Voters Registration Drive Discussion

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

Proposal for Voters Registration Drive Discussion

Proposer: Justin Samuels

I propose that Occupy Wall Street has a voters registration drive.  Occupy Wall Street was originally about pointing out and fighting economic injustice.  This message has been lost due to nightly battles with the police officers at Union Square.  I propose that instead of focusing on trying to hold union square at night (something that occupy will lose) that occupy focus more on changing things within the framework of the system we have.  If the public thinks that the NYPD is too brutal, we can vote in a mayor who has different policing policies.

For any “anarchists” who say they don’t want to work with the system, I don’t think they mean that.  I notice when against the system occupiers get arrested, that they are more than happy to accept whatever bail money and representation that will get them out of jail.  That’s the epitome of working with the “system” to save your own skin.
Also, those of us who work or go to school cannot even attempt to occupy all day every day.  Occupy should focus on actions that’s easier for working people to do.  Voting is one action.  Another action is boycotting.   Remember the Bank Transfer Day in the fall that got large numbers of people to change their accounts to credit union accounts?  These were all positive actions that one could easily present to the general public and get good numbers of people to participate.  The fights against the policemen need to stop, its pointless and a waste of our time.  We’re here for economic injustice, not here to get our friends locked up in jail.
 This is intended for discussion.

35 Responses to “Voters Registration Drive Discussion”

  1. Jo Robin

    Traditionally, in the US (i.e. Labor/Union Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Suffrage Movement) the only successful way to challenge unjust laws was by breaking them. And if your next question is what does occupying a park have to do with economic injustice I will tell you that activist during the Women’s Suffrage movement were unable to break the the laws that were unjust and successfully drew attention to their plight by chaining themselves to state house buildings and the homes of senators.

  2. Justin Samuels

    The civil rights movement overturned segregation by court action (they had lawyers take certain cases to court where they were declared unconstitutional). And also much of it was legislative. Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights bill into law, meaning it had passed Congress and had gone to his desk. So while there were marches, rallies, and protests, they ultimately did everything within the system………….

    The problem with OWS is occupying a park after awhile does absolutely NOTHING. And on a long term basis, NYC will not permit occupation of parks. Lately big numbers of occupiers have been getting arrested. There is no public outcry from the masses, and if people keep this up, occupiers will end up doing actual time. (If one keeps getting arrests, eventually the DA and the NYPD will find ways to get charges to stick).

  3. John Fehner

    I’ve been saying this for some time now on my livestream channel http://www.livestream.com/lccupyunity

    In order for change to occur, we MUST vote. This “my vote doesn’t count” meme needs to be put to rest. That is what the 1% wants you to believe. Fact is, the higher the turnout, the less the chances are that the GOP wins elections. Look at history.

    Occupy needs their own “Norquist Pledge”. One that the candidate must sign, stating an end to corporate personhood, an end to lobbying, an end to huge donations. We need meaningful campaign finance reform if we are to get our politicians to be more responsive to the people. We need the banksters to be investigated fully. We need shadow organizations such as ALEC to be investigated fully. I know we have a lot of other issues, but those items would be a good start. This nation is sadly not ready for the wholesale change that we wish. Thus, we work towards moving the political climate in the direction we wish it to go. But that takes time and patience. Civil rights took 10 years as an example. But it WORKED.

  4. Jo Robin

    Please take a moment to read this article, so you can have a better understanding of why I find it to dangerous to organize a voting drive. I am certainly prepared to continue discussing, and feel completely comfortable with individuals seeking justice through the court systems and through voting. I for one will not specifically aid you in that endeavour but consider you completely able to do such autonomously. This proposal, though an interesting discussion perhaps in a group format I suspect will not pass consensus.
    http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_abstainfrombeans.htm

  5. perspicacious

    So, @jorobin, you think that such a proposal would be voted down in the general assembly. Interesting.

  6. Rose

    It doesn’t matter whether it will pass consensus or not. The truth is more and more people are seeing a system with a few hundred representing a few hundred million does not work. The people want to see a system in which everybody represents oneself.

  7. Janae Shields

    I think organizing voter registration drive is definitely more effective than continuing to occupy parks and getting arrested. That isn’t really making news anymore and it doesn’t force politicians to do anything differently. Lets mobilize voters in marginalized communities.

    Although I can’t personally volunteer to register people I can connect volunteers to large groups that need to be registered.

  8. Brit Webwell

    @dsams Posted comment in Vision and Goals workgroup about voting and writing in “NO CONSENT”. This vote is intended to send message that consent to be governed is withdrawn.

    Does it makes sense to have both a voter registration drive and a “NO CONSENT” drive with pamphlet explaining when this alternative should be used and mock ballots showing its use. Funds could be raised by selling a self-inking rubber stamp and/or stick-on label.

    @jorobin The “Abstain From Beans” article doesn’t address this alternative. It would be like giving people a different colored bean that they would use to vote instead of not voting at all. This would be a direct vote against coercion. I would be interested to hear your words regarding this alternative.

    I feel the voters registration drive in and of itself is worthy of support. I don’t watch TV but I’ve read articles on web about how TV includes commercials where politicians attack ideas and people instead of discussing what is supported and why it is supported. The proposal as currently worded reminds me of such a commercial. I am very much against the proposal mentioning focus or Union Square or anarchism or who to vote for and I see this as counter-productive and will only lead to divisiveness. Proposals about these other topics should be posted elsewhere.

  9. DSams

    You must have a reason to register people, other than the elite’s same old “heads I win, tails you lose” political game.

