portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements united states

actions & protests | government

Sanders' Sheep Dog Dem Bait And Switch Is Over

It's gonna be Von Hitlary vs. Von Trumph! Too bad for you.
I've participated in many radical demonstrations.

This year, I will carry a box -- a non-ballot box -- on Main Street. And provide people with non-ballots that they can stick into the box to demonstrate that they are TRULY INDEPENDENT and WILL NOT vote. In return, I give them a red and yellow lapel sticker that says "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THESE CREEPS!" (Plus a flyer about strategic simple score voting.)

Then I will dump all the non-ballots in front of City Hall.

Looks like Jesse Ventura will run -- said he would if Bernie did the sheepdog bait-and-switch number.

"The Hawai'ian legislators voted to pass H.B. 638 because they believed that somehow this method would make elections "more fair." The rogue that falsely convinced them of this is Rob Richie, Executive Director of the coyly-named FairVote, a well-funded, tax-exempt operation that would like to add that state to their list of conquests, so that they can continue to hawk this nonsense to others.

"Quite deceptively, H.B. 638 mentions locations in which IRV (sometimes in variations known as "ranked choice" or "proportional representation") has been adopted, but fails to cite the places where it has been rescinded after proving problematic and, in some cases, outright disastrous." -- Brad Blog:

Oh lookee here! "FairVote" (the Fairvote Action Fund, Inc. of Takoma Park, MD), is run by Rob Richie, and do you want a real honest-to-God conspiracy? Look no further:

Another of life's little surprises!

Beyond ego itself 04.Mar.2016 10:18


What will 'not voting' do?

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but I don't see where what you're proposing beyond the actual presidential vote itself solves too much of anything. Believe me, blues, I personally feel that non-participation is the statement that each of us individually will always retain as right and a personal protest tool. I have used and will use as personal tool of choice, as I'm one of those small men physically who culturally finds themselves with a disportionately large ego in relation to stature and have been accused more than once of being 'too serious' over personal principle. About the only thing that will save me the ire of all here is that my personal idea of non-violence does not preclude a measure of destructive mischief. Destruction, to me, is the natural component in this world that is dichotomous in nature, despite the lack of imagining anything but ultimate single-source religious cosmologies.

But when one looks honestly at the situation, especially in the case of those of us who feel we're 'on the left', we have done little with non-participation nor have been judicious with its use. How many times does one have to point out that only a bit over 50% of those recognized as registered and valid votes do such a thing? We've no idea in actuality how things might be different if even 25% of those who don't vote with feeling the act is somehow inconsequential would vote. (Sorry, I can't help but use normally recognizable words for description such as left/right...The really radical non-authoritarian right, which I'll admit in my experience is few, is also anarchist, and like everything in this world, comes full circle, doesn't it?) When one takes everything into account, I'm non-violent, will not own a gun, but being non-violent does not imply by any means that one becomes a martyr. I've made decided effort to know how to use a gun, imposing upon friends who have such ownership to allow me the experience. Martyrdom in the form of personal death is not a trade one should take up lightly, nor at pure emotional pique. That (martyrdom) is the ultimate exercise of one's rights and free will in death. Isn't personal death ultimately where the essence of free will lies, and that most don't feel they have free will because they won't accept their death in trade for anything?

I'll also admit that I haven't marked a presidential choice on a ballot in years, since the first Clinton election. I lost a lot of 'friends' over my objections to the first Obama election. But I do vote. 1/3 of the federal Senate and all of the House of Representatives, many judgeships (where such is allowed), state and local offices, and local referendum tag along on those ballots also. Don't you think your vote in school board elections or city councils important? So you pull the trigger and shoot yourself in the foot with the gun still in the holster on your hip? Much is done because it's allowed, and by non-voting, you're expressly allowing such a thing as might be stopped, unless your idea of non-participation is some heaven awaiting you elsewhere. (The religious end of 'martyrdom'?). Get a grip. Martyrdom is something one only does once, don't you agree?

Public immolation, anyone? Gas is cheap right now...

Understand I'm not expressly disagreeing, just have circumstantial equivocations. I guess if one can't recognize the power on has, they shouldn't have it. A greater personal 'sin' might be that non-recognition. I just wish you had taken your statement and will take your action on such circumstantial route and limit it to presidential elections. So much we face today exists because it's been allowed. There's no reason to be unintelligent about it. Elections carry much weight because non-participation is not expressly recognized as a method to select a representative. If only 3% of the registered population voted for president, there would still be a president. Allow a few to pull that weight, and whatever form of organization in which you're attempting to operate then becomes authoritarian in nature. Funny thing...Isn't that exactly what we're seeing today? Goddamn-it, how many times does it have to be pointed out that non-decision is a decision, not a decision 'lost' as some might think, or lack of a decision?

For instance, I non-participated in the military upon being drafted. That certainly wasn't a lack of choice. Think of what the judge would have told me standing in front of him with that claim?

Now, blues, if you're speaking of non-participation regarding only the presidential position on the ballot, as I said, I'm with you all the way. What if the likes of a Newt Gingrich (there really are a lot of Newts out there) was running for one of the offices that affect you personally on a local level? Would non-particpation generally be a wise choice? I don't think so myself. Please, at least, act locally, if nothing else. Which 'lost cause' do you want to fight? The hitlarian or stalinist type of hard absolutes that requires final solutions and will go to any lengths to achieve it? There's always that element in there somewhere, America has never been immune to some of that themselves (Ask the indigenous, as one example.) and evidence of such here is growing larger and larger that we're intentionally asking for such. Don't fuckin' add to the masses already asking for it, huh?

You strike me as too smart to default to this type of general reasoning you seem to have given in the post.

In 2006 04.Mar.2016 16:01


I voted for every candidate who did not have an "R" or a "D" next to the name.

I just went down the ballot and first non Republican or Democrat.

Constituion Party,
Green Party,
Natural Law Party,

As I remember there was a Green Nazi Party (ecological Nazis).

Whoever appeared first on the list got my vote.

I let them know I showed up.