Occupy the Vote: Removing Consent of the Governed in Elections

Just a few thoughts regarding removing our consent to be governed in federal elections.

Traditional forms of protest are only an indirect means of influencing elected officials. This why traditional protest has a limited effect in our republican system — it’s not that it cannot accomplish anything, but rather that it can only accomplish whatever "our" elected representatives are willing to allow…

In our little republic, we, the people, democratically elect representatives who, in turn, are supposed to represent our best interests by making, modifying and annulling the laws by which we govern ourselves. However, at this point in history, our ballot is dominated by a “twin party” system which is beholden to moneyed interests and our representatives are, essentially, bribed and corrupted by those elite and corporate interests to do their bidding. It may be an old political saw, but we really do have the best government money can buy (from an elite point of view).

This is the great open secret of American politics: The system is corrupt, but to challenge it systemically (that is by independently offering a full slate of candidates for election) is not only extremely expensive, but requires a high degree of commitment and discipline because it takes significant time to change it. This is because, simply, the founders designed our system of governance for stability so that it could overcome any “momentary passions” of a democratic majority (which they referred to as “mobocracy”). Moreover, any challenge which proceeds on the current basis of “party” politics and campaign financing is open to the same corrupting influences (witness the Tea Party).

Problem is that while the founders may have protected minority rights (read that as the rights of the 1%) from possible tyranny of a democratic majority (the 99%), they neglected to provide equal safeguards to protect us from them. Despite positive affirmations of individual rights and prohibitions circumscribing police power, there is no direct, democratic mechanism by which we, the people, can challenge a despotic and tyrannical government. Even Article V places Congress in a “gatekeeper” role when the states petition for an Article V Convention…

What the radically democratic idea called “None of the Above” ultimately proposes is that our democratic franchise, the vote, must be expanded to meet this very real and present danger to the republic. Expansion of the voting franchise has occurred several times, most notably by incorporating former slaves and women into the voting population. However this proposal differs insofar as it expands the range of political choice available to each and every voter. That choice is, at base, a rejection of all candidates for a particular office, be it a seat in the House of Representatives, Senate, or even the Presidency of the United States.

But, since such candidate rejection is not now law, what can be done?

Democracy (in this case defined as the ability of people to elect honest representatives in a republic), in and of itself, is a normative value. That value holds that no form of governance is valid that does not originate in the people themselves. That this nation is “self-governing” and does not rely on a grant of permission or power from outside the people themselves. Normally, if our elected officials plainly do not represent us, we replace them in the following election with candidates who do (and who proceed to alter or abolish the offending law and its resultant policy).

But if our elected officials are corrupt and plainly do not represent us, and if the political process for selecting candidates for the ballot (i.e.: the two party system) is corrupt as well, then there is little to no democratic choice to be had. Though deceit and treachery our ability to self-govern has been subverted and the resulting government (defined as the sitting Congress and President), although having been elevated to office using democratic forms and processes, is illegitimate.

Since we cannot simply reject all corrupt candidates, the only other mechanism available is petitioning our elected representatives for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution. Unfortunately, such petitions tend to fall on deaf ears, insofar as we are petitioning the very representatives beholden to elite interests…

Fortunately, the Constitution does not strictly define “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Thus, no avenue for political protest is Constitutionally foreclosed so long as it is peaceful. This encompasses the full range of “traditional” political protest including Occupy itself.

These traditional methods of political protest, however, as well as their attendant petitions for a redress of grievances, fall outside any recognized, Constitutional means for compelling elected representatives to take notice and act. Most particularly, there is no method of accurately determining exactly who (that is to say, how many voters) are demanding a specific act by elected officials to redress their grievances.

It is time to remove this ambiguity by moving our protest and petition for redress of our grievances into the electoral process itself — the vote. We ought advocate that all voters write-in a consistent “mark” (for example “NO CONSENT”) in each and every federal election.

If we adequately prepare for an election in which this protest is employed, the effect will be that our protest must be officially recorded and all votes for “NO CONSENT” counted. This is an official and undeniable enumeration of voter support for a specific redress of our grievances (for example, removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political processes), because we will have made the solution to our grievances the direct object of our vote.

Although such protest may not be considered legal by the government, the situation is actually far more complex — voting is a normative democratic value which serves as our implied consent to governance under the Constitution. As such, our government cannot be considered legitimate without citizens voting for representation — voting is the means by which the “will of the people” is determined and expressed to representative government. Thus, when the political process for selecting candidates to appear on the ballot becomes corrupt and government ceases to be representative, it then becomes necessary to express our “will of the people” directly, on the ballot itself, as petition for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution.

The real question is: How many of us are "disaffected with things as they are"? Exactly how many Americans do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

If few, then either a D or R candidate will be elected (and our vote may simply swing the election one way or the other).

If many, however, a completely different political circumstance emerges because of the normative democratic value of voting and its implicit "consent of the governed". Read the Declaration of Independence as a statement of democratic values -- would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality opposed them by explicitly withdrawing their consent to be governed in the election?

What happens if a majority votes to withdraw their consent?

By merely placing the issue of consent on the electoral table, voters can choose to either support the status-quo (by voting for a candidate), or oppose the status-quo (by withdrawing their consent to be governed). This is a very powerful democratic political statement that cannot be ignored -- given a sufficient number of votes it will de-legitimize the current twin party political process and any government that process seats. It is a direct, peaceful and Constitutional challenge to elite rule.

People voting to remove their consent to be governed in the 2012 elections is a simple, black and white choice -- either support the status-quo or oppose it. Choose your side. Take a stand. Be counted.

In the meantime, get the message out, register voters, demand transparent and accurate vote counting, do whatever it takes to make our voices heard and our message clear. We support democracy, demand corporate money out of politics, and intend to end elite domination over our government.