enable us to rein in, our usual reliance on "common psychological phenomena," including assumptions of evil causation, "intentionality bias"
Surprise takes surprising forms: The Rules produce Duck Walk Candidates. Duck Walk Candidates are those who duck the crucible of voter examination and media scrutiny, by design or other careful strategy to preserve options while shielding shortcomings.. Surprise in other areas works against voters. The white (pun intended) knight.
This is complex, because some worthy people are drafted in the absence of a first-ballot win for someone. The issue here is manipulating the process itself to intentionally avoid the campaign crucible, and that is dishonest and untrustworthy. Timeliness of the entry is important, and represents a judgment call for voters. Some may be fine with it. Lay out the issues.
- The duck walk candidate. Attack the white knight pun intended strategy most relied on by the rule-making power-perpetuators. This cycle at least, oppose any candidacy of anyone come-lately who conveniently ducked the crucible of primaries and caucuses.
- Research and disclose all funding for such late-coming candidate. Who, when, what demands in return.
- If you don't do the work, duck the risks, you don't deserve the reward.
- The option cannot be barred completely, because people have been drafted before, and party rules are private and need not be democratic. Explore how to pressure a delegate not to do it when they are not elected, or hold office.
Voter revolutions overall fail for the same reasons that peasant and worker revolts failed before them: lack of cohesion, resources, mobility, to seek advantage. FN 1. Add this difference, however, to voter revolts: surprise. Secrecy in administrative rules and proceedings, at least keeping such things below public radar and media attention, wins. When all is disclosed, it may be too late to counter the counters.
4,2 Surprise, again. The element that is realized too late. I spent four hours in line for this?
The powers use surprise in addition to the usual tools for winning: they wield their own practiced uniformity, vast cash and ability to maneuver, in ways that voters do not see in their own experience or as otherwise publicized. The more absolute the surprise, the greater the success and shock value, and voters reel. Can they get up again? Powers block.
- Surprise through rules, sub rosa, not familiar to ordinary people or part of common parlance, excludes persons from the electoral process itself, apart from any voting results those persons muster on their own. Even candidates, themselves outsiders. Too late. Surprise.
- Surprise turns votes into disposable advisory opinions. This works to overwhelm and demoralize voters who overcame obstacles to vote, and at the last minute, without opportunity to regroup in time.
- This can be rather like political party cossacks running down unarmed workers in our own Palace Square. Surprise. Did our manifesto bring about that? or rules weaponizing religions: naming ideological nonconformists as heretic, to be damned, and demonizing/killing them. Did the founder say to do that? Surprise.
5. Deprive voters of a good education, mobility (poor transit, inability to move), access to job and political information -- computers. How was an ordinary voter to know inside party rules?
Many policies masked as economic result handily in voter exploitation. Make them think one thing, do another. It should be safe in relying on their own experience in voting: I vote for this because I see it needs doing, or I will benefit.my interest, or it follows my moral viewpoint. In primaries and caucuses, however, voters can be uniquely taken by surprise because they are dealing not just with visible, experiential condition, but with arcane rules. It does not matter to them that the rules are the rules and have been in effect for years. What matters is that they did not know.
- Instead, they find that they are dealing with private political party rules rules, not bound by constitutional concepts as is governmental action. The party rules are designed not to count their vote and act reasonably accordingly, but as a mere advisory opinion.
- Rules set up by the powers a long time ago to perpetuate their control, but not noticed by voters and outsiders until too late, is not acceptable in a democracy. Voters do what seems logical and effective, and find it blows up. The issue is pervasive: Office closed on Thursdays, only open for you between 2-3AM Wednesdays and there are no buses. Plus you need a voter ID but ooops we closed the photo shop near you and it is six towns away. And there are no buses.
Unfair surprise can be a rally point.for voters.
Surprise can rally voters. Outrage got gas. It is this surprise factor that may make a difference this time, in voters mustering more power among themselves and to use against powers, instead of losing it. Unfairness is a rally point.
- Once aware, voters may just begin to act as the powers do: plan and execute what is needed well in advance of the election in issue. A pivotal problem and opportunity for voter revolts is the periodic reviews of the actions today by means of later voting cycles.
- Voters may learn that they have to use force, not just semantics and mottos. They must extract resources to get their share from the powerful, forge difficult common identities and common perceived goals, (not the easy ones of privilege, of hoarding, preserving supremacisms, power and estate). Voters must then extract even more resources to get mobility so they can go where advantage may because the power-perpetuation systems remain in place. Enter the cosmos, laughing at first, but it might become serious. SuperPac nerves. FN 2
4. Go too far in unfair surprise, as the 2016 cycle of candidate selection may in the eyes of voters, may lead voters ultimately to find ways to legislate back to fairness: even to remove the entire voting process from state control, from private control of parties so restraints on government discrimination do not apply, and to outside regulation and control.
Do we regulate (REGULATE?) Hardly feasible as a totality now, but in part, perhapsbe. Voter revolts against party abuse of power is an anger already extended to government abuse of power, alleged and partisan, of course, and government is gridlocked anyway. Add this element to it.
- Education. Use schools, and at home, NPR, CPTV?
- Now: Who will fund voter education so voters can protect themselves against modern advertising techniques of persuasion, neuro-focus groups, trigger words, Money buys media time, and only education of the public as to propaganda techniques can arm them against it. See the menu, http://www.propagandacritic.com/ Not those using those techniques against voters now.
- Who is politics, who is entertainment. Ask the criteria, ask the voters. Regardless of that outcome explore power-perpetuation in party procedures. Does it serve the voters? Of course not. Parties are marketing, not for a common good. Is that so?
FN 1 Voter uprisings are no different from peasant and worker revolts in requirements for success. See http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2016/04/peasants-revolts-and-why-they-fail-how.html.
FN 1. SuperPac nerves. What if voters act like powers: If the voters can get behind a SuperSuperPac, for example, aim to spend for education so voters will see and spot propaganda, and use computers. Persuasion loses its bite when it is transparent. Aim for universal access to computers and transportation and information on training for jobs.
So, do what is feasible this cycle, and watch and maneuver for the next cycle. Those not up for election this time, will be another. Make little lists.