Against Amnesia

“In my own country, amnesia is the norm, the schools teach us to unremember from birth, the slave taking, the risings up, the songs of resistance, the first May first, our martyrs from Haymarket, to Attica to the redwoods of California, ripped whole from our hearts, erased from official memory….” – John Ross, “Against Amnesia”

Donald Trump’s declaration that the election system is rigged made me laugh a bit – it is, though not in the way he means it – and think about John Ross’ fabulous poem on our nation’s own utter (and often willful) ignorance of history. I wonder how many of the pearl-clutching journalists and Clintonistas were part of the brigade that wished Al Gore had decried the clear election fraud in 2000 and fought as hard as Donald claims he will after Nov. 8? More than a few, I suppose.

The election system is rigged, of course. A decade ago Citigroup produced a frank memo that said the United States was fast becoming a plutonomy, a neologism for a society with extreme class inequality; Profs. Gilens and Page said as much in a 2014 study: American politics responds to what our oligarchs want, not voters. It is hard to imagine oligarchs permitting democracy – Aristotle even categorized oligarchy as aristocratic government run in the interests of the wealthy, and not the many. Our ruling class uses the spectacle of national elections to pretend it doesn’t exist. This election cycle, more than others, has given us a glimpse into how deeply corrupt our system is, perhaps because Trump and Clinton are so universally despised by voters.

Why is the system rigged? The national presidential popular vote is irrelevant; instead there are 51 separate elections going on across the United States. A candidate can lose the national vote and still win due to the electoral college. There are only 10 or so states where the vote is even in doubt from election cycle to election cycle. To have a chance of winning a candidate must raise millions of dollars and convince outside groups to spend billions (really, after counting the amount of cash spent on this election it will total in the many billions). You have to get on the debate stage – a stage controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. Before that you have to get on the ballot, which is a maze of 51 different election laws – please read Theresa Amato’s amazing book detailing the problems candidates face doing so if they aren’t running as a (D) or (R). A candidate has to receive media coverage, which is often hostile if a candidate doesn’t meet political norms prescribed by the oligarchs.

Not to mention the gerrymandering that has left perhaps 20 House seats (out of 435) as truly competitive elections.

Or that our economy is controlled by a small segment of very large and powerful corporations, who will, by and large, work with anyone in power (and usually split donations to various candidates over time to make sure this happens).

So yes, the election is rigged! As a public, we understand parts of this from time-to-time, but often forget in the heat of campaign season.

The question is, can we learn from this collective amnesia? Start organizing to change this before we unremember again? One can only hope, I suppose.



Politics Is a Racket

I don’t often like to resort to overused analogies when analyzing politics, but when talking about the U.S. presidential election I find the best way to view it is as a protection racket. A protection racket, of course, is a mafia-like scheme where a group threatens violence against businesses or people unless they are paid to “protect” said groups. You know, the old “you’ve got a nice store here, wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to it, would you?” Our political system has been carefully crafted by the Democratic and Republican parties to frighten voters into selecting what they perceive to be the best worst option, rather than the most positive outcome. Keep in mind that the opposite is true for the ruling class and donors to campaigns: they tend to get what they want because both candidates are likely to promote the interests of the people and groups who fund their campaigns and control the levers of economic power. The two major parties and their large retinue of paid staff also get what they want: political power and access to jobs/resources.

The Shape of the Racket

The political protection racket has been built and maintained by the Democrats and Republicans using a number of techniques:

  • Gerrymandering rendering the majority of the country into non-competitive Congressional and state-legislative electoral districts.
  • Use of the Electoral College, and not the popular vote, to elect the president.
  • Placing of ballot-access and electoral hurdles in the way of alternative party candidates.
  • Preventing the establishment of fully publicly financed elections.
  • A symbiotic relationship with media outlets to both indoctrinate and propagandize the voting public as an extension of the media’s role in supporting the state and ruling class ideology.
  • Extremely negative responses to attempts by voters to exit the system by voting for alternative parties and candidates: predictions of voter irrelevance giving way to constant propaganda that third-parties (which may be the voter’s preferred outcome) will prevent the voter’s least non-preferred outcome from happening.
  • Actual reprisals against districts and voters who have successfully chosen to exit the protection racket.