    Repost from Vision and Goals:

    Occupy the Vote: Removing Consent of the Governed in Elections

    Just a few thoughts regarding removing our consent to be governed in federal elections.

    Traditional forms of political protest are only an indirect means of influencing elected officials. This why traditional protest has a limited effect in our republican system — it’s not that it cannot accomplish anything, but rather that it can only accomplish whatever “our” elected representatives are willing to allow…

    In our little republic, we, the people, democratically elect representatives who, in turn, are supposed to represent our best interests by making, modifying and annulling the laws by which we govern ourselves. However, at this point in history, our ballot is dominated by a “twin party” system which is beholden to moneyed interests and our representatives are, essentially, bribed and corrupted by those elite and corporate interests to do their bidding. It may be an old political saw, but we really do have the best government money can buy (from an elite point of view).

    This is the great open secret of American politics: The system is corrupt, but to challenge it directly (that is by independently offering a full slate of candidates for election) is not only extremely expensive, but requires a high degree of commitment and discipline because it takes significant time to change it. This is because, simply, the founders designed our system of governance for stability, that it might overcome any “momentary passions” of the democratic majority (which they referred to as “mobocracy”). Moreover, any challenge which proceeds on the current basis of “party” politics and campaign financing is open to the same corrupting influences (witness the Tea Party).

    Problem is that while our founders may have protected minority rights (read that as the rights of the 1%) from possible tyranny of a democratic majority, they neglected to provide equal safeguards to protect us from them. Despite positive Constitutional affirmations of individual rights and prohibitions restricting police power, there is no direct, democratic mechanism by which we, the people, can challenge a despotic and tyrannical government. Even Article V places Congress in a “gatekeeper” role when the states petition for an Article V Convention…

    What the radically democratic idea “None of the Above” ultimately proposes is that our democratic franchise, the vote, must be expanded to meet this very real and present danger to the republic. Expansion of the voting franchise has occurred several times, most notably by incorporating former slaves and women into the voting population. However this proposal differs insofar as it expands the range of political choice available to each and every voter. That choice is, at base, a rejection of all candidates for a particular office, be it a seat in the House of Representatives, Senate, or the Presidency of the United States.

    But, since rejecting all candidates is not now law, what can be done?

    Democracy (in this case defined as the ability of people to elect honest representatives in a republic), in and of itself, is a normative value. That value holds that no form of governance is valid that does not originate in the people themselves. That this nation is “self-governing” and does not rely on a grant of permission or power from outside the people themselves. Normally, if our elected officials plainly do not represent us, we replace them in the following election with candidates who do (and who proceed to alter or abolish the offending law and its resultant policy).

    But if our elected officials are corrupt and plainly do not represent us, and if the political process for selecting candidates for the ballot (i.e.: the two party system) is corrupt as well, then there is little to no democratic choice to be had. Though deceit and treachery our ability to self-govern has been subverted and the resulting government (defined as the sitting Congress and President), although having been elevated to office using our democratic forms and processes, is illegitimate.

    Since we cannot simply reject all corrupt candidates, the only other mechanism available is petitioning our elected representatives for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution. Unfortunately, our petitions tend to fall on deaf ears, insofar as we are petitioning the very representatives beholden to elite interests…

    Fortunately, the Constitution does not limit “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Thus, no avenue for political protest is Constitutionally foreclosed so long as it is peaceful. This encompasses the full range of “traditional” political protest including Occupy itself.

    These traditional methods of political protest, however, as well as their attendant petitions for a redress of grievances, fall outside any recognized, Constitutional means for compelling elected representatives to take notice and act. Most particularly, there is no method of accurately determining exactly who (that is to say, how many voters) are demanding a specific act by elected officials to redress their grievances.

    It is time to remove this ambiguity by moving our protest and petition for redress of our grievances into the electoral process itself — the vote. We ought advocate that all voters write-in a consistent “mark” (for example “NO CONSENT”) in each and every federal election.

    By merely placing the issue of our consent on the electoral table we, the people, can choose to either support the status-quo (by voting for a candidate), or oppose the status-quo (by voting to withdraw our consent to be governed). This is a powerful democratic political statement that cannot be ignored — given a sufficient number of votes it will de-legitimize the current twin party political process and any government that process seats.

    This is a direct, peaceful and Constitutional challenge to elite rule.

    If we openly and peacefully organize and prepare for an election where we employ this protest, our votes must be officially recorded and all votes cast for “NO CONSENT” counted and reported. This is a Constitutional and undeniable enumeration of citizen support for a specific redress of our grievances (for example, calling an Article V Convention to effect the Separation of Wealth and State* — removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political processes), because that redress is the object of our vote.

    Although our protest may not be considered legal by the current government, our political circumstance is actually far more complex — voting is a normative democratic value which serves as our implied consent to governance under the Constitution. As such, our government cannot be considered legitimate without citizens voting for representation — voting is the means by which the “will of the people” is determined and expressed to representative government. Thus, when the political process for selecting candidates to appear on the ballot becomes corrupt and government ceases to be representative, it becomes necessary to express our “will of the people” directly, on the ballot itself, as petition for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution.

    Question is, are Americans “disaffected with things as they are”? Exactly how many of us do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

    If few, then either a D or R candidate will be elected (and our vote may simply swing the election one way or the other).

    If many, however, a completely different political circumstance emerges because of the normative democratic value of voting and its implicit “consent of the governed”. Read the Declaration of Independence — our founders’ statement of democratic virtue — would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality opposed them by explicitly withdrawing their consent to be governed in their election?

    What happens if a majority of us withdraw our consent?

    People choosing to withdraw their consent to be governed in the 2012 elections is a simple democratic choice — either support the status-quo or oppose it. Choose your side. Take a stand. Be counted.

    In the meantime, get the message out, register voters, demand transparent and accurate vote counting, do whatever it takes to make our voices heard and our message clear. We support democracy, demand corporate money out of politics, and intend to end elite domination of our government.

    DSams

    NOTES:

    *EvolutionNow’s phrase:

    “We are the 99%. We demand Democratic Government that is Of, By, and For the People. We demand the Separation of Wealth and State.

    “It is past time for Us, the 99%, to declare, and rally around, a unified purpose. Can anyone reasonably object to the above demand?

    “Consider:

    “In order for any of us (of the 99%) to effectively embark on the collective pursuit of economic recovery and positive social change, we must first obtain Access To and thereby Rightful Control Of our own Democratic government. In order to do that, we must first demand and enforce the dismantling the many anti-Democratic structures that uphold the corrupt marriage of Wealth and State.

    “The marriage of Wealth and State has has allowed the institution of Private Ownership to invade and conquer the institution of Public Citizenship. That invasion and conquest has laid waste to our democratic ideals, and reaped havoc on our economic system. It has enacted the systematic disempowerment of the citizen majority (the 99%) and enabled the harmful redistribution of Wealth to the micro-minority (the 1%).

    “There is no place for the monetary purchase of Super-Citzenship in a People’s Democracy. There is no place for Corporations in the ranks of a Democratic Citizenry. Wealth must afford No Special Power, No Special Treatment, in the halls and courtrooms of Democratic Government. These commonsense truisms, and the democratic ideals that inspire them, flow through the Beating Heart of [we, the people]. And the Realization of our Common Democratic Vision begins with the Common Cry of our Common Demand: the separation of Wealth and State!”

    • @CynPrice

      Is it time we get serious Occupy the 1%?. They buy the Elections so why not start there? We could start with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein outside the Apt on Cenral Park West he paid $26 million cash for or is that too aggressive and keep with protesting at his Office downtown?.

      • DSams

        Really? Too aggressive? Home or office? The discussion is about Constitutionally challenging elite political dominance in our elections. Too aggressive for you? What do you propose, if this citizen behavior is deemed inappropriate?

        • @CynPrice

          I meant is protesting at their Home too aggressive?…nevermind..they are that agressive…they TAKE OUR HOMES…
          Who wants to go to 15 Central Park West??

          • DSams

            I meant Constitutionally and democratically taking their power away… Who wants to vote?

      • DirekConek (aka Dallas)

        That’s what’s up! @cynprice , any interest in helping organize transportation or other resources to get people down to Chantilly, VA 5/31 to Occupy Bilderberg? May as well get ‘em all at once!

        • @CynPrice

          Ill check it out… Bilderberg…just heard about this the other day on Coast to Coast Am of all places.

          • DirekConek (aka Dallas)

            I’m not sure if there is a sarcasm tag missing there ;) , but a little reading on Bilderberg sheds a lot of light on why people might feel voting isn’t the best use of their time and energy.

        • DSams

          No sarcasm intended. I think the Bilderbergers a great target for direct action, protest. Point them out. Shine your publicity on them.

          There is an opportunity here, at the ballot box. The time is ripe. Wrap yourself in the Constitution. Spotlight the elite in the shadows and corners…

    • Monica McLaughlin

      I agree. Voting is a farce when there are 2 corporate puppets to vote for.

      • DSams

        Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee; a foregone conclusion, I agree. Hence the foregoing substantive discussion regarding the necessity of citizens to use Constitutional means to make their voices heard.

        What do you propose? Standing on the sidelines, aiding the elite with your complicity? What of your consent? Apparently you support the status quo…

    • Jomo Williams

      This is in direct response to D.S.’ “NO CONSENT” proposal.

      (“Resp”: by Jomo Williams; and “DS:”: by DSams)

      DSams said on May 6, 2012
      You must have a reason to register people, other than the elite’s same old “heads I win, tails you lose” political game.

      Resp: Agree

      DS: Repost from Vision and Goals:

      Occupy the Vote: Removing Consent of the Governed in Elections

      Just a few thoughts regarding removing our consent to be governed in federal elections.

      Traditional forms of political protest are only an indirect means of influencing elected officials. This why traditional protest has a limited effect in our republican system — it’s not that it cannot accomplish anything, but rather that it can only accomplish whatever “our” elected representatives are willing to allow…

      Resp: It all depends on the level and form of protest; as well as the issue, etc, being protested’

      DS: In our little republic, we, the people, democratically elect representatives who, in turn, are supposed to represent our best interests by making, modifying and annulling the laws by which we govern ourselves. However, at this point in history, our ballot is dominated by a “twin party” system which is beholden to moneyed interests and our representatives are, essentially, bribed and corrupted by those elite and corporate interests to do their bidding. It may be an old political saw, but we really do have the best government money can buy (from an elite point of view).

      Resp: (1) Only our elections are democratic (minus election frauds and corruptions) our Governance after elections then kicks into “representative democracy” (another word for aristocracy; Oligarchy; elite groups; etc) ; (2) Yes money incitements by and from the bourgeois (extravagant or hoity-toity) has to much control in politics (3) The key is to establish a Multi party system (oppose to just a “twin party” system).

