When Voting Works (Let's Keep It Postive and Civil)

[Broomstick]

As an attempt at counter-balancing the recent flamefests and negativity in political threads, I am suggesting this an an experiment in positive examples. To that end, let's keep the swearing and the snarking to a minimum, if not zero. I do not, personally, have the authority to enforce it so from me it is a polite request (if the mods want to make it official, that's up to them). So, tell us if your favored guy was voted in, or if someone you really disliked was voted out, or if propositions passed/failed as you wanted.

So, for my first example, from my own county:

We have a woman named Carol Ann Seaton who ran for County Assessor. In case anyone isn't clear on that office, she (and her staff) are the ones who appraise your residence and determine its worth so the correct amount of property tax can be assessed. As much of local government and the local school districts rely on property tax for funding it's important. Anyhow, Ms. Seaton was caught last year possessing driver's licenses in both Indiana and Michigan (keep in mind that in the US driver's licenses are the primary ID used at all levels). This is illegal. It went to court in Indiana, where she was declared a non-resident and her Indiana ID confiscated (I don't know what, if anything, happened in Michigan). There was also the issue that her vehicles were all registered in Michigan, although she says her primary residence is in Indiana. This is also illegal. On top of that, during all this, it was found that her house is legally owned by one William Seaton. Apparently, Ms. Seaton is coy about whether William is her father, or her much older brother. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Seaton, you say? Well, Mr. Seaton hasn't been seen in years, it is unknown if he is alive or deceased. However, for something like 10 years SOMEONE has been signing his name on legal documents, particularly those that enable a senior citizen such as himself to obtain tax breaks on his property (which are not available to Ms. Seaton, as she is not old enough to qualify). These recent signatures look quite different from those from, oh, 20 years ago but the recent ones do bear a remarkable similarity to Ms. Seaton's. Huh.

Yes, that's going to court, too. She's a crook, OK? Even if she's not forging signatures on behalf of dead relatives, her monkeyshines with her driver's license(s) is sufficient to disqualify her from holding public office at this time, as she is not legally a resident of Indiana as determined by the court system.

Problem is, she's part of the Democratic Machine - we're next to Chicago here, where corruption and the Democratic Machine are legendary. Our local Democratic party is almost an extension of the one in Chicago. The Democrats also have a stranglehold on county politics here - it's been 60 years since any Republican won a local, county level office for anything. So Ms. Seaton was pretty damn confident she'd win, just told everyone to overlook those "mix-ups", and vote her into office anyway. The local Democrat party supported her run for office.

On Tuesday overwhelmingly Democratic Lake County Indiana voted in the first Republican to hold a county office in 60 years, one Hank Adams. He's the former tax assessor for St. John Township with 16 years of experience and no ethical cloud.

We voted out a crook and put in someone with a track record of ethical conduct. Yay us. He won by a mere 668 votes out of 111,878. There's some talk of Seaton challenging the results and demanding a recount, but apparently the Democratic Party isn't enthused about it.

As County Surveyor George Van Til, a Democrat who wasn't up for re-election this year said, "The middle and south county areas will swing back and forth. It's less about the Democratic or Republican Party and more about earning their votes."

Hey, sometimes the system does work.

[Broomstick]

269 views and not one comment or addition?

OK, here's another, this one from New York State.

There was this landlord from Buffalo, New York named Carl Paladino who wanted to run for governor. Well, OK, nothing wrong with that, but let's look at some of the things Mr. Paladino has done and ask yourself if YOU would elect this man to government office, or even city dog-catcher:

- Sending pornographic e-mails, including ones featuring bestiality, to various people, most of whom apparently weren't thrilled to receive them. These came to light in April 2010

- Sending racist e-mails, with similar results. Again, came to light in April 2010

- In September 2010 he threatened a reporter from the New York Post who was attempting to photograph the daughter he fathered out of wedlock with a former employee. Mr. Paladino's exact words were "You send another goon to my daughter’s house and I’ll take you out, buddy." He's often expressed puzzlement as to why the people he's asking to elect him would have any interest in his multiple extra-marital affairs. This, from a guy who promises ethical reform. Guess he didn't mean personal morals in that.

- There was the whole bit about denouncing his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade, along with changing his tune on the matter depending on the audience, and shortly thereafter it was found that Paladino was the landlord of Buffalo gay bar. This topic was discussed in this thread

Let's see some of the more extreme things Paladino had planned for the residents of New York:

- He planned to cut the state's Medicaid budget by nearly 30%, or $20 billion by making significant cuts to benefits. Medicaid is the medical coverage for the poorest of the poor, and the disabled. He planned to do this by:
--- reducing reimbursement rates across the board. Medicaid already has such low reimbursement rates many doctors don't want to see Medicaid patients now, much less after cuts. Such cuts would essentially force doctors to operate at a loss.
--- requiring identification, fingerprints and drug testing in order to receive benefits. In other words, the assumption is that anyone on Medicaid is a criminal, drug addict, or both.
--- training family members to take care of people who would otherwise be in long-term care. In other words, dumping people who should be in skilled medical facilities back onto families that may or may not have the means to care for them, may or may not have the money for them, and to hell with them if they have to work or whatever, the choice being between being accused of neglect/abuse or quitting employment (thus making them one of the nasty welfare people).

- He was opposed to a minimum wage.

- Wanted to bring the "free market" to education, having private schools compete directly with the public schools while cutting funding to the public schools in a blatant attempt to break the teachers' union, among other things

- Putting people receiving welfare in prison for no other reason than they are on welfare, as detailed in this prior thread

- elimination of state capital gains taxes and corporate franchise taxes, at a cost of approximately $1 billion. Which he planned to pay for by slashing state employees, sending tens of thousands of people to the unemployment lines (he planned to cut at least 60,000 jobs). Uh, yeah, good job - guess those welfare prisons weren't full enough or something.

- He proposed to enforce excise tax laws on Indian tribes such as the Iroquois who have so far refused to pay said taxes and promised severe punishment if the tribes protested. Never mind that Indian lands are not legally United States territory, some of them extend past the borders of Canada, it violates various Federal treaties, and a whole bunch of other stuff. I guess in his mind being governor of New York means he trumps the Federal government and Canada can go fuck off, too - nevermind what those pesky natives think, right? He'll put them in their place!

- Proposed review of Indian land claims with an eye to revocation. Yep, that's right - he wanted to confiscate the sovereign territories of the Indiana Nations of New York State. Coincidentally, the lands he most wanted reviewed all happen to have profitable casinos on them. Oh, sure, no ulterior motive there... Apparently he also wants land taken from the Seneca Nation and the fact he's in a dispute with the Seneca over real estate fees for a land purchase which he was involved with, and that they built a casino, hotel, and restaurants that he personally doesn't approve of on that land, which they bought and paid for, has nothing to do with any of this.

- Supermajority required for any tax increase. Hey, didn't that turn out badly for California...?

- vehemently opposes same-sex marriage. OK, that's not unusual or radical, but I think most of us on SD.net swing the other way.

- anti-abortion regardless of circumstances, including against it for rape and incest which are two areas even a lot of nominally "pro-life" people feel should be exceptions.

- Said Obamacare would be more deadly than the September 11 attacks.

There's probably more stuff I'm not aware of. That's just what I, an out of state interested party, was able to dig up on this yahoo. Yes, he was a Tea Party candidate running on the Republican side of the ticket.

The people of New York voted for Andrew Cuomo over Carl Paladino 61% to 34% (the remaining 5% were other candidates). Yay New York! (well, at least the 66% that did NOT vote for Paladino) Here's hoping Mr. Cuomo is a good governor - he certainly was a better gentleman during the campaign. Meanwhile, the poor will not be jailed for being poor, doctors will still be paid for seeing the poor and disabled, the crippled will not be booted out of nursing homes, minimum wage will still exist, tens of thousands of people will keep their jobs, young girls raped by their their fathers will still have the option to not continue their pregnancies, and the Native Americans will keep their land the casinos that have finally brought jobs to their tribes after centuries of oppression. I'd say there would be fewer icky e-mails sent around but hey, I don't expect one election to change the internet.

During his concession speech Paladino brandished a baseball bat and threatened to return for another election. Such a class act.

On the downside - he's talking about running for mayor of Buffalo.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah you're right, this is how historical processes have occurred resulting in progressive change as a general pattern in the past, and it is fruitless to point out the form of organizing, the source of the financing, the cultural institutions, the choices of policy, their beneficiaries and their effects and examine whether hard working people throughout history were unlucky or fighting uphill due to bad strategic choices or the historically-determined battlefield of politics; or, as you would have it, I guess they were just "too shrill" and "too mean" and "too extreme".

I bet Democrats like you cheered Meany marching construction workers to beat New Left students and protesters and gutted the unions and Civil Rights Movement using the same patriotic, submissive, "stay within the lines that have been drawn for you, little one" politics, and then were surprised to see working class wages frozen for forty-some-odd years, and the Reagan Era. Well, look at Europe, look at us. You know why Canada has universal health care? We ran the Populists and Socialists of the 1890s-to-World War I into prison or, in many case out of the country. Back then, Oklahoma was a stronghold of progressive politics. And there was a significant immigration. Where? Canada. These guys ended up being prairie socialists and creating the Canadian Cooperative Federation. This kind of labor politics made the difference in creating the first provincial health care system which was then universalized. Or you can do what good Democrats and the UAW did, and you'll be like, well, your job situation, or like Detroit.

I'm not calling for communism in the street and Mao's Little Red Book. But there's a clear distinction and history has provided us with something like a real controlled experiment, and industrial democracies with multi-party system, social democratic or labor politics, and a thorough welfare state are better, do better, and are functionally more democratic. That's a fact. Yeah they're rolling some of it back, but at least they are trying to defend it, or HAVE SOMETHING to defend. We're stuck scraping to preserve Obama's mandate for private health care providers, and Social Security. Look how much further ahead they are at least starting the game, working people, in Europe. The difference is stark and clear. America's peculiar politics are the outcome of some bad luck, excessive adoration for an antiquarian 18th century constitution modeled on the British monarchy of that period, and a total Cold War business-driven hysteria for anything like working-class politics.

Here's an hint: you may fear "collectivizing", but I sure as shit promise there's a class out there that doesn't. Withdrawing from class politics is just a de facto means of ceding the ground to the business class. Because they have Chambers of Commerce, the entire Treasury Department, ad nauseum. They know of, and defend, their class interests. Where the hell does any of this start rolling back personal liberties?

Oh, and before you come at me with that "what have you done?" bullshit. I vote, register people, belong to organizations, donate, and protest.

[White Haven]

...What? Seriously IP, what the fuck are you even on about that's remotely relevant to this thread? Allow me to summarize:

Broomstick: Two examples of serious shitbags who lost elections, including one who tried to break a teacher's union.
IP: FUCK YOU we need labor unions, I bet you cheered when people fought against them!

[Illuminatus Primus]

What are you talking about? This is clearly part of Broomstick's greater "pipe down sonny, be a good citizen and draw between the lines drawn for you and vote for Democrats and then make some calls" vision of change. I feel like it should be challenged vehemently. We're literally talking about matters like the extinction of the species if we don't seriously deal with some things this century (and precedent and a functioning cortex suggests that more of the Democrats is suicidal), so excuse the lack of decorum.

And how did I suggest unions are bad? I said Broomstick's Cold War-tone red-hysteria is an obstacle we can't afford if we're going to stop behaving like "a failed state, and become a democratic society" as Chomsky put it. There are clear examples of functioning democratic societies. Quite frankly, we could learn a lot from Haitians electing Aristide the first time and poor Bolivian campesinos getting their own candidate in office in Bolivia, or how a man without formal education, a simple worker and union man, became President of Brazil.