It’s important to examine each of these in turn.


Gerrymandering is drawing a district so that one party has an overwhelming registration advantage over all others. This makes voter rebellion (exit) unlikely because it would require the opposition to either enroll a significant number of new voters, encourage non-voters to vote, attract a significant portion of the majority party voters to vote against the party, or a combination of the three. In the United States, the Congressional district map has been so gerrymandered that there are between 16-19 races out of 435 that can truly be called competitive. That’s 4% of all House races! The Senate is slightly more competitive, with 7 seats out of 35 up for election in that category (20%), but keep in mind they are only 7% of the total Senate (7/100).

I mention this as a building-block of the political protection racket because by eliminating choice in vast majority of elections, you force voters to A.) consistently elect people from one political organization no matter what their preferences might be, B.) inevitably discourage many voters from participating in the political process, and C.) train voters to consistently vote for one particular party (no matter what) and that this is part of a democratic political order’s proper functioning.

Keep in mind this is all even worse at the level of state legislative elections.

Thus the Democrats and Republicans and their paid staff are assured a certain amount of political spoils no matter what, as exit from the system is blocked in most areas of the country. Like a company store, the voters an residents have to go because there seems to be no other option.

Electoral College

The Electoral College was designed to prevent the working class and poor from electing a radical executive who might try confiscate the property of the wealthy. Alexander Hamilton put this in an eloquent way when he wrote that the Electoral College was designed so “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” That is, because the vast majority of electors were originally chosen by state legislatures, this meant there were safeguards in place to prevent the popular will from being exercised, should it prove unacceptable to the elite.

Today the Electoral College is a part of the protection racket not because they are selected by state legislatures, but rather because it limits the truly competitive (swing) states to just 10 or 11: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. 40 of the 50 states have voted for the same party since the election of 2000.

Think about this!  Preventing a fully national electoral campaign and limiting the impact of democratic choice (in the form of the popular vote) but means there is precious little chance of voter rebellion and exit. The protection racket has tightened its grip by limiting the swing vote to merely 11 states.

On top of this the state-by-state nature of the vote means the two parties can attack alternative party candidates like Jill Stein in two ways: first for being irrelevant (they can’t win electoral votes) and second because they could be so relevant as to tip the election. They can have their cake and eat it, too, and petrify voters into choosing between two candidates even in non-swing states due to the irrelevance/relevance pretzel-logic of the Electoral College.

Those of us who fight for instant runoff-voting and the popular vote in presidential elections should bear in mind that it is the Democratic and Republican parties who love the Electoral College and the fear they can create in the hearts of voters if alternative presidential candidates gain any traction (while ignoring and disparaging them when they do not). It is a perfect example of the racket.

Ballot-Access and Electoral Hurdles

I doubt most people think of how difficult it can be to even appear on the ballot for office in the United States. There are 51 different rules (including Washington, D.C.), and the process used for independents and alternative party candidates is usually onerous. Not only that, but since boards of election issue the rules and are staffed by Democrats and Republicans by law, non-major party candidates start at a disadvantage.

As for electoral hurdles, while gerrymandering is one, the single-member district, plurality voting system tends to replicate the racket at the local level. Alternatives (which often include the disadvantaged major party candidate in that district) are either derided as a wasted vote or they are seen as a mortal threat to the party that controls the racket.

By limiting the ability of candidates to appear on the ballot and then limiting their chances of success, the racketeers rarely have to worry about serious rebellion.

Campaign Finance

The amount of campaign cash spent on elections in the United States is staggering; the Economist estimates nearly $5 billion will be spent in the 2016 cycle. Neither major party has much interest in limiting the gusher of donations available to them from the very wealthy and corporations. In fact, the political economist Thomas Ferguson developed his investor-driven theory of elections after determining that political parties set their policies and limit their rightward and leftward tilts based on investor-blocs donating to the parties. Since no investor-bloc seems interested in eliminating private funding of elections, there is no real movement to do so in Congress or at most state levels (with Maine and Arizona as rare exceptions).