      DS: This is the great open secret of American politics: The system is corrupt, but to challenge it directly (that is by independently offering a full slate of candidates for election) is not only extremely expensive, but requires a high degree of commitment and discipline because it takes significant time to change it. This is because, simply, the founders designed our system of governance for stability, that it might overcome any “momentary passions” of the democratic majority (which they referred to as “mobocracy”). Moreover, any challenge which proceeds on the current basis of “party” politics and campaign financing is open to the same corrupting influences (witness the Tea Party).

      Resp: (1) If the people are behind reformation then it will not be our financial means collectively, but yes commitment and discipline of the same people would be a need. (2) Mobocracy has different means depending on what minority groups you applying it to (wealth; gender; color; religion; etc; 14 amend equal protection; ( amongst other definitions). The majority rule could at times it self be a tyranny. However in your discussion yes the wealthy has means to protect them selves and are using that same wealth to abuse the political process. (3) as far as corruption being inherited
      and followed by subsequent new parties is not necessarily so. It all depends how new parties bylaws and rules are structured to regulate its candidates and safeguard it constituencies.

      DS: Problem is that while our founders may have protected minority rights (read that as the rights of the 1%) from possible tyranny of a democratic majority, they neglected to provide equal safeguards to protect us from them. Despite positive Constitutional affirmations of individual rights and prohibitions restricting police power, there is no direct, democratic mechanism by which we, the people, can challenge a despotic and tyrannical government. Even Article V places Congress in a “gatekeeper” role when the states petition for an Article V Convention…

      Resp: (1) Protection from the wealth minority, agreed. (2) Yes I too appall the fact that the creation (etc) of new amendments is very much exclusively in the hands of congress and not the people. The only time we have say is when congress bring it to us (not us to them; see Repeal of Prohibition; 21st amend). The only way we could change amendments is by making candidate include them in campaign promises and hope the keep good with them (unless as I propose structure Party bylaws that will under oath and violations of same oaths will be perjury and reasons to be kicked out of office). I also propose for Nationwide state level referendums by petitions, to overcome the “gatekeepers”.

      DS: What the radically democratic idea “None of the Above” ultimately proposes is that our democratic franchise, the vote, must be expanded to meet this very real and present danger to the republic. Expansion of the voting franchise has occurred several times, most notably by incorporating former slaves and women into the voting population. However this proposal differs insofar as it expands the range of political choice available to each and every voter. That choice is, at base, a rejection of all candidates for a particular office, be it a seat in the House of Representatives, Senate, or the Presidency of the United States.

      Resp: (1) Yes. I advocate for expansion of the vote franchise too (Universal suffrage). I go further to support any argument that seek to do away with age and felon disenfranchisement s. They too are subjected to the laws of the land and there too should have a voice in that which they are being govern under and subjected to. How ever I When dealing with age franchising (a) their vote should not equal a whole as an adult and two (b) their age and intellect level (comprehension test) should be considered when determining what percentage (of 99%) of their vote should count (oppose to an adult having an automatic 100% vote say). This would only develop a more involved and wiser nation politically. (2) I oppose the reject (NO Consent) tactic; as it will only make us lose politically by default.

      DS: But, since rejecting all candidates is not now law, what can be done?

      Resp: I quite don’t follow you. You don’t need a law people do it all the time. They just don’t vote; you don’t need law for that.

      DS: Democracy (in this case defined as the ability of people to elect honest representatives in a republic), in and of itself, is a normative value. That value holds that no form of governance is valid that does not originate in the people themselves. That this nation is “self-governing” and does not rely on a grant of permission or power from outside the people themselves. Normally, if our elected officials plainly do not represent us, we replace them in the following election with candidates who do (and who proceed to alter or abolish the offending law and its resultant policy).

      Resp: Agree. Again only our election process is Democratic (minus elections frauds, corruptions, etc). Our Governance is not; that’s “Representative Democracy” which to me is another word for Oligarchy; aristocracy; and their likes.

      DS: But if our elected officials are corrupt and plainly do not represent us, and if the political process for selecting candidates for the ballot (i.e.: the two party system) is corrupt as well, then there is little to no democratic choice to be had. Though deceit and treachery our ability to self-govern has been subverted and the resulting government (defined as the sitting Congress and President), although having been elevated to office using our democratic forms and processes, is illegitimate.

      Resp: if the “ifs” occur as you propose then yes I agree.

      DS; Since we cannot simply reject all corrupt candidates, the only other mechanism available is petitioning our elected representatives for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution. Unfortunately, our petitions tend to fall on deaf ears, insofar as we are petitioning the very representatives beholden to elite interests…

      Resp: Agree (a majority of the time).

      DS: Fortunately, the Constitution does not limit “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Thus, no avenue for political protest is Constitutionally foreclosed so long as it is peaceful. This encompasses the full range of “traditional” political protest including Occupy itself.

      Resp: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
      hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

      These traditional methods of political protest, however, as well as their attendant petitions for a redress of grievances, fall outside any recognized, Constitutional means for compelling elected representatives to take notice and act. Most particularly, there is no method of accurately determining exactly who (that is to say, how many voters) are demanding a specific act by elected officials to redress their grievances.

      DS: It is time to remove this ambiguity by moving our protest and petition for redress of our grievances into the electoral process itself — the vote. We ought advocate that all voters write-in a consistent “mark” (for example “NO CONSENT”) in each and every federal election.

      Resp: Again I respectfully disagree; that will only cause use to lose by default.

      DS: By merely placing the issue of our consent on the electoral table we, the people, can choose to either support the status-quo (by voting for a candidate), or oppose the status-quo (by voting to withdraw our consent to be governed). This is a powerful democratic political statement that cannot be ignored — given a sufficient number of votes it will de-legitimize the current twin party political process and any government that process seats.

