Let's Talk About Electoral Reform (Update)
Primary tabs
Update: List below edited to include new items. Most items now include key coded methods required.
As some of you know I took a high dive into the shallow pool known as Occupy North West Arkansas. Yes, you read that correctly, just down the road from Dog Patch and Bentonville, home office of Wal-Mart, we set up an occu- camp in Fayetteville. A few weeks later we tore it down before the authorities took the pleasure. Needless to say it's been quiet these last few weeks, but the unsettled spirit lives among at least a core group and I feel certain there are many out there lurking and hoping occupy or something much like it rises with the new year.
One area I enjoyed was the formulation of a Political and Electoral reform group. Since we are a small group involved in many areas, many of us live an hour or more drive from meeting sites, we have not had a lot of meetings. But I can report that the group is quite diverse with a wide range of education (or lack thereof) and backgrounds. I've been amazed at the desire for more democracy when discussing these issues face to face.
However, folks are easily distracted to say the least. I, the usual glass half full class clown, chess champion, have turned into a hall monitor! It began early with warning everyone about veal pen and astro turf phenomenon. People had no idea what MoveOn was trying to do early on. And still, today, it is difficult to get people to understand the inherent dangers of weasels like Move To Amend.
I quickly discovered a lot a fairly smart fairly well informed people out there have no idea about the beast and any number of methods it will quickly utilize in order to co-opt the movement. I was accused of wearing tin foil hats or being a Ron Paul fan for warning folks about the failings of the D party veal pen. Anything as long as they didn't have to look into basic details in recent or current events.
Since Move To Amend is new and little is known about it I have been unable to pierce their veil convincingly so far. But the problem lies in the fact many are ready to promote amendment language. Thus impatient folk will take what I believe to be poor, incomplete Move To Amend language and run with it. If that horse leaves the gate among enough occu-cities we may lose an opportunity to promote substantive reform... beyond the "end corporate personhood" and "money is not speech" bumper stickers.
So I want to present a small list of proposed electoral reforms I have in mind and ask you all for feedback in the form of line item approval, rejection, additions, or a block. The list is rough and in plain english. It's my goal to put together a proposed amendment which includes more points than what Move To Amend, Bernie Sanders, Donna Edwards et. al. have presented so far. I really appreciate any and all feedback.
1) End corporate personhood (or anything fictitious or which does not have a pulse) (Con A) (CT)
2) Outlaw the legal concept of money as a form of speech (Con. A) (CT)
3) Establish public campaign finance only (Con A?)
4) Establish multiple party access (SL)
5) Establish proportional representation (SL?)
6) Establish the ability to hold national referendums… two kinds… 6A) 50 percent plus one for specific issues, 6B) Matters of popular vote being able to directly amend the constitution by two thirds or more vote. (Con A)
Other possibilities: Some of which may or may not be considered worthy of amendment process.
7) Recall by vote. Establish ability for the people to remove/recall a president, senator or congressperson from federal office. (Con A)
8 ) Consider abolishing the US Senate (Con A)… or shortening the term to four years. (Con A)
9) 9A)Regulating media ownership by large corporations or very wealthy people. 9B) Also establishing our right to utilize the peoples airwaves in order to conduct public financed campaigns with equal access for all candidates or parties. (Stat)
10) Expand the number of members in the US House…. this is long overdue. (Stat)
11) Expand the numbers of Justices on the Supreme Court. (Also long overdue). (Stat)
12) Limit on corporate lobby money
13) Require signed paper ballots. A signed paper ballot should be given on request. (SL) (Stat)
14) Establish independent commission for reapportionment. End Gerrymandering. (SL)
15) Ban federal officeholder from entering any corporate sponsored institution or lobbying organization for a period of ten years after leaving office. (Stat) (Con A)
16) Abolish voter I.D. requirements (SL) (Stat) Con A)
17) Establish election day asa holiday. Or perhaps extend through weekends. (SL) (Stat) (Con A)
Key: Constitutional Amendment required (Con A)
Statutory - legislature may do this (Stat)
Could be changed in courts (CT)
State Legislature can do this (SL)
- Eureka Springs's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
The smiley face is
supposed to be the number 8.
