Voters Unions - what do you think?

[MisterConduit]

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 of its potential effectiveness? Second, have you ever heard of an organization 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 of a political party or PAC 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 in political parties or PACs 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 (via phone, mail, or Internet) 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 (willingly, of course) 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?

 

[MisterConduit]

I just wanted to add that the basic idea is that the reason people would hypothetically vote along with the voters union union is that it would be an easy way for an entire class of people to coordinate their vote to not cancel out one another's vote, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of their vote...

Rather than having 600,000 low income voters 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 (cheaply - through mail, phone, Internet, etc.) 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 1,000,000 votes from the group instead of 200,000 net. So that means the group "multiplied" their votes by 5 times.

That's the basic idea.

 

[Kandahar]

It sounds pretty much the same as a political party. Don't political parties hold their own private elections, and don't the members (usually) agree to vote for the winner on Election Day?

Also, I don't see why the income of the voters is relevant, or why this organization would not become politically powerful.

 

[MisterConduit]

It sounds pretty much the same as a political party. Don't political parties hold their own private elections, and don't the members (usually) agree to vote for the winner on Election Day?

Yeah, it is similar to a political party. However, the main difference is that the organization does not have any political ideology of its own. It is not for gun control, for universal healthcare, etc. It is simply meant as a means for voters to "amplify" their social group's voting power (in this case, low income voters)...

Also, I don't see why the income of the voters is relevant, or why this organization would not become politically powerful.

The intention is for the group to become politically powerful, but when it does, to prevent the group's leaders from gaining that power for themselves...this is accomplished by making the group leaders merely the people who coordinated and disseminated the result of the union election, rather than choosing any candidates to endorse themselves...


Thanks for the feedback, by the way...

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah, it is similar to a political party. However, the main difference is that the organization does not have any political ideology of its own. It is not for gun control, for universal healthcare, etc. It is simply meant as a means for voters to "amplify" their social group's voting power (in this case, low income voters)...


The intention is for the group to become politically powerful, but when it does, to prevent the group's leaders from gaining that power for themselves...this is accomplished by making the group leaders merely the people who coordinated and disseminated the result of the union election, rather than choosing any candidates to endorse themselves...


Thanks for the feedback, by the way...

But this idea assumes several things:

1) The group involved all shares the same political positions, and
2) The group involved will willingly change their vote to support the consensus of the group should they lose

Those are unlikely to occur. If you were to propose that the outcome of the intragroup election be binding on all measures, then I'd point out that that's the exact evil that we created the secret ballot to counter.

 

[Kandahar]

Yeah, it is similar to a political party. However, the main difference is that the organization does not have any political ideology of its own. It is not for gun control, for universal healthcare, etc. It is simply meant as a means for voters to "amplify" their social group's voting power (in this case, low income voters)...

But why would they want that? Let's say that 70% of low-income voters are Democrats and 30% are Republicans. Why would the Republicans ever want to sign up for the voter's union, or agree to abide by its decision? And it would be redundant for the Democrats to sign up, because they would vote for the group's winner whether they were members or not.

 

[Keorythe]

Still trying to understand how income falls into the mix here. Are you assuming that low income parties are ignored because..they're poor and don't contribute? No, they don't contribute that much to a campaign, but their votes still count and politicians still have to pander to a specific bloc vote. Black vote, hispanic vote, veterens vote, specific state policy vote, etc.

This pretty much sound like a Political Action Committee (PAC) but without any ideology which doesn't make too much sense.

 

[MisterConduit]

Still trying to understand how income falls into the mix here. Are you assuming that low income parties are ignored because..they're poor and don't contribute? No, they don't contribute that much to a campaign, but their votes still count and politicians still have to pander to a specific bloc vote. Black vote, hispanic vote, veterens vote, specific state policy vote, etc.

This pretty much sound like a Political Action Committee (PAC) but without any ideology which doesn't make too much sense.

A voters union would technically be a PAC because it is a group that intends to have an effect on an election. But the difference is that in a typical PAC, the candidates go to the leaders of the PAC to negotiate with them for an endorsement. In a voters union, the ability of the leadership to make judgments is taken out of the picture. The theory is that the people know for themselves who the candidates are that would best suit their needs. They would just use the voters union to consolidate around a candidate so they don't cancel their votes out on election day, thereby effectively "amplifying" their political power.

The ideology that was represented by the group of union election winners would therefore be able to change as the problems in the country changed over time, allowing the model to allow voters to amplify their group's voting power on a consistent basis, year after year.