All of that is more impressive than the Boy Wonder that Goldman Sachs bought an election for.

[Simon_Jester]

WHAT Cold War-tone red-hysteria?

Citation needed.

[Cecelia5578]

Here's a positive example, sure to appeal to the Peak Oil/transportation enthusiasts here:

In 2008, California voters approved High Speed Rail between SF and SoCal. The most vocal opponents have been extremely wealthy people who live in the SF Peninsula/Northern Santa Clara County. Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton. Some of the wealthiest and most educated cities in the entire world.

Meg Whitman, the GOP candidate for governor, lives in Atherton, and as most of us know, is extremely wealthy and is one of the worst people in Silicon Valley. I greatly feared for the future of HSR if she had won; she represents a wealthy, older demographic, one that lives in a universe of unlimited oil and the automobile. Its hard to explain the dichotomy-PAMPA is home to Stanford, shit loads of VCs, bio tech, IT firms, you name it-extremely well educated, highly intelligent people, but don't let the Bay Area zip codes fool ya-all that glitters isn't gold, and not everyone in the SF Bay Area is on the right side of history.

So raise a toast to all the Californians who voted for Brown, and to ensuring that California will be on the same level as more civilized portions of the world in the years to come.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Why does America even vote for useless beurocratic positions instead of appointing them properly like everywhere else? What benefit does making them an elected official bring?

LETS ALL GO VOTE FOR THE D.A.

[serious question]

[Broomstick]

I suspect it has something to do with how the country was settled. The people on the frontier were often somewhat isolated and had to be self-reliant to survive. So, instead of waiting for some authority back east (or wherever) to appoint or hire someone to, say, be sheriff of a county the locals of the country would elect a sheriff out of their own numbers. Voting because a way for people out on the fringes to organize the small, local scale government and services they needed in fairly quick manner rather than waiting for someone outside the community to do it. When you realize that in the early 1800's some of the frontier settlements might be weeks or more of travel from major civic centers such decentralization and self-organization doesn't seem so strange.

Needless to say, with improved communications (like the telegraph) and transportation (trains) this was no longer a necessity. However, by that time it had become custom and tradition and thus it persists into the modern age of instant messages and jet travel when it is, in many ways, an anachronism.

Which is just a wild ass guess on my part. If someone can find something with actual historical support so much the better.

There are some other vestiges of those more isolated communities, like many state laws on common law marriages that, again, don't make a lot of sense in the modern world but did back then.

[Spoonist]

What are you talking about?

Hey idiot, there is a no-vendetta rule for a reason. You are taking a stupid tangent from a different thread into this topic. Posting a "I bet Democrats like you" right after the 'jay we voted out a corrupt D for an honest R, just shows you are a shit who couldn't bother to read the posts above before continuing a flamefest not started in this topic. I hope it ges HoSd with a warning like it deserves or at least split.

@Broomy
I find that someone like Carl Paladino getting 34% is scary and sickening. If people don't care enough to look up the candidate instead of just looking at the party allegiance then that spells disaster. The way elections work in the US you must be prepared to vote across party lines for the outrageous not to get into office.

[Stark]

I suspect it has something to do with how the country was settled. The people on the frontier were often somewhat isolated and had to be self-reliant to survive. So, instead of waiting for some authority back east (or wherever) to appoint or hire someone to, say, be sheriff of a county the locals of the country would elect a sheriff out of their own numbers. Voting because a way for people out on the fringes to organize the small, local scale government and services they needed in fairly quick manner rather than waiting for someone outside the community to do it. When you realize that in the early 1800's some of the frontier settlements might be weeks or more of travel from major civic centers such decentralization and self-organization doesn't seem so strange.

Needless to say, with improved communications (like the telegraph) and transportation (trains) this was no longer a necessity. However, by that time it had become custom and tradition and thus it persists into the modern age of instant messages and jet travel when it is, in many ways, an anachronism.

Which is just a wild ass guess on my part. If someone can find something with actual historical support so much the better.

There are some other vestiges of those more isolated communities, like many state laws on common law marriages that, again, don't make a lot of sense in the modern world but did back then.

I hate to say this, but plenty of waaaaaay older nations than the US manage to reform or ignore their political and legal systems just fine. Talking about how broken and in need of reform the US is is useless. Of course, when a country looks upon civil disturbance or disrupting status quo or voting for 'the other guy' as violently as America apparently does, reform is going to be hard. This doesn't mean it isn't needed.

To me it seems like turning your nation into a religion is a bit counterproductive to a healthy democracy; its amusing that the legacy of America's obsession with democracy is its own broken democracy and exporting 'democracy' (ps, dictators) to other countries that don't want it. Its particularly amusing to me that there's still conflict around the role of the Federal Government - hundreds of years later - that is dealt with on a case-by-case basis or left to simmer.

[UnderAGreySky]

I've always found The Indian Emergency to be a bit amusing, in hindsight. Though the link is a wiki, it's a decent encapsulation though it doesn't bring out the intensity of the protests and demonstrations. For those who don't want to read through everything,

Elections for the Parliament and state governments were postponed. Invoking article 352 of the Indian Constitution, Indira granted herself extraordinary powers and launched a massive crackdown on civil liberties and political opposition. The Government cited threats to national security, as a recent war with Pakistan had just been concluded. It claimed that the strikes and protests had paralyzed the government and hurt the economy of the country greatly. In face of massive political opposition, desertion and disorder across the country and the party, Indira stuck to the advice of a few close party loyalists and her younger son Sanjay Gandhi, who had become a close political advisor.

The Government used police forces across the country to arrest thousands of protestors and strike leaders. J.P. Narayan, Raj Narain, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Jivatram Kripalani, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Satyendra Narayan Sinha and other protest leaders were immediately arrested. Organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, along with some opposition political parties were banned. Numerous Communist leaders were arrested along with many others involved with the party.

Indira attempted to re-write the nation's laws with the help of the Parliament, where the Congress controlled over a two-thirds majority. She felt her powers were not amassing quickly enough, so she utilized the President to issue "extraordinary laws" that bypassed parliament altogether, allowing her to rule by decree. She constructed a 20-point economic program to increase agricultural and industrial production, improve public services and fight poverty and illiteracy. Also, she had little trouble in making amendments to the constitution that exonerated her from any culpability in her election fraud case, declaring President's Rule in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu where anti-Indira parties ruled (state legislatures were thereby dissolved and suspended indefinitely), and jailing thousands of opponents.

Well, what happened to that?

The public got even more restless, and for the first time since independence (1947 - this was in 1975-77) the fabled Indian democracy was about to break. Indira saw that she was not going to get through this in one piece and so she quietly called for elections.

The Congress Party went from super-majority to having just a third of the seats.

But the story doesn't end there... this new government collapsed in 1980. And they had been so inept, the people voted Indira back into power. But by then the constitution had been amended, and a message had been sent to future politicians. Except for those couple of years, India's had it much better in democratic terms than most ex-colonial third world countries.

[Slacker]

The people of New York voted for Andrew Cuomo over Carl Paladino 61% to 34% (the remaining 5% were other candidates). Yay New York! (well, at least the 66% that did NOT vote for Paladino) Here's hoping Mr. Cuomo is a good governor - he certainly was a better gentleman during the campaign. Meanwhile, the poor will not be jailed for being poor, doctors will still be paid for seeing the poor and disabled, the crippled will not be booted out of nursing homes, minimum wage will still exist, tens of thousands of people will keep their jobs, young girls raped by their their fathers will still have the option to not continue their pregnancies, and the Native Americans will keep their land the casinos that have finally brought jobs to their tribes after centuries of oppression. I'd say there would be fewer icky e-mails sent around but hey, I don't expect one election to change the internet.

The Rent Is Too Damn High Party got over 40,000 votes. Obviously most of them were people making a protest vote, but I thought it was pretty amusing.

People who were claiming this election was going to be close were really not paying attention to what was happening in New York. I know a number of Republicans here on Long Island who were very wary of Paladino and wound up voting for Cuomo.

[Broomstick]

I hate to say this, but plenty of waaaaaay older nations than the US manage to reform or ignore their political and legal systems just fine.

Yes, but Americans can be stubborn as well as stupid.

Of course, when a country looks upon civil disturbance or disrupting status quo or voting for 'the other guy' as violently as America apparently does, reform is going to be hard. This doesn't mean it isn't needed.

While there have always been elements of that, that trend started accelerating with the "Reagan Revolution" in 1980 and only has gotten worse under Bush 1 and 2.

To me it seems like turning your nation into a religion is a bit counterproductive to a healthy democracy

Agreed. I am, however, in the minority regarding that in this country.

Its particularly amusing to me that there's still conflict around the role of the Federal Government - hundreds of years later - that is dealt with on a case-by-case basis or left to simmer.

It's sort of built into the system, actually.

[Broomstick]

I find that someone like Carl Paladino getting 34% is scary and sickening. If people don't care enough to look up the candidate instead of just looking at the party allegiance then that spells disaster. The way elections work in the US you must be prepared to vote across party lines for the outrageous not to get into office.

In a different thread I don't feel like finding at the moment someone suggested that there seems to be a core nugget of crazy in the Republican party of about 1/3. Which means that's who voted for Paladino, and pretty much no one else.

Clearly, some Republicans jumped the party lines and voted for Cuomo - he wouldn't have won by such a margin if they hadn't. It's rather like the Hank Adams case in the OP where, given the county demographics, there had to be significant numbers of black Democrats who voted for the white Republican, or with President Obama, who had to have substantial white support to get into office as there are not enough black people in the US to elect a President on their own, by themselves. Yet I know people who claim blacks only vote for their own, or whites won't vote for black people, and want to maintain the illusion that people only vote within party lines. Clearly, they don't. The pity is that people don't vote for the "other" side more often, because really we're all in this together.

[Simon_Jester]

I hate to say this, but plenty of waaaaaay older nations than the US manage to reform or ignore their political and legal systems just fine. Talking about how broken and in need of reform the US is is useless. Of course, when a country looks upon civil disturbance or disrupting status quo or voting for 'the other guy' as violently as America apparently does, reform is going to be hard. This doesn't mean it isn't needed.

This strikes me as being a bit like IP's comment: unrelated to what she actually said. Broomstick made a comment about the historical evolution of an institution; she didn't have anything at all to say about whether it was a good idea or a bad idea to elect local officials.

[Stark]

So what? How is historical trivia more relevant than a discussion of how these limiting factors are bad? Indeed, the very idea that talking about the system being broken is bad is the whole fucking point! The idea - for example - that professors are 'bad' or outside the political process or 'cheats' or whatever isn't limited to America, you know.

[Broomstick]

So what? How is historical trivia more relevant than a discussion of how these limiting factors are bad?

The question asked by JointStrikeFighter was "How did this system come to be?" Not "what is wrong with this system and what should be fixed?". In other words, the question sought historical information, not what to do going forward. A point that seems to have escaped you, Stark. Explaining how something happened is in no way speaking either for or against that thing.

[Stark]

I thought this thread was about 'positive examples', and not some attempt to educate JSF on American history?

Something I'd like answered in a 'positive' way is the different attitudes towards polls and demonstrations. Demonstrations are obviously a part of healthy democracy - even when hijacked by lobbyists - but aren't polls really the same kind of thing? In the same way that pollsters can tweak questions or distort statistics, there's no way of knowing if rally participant #251657 is really there for the reasons the rally 'organisers' expect. Given this, what IS the acceptable direct method of the people applying political pressure? Threatening violence is clearly out, polls are considered unreliable, rallies are 'activism'... have we simply created societies that do not want any political change?

[Broomstick]

I think I will think on that question for a bit, as it is thought provoking, and see what I can come up with.

I thought this thread was about 'positive examples', and not some attempt to educate JSF on American history?

I view education as a positive.

[Thanas]

IP, I think a few of your comments skirted dangerously close to crossing the line. I am not going to take action right now as moderating this thread would involve HoS'in nearly everybody but the OP, but take care in the future not to do it again.

[Broomstick]

Something I'd like answered in a 'positive' way is the different attitudes towards polls and demonstrations. Demonstrations are obviously a part of healthy democracy - even when hijacked by lobbyists - but aren't polls really the same kind of thing? In the same way that pollsters can tweak questions or distort statistics, there's no way of knowing if rally participant #251657 is really there for the reasons the rally 'organisers' expect. Given this, what IS the acceptable direct method of the people applying political pressure? Threatening violence is clearly out, polls are considered unreliable, rallies are 'activism'... have we simply created societies that do not want any political change?

Naturally, those in power tend to want to maintain the status quo. Keeping the peasants happy, well-fed, and entertained is a means to that end, and makes it less likely folks will engage in violent, dangerous uprisings. That was true in Ancient Rome with "bread and circuses" and it's still true today. Bloody revolution hasn't vanished, but it seems less common in the industrialized world than it was a century or two ago, and it probably has something to do with the fact that even a poor person in the US or Europe or Australia still lives better in some respects than royalty did a few hundred years ago. It's been quite awhile since large numbers of people in those places were seriously in danger of dying of starvation or freezing to death in winter.

I think that you're correct, polls and demonstrations are both part of a healthy democracy. There is, however, a tension between those who wish to manipulate public opinion (whether through polls, rallies, TV ads, whatever) and those who wish to use them to find out how the public is truly feeling about various issues, and which issues are most important. Yes, you can use "tweaked" polls to prove almost anything, and demonstrations can be staged, and stage-managed.

One major difference, though, is that no poll has ever spontaneously turned into a riot. Polls are inherently less threatening to those currently in power. Even a positive group gathering in favor of a leader has a potential to turn ugly. Hence, so many democracies require permits to hold demonstrations, and make sure those demonstrations have a police presence. Most of the time they remain peaceful, but governments have learned the hard way that you need to get instigators under control quickly lest even the most peaceful of gatherings turn violent if sufficient provocation occurs. Spontaneous gatherings, although they may remain peaceful, are also potentially those most likely to erupt - they occur without planning, may happen in areas not conducive to crowd control, and there is always the problem of certain elements that just like to cause trouble.

Acceptable means of creating political pressure include voting, communicating with your representatives, participation in polls, and yes, demonstrating in person. As you point out, threatening violence is generally not the way to go about making change, although if peaceful means have no success and conditions deteriorate violence may get put on the table

It's not that we have societies that don't want political change so much as changes in the risk vs. benefit ratio for the population over the past century or two. In the "West" (which encompasses eastern locations like Australia) even most poor people have their basic animal needs fulfilled. If you're fed, housed, clothed, and have a minimum level of entertainment you are less likely to want to risk it all by engaging in bloody riots. Things might be bad, but the average Joe is aware on some level they could be a lot worse and thus might be less inclined to take up arms than a French or Russia peasant of some years ago. Hungry people are dangerous people - so keep the people well fed. What's a major problem of poverty these days in the West? Obesity... yep, the peasants are very well fed indeed these days.

There are other options these days that also, I think bleeds off some of the pressure. Are things bad where you are? Well, travel is ridiculously easy these days compared to a couple generations ago, so some folks strike out for other locations, hoping to find better prospects. People might decry those on the "dole" or "welfare" as lazy and unambitious, but those safety nets also keep people from getting desperate enough to start revolutions. I am, of course, most familiar with my own country so I tend use examples from here - the US "food stamp" program costs as much proportionally as the equivalent Roman Empire program (or so I've been told by people in whose opinions I have some trust) but provides a far better diet, and surely modern TV and movies provide at least as much, if not more, diversion than Roman circuses ever did. Fat people sitting on their asses soaking up the boob tube are much more amenable to manipulation than those who are hungry and bored. Those in power allow some demonstrations (with police presence, or tucked away from the news cameras) to bleed off energy from the hot heads. A lot of the "political pressure" techniques have been co-opted by the powerful and turned into a form of crowd control.

However, there are cracks in the facade. This is strictly my opinion (and thus feel free to disagree) but one reason BOTH political parties in the US were able to agree on things like welfare and real change in civil rights during the late 1960's to mid 1970's was because the population had slipped the reins of control - despite food, shelter, and entertainment the peasants got violent. The peaceful sit-ins progressed to riots and it became apparent that real change had to occur or things would only get worse. Those in power compromised, giving the populace some of what was wanted to cool the fires.

Over the next few decades things weren't perfect, but they were better in some respects, the powerful kept tabs on the public at large, and most people were fairly comfortable. Comfortable people protest less. Problem is, a lot of people are falling from comfort into discomfort. This is definitely a problem in the US, where we have the worst unemployment in 70 years, there is nearly no social safety net left for those without jobs, and homelessness is rising. My concern is that there is a very, very ugly tension rising here (it may also be rising elsewhere, but I don't feel qualified to make that judgment about other countries for the most part). If people have nowhere to live and nothing to do then violence becomes much more likely.

Which is why I applaud positive and non-violent successes. I would prefer to avoid ugliness in the form of social unrest and civil uprisings. If the electorate is still smart enough to vote to keep the psychos, nutballs, and crooks out of office I find it reassuring that we may yet solve our problems as civilized people, that is, peaceably. The last time things were this bad economically world-wide we segued into World War II. After the dust settled there was something like 50 million dead and Europe and parts of Asia were in ruins. I don't think anyone wants to see today's world go down that road, as the death toll would likely be much higher and who knows which cities will be pulled down?

All of which is getting off track. What we really need is for enough people to become uncomfortable that they get off their asses and trying to solve things constructively, rather than either giving up in despair or resort to smashing things like a toddler with a temper tantrum. When I see people jumping party lines to either vote out someone who has no business in public office, or vote in someone who will benefit society, I find myself just a bit less cynical. With the current nastiness in the world it's easy to lose sight of the fact that sometimes the system DOES work. Sometimes a poll taken to truly find public opinion (as opposed to supporting an agenda) does make a government change course. Sometimes a demonstration does capture the attention of leaders and persuade them to alter their actions. Sometimes the better candidate is elected.

[xt828]

I think that - at least in Australia - (political) polls are perceived quite differently from demonstrations. We don't really have a tendency towards rallies and the like, the way that we see happening in America - the idea of thousands of people going out to see a public address or to see the national leader being appointed to his job is pretty alien to us. Our rallies tend to be more along the lines of protest marches through the local capital to the local center of government, ending with an address and perhaps a visit from a member of the government, the opposition, or both. They aren't really seen as being effective in changing anything. Polls, on the other hand, tend to come from one of a couple of polling agencies who've worked hard to give themselves a reputation for reliability and impartiality, and the results of polls are widely seen as reflecting public opinion - and are the apparent basis for changes in the political scene, the most obvious recently being Julia Gillard's outing of Kevin Rudd as PN, based on his appallingly bad polls in the wake of some policy announcements.

Also, we're not eastern; were even more Western that you

[Broomstick]

I meant you had an eastern location while be culturally western.

Now, anyone care to speculate why Australians tend to us polls more than public demonstrations/rallies?