We need only one demand

I agree with all your demands, but the only problem is there are too many of them.

One question will be, does all these demands really represents the 99% of the people? A lot of these are social demands which probably would not be popular among the conservatives. Some will have different view about the war and the Medicare for example.

Why not just focus on one demand: Cut the influence of Corporation on our politicians. One demand, clear and simple. I personally cannot think of one group that will oppose to get corporation out of politics. Except perhaps the politicians and corporations themselves. This seems like a demand that will be acceptable to the general public, left wings or right wings, the true 99% of the people. A demand, people without even knowing the details, will wants to join.

I know it is not easy for all the groups and organizations, with their own concerns, to agree on one single goal. But think about this: once this single goal is reached, then can our other issues be heard without the interruption of the corporation.

There is one nice post regarding this issue:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-1st-demand-needs-to-be/

If you have an hour to spare, watch this. Its worth your time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk&feature=mh_lolz&list=LLu-lOP79o3J0Zj12Q75yy8w

J789 wrote:I agree with all your demands, but the only problem is there are too many of them.

One question will be, does all these demands really represents the 99% of the people? A lot of these are social demands which probably would not be popular among the conservatives. Some will have different view about the war and the Medicare for example.

Why not just focus on one demand: Cut the influence of Corporation on our politicians. One demand, clear and simple. I personally cannot think of one group that will oppose to get corporation out of politics. Except perhaps the politicians and corporations themselves. This seems like a demand that will be acceptable to the general public, left wings or right wings, the true 99% of the people. A demand, people without even knowing the details, will wants to join.

I know it is not easy for all the groups and organizations, with their own concerns, to agree on one single goal. But think about this: once this single goal is reached, then can our other issues be heard without the interruption of the corporation.

There is one nice post regarding this issue:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-1st-demand-needs-to-be/

I myself think that 20 demands seem overzealous. Cut it to 10 to appeal to more of the populace.

Actually I'd like to think it works positively for up to the top 0.5%,I've agreed with a lot of your stuff..but yeah..I've yet to find another issue/solution that directly addresses a fundamental driver of the disparity(99%), as effectively as mine."Lowered,Flatter,Open-ended,Progressive Tax Codes" beginning with Soc.Sec..Problem with the trying to get corps out is then you've gotta boot the unions and everyone else that has a lobby, a lot of headwinds for that...and, yet I applaud the cause and observation for the need to focus and make as Broad-base-able the approach....

J789 wrote:I agree with all your demands, but the only problem is there are too many of them.

One question will be, does all these demands really represents the 99% of the people? A lot of these are social demands which probably would not be popular among the conservatives. Some will have different view about the war and the Medicare for example.

Why not just focus on one demand: Cut the influence of Corporation on our politicians. One demand, clear and simple. I personally cannot think of one group that will oppose to get corporation out of politics. Except perhaps the politicians and corporations themselves. This seems like a demand that will be acceptable to the general public, left wings or right wings, the true 99% of the people. A demand, people without even knowing the details, will wants to join.

I know it is not easy for all the groups and organizations, with their own concerns, to agree on one single goal. But think about this: once this single goal is reached, then can our other issues be heard without the interruption of the corporation.

There is one nice post regarding this issue:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-1st-demand-needs-to-be/

If you have an hour to spare, watch this. Its worth your time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk&feature=mh_lolz&list=LLu-lOP79o3J0Zj12Q75yy8w

This resonates with me. The one demand that all appear to be expressing on the street is to get the money out of our government. There are many things that could be done to accomplish this.

My worry is that if there are too many demands (and I find them all very good) then it will be difficult to tell if the government has met the demands. It leaves us in a poor negotiating position.

Making the one demand and then laying out a plan of action to accomplish certain things which will lead to a solution might be a better way to go. Language like:

"Progress towards getting money out of our political process will be signified by the accomplishment of the following legislative and policy changes: banning all political donations, protecting voter's rights and access, etc.