Quite simply, this is part of the protection racket because A) candidates and parties unable to raise vast sums of cash cannot pay for ads, staff and mailings necessary to appear viable – which is only the case because there is no system of public campaign financing, B) voters either become non-voters due to despair or disgust (which is preferred by the racketeers in gerrymandered districts if a voter is not an orthodox party supporter) or dismiss alternative candidates and choose to keep the racket because nothing else seems viable.

Media Coverage and Propaganda

It would be easier to view the media as a crucial part of the state and ruling class’ tools for indoctrinating the population than as an independent body; it is enmeshed in the ideological superstructure of the system. Regardless, the media’s role is to be a gatekeeper for their paymasters. 6 corporations control 90% of the media in the United States! Not only does that give unprecedented control to the heads of those corporations, but given their own interests in maintaining a relationship with the racketeers (for “access”) the journalists and editors rarely take a negative view of the electoral racket, and even more rarely afford third-party and independent candidates equal, fair time and consideration.

They are in fact more likely to propagandize in whatever way keeps the racket stable for the elite; in 2016 this seems to mean almost every media outlet denouncing Donald Trump and backing Hillary Clinton (the elite consensus choice).

If one never knows about an alternative, the limitation of choice means a large contingent of voters will simply choose to become non-voters when discouraged, and the rest will remain trapped loyal party members.

Negative Response To Racket-Exit and Third-Party Votes

The main response to a concerted decision by a bloc of voters to reject the racket is to belittle their chosen candidate(s) and to shame and scare them back into line. We see this with the development of the “spoiler” mythology during, and then immediately after the election: the Democratic Party, which has helped game and rig the system almost since the inception of the United States, blamed Ralph Nader and the Green Party for their candidate’s loss. It is as if the owners of a casino (another racket) were sobbing about losses due to card counting at the blackjack table – hilarious, to be sure, since they set the rules to a corrupt game!

This is a very persuasive tactic and most people don’t like being constantly belittled for their choice of third-party candidates or “losers.” It’s ideological shaming and part of the larger indoctrination into the systemic rules that are enforced by hard and soft power.

Actual Reprisals 

Actual reprisals are rare, since the system is rigged against alternative candidates to begin with, but examining wins by Green Party state legislator John Eder in Maine (2002 & 2004) we can see that the first course of action is to redistrict (this also happened to Dennis Kucinich in Ohio even as a Democrat, albeit one very critical of the Democratic Party apparatus). Eder happened to run in Portland, Maine, a very liberal city and won his second election after being redistricted; it helps that Maine has a very good public campaign financing law as well. Matt Gonzalez, who was a GP head of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, very nearly won the mayor’s race in 2003. During the run-off election the Democrats and Republican celebrities campaigned together and there were threats to city workers to campaign for the Democrat (Gavin Newsom) on the job.

Break the Racket

The solution, of course, is to break the racket. Build alternatives by supporting them with money, time and votes – and refuse to accept the fear-based racketeering of the major parties. Easier said than done, of course, but the decay of the two-party apparatus in the United States – which mirrors the swift decline of old-guard 20th century parties in Europe – should give hope that a battle against the racket is not fruitless.


All Right, We’ll Call It a Draw – Debate Analysis

Well, that was… something. A spectacle to be sure, but a debate? Some quick thoughts:

  • In any other year you’d have to say that Clinton won the debate. She stuck to the traditional model of wonky, factoid-laden answers she’s used to giving. Trump was emotional, excitable and vague, with a habit of circling back to answers he’d already given, always trying to have a gotcha moment. Still, Trump only needed to not stumble too much in order to pull a draw, and I think he came close to doing so because it isn’t a normal year and a lot of voters are probably very happy with his angry outbursts.
  • Trump had a very strong first fifteen minutes. He seemed very animated where Clinton was aloof, and managed to hit her very strong on her awful economic track record, her support for NAFTA and her negotiation of trade deals that were, indeed, awful for the American worker. He could not, of course, hit her from a working-class, anti-capitalist perspective, so his rant was about protectionism more than anything. I suspect, though, that this will play to his base and many more who have been hurt by the deliberate gutting of the American manufacturing base.
  • Clinton again appeared stronger than Trump on the specifics of economic policy. Trump is always more potent when attacking an opponent’s positions rather than outlining his own. I didn’t see Clinton having a moment where she could really hit back on the economy because it’s clear for most that the economy hasn’t benefited the in the last few decades.
  • Trump was nearly incoherent when discussing race and baldly lied about stop-and-frisk. His positioning as a law-and-order candidate seemed to be more pleading than anything else. Clinton’s response was typical liberal talking from both sides of her mouth. No real discussion of inequality as a factor in violence and the use of police as a tool to repress poor minorities.
  • Hillary’s one really good line – “I prepared to be president, and that’s a good thing.” is only going to appeal to her base. There are a lot of people this year who don’t want an insider, and they are not going to vote Clinton.
  • Russophobia was on full display when Lester Holt served up a softball to Clinton on the hacked/leaked DNC emails. Pretty disgusting and unfortunately Trump is correct in his rebuttal that we really don’t know who hacked the DNC. Still, no discussion of the national surveillance state or how pervasive US hacking is around the world.
  • Foreign policy – I think this was an area where Clinton was going to shine to people who loved her tenure as SoS, but I’m not sure the rest of the voting public really likes or cares about how many countries she visited. Trump bumbled through an attack on her hawkish tendencies and how she supported the overthrow of Gaddafi and funneling arms into Syria, and that her vote on Iraq was part of the domino that started the crisis, but he could not carry it through to a logical or well-aimed conclusion. He repeated his argument to make NATO members pay for protection which is hard to argue with (pearl-clutching from the pundit class aside). If he’d been more coherent he could have scored real points here.
  • It’s hard to tell who won this debate with the voting public; the polls will give an immediate result but we have 5 weeks to figure it out. I don’t think he did as poorly as the pundit class is going to claim, and Clinton didn’t land a knockout punch. Trump merely needed to pull a draw here to survive, and as varied as his night was, I think he did that. The trouble is, where does he go from here? It’s difficult to imagine him refining his points any more for the next two debates. Clinton is going to have a lot of time to prepare for the second debate and to push him on the issues.
  • Finally, the absence of Jill Stein from the debate stage was noticeable; listening to her live-feed you got the substantive discussion of issues that was lacking in the debate. There’s a clear reason the CPD keeps Greens and Libertarians off the debate stage. Just like Nader would have wiped the floor with his opponents in 2000, 2004 and 2008, Stein would have given Trump and Clinton fits in 2016.

I think, though Trump didn’t “sniff” victory it’s hard to say that Clinton put him away. That’s why it’s likely to be more of a draw in the long-term than anything else.

Jill Stein Livestreams the Scripted Talk Between Hillary and The Donald Tonight

Tonight’s scripted talk between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – for we cannot call something controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which itself is run by former heads of the Democrats and Republicans, which excludes both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and whose format barely allows for real interaction between candidates a debate – will be interesting to the extent that we will be able to gauge voter disgust with the choices and the level of spectacle and obfuscation from Trump and Clinton going forward into the last 5 weeks of the campaign.

The real debate will be on the outside of the Hofstra auditorium, where Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka will be protesting their exclusion from the debates alongside thousands of protesters demanding their inclusion and the recognition of issues that are going to be ignored or glossed over on stage tonight.

Jill Stein will also be livestreaming her response to the moderator’s questions tonight on her Facebook account:


Why Don’t People Vote? It’s History…

The NY Times asks an interesting question: what makes people into voters and non-voters? The conclusion, though not addressed by the Times even with clear data in the article, is that non-voters are making a logical choice based on the limited amount of selection and impact they perceive their vote to have in an electoral system that is mostly rigged in favor of particular outcomes. This has a two-fold component: an historical attack on working-class organizations that dates back to the rise of mass parties, labor unions and socialist politics in the late 19th century, and modern hurdles to ensure continued flat voter turnout outside of groups that are unlikely to vote in a radical fashion: the wealthy and the professional managerial class of college-educated workers.