Not Asking for Much?
You're not asking for much, are you there? Smile. Basically, you are asking for democracy, which this country has never had. I don't have any problems with any of your positions at all. I particularly like the one that proposes recalling Congresscritters. I read on Attack the System that Montanans had launched a recall for their two Senators (Baucus and Tester), both of whom had voted for NDAA. Seems like the proletariat is getting pretty doggone steamed!
IMHO, Sanders, Edwards, and Move to Amend are all tools of the capitalist class. I know Sanders is the darling of the liberal left, but a close examination of his record reveals him to be, like Kucinich, more bark than bite.
Update 12/28: I just read that the bill to sanction Iran passed the Senate by a rare 100-0 vote. That means that both Sanders voted in favor of those sanctions.
Laughing
You remind me of the health looting spree debate, where so many Americans were never able to bring themselves to simply ask for what so many already have around the world.
One of the reasons I thought proportional representation might be worth pressing ahead on... is the fact the least corrupt nations generally have this setup. Denmark, Sweden etc. No doubt it has trappings and is no utopian answer... but, as i mentioned in the post, I have been pleasantly surprised how many types of people (even those who call themselves libertarian) want more democracy.
Which raises a question.. Perhaps an Amendment should begin there... Declare /establish our nation as democracy, not a republic?
Democracy
My understanding is that a huge majority of Americans want a single-payer system, but that desire has been denied them by their "democratically elected representatives". See my reply to Valley Girl on this thread regarding proportional representation. The elite is obviously threatened by an excess of democracy - that's why the Founding Fathers (so revered by the Teapublicans) set this country up as a republic instead of a democracy. I need to find time to read more about the machinations that allowed the Constitution to be ratified, thus relegating the Articles of Confederation to the trash heap of history.
I don't think an Amendment to the Constitution that declared this country a democracy would achieve anything. The Constitution was written by the elite to serve the purposes of the elite. An elite that has engaged in a massive (and so-far successful) propaganda campaign to convince the people that they, the elite, are acting in the people's best interests. It has only been (in the recent past) the rise of the OWS movement that has started to chip away a little bit at that propaganda (or false consciousness, as Marxists are wont to call it).
If I had to say
If I had to speculate where I sense consensus on this is leading.. I would say Article V. Nobody really wants to sit and spin as we witnessed with the last attempt via 35 state ratification requirement (ERA amendment). There are some discussions on this at the nycga site. Though it's quiet on this front this week... a quick search will turn up good things in a few groups.
I share your skepticism much of the time... this may be nothing more than a futile exercise in civics. I can tell we both enjoy that...) The face to face interaction with so many ows people tells me we are far from fringe in this post and threads line of thinking. I do want to encourage it... far beyond just elimination of Cit U/corp personhood if at all possible. Move To Amend and other nefarious players, including every congress[person or senator's proposed amendment language seems hell-bent on keeping the zeitgeist boxed in. That's enough to pis* me off and fight back... at least for now...)
I think you have to
I think you have to distinguish between Constitutional and statutory changes. It would take a Constitutional amendment to undue the current Supreme Court's definition of money as free speech. Of course, this is not an absolute. The number of Justices can be changed by act of Congress and so it is conceivable that Buckley v. Valeo, which established the doctrine of money as free speech, could be overturned by a different Court.
Referenda and recalls would require Constitutional amendments, as would direct election of the President, an item I do not see on your list. Again this last could be circumvented if all states passed a law pledging their electors to the winner of the popular vote.
Abolishing the Senate is a good idea since it subverts the principle of one person one vote. It would require a Constitutional amendment to do so. Changing the term of Senators if that was the route chosen would also need Constitutional amendment because the 6 year term is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution.
The air waves are owned by the American people so the access to them can be regulated and this includes the size and kind of corporations given such access. Anti-trust laws can also be used to limit media concentration. Even under the current regime, media companies can be forced to grant air time to candidates. They just can't be forced to limit corporate and PAC political advertising.
The number of Representatives can be changed without Constitutional amendment.
Party access to the ballot is a state issue and it is where the Republican-Democrat duopoly has erected its barriers to third parties.