      Resp: I do not approve of the “No Consent” tactic; but yes it would send a message.

      DS: This is a direct, peaceful and Constitutional challenge to elite rule.

      Resp: The elite rule would love us to not vote (NO Consent). As it would keep power in their hand who control legislative and executive authority.

      DS: If we openly and peacefully organize and prepare for an election where we employ this protest, our votes must be officially recorded and all votes cast for “NO CONSENT” counted and reported. This is a Constitutional and undeniable enumeration of citizen support for a specific redress of our grievances (for example, calling an Article V Convention to effect the Separation of Wealth and State* — removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political processes), because that redress is the object of our vote.

      Resp: I propose (and rather) pursuits for (a) Multi party system (b) Universal suffrage (c) Economical constitutional rights and protections (d) Nationwide referendums and an amendment that allows the people to propose the making and changing of constitutions (e) et.al. True Democracy changes.

      DS: Although our protest may not be considered legal by the current government, our political circumstance is actually far more complex — voting is a normative democratic value which serves as our implied consent to governance under the Constitution. As such, our government cannot be considered legitimate without citizens voting for representation — voting is the means by which the “will of the people” is determined and expressed to representative government. Thus, when the political process for selecting candidates to appear on the ballot becomes corrupt and government ceases to be representative, it becomes necessary to express our “will of the people” directly, on the ballot itself, as petition for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution.

      Resp: Yes implied consent is preferred by the Government its quite a necessity for its officials to keep power; this has been proven by many nations in history;
      by various forms of governments (autocracy; dictatorships; Monarchy; etc); and current history (see when Pres. Bush took the election from V.P. Gore, with “hanging Chads”,the electoral college system, and a partisan Supreme court decision, all while Gore was holding the popular vote in his hands with legitimate proof of voter fraud and corruptions occurring in Bush”s brother’s State. The people did not consent to none of that mess, but the end result was Bush made it into office and served and got reelected. So attacking the need for implied consent is not effective. Securing the voting process and expanding choices of candidates will be more effective.

      DS: Question is, are Americans “disaffected with things as they are”? Exactly how many of us do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

      Resp: Many (as myself) dissent with many of our Nation ways (believe me I have many sad songs to play on the violin; I’ve been subjected to much governmental hates, assaults, unlawful imprisonments, wrongful property seizures, racisms, political retaliations etc ). But on the same token there other countries where people have it much worse. Its all depends on what ones is seeking to do destroy America or improve it. I”m looking to improving it.

      DS: If few, then either a D or R candidate will be elected (and our vote may simply swing the election one way or the other).

      If many, however, a completely different political circumstance emerges because of the normative democratic value of voting and its implicit “consent of the governed”. Read the Declaration of Independence — our founders’ statement of democratic virtue — would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality opposed them by explicitly withdrawing their consent to be governed in their election?

      Resp: Yes they would still be considered legit (see above)

      DS: What happens if a majority of us withdraw our consent?

      People choosing to withdraw their consent to be governed in the 2012 elections is a simple democratic choice — either support the status-quo or oppose it. Choose your side. Take a stand. Be counted.

      Resp: I disagree with the “NO Consent”

      In the meantime, get the message out, register voters, demand transparent and accurate vote counting, do whatever it takes to make our voices heard and our message clear. We support democracy, demand corporate money out of politics, and intend to end elite domination of our government.

      ResP: Agree

      DSams

      NOTES:

      *EvolutionNow’s phrase:

      “We are the 99%. We demand Democratic Government that is Of, By, and For the People. We demand the Separation of Wealth and State.

      “It is past time for Us, the 99%, to declare, and rally around, a unified purpose. Can anyone reasonably object to the above demand?

      “Consider:

      “In order for any of us (of the 99%) to effectively embark on the collective pursuit of economic recovery and positive social change, we must first obtain Access To and thereby Rightful Control Of our own Democratic government. In order to do that, we must first demand and enforce the dismantling the many anti-Democratic structures that uphold the corrupt marriage of Wealth and State.

      “The marriage of Wealth and State has has allowed the institution of Private Ownership to invade and conquer the institution of Public Citizenship. That invasion and conquest has laid waste to our democratic ideals, and reaped havoc on our economic system. It has enacted the systematic disempowerment of the citizen majority (the 99%) and enabled the harmful redistribution of Wealth to the micro-minority (the 1%).

      “There is no place for the monetary purchase of Super-Citzenship in a People’s Democracy. There is no place for Corporations in the ranks of a Democratic Citizenry. Wealth must afford No Special Power, No Special Treatment, in the halls and courtrooms of Democratic Government. These commonsense truisms, and the democratic ideals that inspire them, flow through the Beating Heart of [we, the people]. And the Realization of our Common Democratic Vision begins with the Common Cry of our Common Demand: the separation of Wealth and State!”

      Resp: I agree with above Notes and phrase.

      • Jomo Williams

        correction
        the above reads:
        “Resp: Yes implied consent is preferred by the Government its quite a necessity for its officials to keep power; this has been proven by many nations in history;…”
        it should say:
        Resp: Yes implied consent is preferred by the Government but its not a necessity for its officials to keep power; this has been proven by many nations in history;…”

      • Jomo Williams

        Revised and Corrected:

        Jomo Williams said on May 30, 2012
        This is in direct response to D.S.’ “NO CONSENT” proposal.

        (“Resp”: by Jomo Williams; and “DS:”: by DSams)

        DSams said on May 6, 2012
        You must have a reason to register people, other than the elite’s same old “heads I win, tails you lose” political game.

        Resp: Agree

        DS: Repost from Vision and Goals:

        Occupy the Vote: Removing Consent of the Governed in Elections

        Just a few thoughts regarding removing our consent to be governed in federal elections.

        Traditional forms of political protest are only an indirect means of influencing elected officials. This why traditional protest has a limited effect in our republican system — it’s not that it cannot accomplish anything, but rather that it can only accomplish whatever “our” elected representatives are willing to allow…

        Resp: It all depends on the level and form of protest; as well as the issue, etc, being protested’

        DS: In our little republic, we, the people, democratically elect representatives who, in turn, are supposed to represent our best interests by making, modifying and annulling the laws by which we govern ourselves. However, at this point in history, our ballot is dominated by a “twin party” system which is beholden to moneyed interests and our representatives are, essentially, bribed and corrupted by those elite and corporate interests to do their bidding. It may be an old political saw, but we really do have the best government money can buy (from an elite point of view).

        Resp: (1) Only our elections are democratic (minus election frauds and corruptions [; as it was practice by the Greek and the Egyptians before them]) our Governance after elections then kicks into “representative democracy” (another word for aristocracy; Oligarchy; elite groups; etc) ; (2) Yes money incitements by and from the bourgeois (extravagant or hoity-toity) has to much control in politics (3) The key is to establish a Multi party system (oppose to just a “twin party” system).

        DS: This is the great open secret of American politics: The system is corrupt, but to challenge it directly (that is by independently offering a full slate of candidates for election) is not only extremely expensive, but requires a high degree of commitment and discipline because it takes significant time to change it. This is because, simply, the founders designed our system of governance for stability, that it might overcome any “momentary passions” of the democratic majority (which they referred to as “mobocracy”). Moreover, any challenge which proceeds on the current basis of “party” politics and campaign financing is open to the same corrupting influences (witness the Tea Party).

        Resp: (1) If the people are behind reformation then it will not be [beyond]our financial means collectively, but yes commitment and discipline of the same people would be a need. (2) Mobocracy has different means depending on what minority groups you applying it to (wealth; gender; color; religion; etc; 14 amend equal protection; ( amongst other definitions). The ["majority rule"] could at times [itself] be a tyranny. However in your discussion yes the wealthy has means to protect them selves and are using that same wealth to abuse the political process. (3) as far as corruption being inherited
        and followed by subsequent new parties is not necessarily so. It all depends how new parties bylaws and rules are structured to regulate its candidates and safeguard it constituencies.

        DS: Problem is that while our founders may have protected minority rights (read that as the rights of the 1%) from possible tyranny of a democratic majority, they neglected to provide equal safeguards to protect us from them. Despite positive Constitutional affirmations of individual rights and prohibitions restricting police power, there is no direct, democratic mechanism by which we, the people, can challenge a despotic and tyrannical government. Even Article V places Congress in a “gatekeeper” role when the states petition for an Article V Convention…

        Resp: (1) Protection from the wealth minority, agreed [(economical constitutional safeguard is needed)]. (2) Yes I too appall the fact that the creation (etc) of new amendments is very much exclusively in the hands of congress and not the people. The only time we have say is when congress bring it to us (not us to them; see Repeal of Prohibition; 21st amend). The only way we could change amendments is by making candidate include them in campaign promises and hope [they] keep good with them (unless as I propose, structure Party bylaws that will [place candidates] under oath, and violations of same oaths will be perjury and reasons to be kicked out of office). I also propose for Nationwide state level referendums by petitions, to overcome the “gatekeepers”.

        DS: What the radically democratic idea “None of the Above” ultimately proposes is that our democratic franchise, the vote, must be expanded to meet this very real and present danger to the republic. Expansion of the voting franchise has occurred several times, most notably by incorporating former slaves and women into the voting population. However this proposal differs insofar as it expands the range of political choice available to each and every voter. That choice is, at base, a rejection of all candidates for a particular office, be it a seat in the House of Representatives, Senate, or the Presidency of the United States.

        Resp: (1) Yes. I advocate for expansion of the vote franchise too (Universal suffrage). I go further to support any argument that seek to do away with age and felon disenfranchisement s. They too [(felons and those under the "age of majority")] are subjected to the laws of the land and [therefore] too should have a voice in that which they are being govern under and subjected to. However [] When dealing with age franchising (a) [there] vote should not equal a whole as an adult and two (b) their age and intellect level (comprehension test) should be considered when determining what percentage (of 99%) of their vote should count (oppose to an adult having an automatic 100% vote say). This would only develop a more involved and wiser nation politically. (2) I oppose the reject (NO Consent) tactic; as it will only make us lose politically by default.

        DS: But, since rejecting all candidates is not now law, what can be done?

        Resp: I quite don’t follow you. You don’t need a law people do it all the time. They just don’t vote; you don’t need law for that.

        DS: Democracy (in this case defined as the ability of people to elect honest representatives in a republic), in and of itself, is a normative value. That value holds that no form of governance is valid that does not originate in the people themselves. That this nation is “self-governing” and does not rely on a grant of permission or power from outside the people themselves. Normally, if our elected officials plainly do not represent us, we replace them in the following election with candidates who do (and who proceed to alter or abolish the offending law and its resultant policy).

        Resp: Agree. Again only our election process is Democratic (minus elections frauds, corruptions, etc). Our Governance is not; that’s “Representative Democracy” which to me is another word for Oligarchy; aristocracy; and their likes.

        DS: But if our elected officials are corrupt and plainly do not represent us, and if the political process for selecting candidates for the ballot (i.e.: the two party system) is corrupt as well, then there is little to no democratic choice to be had. Though deceit and treachery our ability to self-govern has been subverted and the resulting government (defined as the sitting Congress and President), although having been elevated to office using our democratic forms and processes, is illegitimate.

        Resp: if the “ifs” occur as you propose then yes I agree.

        DS; Since we cannot simply reject all corrupt candidates, the only other mechanism available is petitioning our elected representatives for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution. Unfortunately, our petitions tend to fall on deaf ears, insofar as we are petitioning the very representatives beholden to elite interests…

        Resp: Agree (a majority of the time).

        DS: Fortunately, the Constitution does not limit “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Thus, no avenue for political protest is Constitutionally foreclosed so long as it is peaceful. This encompasses the full range of “traditional” political protest including Occupy itself.

        These traditional methods of political protest, however, as well as their attendant petitions for a redress of grievances, fall outside any recognized, Constitutional means for compelling elected representatives to take notice and act. Most particularly, there is no method of accurately determining exactly who (that is to say, how many voters) are demanding a specific act by elected officials to redress their grievances.

        [ Resp: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
        "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
        hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."]

        DS: It is time to remove this ambiguity by moving our protest and petition for redress of our grievances into the electoral process itself — the vote. We ought advocate that all voters write-in a consistent “mark” (for example “NO CONSENT”) in each and every federal election.

        Resp: Again I respectfully disagree; that will only cause use to lose by default.

        DS: By merely placing the issue of our consent on the electoral table we, the people, can choose to either support the status-quo (by voting for a candidate), or oppose the status-quo (by voting to withdraw our consent to be governed). This is a powerful democratic political statement that cannot be ignored — given a sufficient number of votes it will de-legitimize the current twin party political process and any government that process seats.

        Resp: I do not approve of the “No Consent” tactic; but yes it would send a message.

        DS: This is a direct, peaceful and Constitutional challenge to elite rule.

        Resp: The elite rule would love us to not vote (NO Consent). As it would keep power in their hand [continue their monopolization and] control [over] legislative and executive [power&] authority.

        DS: If we openly and peacefully organize and prepare for an election where we employ this protest, our votes must be officially recorded and all votes cast for “NO CONSENT” counted and reported. This is a Constitutional and undeniable enumeration of citizen support for a specific redress of our grievances (for example, calling an Article V Convention to effect the Separation of Wealth and State* — removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political processes), because that redress is the object of our vote.

        Resp: I propose (and rather) [our] pursuits for (a) Multi party system (b) Universal suffrage (c) Economical constitutional rights and protections [of various forms. e.g. right to employment, right against usury [(see 13 Const Amend.) etc.] (d) Nationwide referendums and an amendment that allows the people to propose the making and changing of constitutions (e) et.al. True Democracy changes.

        DS: Although our protest may not be considered legal by the current government, our political circumstance is actually far more complex — voting is a normative democratic value which serves as our implied consent to governance under the Constitution. As such, our government cannot be considered legitimate without citizens voting for representation — voting is the means by which the “will of the people” is determined and expressed to representative government. Thus, when the political process for selecting candidates to appear on the ballot becomes corrupt and government ceases to be representative, it becomes necessary to express our “will of the people” directly, on the ballot itself, as petition for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution.

        Resp: Yes implied consent is preferred by the Government [but] its [not] quite a necessity for its officials to keep power; this has been proven by many nations in history; by various forms of governments (autocracy; dictatorships; Monarchy; etc); and [by] current history (see when Pres. Bush took the election from V.P. Gore, with “hanging Chads”,the electoral college system, and a partisan Supreme court decision, all while Gore was holding the popular vote in his hands with legitimate proof of voter fraud and corruptions occurring in Bush”s brother’s State. The people did not consent to none of that mess, but the end result was Bush made it into office and served and got reelected. So attacking the need for implied consent is not effective. Securing the voting process and expanding choices of candidates will be more effective.

        DS: Question is, are Americans “disaffected with things as they are”? Exactly how many of us do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

        Resp: Many (as myself) dissent with many of our Nation ways [and conducts] (believe me I have many sad songs to play on the violin; I’ve been subjected to much governmental hates, assaults, unlawful imprisonments, wrongful property seizures [and with-holdings] , racisms, political retaliations, etc ). But on the same token there other countries where people have it much worse. Its all depends on what ones is seeking to do destroy America or improve it. I”m looking to improving it [as well as the national's and global's macro-economical&political systems.]

        DS: If few, then either a D or R candidate will be elected (and our vote may simply swing the election one way or the other).

        If many, however, a completely different political circumstance emerges because of the normative democratic value of voting and its implicit “consent of the governed”. Read the Declaration of Independence — our founders’ statement of democratic virtue — would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality opposed them by explicitly withdrawing their consent to be governed in their election?

        Resp: Yes they would still be considered legit (see [responses] above)

        DS: What happens if a majority of us withdraw our consent?

        People choosing to withdraw their consent to be governed in the 2012 elections is a simple democratic choice — either support the status-quo or oppose it. Choose your side. Take a stand. Be counted.

        Resp: I disagree with the “NO Consent”

        In the meantime, get the message out, register voters, demand transparent and accurate vote counting, do whatever it takes to make our voices heard and our message clear. We support democracy, demand corporate money out of politics, and intend to end elite domination of our government.