The Historical Assault on Voting

The 19th century was a time of robust political participation in the United States – both among groups that were enfranchised and those that were fighting for suffrage. In the 60 year period from 1840-1900 voter turnout in presidential elections fluctuated between 73%-82%, similar to high-turnout nations today like France, the Netherlands, Sweden, South Korea, and New Zealand. We can see this clearly here (and note the sharp decline after 1900):

The youth vote, unlike today, was similarly high, since:

“From children to 20-somethings, young people were considered the most wildly political Americans. The Newark Evening News declared the “great majority” of school-kids “violent little partisans,” who hollered nasty rhymes at rivals (“Democrats eat dead rats” was a favorite). Many youths joined political marching clubs—girls dressed as goddesses, boys in military uniforms, wielding torches, playing brass instruments, sometimes concealing bowie knives or revolvers. And so-called “virgin voters” turned out on Election Day, excited to cast their first ballots for their beloved parties.”

We may have to revive the “Democrats eat dead rats” slogan…

Class barriers to political entry fell away in the mid-19th century, as the Jacksonian Revolution stripped away the last property qualifications to voting. By 1840 – the year of the spike in voter turnout – they were gone in all but three states, and by 1856 in all of them. Keep in mind that this was the result of fierce struggle between the old elite and the rising petty-bourgeoisie (as well as the small but growing working class) fought over the first few decades of the 19th century much like in the U.K. (where it resulted in the Reform bill of 1832 and eventually the Chartist movement).

We know the jumble of political issues in mid-to-late 19th century America; slavery, suffrage for African-Americans (and women), labor rights, the tariff, imperial annexation. Political machines provided material benefits to supporters in rapidly expanding metropolises.

Yet the inevitability of mass political participation and growth of political parties and organizations across the United States, like much of the West, brought with it increasing class consciousness and militancy. It was the fear and inability of the ruling class to control these movements that lead to changes in electoral laws specifically designed to decrease voter turnout and strangle mass left-wing political party growth.

The crucial period is 1876-1900. Rutherford B. Hayes’ election signaled the end of Northern elite interest in Reconstruction, and the ensuing twenty-five years would be punctuated by massive economic growth coupled with boom-and-bust cycles of economic depression.

Growth, and with it unparalleled economic consolidation brought with it growing mass participation in large political organizations. The growth of (American) capitalism brought with it the rise of large bodies of people able to engage in collective action, and the passing of sectional rivalries meant political consciousness could shift to class issues.

The largest worries for the ruling class and their intellectual advance guard – the Progressives – were not truly urban-ethnic city machines (though they were hated by nativists and attacked) but three movements:

  1. Populist success in the Midwest.
  2. Socialist and Labor Union gains in the urban centers of the Northeast and Midwest.
  3. North Carolina & the poor white farmer-African American alliance

Populist organizing in the 1880s culminated in the formation of the People’s Party in 1891. Populism was a largely agrarian movement of poor white farmers in the Midwest and South opposed to large commercial and financial interests that kept farmers in perpetual debt. The party was left-wing reformist in the sense that they wanted to break up large monopolies in the railroads and on Wall St., and attempted some alliances with labor unions in large cities to do so. The People’s Party was successful at the state level in the Midwest and managed to elect a number of representatives to Congress.

Socialist and union organizing was in its formative stages during this period, but the growth of working class political parties and labor unions around the globe in the 1890s was mirrored in the United States: from the failure of the American Railway Union strike in 1894, Eugene V. Debs helped form the Social-Democratic Party of America in 1898 (later to merge in 1901 with elements of the Socialist Labor Party to form the Socialist Party of America). The SDP almost immediately began to elect members to local offices.

