Open Left

My Point Is (4.00 / 1)

I've got to look more closely at what you've done, but my point is that it's generally far easier to take over an existing party with a vibrant reform movement than it is to start a third party.  And since my limited understanding is that what you're talking about is voter empowerment, this applies equally to either strategy.

However, I feel that I owe you as more considered response, which will have to wait for next weekend.  This is just my initial take, given that I've thought about and researched such matter of and on for several decades now.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:03:14 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

You Make a Very Valid Point (0.00 / 0)

I think it is very important to ask that question, namely, whether it is easier to "take over an existing party with a vibrant reform movement" than it is to start a third party."

And compare working within the existing party structure to starting a new one, with specific reference to web inventions like mine. BTW, I initially conceived the idea for my invention at a Meetup to support Howard Dean's presidential primary bid.

I have been working on it for the past five years, during which it has evolved considerably into a mechanism that voters can use either to take over an existing party or start a new one.

The more I see Obama moving to consolidate his control over the Democratic Party using social networking techniques, the less I think a vibrant opposition reform movement can take over the Democratic Party with Obama at its helm.

My invention also uses social networking technology, but as I point out when I critique Obama's Pre-Election Web Strategy and Obama's Post-Election Web Strategy, I think it is best for voters to use social networking technologies independently of existing parties, candidates or incumbents.

(See also my section entitled Transforming Web 2.0 Social Networks into Political Networks.)

Obama and his operatives claim they have started a new social and political movement. But, as I point out, movements usually are started from the bottom up rather than the top down, as Obama clearly did when he co-opted existing social networks of young Millennials.

The important thing to do right now is to figure out how political entrepreneurs and technologists can pool their ideas, resources and inventions to empower voters to call the shots, leaving it to them to decide whether they want to work inside existing parties or outside them.  

 

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:19:57 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

I Promise To Study This More Carefully (0.00 / 0)

I agree with a lot of your analysis, as I'm sure you already know.  I've always believed that people need to organize outside party structures first in order to then organize within them.  This would go for third party organizing as well as organizing within the Democratic Party, however.

It's natural for folks to organize by issue affinities first before joining into anything larger, such as a political party.  I think that remains true no matter what else they may do.  Another point is that limiting the power of money must be similarly important whichever route is chosen.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:40:30 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

The Interactive Voter Choice System (0.00 / 0)

would nullify the power of money in the electoral process because it would empower voters to:

• Directly set their policy priorities across the board and publicize them in nationwide public opinion polls, whose results can be disaggregated down to the local level;

• Identify and contact like-minded voters with similar policy agendas so that they can join forces to build political networks, coalitions and winning voting blocs of any size at local, state and federal levels;

• Use their political networks, coalitions and winning voting blocs inside, outside or across party lines to run and elect representatives at all levels of government whom they can hold accountable for enacting their policy agendas into law;

• Use their political networks, coalitions and winning voting blocs to rejuvenate existing political parties or build new political parties.
  

Since this invention will produce a high degree of convergence between voters' policy agendas and electoral candidates' policy agendas, candidates will no longer be dependent on campaign contributions from business and financial interests to get their message out.

The dominance of campaign financing and legislative decision-making by special interests will come to an end because electoral candidates and incumbents seeking re-election will no longer have to sell their votes to financial and business interests in order to get elected.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 18:51:23 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

voter choice system (0.00 / 0)

I read the links in your posting yesterday. This system could be a game changer for us. Looking foward to Paul's take on it, but it looks good at first glance. Thank You!

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 14:21:49 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]