Low income voters aren't ignored, but high income voters can spend more money on political organizing, campaign contributions, lobbying - they are not doing anything wrong - it is just an inherent systemic effect that happens in any democracy that the wealthy will have more ability to influence politics...the voters union is theoretically a way to even things out...

Income falls into the picture because the purpose of the voters union election is to create a basket of candidates that have a higher probability of being on favor of the needs of the poor. If it is not the poor who vote in the union election, the basket of candidates won't be people who have a tendency to represent their needs.

 

[MisterConduit]

But why would they want that? Let's say that 70% of low-income voters are Democrats and 30% are Republicans. Why would the Republicans ever want to sign up for the voter's union, or agree to abide by its decision? And it would be redundant for the Democrats to sign up, because they would vote for the group's winner whether they were members or not.

The theory is that the effect of voting in this way will, over the long term, result in all political parties being more representative of the base of the party rather than of the higher-ups in the party. The republicans who would vote along would with the union election results when a democrat won would do so because they knew the democrats would vote along when a republican won the union election.

 

[MisterConduit]

But this idea assumes several things:

1) The group involved all shares the same political positions, and
2) The group involved will willingly change their vote to support the consensus of the group should they lose

Those are unlikely to occur. If you were to propose that the outcome of the intragroup election be binding on all measures, then I'd point out that that's the exact evil that we created the secret ballot to counter.

No , the results would never be binding, just like when people join and act collectively with a labor union by their own choice.

The voters in the group certainly would not all share the same political positions. They would only have to have a tendency to have similar enough positions that compromising through the use of a voters union would leave them all better off in the long run if they stuck together.

 

[Kandahar]

The theory is that the effect of voting in this way will, over the long term, result in all political parties being more representative of the base of the party rather than of the higher-ups in the party. The republicans who would vote along would with the union election results when a democrat won would do so because they knew the democrats would vote along when a republican won the union election.

But if 70% of the low-income voters were Democrats, it's unlikely that a Republican would ever win the union election. In effect, they would be committing themselves for voting for the candidate they liked less. Put yourself in their place: If all of your friends had political beliefs that were diametrically opposed to yours, would you agree to have a "closed primary" with them where you all agree to vote for the winner?

If people could be divided among class lines so easily, it would've naturally happened with political parties. The fact that low-income voters haven't already consolidated around one political party indicates that they have no desire to do so. The same goes for every other group of voters that doesn't reliably cast its ballots for one party or the other.

It seems like the purpose of the voter's union would be to try to get a non-monolithic group of voters to pretend to be monolithic...which will never work IMO.

 

[Kandahar]

No , the results would never be binding, just like when people join and act collectively with a labor union by their own choice.

The voters in the group certainly would not all share the same political positions. They would only have to have a tendency to have similar enough positions that compromising through the use of a voters union would leave them all better off in the long run if they stuck together.

That sounds pretty much exactly like a political party: The party has a closed election (a primary), and most of the members agree to vote for the winner (in the general election) although they are under no obligation to do so. And even though the members don't agree on everything, they have enough similar political positions that compromising through the use of a political party would leave them all better off in the long run if they stuck together.

 

[MisterConduit]

But if 70% of the low-income voters were Democrats, it's unlikely that a Republican would ever win the union election. In effect, they would be committing themselves for voting for the candidate they liked less. Put yourself in their place: If all of your friends had political beliefs that were diametrically opposed to yours, would you agree to have a "closed primary" with them where you all agree to vote for the winner?

It seems like the purpose of the voter's union would be to try to get a non-monolithic group of voters to pretend to be monolithic...which will never work IMO.

I personally would. First, just because 70% of voters would be democrats doesn't mean that would exactly match the results of the union election, since there is such a thing as campaign financing....but the main reason I would is that if I kept the voters union election results relevant by voting along with them, I would then have a bargaining chip to make the candidates of my party pay more attention to what I wanted - that bargaining chip is the fact that I can vote in the union election and not everyone can...in that way, the union is a tool people could use to make their political parties more representative of the base of the party...

...its not exactly the same as a political party, its more of a PAC that can stay dynamic and relevant because it is not tied down to one ideology...

That's the theory behind it anyway...but I understand not everybody would participate or think it was a good idea...

 

[American]

Although thoughtful, I don't think they are necessary. There are plenty of political organizations in existence to satisfy the need to unite with likeminded citizens. Many of them lobby in Washington just like a union would.