A couple of other ideas: there should be limits on corporate lobbying, but more than this, there should be a ban on a federal officeholder entering any corporate sponsored institution or lobbying organization for a period of ten years after leaving office.
A signed paper ballot should be mandatory at all polling places regardless if the ballots are initially counted electronically, and a copy of the signed ballot should be given on request to any voter who asks for it.
Another thing that could be handled at either the state or Constitutional level is the requirement for non-partisan, independent commissions handling reapportionment with the emphasis on creating districts that are competitive and reasonably drawn with regard to the geography and demographics. There are actually a few states I think that already do something like this. It does not appear to be that hard. Gerrymandering apparently takes more effort.
Excellent
I left a reply below, but will hit the proper reply button this time.
I guess what I need to do with your and others suggestions is add a few items to the list and a code each item at the end (Stat) (Amend). However, I wonder if some of these items which could be accomplished in court or legislative bodies would still be worth placing in a sweeping amendment anyway (at least for now)?
Such as elimination of electoral college etc.? Activists could work at state levels while simultaneously waving potential amendment language at the fed level. Might make the state boys and girls DO something....) PLus an amendment would remain all inclusive in re the sweeping change we need/want.
Depending on the answers to this line of questions - how to break it down... an edit of a short list would take very different forms.
So?
"Party access to the ballot is a state issue and it is where the Republican-Democrat duopoly has erected its barriers to third parties."
So... establishing proportional representation can happen at the State level?
I see some agreement on the Abolish the Senate idea. Would we need to replace it with some sort of alternate check/balance act or body?
I'm going to add a key with codes and additional points made in this thread... and hopefully replace the original ist in the post with all our edits.
A few more thoughts: Voter
A few more thoughts: Voter ID laws should be abolished and voting days should be moved to the weekends. Saturday might be easier than Sunday, or possibly both. Or voting days for federal elections if Tuesday voting were kept could be made a paid holiday.
Abolish Senate is a good idea
There was a Harper's piece years ago about this. Makes sense to get rid of our "House of Lords" or neuter it like the Brits did.
Have three days for elections including a weekend day. Limit the election campaigning to 4 weeks. Give free air time to all candidates on a specific TV and radio channel. Do not allow any political ads on regular TV or radio stations. Maybe limit it to one station that plays attack ads 24/7. So if you want to see that garbage, it's on one channel.
Yes, have direct initiative voting like Switzerland and skip the representatives completely on big issues.
Give the representatives per diem for travel and meals.
No voting machines so no hacking. Paper only.
Maven!
Oh, If you can find that link?
I was able to read your excitement when Montanans (Billings city council?) passed some sort of end corporate personhood bill, but had no time to comment. Anyone taking it to the next step, with something binding up there?
Great list ES
Just back a few hours ago from xmas off the grid!
What do you think of this effort?
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Also have to echo Hugh
there should be a ban on a federal officeholder entering any corporate sponsored institution or lobbying organization for a period of ten years after leaving office.
Clarify, Please?
I'm a little suspicious of a National Popular Vote plan that preserves the Electoral College. The whole purpose of the Electoral College was to over-ride the popular vote. The Founders were extremely wary of an "excess of democracy". I just finished reading Jerry Fresia's Towards an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution & Other Illusions and highly recommend it to educate yourself about exactly how the Constitution came to be "adopted" in 1787.
Not endorsing this, but
seemed like it might be a short-term way to undo some of the damage of the electoral college.
And, yes, I take your other points. I am not usually happy with less that the best, but I thought that this might have merit, at least to give voters more reason to vote. I live as a liberal in a Red State, so basically, my vote in the Pres. election doesn't count. I mean, why even bother to vote? So, I thought that this approach might be a small step towards getting people like me more interested in voting top of the ticket.
More Research
I did some research on the National Popular Vote campaign and found that my reservations were unwarranted. When I saw pictures of politicians in the upper-left hand corner of the web page you linked to, my hackles went up. It is interesting to see how much support the bill has among the electorate - I didn't see any state with less than 66% and that is Missouri. So the fact that the bill has only passed in 9 states says something about elite opposition to the idea.