Finally, in North Carolina the People’s Party formed an alliance with the Republican Party (which was largely controlled by African-Americans). Poor white farmers and blacks united in an uneasy but successful political partnership from 1894-1898, instituting economic reforms intended to benefit small farmers, loosening suffrage restrictions and democratizing government.

Ruling Class Reaction and Voting Decline

There were largely three reactions to suppress voter turnout very pointedly during an era where working class and poor farmer organization was having success:

  1. Co-option of the movement and candidates.
  2. Restrictive and confusing electoral laws.
  3. Violent suppression.

Co-option is a powerful tool used to this day in various front parties (see the Working Families Party) and in mainstream candidates promising social movements legislation for electoral support; inevitably the radical edge of that organizing is blunted. Victorious parties rarely feel the need to deliver on the pledge to their working class constituency, and unsuccessful campaigns can leave the movement tied to an organization that no longer wants or needs them beyond election day. The Populist movement was famously co-opted during the Presidential election of 1896, when they decided to endorse Democrat William Jennings Bryan, who was running as a representative of the silver mining interests; after his loss the movement splintered and faded.

While the imposition of “voting reform” by Progressives has largely been seen as a reaction by middle-class nativist reformers against urban ethnic working class political machines, it can also be read as an attempt to blunt the rising potential power of radical urban working class political parties. Socialist success in the United States during the first two decades of the twentieth century potentially heralded a new electoral order that could have forced an open acknowledgement of class politics. Instead the Progressive reforms: nonpartisan elections, city-manager governments, separating local election years from national, party primaries and even the secret ballot shifted the balance-of-power from working class voters and urban machines to an educated, white, native, middle-class segment of the population.

While not all of these reforms were bad (like the secret ballot), there was no corresponding effort towards proportional representation, multi-member districts or much more than lip-service towards public campaign financing. Reformers had “cleaned up” government by blunting urban voters’ power, and with it limited the rise of groups like the Socialist Party.

In the South, especially North Carolina, the dominance of racist white elites was challenged by the success of the Populist movement’s alliances with African-American voters. In North Carolina a coalition of People’s Party and Republican elected officials held sway in the state legislature from 1894-1898 and were able to institute a series of reforms that increased voter participation, democratized government and empowered poor whites alongside African-Americans. Though the coalition was tenuous especially due to continued racism inside the People’s Party, it was only defeated by an armed white uprising in 1898 and corresponding electoral defeat by the Democratic Party, which quickly instituted Jim Crow laws to prevent another coalition from forming.

Finally, a landmark study by Piven and Cloward in 1988 showed that after the 1896 elections the anti-turnout forces succeeded in suppressing voter turnout by making participation more costly in the North and nearly impossible in the South for many; laws outside the South mandating personal registration on workdays made it nearly impossible for working class voters to register, and poll taxes in the South eliminated voting for most poor whites and blacks. Party competition nearly ceased regionally, leading to large swathes of one-party districts, further depressing turnout.

The Lingering Effects 

While there have been notable successes in extending and broadening voting rights – largely due to the women’s suffrage, labor union and civil rights movements – the effects of the broad-based attack by the ruling class on working class and petty-bourgeois electoral parties in the late-19th century lingers over a century later. Voter turnout collapsed in 1900 and never recovered to late-19th century levels; we applaud today when it approaches 55-60% in presidential elections even though in other nations there would be cause for alarm if national voter turnout dropped to that point.

The crushing of electoral movements that bring broad gains for their working-class and poor supporters has the effect of demoralizing supporters. Greece today is a perfect example: Syriza was elected in January of 2015 with a groundswell of support for radical confrontation with the Troika, against austerity budgets and with an ostensibly anti-capitalist platform. From January-June – until the betrayal after the “Oxi” vote – the populace saw the potential for a radically different future from the one offered by the Troika. Yet during this period the ruling class used its time-worn tactics: co-option of Syriza’s leadership and more right-wing elements, castigation and crushing of the left, and a threat of economic violence against the country if it did not comply.

Correspondingly, Greek voter turnout collapsed in the September, 2015 elections, declining from 63.6% in January to 56% just nine months later.

Political scientists Thomas Ferguson and Walter Dean Burnham have shown that voter turnout in the United States from 2012-2014 declined to levels not seen since before 1840. Any uptick in 20th century voting must be seen historically as that of working-class American voters during the New Deal era (1932-1972) that were mobilized by the Democratic Party because the party leadership and donor base were willing to ally with organized labor to push a Keynesian economic agenda at home and an internationalist foreign policy abroad. Once the ruling class was no longer interested in doing that, the collapse of the New Deal coalition was assured and the Democratic Party was no longer interested in mobilizing workers as a class. Voter turnout collapsed below 60% in the 1972 presidential election and has never since approached that level.

Marten Gilens and Benjamin I. Page released a study in 2014 and wrote

“In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it…

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

There is a fundamental political consciousness in non-voters that, more-or-less, what Page and Gilens say is true. A century of co-opting, stymieing and crushing mass social movements and we have arrived at an era where the elite no longer desire or need to mobilize vast quantities of people to vote in elections, just a small and motivated group of wealthy and educated whose interests are still catered to by the political establishment – the Occupy’s famous 1% ruling class and Thomas Frank’s 10% professional class.

What Is To Be Done?

There are reforms that clearly increase voter turnout:

  • Automatic Voter Registration: Making it easier for voters to remain registered means they are more likely to turn out on election day.
  • Proportional Representation: giving voters more choices seems to increase turnout.
  • Election-Day Holidays: By allowing weekend voting or national holidays voters would be more apt to participate, especially if the elections took place during warmer months.
  • Competitive Electoral Districts: turnout is usually higher in races with competitive elections.
  • Consolidated Elections: By eliminating multiple elections and consolidating votes onto one, or at most two days a year, turnout can be increased substantially.
  • Lower Voting Age: Numerous countries have lowered the voting age to 16 with positive turnout results.
  • Campaign Finance Reform: Giving non-corporate candidates a chance to win elections could increase voter interest substantially.
  • National Popular Vote: Electing a president by national popular vote would increase voter participation in the majority of states that are usually reliably one-party.

Of course the likelihood of any of these being achieved without a struggle against the ruling class is low, because the success of a number of the reforms would open the door for linking mass social movements and political parties, leading to electoral success. The professional class – the system-managers and ideologues – would be mobilized immediately to defend the superstructure of elite control.

Yet fighting for reforms that would increase voter turnout would also have the effect of mobilizing and educating vast segments of the disaffected into a broad radical social movement/electoral coalition of the working class. Perhaps, as Leon Trotsky opined, it is the task of the working class to expand and consolidate the democratic gains for which the bourgeoisie is no longer interested in fighting.




The Jill Stein/Green Party Town Hall Was An Historic Event

Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka were on CNN for 75 minutes last night. The enormity of this should not be lost: Green Party candidates appeared on a major cable news network and were allowed, in long-format, to discuss their views to a national and international audience. It’s safe to assume many had never seen a major US network where a presidential ticket was allowed to speak frankly on issues of class and racial injustice, women’s rights, foreign policy, the climate crisis and the jobs crisis. Nor is it likely many had seen two candidates talk openly about the need for revolution, or for someone on a presidential ticket refer to themselves as a revolutionary.

Even Ajamu Baraka clarifying his statement calling Barack Obama an “Uncle Tom” and then mentioning the need for internal discussion on the left – most people in the United States don’t have a concept of ideology or that like-minded activists can have a broader conversation about tactics and platform. Now, they might.

Predictably, the rest of the mainstream media has gone dark on Stein’s town hall. Since smearing a longer format event is more difficult when the participants perform well as did Stein and Baraka, their other option is to refuse coverage in the hopes fewer people will seek out the video. We can expect lack of coverage to continue for a few days until the Mighty Wurlitzer cranks up again and the media begins to defend the interests of their capitalist ownership groups (only 6) and the professional caste of journalists respond the way we expect from a privileged, indoctrinated group.

If you haven’t managed to catch the entire discussion, you can watch it here: