Voters Unions - what's your opinion on this organizational model?

[MisterConduit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fArM5tdHHk8

I would love to hear some feedback on what you think about this organizational model. I call it a "Voters Union." First, what are your overall thoughts on its potential effectiveness? Second, have you ever heard of an organization that exists, has existed, or has been theorized that does this? (I realize there are similarities to many group voting organizations, but I don't know of any that are exactly the same as this...let me know if you do.)

A voters union is theoretically a means for large groups of voters (preferable low income voters) to pool their votes together in such a way that the group leadership does not become politically powerful in the process, which inevitably happens in other groups such as political parties and PACs...once millions of people vote along with the group's endorsement, the group leaders become very powerful because the decisions they make have an impact on who gets endorsed or assisted in some way by the party or PAC. So the rank and file voters end up being at least somewhat subservient to the group leaders, rather than becoming more powerful themselves.

The purpose of a voters union would be to compliment a political party, in other words, politicians would continue to organize themselves in political parties; voters would organize themselves in voters unions and would be loyal to the voters union on election day rather than to the political party.

Its pretty simple:

-A voters union would allow membership to voters whose incomes fell below a certain cutoff point.
-For each election, even political party primaries, the voters union would hold its own private election in which all low income members could have a vote and in which ALL candidates who were going to be on the actual ballot were included (this is very important because it doesn't allow the voters union leaders the ability to have a say so in weeding out or endorsing specific politicians; this makes the opinions of the leaders of the voters union irrelevant.)
-The voters union would tally the votes and disseminate the results to the members.
-All members would go out on election day and vote for the voters union winners, thereby pooling their votes in a cheap, scalable, and efficient way without allowing the voters union group leadership to have any part in the process of candidate selection. No matter how successful the organization became, politicians would always have to deal directly with the rank and file voters union members in order to win the union election, rather than with the group leaders, who were simple bean counters. If low income voters consistently voted for the voters union winners in state and federal elections year after year, it could theoretically increase the weighting of politicians in office who were aligned with their needs.

What do you think? Positive and negative feedback welcome. Any organizations out there that do this?

 

[Generalist]

What is the need then for a Voters Union??

I fail to comprehend the logic behind voting for a candidate you do not believe in just because a majority have told you to do so.

In fact, i am sure that completely obliterates the concept of free democratic elections, not that i am an advoate, rather than making them fair!!!

What a flawed principle!!!

Clearly anyone who does advocate the use of Voters Unions is not a supporter of the democratic process.

 

[MisterConduit]

What is the need then for a Voters Union??

I fail to comprehend the logic behind voting for a candidate you do not believe in just because a majority have told you to do so.

The argument is that since there is strength in numbers when it comes to democratic elections, people will vote for the voters union winner because it is overall, in the long run, in each low income voter's best interests to do so, not because anyone told them to. It's the same principle behind people banning together and taking collective action in a labor union. Each labor union member agrees to go along with the group because he or she thinks it will benefit him or herself personally.

 

[Generalist]

Yet again though, i do not see how voting for someone because it's the majority opinion to do so could be possibly considered for the better, poor or wealthy.

If low income people want to benefit their candidate in an election surely they should devote some time to the campaign, spreading the word and such.

I could never vote for candidate A, when i believe in candidate B, because the majority are doing so!

 

[MisterConduit]

Thanks for your feedback...

I'm not sure if you watched the youtube video I linked to or not, but the basic idea is that the reason people would hypothetically vote along with the union is that it is a an easy way for an entire class of people to coordinate their vote without canceling out one another's vote. Rather than having 600,000 people vote for candidate A in the government election and 400,000 vote for candidate B in the government election, canceling out 400,000 votes and having Candidate A only get 200,000 net, the people would vote beforehand in the union vote and when candidate A won their union vote, then they would all vote for Candidate A in the actual government election and he would get all million votes from the group instead of 200,000 net. So that means the group multiplied their votes by 5 times. Its very hypothetical that people would follow through and that it would work if they did, I understand. But that's the basic idea. If low income people consistently chose to do this across all state and federal elections, they could amplify their voting power and increase the weighting of candidates in office who were "for the poor."

 

[Dr.Who]

95% of blacks voted for Obama regardless of political party or church membership or any other single powerful leader's opinion. In fact one could say that the leaders who inspired so many of this group were relatively powerless and invisible.

Wouldn't this be a voters union?

And why is it preferable that a voters union be made up of poor voters. Wouldn't a voters union made up of, say, altruistic people, have a positive influence on the country?

 

[Dr.Who]

It has been said that capitalism is the only system that harnesses the power of greed for good. Since everyone is going to be greedy to an extent when everyone competes with each other in an attempt to promote their own self-interest one person's greed cancels out the greed of the other person.

In this case the less organized the group the better the greed is canceled out.

Will there arise various groups that band together in some way or another? Yes. I suggest that there are cycles in which bands are formed to correct problems. If a problem is important enough to enough people they will form a group. When the problems become less of a concern the group disbands. Consider the formation of trade unions in the industrial revolution and the weakening of them today.

Does it matter if the unions have powerful leaders? Not as long as there are still enough people out there acting alone in their own self interest.

 

[MisterConduit]

95% of blacks voted for Obama regardless of political party or church membership or any other single powerful leader's opinion. In fact one could say that the leaders who inspired so many of this group were relatively powerless and invisible.

Wouldn't this be a voters union?

And why is it preferable that a voters union be made up of poor voters. Wouldn't a voters union made up of, say, altruistic people, have a positive influence on the country?

Any group could start a voters union based on any criteria they wanted...the prediction is through, and it is theoretical, that a low income voters union would be the most effective because voters who do not already feel marginalized would have no reason to change their voting methodology. The wealthier you are, the less marginalized you are with the political system in general...the more frustrated you currently are, the higher the likelihood you would do something different...so there would be an inverse relationship between a person's wealth and the likelihood that they would show solidarity with a voters union on election day...that's theoretical, of course, just an intuitive judgment on my part

 

[Dr.Who]

Any group could start a voters union based on any criteria they wanted...the prediction is through, and it is theoretical, that a low income voters union would be the most effective because voters who do not already feel marginalized would have no reason to change their voting methodology. The wealthier you are, the less marginalized you are with the political system in general...the more frustrated you currently are, the higher the likelihood you would do something different...so there would be an inverse relationship between a person's wealth and the likelihood that they would show solidarity with a voters union on election day...that's theoretical, of course, just an intuitive judgment on my part

That sounds like a wise and sound judgement.

 

[Dr.Who]

Any group could start a voters union based on any criteria they wanted...the prediction is through, and it is theoretical, that a low income voters union would be the most effective because voters who do not already feel marginalized would have no reason to change their voting methodology. The wealthier you are, the less marginalized you are with the political system in general...the more frustrated you currently are, the higher the likelihood you would do something different...so there would be an inverse relationship between a person's wealth and the likelihood that they would show solidarity with a voters union on election day...that's theoretical, of course, just an intuitive judgment on my part

P.S. welcome to the board.

 

[Bunz]

I would love to hear some feedback on what you think about this organizational model. I call it a "Voters Union." First, what are your overall thoughts on its potential effectiveness? Second, have you ever heard of an organization that exists, has existed, or has been theorized that does this? (I realize there are similarities to many group voting organizations, but I don't know of any that are exactly the same as this...let me know if you do.)

Firstly, this is borderline spam. The Youtube clip is nothing but a commercial for a book. So for the time being I am going to let this thread remain, assuming MisterConduit is here for actual discussion in other threads and is not here to promote a book. There is a possibility this thread will be deleted and the user banned because of this. But I will take a few minutes and respond to the thread at hand.

Why would it only be a low income union? I know plenty of people who are low income but vote for various parties and crees, not based on thier income level, but on support for social issues, such as abortion, gun control, and immigration as a few examples.

This is already done to a certain extent now in the various major party party caucuses where when a candidate doesnt have enough support to be viable, they then move to a more plausible one.

This is already done in plenty of corporate boardrooms around the world. Its nothing new and generally doesnt work.

Personally, I would rather eliminate candidate support from large groups and blocks of people. I am an advocate of reducing the impact of parties and supporting a one person, one vote system.

 

[palerider]

Thanks for your feedback...

I'm not sure if you watched the youtube video I linked to or not, but the basic idea is that the reason people would hypothetically vote along with the union is that it is a an easy way for an entire class of people to coordinate their vote without canceling out one another's vote. Rather than having 600,000 people vote for candidate A in the government election and 400,000 vote for candidate B in the government election, canceling out 400,000 votes and having Candidate A only get 200,000 net, the people would vote beforehand in the union vote and when candidate A won their union vote, then they would all vote for Candidate A in the actual government election and he would get all million votes from the group instead of 200,000 net. So that means the group multiplied their votes by 5 times. Its very hypothetical that people would follow through and that it would work if they did, I understand. But that's the basic idea. If low income people consistently chose to do this across all state and federal elections, they could amplify their voting power and increase the weighting of candidates in office who were "for the poor."

You seem to be under the impression that all poor voters want the same thing. My voting preferences today are essentially the same as when I was poor as dirt. You sound like you are advocating that the poor get together nationally and vote as much wealth redistribution their way as possible.

 

[Dr.Who]

You seem to be under the impression that all poor voters want the same thing. My voting preferences today are essentially the same as when I was poor as dirt. You sound like you are advocating that the poor get together nationally and vote as much wealth redistribution their way as possible.

I personally do not think that being for the poor is the same as being against the rich. IN practice that is often the case and often there is a lot of wealth distribution going on. But i could see poor people being concerned about the same things (like failing schools) and not want wealth distribution - in theory, which is what this is.

In practice you are 100% right. Conduit already said that people would give up some of their platform to join the group. And we all know that at present the poor as a group support wealth distribution. I find that immoral but I do have hope that poor people could learn to be more interested in the needs of all citizens.

As long as he is not saying gov should establish these groups then it is freedom of association.

 

[MisterConduit]

Firstly, this is borderline spam. The Youtube clip is nothing but a commercial for a book. So for the time being I am going to let this thread remain, assuming MisterConduit is here for actual discussion in other threads and is not here to promote a book. There is a possibility this thread will be deleted and the user banned because of this. But I will take a few minutes and respond to the thread at hand.

I didn't intend on doing anything wrong by putting my youtube video up. I can't edit it out of my postings though because I am for some reason unable to edit my messages. Whatever your purpose would be for banning me rather than just taking the video down or allowing me to do so, I'm not certain, but you are the moderator and you can certainly do whatever you need to do....but, like I said, it wasn't my intention to do anything wrong and I'm just here to talk about voters unions...sorry if I offended in some way

Why would it only be a low income union? I know plenty of people who are low income but vote for various parties and crees, not based on thier income level, but on support for social issues, such as abortion, gun control, and immigration as a few examples.

Any group could start a voters union. Its just a way for people to mathematically "amplify" power of their vote as a social class, to organize in such a way that they don't cancel out one another's vote. The downside, as you point out, would be that all the people would have to compromise on many issues by agreeing to vote for the candidate who won the union election...I guess you could say the purpose of a voters union would be to create a shift of power within all the political parties so that they ended up being more in line with what their base wanted rather than with what the higher-ups in the party wanted...that's the theory anyway

 

[MisterConduit]

You seem to be under the impression that all poor voters want the same thing. My voting preferences today are essentially the same as when I was poor as dirt. You sound like you are advocating that the poor get together nationally and vote as much wealth redistribution their way as possible.

Obviously all poor voters do not want the same thing. But I am under the impression that there is a general tendency for the average poor voter to want things that are, in general, more similar to what other poor voters want than they are to what the average wealthy voter wants...