I think a rewording of the Declaration which emphasizes the major demand would allow the listing of further issues.

uncommonfilth wrote:Actually I'd like to think it works positively for up to the top 0.5%,I've agreed with a lot of your stuff..but yeah..I've yet to find another issue/solution that directly addresses a fundamental driver of the disparity(99%), as effectively as mine."Lowered,Flatter,Open-ended,Progressive Tax Codes" beginning with Soc.Sec..Problem with the trying to get corps out is then you've gotta boot the unions and everyone else that has a lobby, a lot of headwinds for that...and, yet I applaud the cause and observation for the need to focus and make as Broad-base-able the approach....

Watch the video link above. It provides a solution on how this goal can be achieved.

Hi,

The only link I see is a text message. Would watch it if I could find it.

I think this question is central.

solidarity,

Stephanie

occupystephanie wrote:Hi,

The only link I see is a text message. Would watch it if I could find it.

I think this question is central.

solidarity,

Stephanie

It's in the opening post, but for your convenience, here's the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk&feature=mh_lolz&list=LLu-lOP79o3J0Zj12Q75yy8w

I agree that we need to consolidate the demands. The root cause of virtually the entire list is that the financiers who own the central banks and the Fed have used the power to create money to take over the government, military and intelligence services, media, and voting processes. The answer is to create a network of public banks, from municipalities, counties, states, and at the top. This means nationalizing the Fed and bring it under the control of the Congress, as the Constitution says: "Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof." This is how we regain control over our money and sovereignty. The U.S., or any nation, should not have to borrow money to finance its operations. As long as the money created equals the value created through labor (including machines and computers that labor created), there will not be inflation. The money supply is currently $3 Trillion less than in '08.

This elder appreciates your help!

I watched it and am 100% onboard with this Is there anyway I can help with this process here?

I am on my Demands Working Group here in my local Occupy and will further it here.

Simple and beautiful!

solidarity,

Stephanie

With all due respect, campaign financing or corporate personhood are not the root cause of our problems. The root cause is the control over our money. The financiers who own the banks that own the Fed have used the power over our currency and credit to buy the government, military and intelligence services, media, and voting processes. As long as the U.S. pays interest on creating what should be its sovereign currency, we will be debt slaves to the financiers. The solution to the root cause is to take back control of our money by creating a network of public banks--municipal, county, state, and national. This means bringing the Federal Reserve under the power of the people. See our website www.publicbankinginstitute.org and our latest video.

Is this thread primarily about the Federal Reserve and its problems/issues? If so, I'd like to merge it with the Federal Reserve thread to coalesce discussion in one place.

Dealing with money in politics is important, as is reversing Citizens United. But if that's all we focus on, then we basically become in effect the protest wing of Common Cause, a long standing nonpartisan good government group that is also very alarmed by Citizens United. They have a Web site.

I think we also need to try to reverse some of the damage done to the 99% by the influence of money in politics.

-Insurance companies have blocked meaningful healthcare reform with their lobbying and campaign contibutions
-We have a bloated military budget courtesy thanks to lobbying of military contractors
-Our energy policy has been shaped by oil, coal and natural gas companies; we are falling behind the rest of the world in shifting from fossil fuels to clean energy. If we don't innovate and spend money on R & D, it will hurt our economy
-banking industry lobbying and contributions led to disastrous deregulation of banks. Elected officials have let Wall Street greed run wild; the resulting financial crash has harmed millions of the 99%.
-Tax cuts (on capital gains and earned income) pushed by corporations and lobbyists for the 1% have created enormous deficits and have increased wealth and income inequality, which reinforces the power of the 1%.

I think we have to address the damage that's been done and provide some relief for the 99% who have lost their homes and their jobs, who are uninsured and facing mountains of medical debt, who are declaring bankruptcy at record levels, who are overloaded with student loan debt as federal support for college students has been cut.

Molly Carmody wrote:Is this thread primarily about the Federal Reserve and its problems/issues? If so, I'd like to merge it with the Federal Reserve thread to coalesce discussion in one place.

No. I believe it is about having one overriding demand as all we need, rather than a laundry list of grievences. Political donations from the 10% have corrupted the dependence of the Congress on the People so they serve the 10%. (Video in first email in thread)

Quote from RAB:
"I agree that we need to consolidate the demands. The root cause of virtually the entire list is that the financiers who own the central banks and the Fed have used the power to create money to take over the government, military and intelligence services, media, and voting processes. The answer is to create a network of public banks, from municipalities, counties, states, and at the top. This means nationalizing the Fed and bring it under the control of the Congress, as the Constitution says: "Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof." This is how we regain control over our money and sovereignty. The U.S., or any nation, should not have to borrow money to finance its operations. As long as the money created equals the value created through labor (including machines and computers that labor created), there will not be inflation. The money supply is currently $3 Trillion less than in '08."

Excellent information, RAB. Thank you so much for the links--I have connected with a State Bank group in my state now and am already active in Move Your Money Project. However, the People appear to be able to do this ourselves without including this in any demand. If we have the one demand, it will be far easier to garner widespread support and negotiate. If we can get the money out, then the government should work for us and we can get to our lists.

I agree that we need to consolidate the demands/goals, and get at the root of the problem instead of looking for remedies to secondary symptoms. Dennis Kucinich has introduced legislation called the NEED act that will do this by integrating the Federal reserve bank into the Treasury Department (effectively nationalizing the Fed), abolishing fractional reserve banking, and restoring exclusive the sovereign right of issuing our national currency to Congress, as mandated by article 8, section I of the constitution. I believe that this should be one of three core issues or goals that we need to focus on, along with constitutional amendments to assert that corporations do not possess the rights of people, and remove the corrupting influence of concentrated wealth on our political system.

RAB wrote:I agree that we need to consolidate the demands. The root cause of virtually the entire list is that the financiers who own the central banks and the Fed have used the power to create money to take over the government, military and intelligence services, media, and voting processes. The answer is to create a network of public banks, from municipalities, counties, states, and at the top. This means nationalizing the Fed and bring it under the control of the Congress, as the Constitution says: "Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof." This is how we regain control over our money and sovereignty. The U.S., or any nation, should not have to borrow money to finance its operations. As long as the money created equals the value created through labor (including machines and computers that labor created), there will not be inflation. The money supply is currently $3 Trillion less than in '08.

This movement will need focus to be ambitiously succesful. 1 simple demand that most everybody can agree with. Once the influence of money is out of politics, all other issues can be adressed in the newly-cleaned political process.

And that is an issue that can be solved fairly easily, compared to the other issues. It does not require complicated policy and it will not generate controversy, so it will be very effective.

The precise solution/demands could be something like this:
a) all federal elections must be fully financed by public money, no candidates can accept any campaign donations;
b) lobby activities must be highly regulated;
c) any person holding public office is prohibited of receiving any contribution or donation or conducting any private business during their tenure;
d) strict regulation imposed on business/financial activities of any person in public office for a number of years before and after their tenure;
e) a specialized, independent bureau of investigation dedicated to corruption and conflicts of interest;
f) zero tolerance and stiff criminal sentences to crimes of corruption.

robwrenn wrote:Dealing with money in politics is important, as is reversing Citizens United. But if that's all we focus on, then we basically become in effect the protest wing of Common Cause, a long standing nonpartisan good government group that is also very alarmed by Citizens United. They have a Web site.

I think we also need to try to reverse some of the damage done to the 99% by the influence of money in politics.
-

I think you are right, but these things can be dealt with latter, after politics is clean from corporate influence. I think it is a better strategy to go by this way: focus on one, significant issue that can be achieved. After that, not only politics becomes a feasible environment to work on these other issues, but also people will be energized by the significant victory.

The danger of trying to address everything at once is that it becomes diluted and easy to defeat.

It can still be framed as 1 demand (for simplicity, effectiveness, broad appeal): free our democratic system from moneyed interests. But several specific points:
- Campaign finance
- Lobby
- Conflict of interest
- the FED
- corruption

I really hate sounding like a parrot of my own stuff, but this "decide on 1 issue" call is becoming more common. So, my post from another thread:


If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/d_intro.htm

Through that system you could easily work through all the problems step by step. Long story short it would completely decimate the Republican and Democratic parties if they continued to ignore the people. It forces parties and politicians to listen because if they don't other parties will step in and take their place. So instead of a house with:

250 Dem
250 Rep

you would have (I'm using rounded numbers for simplicity)

125 D
125 R
125 Labor
50 Green
20 Socialist
20 TEA
20 Rent Is Too Damn High
15 Libertarian

Obviously not those exact numbers, but there would be no more worthless votes because everyone could just pick the party that reflects their views. Party strength would determine who gets in. No more gerrymandering, money would have a very hard time corrupting things because people will just vote for another party next time around. Greater emphasis on policy instead of politicians.

So if I had to personally distill it down to a single, solitary thing that would unf*** this country in a hurry, that would be it.

And a bit of double dissolution on the side:

"If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously."

You jerks want to deadlock legislation? FINE, YOU'RE ALL FIRED, NEW ELECTIONS!

Elections last no longer than 3 months, and mandatory voting, even for people in prison.


That would be one of the very few things that would cause sweeping change, actually represent everyone, make it impossible to gerrymander. Any sniff of corruption would completely destroy a party because there would be 5-10 other parties there to fill in the vacuum if a party ignores the will of the people.

No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils, no more feeling like your vote is worthless, and a renewed focus on policy over politicians.

SaintNuke wrote:If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

Nah, this already exists in many countries and it makes no difference whatsoever. Some of the most corrupt countries in the world have proportional representation and policy/party ideology is not a bigger factorin elections than it is here. What difference really would it make to have a handful of green and libertarians there?

J789 wrote:Why not just focus on one demand: Cut the influence of Corporation on our politicians. One demand, clear and simple. I personally cannot think of one group that will oppose to get corporation out of politics. Except perhaps the politicians and corporations themselves. This seems like a demand that will be acceptable to the general public, left wings or right wings, the true 99% of the people. A demand, people without even knowing the details, will wants to join.

I pretty much agree, that is the most essential goal. Good-faith efforts by a few Congress persons over the years have been done toward this, but legislation always gets way too watered down because the general public hasn't gotten behind the effort. The issue--by itself--just isn't that interesting to most people, the connection to the country's ills just doesn't seem real clear, it's not a sexy, clearcut issue. It's boring to most people (unfortunately), including (understandibly) the OWSers who have been outside for a month with big dreams and wonderful ideas of great change (the kind we thought would begin in '08).

Occupy has helped change that. The Declarations 1-5 put this issue into a wider context that is needed to satisfy the OWSers AND get the majority of Americans interested and supportive. Declarations 1-5 illuminate and expand on the money-in-politics problem, making it inescapable for more people to recognize and take seriously. (I hope everyone has actually read the Declarations! Pretty well written)

Those five demands (Declarations 1-5) are unassailable and I believe universally acceptable to the 99%. Unassailable is essential in this effort!!!

William58 wrote:

J789 wrote:Why not just focus on one demand: Cut the influence of Corporation on our politicians. One demand, clear and simple. I personally cannot think of one group that will oppose to get corporation out of politics. Except perhaps the politicians and corporations themselves. This seems like a demand that will be acceptable to the general public, left wings or right wings, the true 99% of the people. A demand, people without even knowing the details, will wants to join.

I pretty much agree, that is the most essential goal. Good-faith efforts by a few Congress persons over the years have been done toward this, but legislation always gets way too watered down because the general public hasn't gotten behind the effort. The issue--by itself--just isn't that interesting to most people, the connection to the country's ills just doesn't seem real clear, it's not a sexy, clearcut issue. It's boring to most people (unfortunately), including (understandibly) the OWSers who have been outside for a month with big dreams and wonderful ideas of great change (the kind we thought would begin in '08).

Occupy has helped change that. The Declarations 1-5 put this issue into a wider context that is needed to satisfy the OWSers AND get the majority of Americans interested and supportive. Declarations 1-5 illuminate and expand on the money-in-politics problem, making it inescapable for more people to recognize and take seriously. (I hope everyone has actually read the Declarations! Pretty well written)

Those five demands (Declarations 1-5) are unassailable and I believe universally acceptable to the 99%. Unassailable is essential in this effort!!!

I agree that Declarations 1-5 are unassailable and universal in that they seem to speak to most of the signs I have seen on the streets. I would move #16 up: Glass-Steagall, financial transaction tax, hedgefund loopholes)

We have been unrepresented for so long that we have a large backlog of things we want taken care of. However, we need to concentrate on our major problem--Our government represents the wealthy because that is who pays them.

That said, we can rewrite the Demands as a Resolution which is what the Congress will undoubtedly do. In the preamble, we can list the background, the context and the situation which has finally led the people to petition their government. In the operative clauses, we can spell out actions that we believe would remedy the people's situation. These can be pages long after the political process at the new Convention.

I do believe that we need to produce a document.

occupystephanie wrote:I agree that Declarations 1-5 are unassailable and universal in that they seem to speak to most of the signs I have seen on the streets. I would move #16 up: Glass-Steagall, financial transaction tax, hedgefund loopholes)

That was exactly my thought when I first read the Declarations--#16 was the one that needed to be up there with the top 5. It is at the core of how Bankers were able to get total control of the country's wealth. Declarations 6 and on, all pretty good, but will provide endless fodder for the mainstream media to to tie us in knots--which they dearly wish to do.

SaintNuke wrote:I really hate sounding like a parrot of my own stuff, but this "decide on 1 issue" call is becoming more common. So, my post from another thread:


If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/d_intro.htm

Through that system you could easily work through all the problems step by step. Long story short it would completely decimate the Republican and Democratic parties if they continued to ignore the people. It forces parties and politicians to listen because if they don't other parties will step in and take their place. So instead of a house with:

250 Dem
250 Rep

you would have (I'm using rounded numbers for simplicity)

125 D
125 R
125 Labor
50 Green
20 Socialist
20 TEA
20 Rent Is Too Damn High
15 Libertarian

Obviously not those exact numbers, but there would be no more worthless votes because everyone could just pick the party that reflects their views. Party strength would determine who gets in. No more gerrymandering, money would have a very hard time corrupting things because people will just vote for another party next time around. Greater emphasis on policy instead of politicians.

So if I had to personally distill it down to a single, solitary thing that would unf*** this country in a hurry, that would be it.

And a bit of double dissolution on the side:

"If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously."

You jerks want to deadlock legislation? FINE, YOU'RE ALL FIRED, NEW ELECTIONS!

Elections last no longer than 3 months, and mandatory voting, even for people in prison.


That would be one of the very few things that would cause sweeping change, actually represent everyone, make it impossible to gerrymander. Any sniff of corruption would completely destroy a party because there would be 5-10 other parties there to fill in the vacuum if a party ignores the will of the people.

No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils, no more feeling like your vote is worthless, and a renewed focus on policy over politicians.

Yep, this would be at the TOP of MY list if I thought it could get done...I do believe we can get there though...So keep pushin and I'll bump ya up whenever possible...Lmao, at "The Rent Is Too Damn High" party, that dude was funny..and sure enough, I think he was evicted..

g-ogo wrote:

SaintNuke wrote:If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

Nah, this already exists in many countries and it makes no difference whatsoever. Some of the most corrupt countries in the world have proportional representation and policy/party ideology is not a bigger factorin elections than it is here. What difference really would it make to have a handful of green and libertarians there?

You're right about corruption getting into any system, but different election systems do in fact make a big difference. It's a lot easier to safeguard a prop rep system against corruption than FPTP, Don't take my word for it, though.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/firstpastthepost-the-safe-seats-system-that-breeds-lazy-corrupt-mps-17537.html
"Put simply, MPs in safe seats are the laziest. As well as the most corrupt.