Still, I am sufficiently skeptical to keep in mind Emma Goldman's famous dictum: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." Voting is a diversionary tactic used by the 1% to deceive the masses into thinking that they, rather than the elite, are in control.
After all, Obama won by 9.5 million votes and look where we are.
Yep, agree
Cannot disagree, again.
It's a bandaid. For a really bad situation.
I mean, living where I do, my vote counts for nada under present rules. The whole "electoral college" thing is certainly something that should be done away with.
As it is now, a Pres. contender only has to pay attention to "swing states". etc.
Just ordered Fresia's book
On your recommendation. Sheldon wolin's book "Democracy Inc" also talks about how the founders fixed the constitution to favor elite rule. The supreme court has always been the branch that keeps power away from the people. Remember 2000? Even ginsberg is corp friendly. Discussion of presidential picks stays centered on values issues allowing the candidates' views on moneyed interests and civil liberties to hardly be addressed. Wait until we see which way the supposed liberal Obama picks vote on the assaults on the Bill of Rights.
Inverted Totalitarianism
Yes, and I just ordered Sheldon Wolin's book. So we're even! I've been meaning to get Wolin's book for the longest time, but just never got around to it.
It's pretty dense at times, but worth it and really scary
I did a series of essays on him at Firedoglake when the book came out. I should dig them up. The chapter on elites is frightening and very "Eyes Wide Shut". But he has some bits of hope at the end for changing things.
I'd like to see those, maybe you could repost?
Eyes Wide Shut, eh?
Hi VG
My all time favorite Christmas' were either off the grid or out of the country... or both...)
I see you all are sorting through that web site already. I would love to put together a post/ group scrutiny about a couple of organizations I witnessed trying to co-opt the ows movement.
It's a bit long but I found a great thread doing just that this week. Out here in naive-ville I feel like a lone loony wolf/hall monitor trying to bring folks attention to these trappings.
https://www.nycga.net/2011/12/24/proposa...
Wonderful
Wonderful to see folks dropped in. I can't begin to tell you all how your voices and spirit from years gone by were with me throughout these last couple of months. Sorry I was away from the computer yesterday.
I have many questions and replies. But my first question is for Hugh. I appreciate making the distinction of what various state of fed bodies can do on their own, that's helpful. By making those distinctions were you also suggesting that would be the way to move ahead on these matters? Would you see any merit in placing some of the items congress could do into an amendment anyway? (Such as eliminating electoral college)
Hi VG, Though it was only for the day we had a Christmas feast off the grid entirely this year.
The same forces that control
The same forces that control the federal government against the interests of the 99% control state governments. Constitutional amendments have to go to the states for ratification so either way, Constitutional amendment or changes in state law, we will be fighting most of these battles on both fronts anyway. Only a few like the number of Representatives and Supreme Court Justices can be handled at the federal statutory level only.
As for eliminating the electoral college, yes, I have been in favor of that for a long time. It was always about disempowering the people.
The Senate for its part came into existence as part of a trade between large and small states. Large population states got proportional representation in the House and small states got disproportionate representation in the Senate. But the idea behind the Senate was ill-suited to the country's history and geography. Why, for example, should snippets of the East coast, like Delaware and Rhode Island, or vast empty tracts like Alaska, Wyoming and North Dakota get two Senators apiece? It is like the system of rotten buroughs that infected the British parliament. At some point representation must reflect the changes of history or it ceases to be representative. That is the situation we have now. We have one body that is built on proportional representation and another that is built on the oddities of history. We need to get rid of the second one.
Under a system with no electoral college and no Senate, the hodgepodge nature and disproportion of American states is greatly lessened.
I would add
that any Congressperson who receives money from a certain industry, they should be banned from serving on a committee that regulates it or originates legislation on it.
If you receive money from banks, you can't serve on the Financial Services Committee.
If you receive defense contractor money, you can't serve on defense or intelligence committees.
If you receive money from big oil, you can't serve on Energy or environmental committees.
etc.
A lot of our laws and deregulation begin at the committee level, so I think we should have rules that apply at that level as well.