Sponsors

Would a political party that truly represented workers ever lose an election in America?? Email Print

You have got to ask yourself just how and why the majority of American voters, who I believe and will try to show are working types, would ever vote for a conservative Repub administration that does not represent their economic interests??  The inevitable result of doing so would be the demise of their standard of living in favor of a smaller class of influential capitalists, which is indeed what has been happening under both the Reagan and Bushes administrations.  I wish I knew why these types of social conservative administrations can keep pulling the wool over workers' eyes with maybe other less relevant social issues so they can get in power and screw the majority worker voters over and over on extremely vital economic issues.  

Does this happen because:

these worker types are stupid;
or they are self destructive;
or are they just being duped by a brainwashing technique including the main stream media;
or maybe these Repub voting workers are really geniuses and see the future better than I!  

Now wait, there may be yet another reason!  They do not see any political party convincing them that that party will really help workers, so they make up their minds on how to cast their votes on the less relevant to economic status issues.  If this latter reason is true, it is a condemnation of the Democratic party's image and convincing prowess of the last 40 years.  Lets look at workers versus the likely owner class for some perspective.

I am not a statistician so some of these numbers may be somewhat misinterpreted and I may be taking some liberties with assumptions.  Still, I think the magnitude of the effect will eliminate any resulting statistical minor faults, but folks should still feel justified in challenging any on this.  

How many likely working class Americans are there compared to capitalist/business owners types.
From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table A.  Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)

                         |    averages     |       Monthly data       |
                         |______|________| Sept.-
   Category         |      2005       |           2005           | Oct.
                         |
_____|________|change
                         |   II   |  III   |  Aug.  |  Sept. |  Oct.  |
 
________|__|__|__|__|__|__
     HOUSEHOLD DATA      |                 Labor force status
                         |_________________
Civilian labor force.....| 149,003| 149,835| 149,841| 150,093| 150,079|    -14
  Employment.............| 141,404| 142,319| 142,449| 142,432| 142,646|    214
  Unemployment...........|   7,599|   7,516|   7,391|   7,661|   7,433|   -228
Not in labor force.......|  76,671|  76,587|  76,581|  76,600|  76,880|    280
                         |
__|__|__|__|__|__

My summary of this table says there are about 150 million people in the labor force and about 77 million folks not in the labor force.


Type of Entity             Total Number in 2000

Sole Proprietorships       17,904,731
Corporations                5,045,274
Partnerships                1,338,796
Limited Liability Companies   718,704
Totals                     25,007,505  

My summary of this table says there are about 25 million business in the US.  What part of the above 227 million (150 million in labor force plus the 77 million not in labor force) are represented by the owner class in America?  It may not be all that easy to see from this so lets try a different perspective


Summary
Bush 62,041,268  50.73%  
Kerry 59,028,548 48.27%  
Total (all candidates) 122,293,720
Margin of Victory 3,012,720 2.46%

Turnout rate among voting-eligible: 60.3%  
Therefore Voting eligible pop = 202,674,771

Okay let's assume that of the 62 million voters for Bush, there are 30 million business owner types (25 million businesses) and 32 million maybe confused worker types.  Kerry had 50 million probable working and unemployed types voting for him, and 80 million eligible voters did not vote (202 million-122 million)!!  How many of these 80 million non-voters were likely capitalist/business owner types?? Even if all Bush's voters were capitalists/business owner types, there would still likely be 139 million (59 mil + 80 Mil) worker type voters (IMHO) out there.  In actuality, that 62 million Bush voters likely included maybe up to 30 million confused/disenchanted working class voters who should really make the working class total around 169 million.

My point is that any political party that can make itself clearly seen as representing the welfare of workers in America should never, never, never lose an election in a democracy!  NEVER!  Therefore back to the question of how can/could the Dems have lost the trust of so many working types so that these workers choose to vote either against their economic future or just do not see the Dems as the party that really is representing workers.  Maybe they are all afraid of no jobs instead of supposedly secure jobs under the Dems, but certainly many workers do not see the dems as "their party".  This issue points out the hurdle and challenges any really progressive political party must overcome to bring these workers home to that party.  If such a political party philosophy and actions could be sold to all workers, namely that that party will really represent workers interests and welfare at all costs, then that party will/would always win elections in a democracy made up of primarily workers who would always vote Maslow's first and second order needs first!  

Now what ideas and actions and POLITICAL system changes need to be used/proposed to help sell such a worker's benefit political philosophy to all workers and how does such a political party come into being if it is not now???


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Right Wing Propaganda on Political Cortex | STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ >
 Display:
I'm in the midst of writing something up right now that bears somewhat on this point.  As much as we want to, and should, represent the worker, we sometimes do have to face real conflict in our positions.  For instance: the Clean Air Act.

It's a great idea.  In fact, I support it 110%, and believe that the Bush administration's attempts to subvert this act are crimes equal to those committed in Iraq.  However, the institution of the Clean Air Act had unintended consequences for American labour.  The Act helped push mining companies out of the union areas in Kentucky and W. Virginia, and into areas of the west that were not unionized and not union friendly.  The unintended consequences of this act are a big part of the reason that these states, which once were among the bluest in the nation, turned purple, then red.  

Union miners, who twenty years ago wouldn't have voted for a Republican if someone put a gun to their head (and some people did nearly that) now see Democrats as both the party that valued "bugs and fish" (to quote one of the guys I used to work with) over them, and who then turned around under Clinton and pushed for things like NAFTA, showing that they had no real inclination towards labor.  

Just one of those examples of how everything is connected, and how pulling one string can move a lot of levers.

by Devilstower on 11/25/2005 10:47:18 PM EST

However, using Maslow's needs paradigm, I still think you can come to compromise solutions which if presented to labor/workers correctly, would still show them that one party was a better choice for them over the one that represents the owner classes. 

As my diary tried to show, there are soooo many more labor/worker types over owner types that I believe trust  and positive perception in the party (to do the right thing) is the key.  Evidently, workers now do not think the current democractic party really represents them, and if that image could be changed, the Dems, or any party really perceived as representing labor/workers, would be unbeatable in a Democracy!

by NG on 11/26/2005 11:07:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
and a lot of workers imagine they'll be wealthier in the future. I think they vote their economic aspirations instead of their economic realities. They envision that if they work their ass off, they'll move up a tax bracket or two and they don't want their hard-earned money going to the government.

They've bought into the economic success story of the American dream, and they want to keep their imagined dough. All of it.

This is a tough nut to crack, psychologically. You see it in people's gripes about having to pay taxes on lottery winnings, which they didn't even work for, for crying out loud.

by SusanG on 11/26/2005 10:21:49 AM EST

In a socialistic-type,  worker-favorable solution to an issue, I certainly see your point.  This is one of those unitended consequences that Devilstower mentioned, and is a difficult trade-off for responsible voters to visualize, although through the health effects consequences, I still think solid, accepted compromises with labor can be made.    Just look at China now for examples of this evolving.  However back to your point about taxes and future dreams of Bill gatesdom (new term I just coined), trade policies, union policies, minimum wage actions, retirement security, job security, and maybe even healthcare issues, and many other issues can all be done outside the socialistic tax area where labor could still see a fair shake over the owner classes version of a solution (like we are only seeing now!).  That may well be enough to keep the working class voter coalition together to easily keep trouncing the owner classes, as should be happening in a democracy almost by definition!

by NG on 11/26/2005 11:01:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You say this:

trade policies, union policies, minimum wage actions, retirement security, job security, and maybe even healthcare issues, and many other issues can all be done outside the socialistic tax area where labor could still see a fair shake over the owner classes version of a solution (like we are only seeing now!).

But I see these issues being labeled -- and bought into -- as "socialistic" all the time. In fact, it's just these issues that the GOP are undermining right now, in the name of creating an "ownership society" for all -- all of those aspiring to Bill Gatedom (great phrase). Look at how the "privitization" of Social Security was presented. Although it failed for now, I expect the GOP to come back with "failed socialism" memes on it for another try. And many --  not all, but many -- will buy into it (wanting personal control over the money that leaves their paycheck in the form of Social Security).

So I'm not quite as optimistic as you are that these issues are accepted as "non-socialistic" and something workers who aspire to higher tax brackets will buy into. One of the amazing things the GOP has done in the past few decades is successfully redefining community and government-funded programs --  pretty much ALL of them -- as "stealing" from your paycheck to support the lazy and undeserving. So many programs have been defunded out of the public sphere (educational tutoring, for example) and that's either unknown, perceived as unimportant or accepted as the right thing to do, that it's scary.

by SusanG on 11/26/2005 11:23:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When it comes to interpreting correctly what a policy action will do and then selling it now to the majority of voters who are workers, I wish I was an expert on everything or had a perfectly functioning crystal ball.  Since these options are not available to me or maybe anyone, I think we have to look to relevant (Important) past similar situations to help answer what social consequences various social policies may bring about.  For example, if you believe the current business climate is similar to that in the Repub Hoover era, well we all know what that led to!  The political party favoring workers should be skilled enough to show this relationship to workers!!  If Roosevelt's policies helped workers and did not prevent them for still becoming owners if they wished, then that is a historical policy action that needs to be stressed to workers now over and over!

I sometimes think that the current dem party is not that serious about workers, but then again, what do I know.  Maybe they are just communication inept!  However, having as your presidential candidate the richest, most corporate dependent candidate in the Senate does not help that perception, now does it? 

Since this is all about perception, I think non-tax supported political actions that are meant to protect workers security and workers standard of living are the way to go to corral workers back to one party. Showing historical precedent and explaining both sides should get the truth out there.  I mean all of us here think we know the truth, so in our collective opinion, what are the best worker/labor policies to follow, and is there any party now trying to do these things, and if not, why not????

by NG on 11/26/2005 11:48:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In fact, his "socialistic" policies are part of what made the great middle class in America after the war through the GI bill. Home ownership became more widespread, as did university education.

But I (sadly) think the American public is ahistorical. They don't understand or didn't pay attention in class when this massive "socialistic" program went into effect to create the huge mass of middle class wealth (and that it's being chipped away at relentlessly).

If the Dems can find a way to "re-tell" the Roosevelt New Deal story in a way that is interesting and relevant ... well, that's the way I can see a way forward through this "socialistic" label and assumption. Funding of public works project, public arts projects, public education and historical projects, coupled with the benefits given to the vets when they returned from World War II is really what fueled the amazing economic growth of the 1950's and 1960's and pulled us WAY out of the Depression.

Now if we can just find a way to tell this so that American people "get it" and are interested ... THAT is the challenge. (I'm always an advocate of telling it throw societal/cultural methods -- music, film, novels, etc., because it doesn't feel like you're being bludgeoned with academic policy platforms).

by SusanG on 11/26/2005 12:06:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would comment from a workers standpoint. The Democrats do offer better protection to the workers, BUT the republicans are better liars. They use fluffy words and phrases to describe how they are going to destroy us.

RTW Right-To-Work which destroys the Union sounds good. Pay-Check-Protection Act ect sound really good, and the average worker does not understand the destruction that follows. Private accounts for SS. You give your money to Wall St and they will take care of you, like Ken Lay did, right. NAFTA, CAFTA did give us workers the SHAFTA (Barry Welsh for Congress In-6th uses this) and he is right on. Clinton gave us a balanced budget with NAFTA being disgraceful.

The republican spin is always tell them anything but the truth and the news networks will do the rest. Who owns the networks that most workers watch and believe is the gospel. How do we tell a worker earning $20,000.00 a year he will get a big tax break and make them believe it, we lie.

Most workers vote the way their parents have voted. The way the teacher in school taught them, their favorite rock star votes, ect.

I heard them repeat things heard on TV from right wing commentators. Why, there are no left wing commentators in my area.

Democrats do support labor, but that support is failing as everyone seems to be moving toward the middle. I'm a LIBERAL, LEFT WINGER, and proud of that. I would rather feed a hungry kid, than give tax breaks to the wealthy.

The Chairman

by Chairman on 11/28/2005 12:54:23 PM EST

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software.

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

   1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

   2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

   3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

   4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

   5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

   6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

   7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

   8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

   1. The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

   2. A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

   3. Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

   4. A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

   5. In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

   6. In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

   7. In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

   8. In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

   9. Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

  10. In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

  11. In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

  12. In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that's exactly what happened.

by Jenakastar on 11/30/2005 02:10:31 AM EST

 Display: