0 votes

No Confidence Protest Vote 2012

Hi all. I know this is a Ron Paul site and he's still affiliated with the Republican party, but I'm guessing most of you are more libertarian than hard core Republican so I think it will be appropriate. I'm sure many of you hope, as I do that Rep. Paul will leave the Republican party and run as an independent or in the Libertarian party if his quest for the Republican nomination is not successful. This post is very relevant in that scenario. I originally posted this at FireDogLake (http://my.firedoglake.com/matthewj/2011/05/12/no-confidence-...) and am looking to form a coalition of believers in freedom, democracy, and liberty from a wide variety of political persuasions (my strongest political beliefs are in the areas where libertarians and many progressives have a lot in common: anti-imperialism, anti-prohibition, pro-freedom, pro-individual liberty, etc). I hope I don't offend anybody by cross-posting or by challenging the Republican party (hey, I'm also challenging the Democrats and am hoping many of you are as frustrated with the Republican party as you are the Democrats - Republicans don't seem to do much for the libertarian agenda either). Please share your thoughts and maybe join our discussion over at FDL...

Democracy is broken in America.  Our political system is controlled by legalized bribery of various forms.  Politicians feel free to act in their own interests after getting elected rather than actually representing the people who elected them.  More and more Americans from all across the political spectrum are waking up to this fact.  This is leading to both cynicism and sometimes a sense of hopelessness.

I strongly believe the first step we need to take as a citizenry is to join together in a way that sends a strong and clear message to our country and the world that says Americans want a government that is actually responsive to the people that are governed.  We need to stand up and say we want a legitimate and true democracy.  We need to do this in a way that cannot be ignored by the politicians, the media, or the world.  Most importantly we need to do it in a way that speaks to each of us as citizens and demonstrates the power we have when we act together.

Such a message will build solidarity and hope in our country.  The road to reforming our democracy is a long and hard one.  It is one that we can only walk together as a people and we can only do that if enough people feel it is possible.  We will need support and participation of every day Americans who are not political activists.  We will also need support and participation of disenchanted Americans from all across the political spectrum.  Reforming our democracy cannot be a partisan issue or a partisan process.  We are all citizens and all want a fair chance to have our voices and ideas heard.

In this post I will lay out a strategy that I believe is pragmatic, practical, and has a reasonable chance to work.  The basic idea is to run a campaign not for a particular candidate but instead against both the Democratic and Republican parties.  The genesis for this idea is that both parties are rather hopelessly corrupt and non-responsive to the citizens at this time, yet the structure of our system does not offer meaningful opportunity for 3rd party or independent candidates.

According to Wikipedia a protest vote "is often considered to be a clear sign of the lack of popular legitimacy and roots of representative democracy, as depressed voter turnout endangers the credibility of the whole voting system" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote).  To my knowledge there has never been a coordinate protest vote (or no confidence) campaign (please share in the comments if you are aware of such a movement).  This would be a new experiment in grassroots democracy.  A coordinated protest vote campaign would encourage as many voters as possible to cast protest votes for actual people, but people who are not affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties.  Rather than promoting a specific candidate such a campaign would encourage voters to cast a protest vote for any 3rd party, independent, or write in candidate they wish.  It would be extremely important that these votes are valid and counted.

The goal  of this campaign would be an unprecedented number of votes in the "other" category and as few votes for the winner as possible.  In the unlikely (i.e. impossible) dream scenario the "other" category would actually "win" a plurality and the winner of the election would end up with less than 33% of the vote.  This would essentially be a vote of no confidence by the population at large.  This is not likely to happen but I don't believe it is necessary to make a strong statement either.  Even 10-15% of the vote going to the "other" category would be an amazing accomplishment.  This would unprecedented and would be very hard for the media and the world to ignore and would provide a foundation to build on in the future.

In order to make something like this work we will need to ease fears many people will have about wasting their vote.  We cannot send people to the polls blind.  Most voters will need some assurance that their vote is going to have the intended effect in order to consider vote for a candidate that will not win.  The best way I have thought of to do this is a pledge system.  Kickstarter is a model we could look at (www.kickstarter.com).

If we attempt a 2012 election strategy using a pledge system we will want to think deeply about how to design the most effective pledge system we can.  Some initial thoughts I have follow.

First, I think a campaign goal would be very important.  We could target 1 million votes, 10 million votes, etc.  

Second, in order to bring as many pledges into the system as early as possible and collect as much information as possible from interested voters we will want to allow conditional pledges.  A conditional pledge would allow a voter to make a pledge to vote for a 3rd party, independent, or write in only if enough other voters join them.  They would state in their pledge how many others they feel are required in order to make their protest vote worthwhile.  This would allow us to get a pulse for both how many people are willing to cast a protest vote if they feel it is meaningful and at what level people feel makes their protest vote meaningful.  This could be very powerful information to have.

Third, the pledge is not a vote so we will need to allow the pledge to be modified if a voter changes their mind and is willing to tell us.  The more realistic information we have the better off we would be.

Finally, in addition to pledging votes, such a system could also allow for pledging of donations - both immediate and donations that only kick in after a specified level of funding is reached.  This would be one method of raising funds for the campaign.

