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

[Bunz]

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

Not offended in the slightest, just wary of SPAM. You must understand that like many other forums online we get our own share of people who make posts that are mere advertisement for a secondary site or product, which is against the rules here. If that is not your purpose, then we will have no problems. Enjoy the boards.

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

Again, you might want to read into the various states who hold caucuses, Iowa being probably the best known example. It is similar. Also, it is similar to the existing party system we have, and most of the rest of the world has. Most are based on ideology rather than say for example income.

The biggest issue I have is that the parties and all other groups like PACs, labor unions, industry organizations etc, are all strife with corruption. Much moreso than our elected officials.

My preference would be to ease away from party and large group politics and we focus on electing individuals, voted on by individuals, who donate individually. I want to eliminate the days of organizational donations and endorsements for the most part.

 

[Dr.Who]

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...

Suppose that all the poor voters wanted to simple confiscate all the wealth of the rich.

Suppose also that all the rich voters wanted to simply confiscate all the wealthy of the poor.

Wouldn't it be better for the nation if neither side won?

 

[MisterConduit]

Suppose that all the poor voters wanted to simple confiscate all the wealth of the rich.

Suppose also that all the rich voters wanted to simply confiscate all the wealthy of the poor.

Wouldn't it be better for the nation if neither side won?

Yes I agree. But I also think that in the current situation, the effects of money on the political process have tipped the scales too far in the direction of the wealthy. The voters union is supposedly a way to bring this back into balance...

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes I agree. But I also think that in the current situation, the effects of money on the political process have tipped the scales too far in the direction of the wealthy. The voters union is supposedly a way to bring this back into balance...

Using a metaphor that does not quite apply, I would say that the scales have been tipped too far in both directions and the only winners are the politicians.

The wealthy have too much influence so they trade favors with the politicians. While at the same time the welfare state has become institutionalized so that the poor can vote in the politicians.