        ResP: Agree

        DSams

        NOTES:

        *EvolutionNow’s phrase:

        “We are the 99%. We demand Democratic Government that is Of, By, and For the People. We demand the Separation of Wealth and State.

        “It is past time for Us, the 99%, to declare, and rally around, a unified purpose. Can anyone reasonably object to the above demand?

        “Consider:

        “In order for any of us (of the 99%) to effectively embark on the collective pursuit of economic recovery and positive social change, we must first obtain Access To and thereby Rightful Control Of our own Democratic government. In order to do that, we must first demand and enforce the dismantling the many anti-Democratic structures that uphold the corrupt marriage of Wealth and State.

        “The marriage of Wealth and State has has allowed the institution of Private Ownership to invade and conquer the institution of Public Citizenship. That invasion and conquest has laid waste to our democratic ideals, and reaped havoc on our economic system. It has enacted the systematic disempowerment of the citizen majority (the 99%) and enabled the harmful redistribution of Wealth to the micro-minority (the 1%).

        “There is no place for the monetary purchase of Super-Citzenship in a People’s Democracy. There is no place for Corporations in the ranks of a Democratic Citizenry. Wealth must afford No Special Power, No Special Treatment, in the halls and courtrooms of Democratic Government. These commonsense truisms, and the democratic ideals that inspire them, flow through the Beating Heart of [we, the people]. And the Realization of our Common Democratic Vision begins with the Common Cry of our Common Demand: the separation of Wealth and State!”

        Resp: I agree with above Notes and phrase.

  10. Monica McLaughlin

    Here in New York State, there is no reason to go to the polls to vote for president. This isn’t a swing state. It is a solid Obama state. The electors have his back.

  11. vets74

    We were always handing out the 2-sided new York voter registrations on weekends at Zuccotti. I bought an Epson Artisan 835 printer from B&H to handle the copy work without impacting other work flow.

    Getting people registered to vote should be a top priority — same as SNCC and SCLC back in the day. Yes, indeed !

  12. Trish

    Interesting discussion…not so much for what is said…but what was not!

    Justin, you’re always …on time.

    trish

  13. Jomo Williams

    Being brief; I’m all for a voter drive. I will detail why later within the new group I intend to propose.

  14. Jomo Williams

    —Original Message—–
    From: thegodparty
    To: facilitation ; comhub ;
    general
    Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 4:22 pm
    Subject: Emergency Proposal

    Emergency Proposal

    Due to the fact that this is a proposition for a third party political
    party to campaign this election year we must move quickly. Election
    boards’ filing deadlines are to be met; funding, support,
    contributions, and petitions are to be sought & gather; potential
    candidates are to be vetted; and other necessities need to be acquired
    timely.
    CONTACTS

    Person: Mr. Jomo Williams. Email: Thegodparty@aol.com
    Phone: 646 360 3941 Fax: 646 568 4365
    Sites: 99pp.wall.fm; and 99pp.bbnow.org

    To:General Assembly Proposal
    l:
    Many of our OWS’, members want to use the political process too as a
    avenue to achieve our goals (see discussions between members on OWS”,
    sites). I see it as a disservice to us not to pursue elections this
    year as a third party. It will only help support the movement (Media;
    financially; instrumentally; and in other ways).
    Thus I proposal this group charter not only to OWS’, NYCGA; but also to
    its National and Global GA’s.
    On the above websites I had published the following:

    MISSION

    “99%PP, is a Political Organization that nominates candidates for
    elective offices, who advocate for: true democracy; economical
    constitutional rights; equal protections of the law; universal suffrage
    for all; Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy;
    Exercising personal and collective responsibility; Recognizing
    individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all
    interactions; Empowering one another against all forms of oppression;
    Redefining how labor is valued; The sanctity of individual privacy; The
    belief that education is human right; Making technologies, knowledge,
    and culture open to all to freely access, create, modify, and
    distribute; and OWS’ Principles of Solidarity.”

    The current response from OWS was:

    ‘The Facilitation WG came to consensus at a group meeting held on
    4.2.12 regarding the following statement:

    “After participating in a number of community dialogues, and numerous
    Facilitation working group meetings, which have identified an emerging
    consensus that the General Assembly as it currently exists no longer
    meets the community’s needs. Facilitation working group will no longer
    send a Facilitation team to the General Assembly, find spaces for
    Spokes Councils, or handle proposals on NYCGA.net, effective
    immediately.”

    If you have a question regarding Direct Democracy or Facilitation
    training, consensus outside of the NYCGA, Open Spaces and other
    meeting structures, or would like to discuss something that falls
    outside of the statement issued above, we will get back to you as soon
    as possible.

    In solidarity always,
    Facilitation Working Group, OWS”

    Since all the above I had proposed the new group to OWS via its online process. I’ll keep yall updated.

  15. Jomo Williams

    New Group Form submission received
    From: no-reply
    To: thegodparty
    Date: Tue, May 29, 2012 10:21 pm
    Your request to add 99% Politikos Party to nycga.net has been received.

  16. michael

    Yes! I definitely support getting voter registration drives out there and explaining to poorer parts of the country their voting rights, and Occupy could help a lot with this!

    I appreciate the urge to not participate in a ‘dead political system’, but I would like to make the electoral system ‘not rigged’ and get the money out of politics as much as possible as ONE OF MANY of our goals, as well, which is just simply harder to do with Romney as President and more tea partiers, etc., in office. Get people engaged and also get them to support constitutional conventions to overturn decisions such as Citizens United! Constitutional conventions need LOTS OF SUPPORT IN ACTUAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE!…