The solution? Ah well, that’s an easy one, as any Lib Dem kno’. Fair votes, electoral reform, proportional representation – call it what you will, the effect’s the same: an end to safe seats, and the lazy corruption the First-Past-The-Post system too often breeds."

http://corruptionresearchnetwork.org/resources/articles/electoral-institutions-legislative-accountability-and-political-corruption

"The author’s model posits that open-list PR systems offer a distinctive combination of competition at both the inter- and intra-party levels, which leads to reduced levels of corruption and higher levels of legislative accountability vis-a-vis FPTP and closed-list PR systems. Additionally, the author finds that multi-member district size and internal nomination structures of political parties may act as informative factors that show closed-list PR systems generating higher levels legislative accountability and lower levels of corruption than FPTP systems." His conclusion is on p.24 of the PDF, the rest is appendices.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/27/av-referendum-cameron-indefensible-voting-system

UK doesn't beat around the bush, they just flat out call it an indefensible, corrupt, broken system.

This list can go on and on.

The greens and libertarians were an example. It was an example speaking more about the diminished power of Ds and Rs. Parties in PR systems come and go all the time. Right now what we do is vote in majority D, they prove to be worthless, so to punish them we vote in majority R! That'll show em! Now the Rs are screwing everything up, I know, let's vote in majority D! You don't need a 3rd party in prop rep system because everyone is a 3rd party. If you get voted in and don't listen to the people, they look at other parties. Prop rep means no more bouncing between 2 completely useless, corrupt parties.

But theorycrafting is worthless. We have actual facts to work with.

Countries that use FPTP to elect the lower or only house of their legislature include:
Antigua and Barbuda
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Bhutan
Botswana
Canada (taking action to move to PR)
Dominica
Ethiopia
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
India (proportional representation in upper house)
Iran
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malawi
Malaysia
Mexico
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Korea (they use PR also)
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom (Basically as bad as us but with UHC. Like Canada, taking steps to move to PR)
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Sure, some corrupt countries use prop rep, but outside of the UK and Canada who are ditching FPTP every single FPTP country is a corrupt mess, including us. That's a pretty bang-up list. Every first world industrialized country on that list is either partially PR, or taking active steps to move to PR.

Countries using PR:
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Australia
Austria
Argentina
Aruba
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cape Verde
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Curaçao
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Greece
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lesotho
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Serbia
Sint Maarten
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
UK-Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Uruguay
Venezuela
Wallis and Futuna

I know correlation != causation, but the problems with FPTP are exactly the problems we are facing right now in this country. Our "mad at the guys in charge" vote goes to the other corrupt, worthless party doesn't listen to us. The highlighted countries on that list are just industrialized, developed nations, it doesn't even consider countries that are on the rise.

The difference it makes is that corrupt parties or parties that don't listen to their people lose popularity and lose seats. You're not beholden to 2 massive parties, neither of which listen to the will of the people. That's a hell of a lot more than "no difference whatsoever." In our current election system my vote is completely worthless. It's majority Republican state (roughly 65%), so my vote for any office holder has 0 value. Even if it did I wouldn't be voting for D, I'd be voting against an R.

FPTP just doesn't work. It's an outdated, broken system--and we're a perfect example of it. Our problems will never be fixed as long as people are voting D because they're terrified of R, or vice versa. We'll still be trapped in the endless cycle we've been stuck in since the beginning.

There's just no way around this argument, a lot of those countries studied our system and found it lacking and outdated before adopting theirs.

I'll bring it up again, though, what's most fascinating about that prop rep list isn't the countries already on it, but the ones that are up and coming--something the FPTP list lacks entirely.

This isn't an issue of opinion, this is an issue of political fact that is very easily verifiable.

Edit:
Edited for clarity of language and concision. It read kind of antagonistic which isn't how it's spoken in my head at all. Damn you written language! That's what I get for writing around 1 or 2 am or so.

occupystephanie wrote:This elder appreciates your help!

I watched it and am 100% onboard with this Is there anyway I can help with this process here?
I am on my Demands Working Group here in my local Occupy and will further it here.
Simple and beautiful!
solidarity,
Stephanie

Thank you for supporting this idea. I am just trying to spread the message around, you can help that too.

Some people are suggesting of focusing on the declaration #1-5, I agree with it as it works towards this common goal. In another post I actually mention about it, although I am more leaning towards #1-4. My own opinion is, getting the tax reformation will leave much room into debate, much harder to get a consensus. As long as the demand was focusing on these few issues, whether it is the first 4, 5 or even 6 issues, it will more likely be supported by the general public.