With enough pledging this campaign has the potential to dramatically affect voter turnout.  In the past many voters who are not happy with the mainstream candidates they are presented with decide voting is not worth their time.  Many will certainly still feel this way, yet a coordinated campaign presenting them with an option to say the oligarchs do not represent them may be compelling.  I believe this campaign could motivate many non-traditional voters, especially youth voters.  There is so much cynicism in America today that needs a way to be heard.

There are obviously many issues that would need to be worked out to make such a pledge system practical.  Pledge spam is an obvious potential issue.  Pledges that fall through in the voting booth is another.  I am confident that we can work through these issues and identify workably mitigation strategies.  For example, we can probably come up with a statistical model that would be in the right ballpark in converting pledges to votes.

There are many additional questions to consider.  What elections would we target?  I would propose focusing on the presidential election as most symbolic but also encouraging or possibly facilitating pledging and protest votes for congressional and state elections.  Others here may have a better insight into where this kind of protest vote campaign could be most effective and send the strongest message.  This decision should be made using the collective wisdom of the community.  We could coordinate with independent and 3rd party candidates in these elections as they would stand to gain from the protest vote movement.  If this campaign were to really take off debates and possibly even a convention could be organized next year during the election cycle to bring even more attention to the movement.

One of the first steps in making this happen will be building a broad coalition of grassroots activists and bloggers from across the political spectrum.  T  I'm hoping some of you can mention grassroots political blogs or communities of any leaning that might be a good partners in this campaign.  Please don't be shy in the comment thread!  Let's get the discussion going about who else may be interested in collaborating with us on this kind of campaign.

If the community here and elsewhere likes this idea we go ahead with it we will need a coordinated media strategy as well.  I would not expect much media coverage in the beginning, but there is a long runway before the 2012 elections.  There is lots of time to plan and to start building pledges.  The more interest we can generate on the net the harder it will be for the media to ignore.  We may also find interest among some celebrities who could help promote the campaign.  One obvious example here would be Jesse Ventura.  He has been advocating a strong protest vote for a long time.  If we start doing the legwork to build protest vote campaign I think it is very likely that he would get involved and help us get exposure in the media.  

Finally, on election day we would need election monitors to ensure that valid protest votes are actually counted and reported correctly.  I assume there are folks here who have experience with this sort of thing.  Hopefully you can comment on the feasibility of doing this when it is valid protest votes cast for independent, 3rd party, or write in candidates we care about and not votes for specific candidates.

In summary, I believe the first step to restoring true democracy is gaining the recognition that there are millions of us who feel that this is necessary, are fed up with corruption, and are willing to use the power we were granted by the constitution (our votes) to say this.  I believe a pledge system can work to provide reassurance that votes will not be wasted.  I also believe that if we are able to gather enough pledges they alone will send a message and may have the potential of become a topic of discussion in the mainstream campaigns.  It will also tell the world clearly that the oligarchs do not represent the regular folks in America.

I know I am not alone when I say that failure and restoration of democracy is the largest issue we face and should be the focus of our campaign efforts in 2012.  If we can force this issue into the mainstream discussion it may be the beginning of change we really can believe in.

I came across an interesting link about protest voting in Russia from RT.

Please use the #noconfidence2012 to discuss this idea on Twitter if you're on there...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Do you really want to live in

Do you really want to live in a state where 51% majority can take away rights of 49% minority?

Or, even, 99% taking away natural rights of the 1%?

Certainly not. I believe in very strongly protected constitutional rights for individuals.

I do agree that our Plan B should be writing in or voting for other/none of the above, as, by the way, we were suggested to do by the good ol' Dr. last time around, but let's first see what cards are on the table...

Fair enough. I couldn't ask for more from Ron Paul supporters! :) Please think about keeping in touch with our efforts. If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination and / or runs outside the Republican party we would love to get you involved!

Welcome and glad you are here...

this will help you understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic...


Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

A Republic

Democracy is Dictatorship of the majority. 51% can do what they please with the remaining 49%. That is not a very good way to protect Liberty.

Ahhh... I see. Ok then. A

Ahhh... I see. Ok then. A republic. I think we can work together. What I meant when I said Democracy was a system that represents the interests of real, living, breathing people. It looks like you have a little more specific definition than I do. A republic might meet my criteria for "small d" democracy.

Here is the dictionary definition of democracy (on my Mac):
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
- a state governed in such away
- control of an organization or group by the majority of its members
- the practice or principles of social equality

I don't mean to be nitpick here. I just want you to see not everyone means the same thing as you when they use the word democracy. They might actually mean something that is broader and perfectly compatible with protecting liberty. Better to get beyond the words / labels and find out what each other actually means. I hope you will consider that I am referring to this broader definition and do value protecting liberty (and restoring the liberty that has been lost).

My primary objective is to throw out the corporate fascists. I assume you would also like to do that. After that we can figure out how to best protect and represent individuals, which I think you might also agree on. It sounds like all of you have some strong opinions on how to do that. I would like to help take that debate into the mainstream.

Does this make sense?

I agree.

This is why both Left leaning people and Right leaning people need to give each other a break: both major parties have been taken over by statists, and we all have a vested interest in taking back one or more of the parties back. If this can not be accomplished, then we need to seriously consider taking over a viable third party (i.e. the Libertarian party) and offering it as a viable alternative.


"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15