.


No Stolen Elections: Vision, Opportunity, Proaction

The following is the second in a series of pieces on the “No Stolen Elections” initiative. This initiative is intended to ensure that people are prepared in the potential event that the November 2 election falls into crisis. See: No Stolen Elections: What is it?

This second piece reflects on the value of “Strategizing for a Living Revolution,” a phrase used by social movement activist, strategist and writer George Lakey in an essay of that title [1]. It's easy to sit down in a road to block traffic and get arrested for a good cause. It's more of a challenge to take action in the context of a deliberate strategy that avoids being misinterpreted, and advances tangible steps toward a vision that enables us to strive for a better future.

The organizing activities surrounding the “No Stolen Elections” initiative are probably moving too fast for the thoughts raised in this piece to be incorporated. That's OK. The multi-generational global justice movement, in which the “No Stolen Elections” initiative is taking place, will provide many opportunities to exercise the strategic concepts presented in this article.



A Failed Election Represents an Opportunity for Social Advances

Many people have a justified distaste of “the system” to the point that they opt out of participating in electoral politics. Anarchists, for example, say “smash the state,” and have an alternative vision to put in its place. Many don't vote, because doing so legitimizes a system that they reject. But even anarchists must confront the tangible matter of how to get from where we are today to their future vision.

It is highly unlikely that “smashing the state” will take the form of a sudden collapse followed by alternative institutions filling the void.... any time soon that is. More likely, the evolutionary path will entail smaller progressive steps that require persistent struggle. The American penchant for instant gratification should be resisted when it comes to revolution.

Yes, we live in society with a strong state apparatus that won't be dislodged just because of a failed election. However, it is pragmatic to consider how state institutions can be exploited to accelerate progress towards a more ideal vision without compromising the integrity of the social movement. A failed election on November 2 would be an opportunity to advance our future visions, and offer some tangible steps forward, even if those advances are still cast within the state framework.



Turning “Reaction” into “Proaction”

One common criticism of popular social movements is that they tend to be “reactive” rather than “proactive.” Reaction can be necessary and powerful, as it was in response to the 1999 WTO ministerial in Seattle. However, movement strategist George Lakey warns against “remaining in a posture of reaction.”

How can we turn reaction to a stolen election into proaction? An attempted stolen election would be an event beyond our control. Any action we take in response would, on the surface, appear to be a reaction; however, it need not be. First, keep an eye on the collective future ideal vision we share. Crafting the response with that long-term vision in mind starts to convert the reaction into a proactive action.

Second, anticipate the event and notify others that the event is coming (outreach). Third, view the event as an opportunity and prepare contingency plans that are explicitly proactive. Identify tangible steps that will help to enable the collective ideal vision. This might take the form of educating others while they are highly sensitized, collecting signatures while people are in a moment of support, or affecting more ambitious institutional changes like introducing legislation to reduce the power of the privileged and shift power to the people.

Finally, design the actions in a manner that is patient but persistent. Multi-generational movements necessitate a long view of the history we are molding. Martin Luther King was content in knowing that he would not live to see “the promise land,” but that he was an agent of change on the “long arc” that points in the right direction. Also, as a practical matter, one makes fewer blunders by being patient, and also honors the integrity of the movement that values the means as much as it values the ends.



The “What & Why” of Our Collective Vision

People in the global justice movement are actively preparing contingency plans in the event of an attempted stolen election. This is being done in addition to the mainstream preparations to protect votes, and to fight it out in court and other traditional arenas if necessary. Lakey suggests that, when we use our vision to guide our choices of action, we should not only reflect on “what” is the vision, but we ask “why” we have that vision?

The vision we want includes a sense that the will of the people should influence the direction of our society. Why? We know that commercialized and privileged power drives society in unhealthy directions that are dictated by a minority who has more financial influence. (Obviously, this is just one illustrative element of a collective vision).

For example, television and other mass media programming is being consolidated under the control of an increasingly smaller number of people. By their business nature, these people tend to value the commercialism, which is gaining greater influence in our society. Like it or not, the mass media strongly influences our culture. That is to say, our culture is reflecting what is projected upon it by the mass media. For example, young girls are viewing themselves relative to skinny “sexy” images in the mass media. Similarly, people's shallow view of the world reflects the shallow information on TV. We are all aware of the ills that result, girls with self-image problems, and a nation that elects George Bush President and supports an aggressive illegal war that has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and ruined many lives here in the US.

The “why” of our collective vision is that we don't believe the size of the wallet should determine the direction of society. Rather we recognize that informed, reasoned, collective decision making should trump the size of the wallet. We recognize that, more and more, choices in society are being reflected by adding up and weighing the influence of dollars instead of adding up and weighing the voices of the people. The later is “democracy,” the former is “plutocracy.”

Instant Runoff Voting: An Illustrative Example of Connecting the Opportunity of “No Stolen Election” to Our Collective Vision in a Proactive Way

So, how do we convert this understanding into action? Clearly there are many ways. The following example is not a rallying call to make Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) a central theme of any proposed “No Stolen Elections” action. Rather, it is simply an illustrative example of how proaction could be adopted.

The two corporate parties have pointed to third parties as “spoilers,” saying for example that Ralph Nader gave the election to George Bush in 2000, or that Ross Perot gave the election to Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet, the two major parties cling strongly to a voting process that ensures third parties might split the vote. Why? Because, as we can see in the present election, people’s real fear of splitting the vote works well to keep third parties weak. This is what the two corporate parties want.

If the 2004 election is close and goes to George Bush, we can anticipate another outcry about “those stupid third parties that split the vote and gave the election to Bush.” This crisis offers an opportunity to educate the entire nation about IRV.

Every mass media outlet could be saying, “Instant runoff voting would have avoided this crisis, and there is nothing to prevent states from adopting IRV in the future.” Crises scream out for common sense solutions, so having a solution waiting for a crisis is the trick.

What is IRV? It’s best described in comparison to the voting system we use today. Imagine that 60% of voters are “liberal” and only 40% are “conservative.” Clearly, the nation would want a liberal winner, right? Right, but according to the current voting system if there are two liberal candidates (Green and Democrat) and one conservative candidate (Republican), the 60% liberal vote could split 35% Green, 25% Democrat, and the Republican could win with only 40% of the vote. Crazy, eh? And we claim to be an advanced society.

What would happen with IRV? With IRV, nobody can win unless they get a majority of the vote, that is, over 50%. This is accomplished by allowing the voters to pick more than one candidate, in order of preference, say “first Green, second Democrat.” If the tally of votes is like above (25%, 35%, 40%), and no candidate receives more than 50%, an “instant runoff” election is held by a simple accounting procedure. The candidate with the least votes is excluded, and the “second choice” information is tallied. In this case, assuming no Greens or Democrats listed the Republican as their second choice, the Democrat would be dropped and the final tally would be 60% Green, and 40% Republican. The Green candidate would win, which would be a better reflection of the sentiments of the public than if the Republican won according to our current outmoded system of voting.

How would a proactive campaign advocate IRV in the event that a crisis provided an opportunity? First, the crisis itself will be evidence that the current system is seriously flawed. Second, the previous simple example of how the current voting system would allow a 40% minority candidate to win when 60% of the electorate is of the other persuasion clearly exposes the flawed system. Even the typical TV-watching American can understand this basic flaw. Third, because IRV is a better reflection of the public’s true desire, we can appeal to the more democratic nature of IRV (democracy still sells well in the USA). Fourth, IRV is being adopted by local governments around the country (Nearly two dozen states have considered IRV legislation). Fifth, both John McCain and Vermont Governor Howard Dean support IRV. Sixth, this issue is not some fringe idea. As far back as 1992, USA Today wrote an editorial supporting IRV. Seventh, IRV saves money by avoiding traditional runoff elections (some local governments actually adhere to the concept of “majority rule,” thus requiring runoff elections. Eighth, IRV avoids the inconvenience of voters having to return to the polls for a runoff election.

CLICK for More on IRV

In Short

In short, our vision of a better society should be used to inform how we take action during the potential brewing electoral crisis. We can predict a potential opportunity and react with proactive action, which not only displays our outrage (this approach doesn’t preclude acts of non-violent civil disobedience), but offers a tangible solution that appeals to people’s common sense and advances us toward our vision. This strategic approach of building actions upon vision, opportunity and proactive tactics is working its way into the global justice movement. The potential crisis following the November 2 election should be viewed as one more step in the multi-generational struggle that is the global justice movement.

Notes

[1] George Lakey, “Strategizing for a Living Revolution,” in “Globalization Liberation:
How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World,” David Solnit Editor.

[2] The views presented in this article are those of the author, and do not reflect a consensus view of people working on the “No Stolen Elections” campaign. The IRV idea is not presently a part of the “No Stolen Elections,” and is presently solely as an illustrative example.