Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRedesigning Democracy
Two seconds of radio news was enough -- suddenly the 2008 presidential campaign collapsed around me in an unrecognizable heap of consumer politics as I ate breakfast.
"Redistribution of the wealth," John the Candidate was saying. "That's one of the tenets of . . . socialism."
This was maybe the ten thousandth time I'd been whacked with that and similar Cold War-era words in the last couple weeks, and the surrealism buildup -- the sheer weight of all this empty rhetoric and mock horror, the waste of money and air time and newsprint, the overwork of my own revulsion mechanism, but most of all my exhausted sense of urgency that the nation has serious troubles that need immediate attention -- came out in a groan of paralyzing despair.
Enough, enough, enough, enough, enough. Electoral politics at the presidential level -- excuse me, this is the most important reassessment of national and global direction taking place on the planet right now -- has deteriorated, or at least half-deteriorated (the Karl Rove half), to the level of impulse snack sales at the supermarket checkout aisle.
Now, in handy, sound-bite-sized containers: Fear! Terrorism! Socialism! Bill Ayers! ACORN! Collect them all! Debate with your friends!
This is only going to get worse. A 30-year trend has turned into a free-for-all. Like the theft of democracy -- voter purges, intimidation, misinformation, the hacker-friendly vulnerability of computerized voting -- the dumbing down of democracy is one of those unacknowledged facts of American life in the 21st century that almost no one at an official level is evincing concern over, much less addressing.
The core of the problem, as I see it, is that the debauched neocon belief in power at all costs -- their "dreams of managing history," as H.D.S. Greenway put it recently in the Boston Globe, quoting theologian Reinhold Niebuhr -- has corrupted our system almost beyond recognition. A powerful, ruthless clique that wants to run, uh, keep running, the country has figured out how to game the system, and if they do it for too much longer, the integrity of more than just John the Candidate will be irreparably compromised.
Our system is based on a widespread agreement to put principle above power, and we seem to be stuck in a state of self-congratulatory denial that we have done so in some permanent way. Well, we haven't, and I know I'm not the only one to notice. A large, passionate citizens movement is growing around the issue of fair elections -- thank God. We also need to turn our attention toward relevant elections.
It's time, in short, to redesign our democracy, in ways that encourage power to be responsive to the public interest, not just its own maintenance; that encourage widespread, creative participation at every level; and that discourage the ever more simplistic sound-bite politics -- "that's (gasp) socialism!" -- inundating us in 2008.
To this end, one of the most intriguing alternative election systems I'm aware of is called instant runoff voting, where, in single-winner elections, voters cast a ballot for both their first and second choices; if the first round fails to yield a majority winner among the field, the second choices of the voters whose candidates were not in first or second place are counted accordingly.
Such a system, which is slowly growing in popularity as people become aware of it -- and is now in use or soon to be implemented in about a dozen U.S. cities and counties, including San Francisco, Minneapolis, Oakland and Santa Fe, and is used in national elections in Australia and Ireland -- offers some distinct advantages over the system we have.
For instance, it encourages the proliferation of third parties because their role is now no longer that of counterproductive spoiler; voters, praise the Lord, could vote their consciences without fear of "throwing their vote away." And it outright eliminates at least part of the reason why campaigns "go negative." Candidates whose views are relatively close to one another's are a team rather than mortal enemies; picture Gore vs. Nader in 2000, where the Democrats vented far more spleen on the Greens, to the detriment of both, than they did on the party of Bush. With instant runoff voting, the Dems would have courted Green voters as their second choice.
And here's where I think such a system would really show its value. It guarantees a voice for candidates who likely will not win. Right now, such candidates are mockingly dismissed as irrelevant, though often they're the ones who best articulate voters' deeply held beliefs. While the centrist compromisers will still win most elections, the conscience candidates have more traction to keep them honest -- and keep the debate serious.
In 2007, for instance, the Australian Green Party not only helped the Labor Party win the election, but "almost certainly transformed majority opinion on the environment and Iraq and made the Labor Party more responsive to that opinion," Katrina vanden Heuvel, quoting FairVote director Rob Richie, wrote in the Nation.
Can it happen here? What if it doesn't?
31 Comments so far
Show AllI like the piece, but I'd disagree with the bit at the end.
Instant Runoff Voting would not on its own guarantee a voice to other parties. It would make voting in this lousy winner-take-all system we have a little fairer.
But, there are other obsticles to other candidates having a voice that go far beyond this. One of the obsticles is the corporate media, and their constant insistence to only cover the corporate backed candidates and to ignore or ridicule others.
Just as an example, another website I read, that isn't so dedicated to just making Dems win like CD is, had posted the John Edwards plan for dealing with the Housing crisis recently. Its fascinating reading. But, to think about whether candidates have a voice, you have to go back and look at how in the Dem primaries, the two corporate backed candidates, Obama and Hillary, were the only candidates that largely got a 'voice' in the corporate media. For John Edwards, much more attention was paid to his haircuts than to items like his sensible plan for the housing crisis.
Also, a lot of the blocking of this 'voice' also comes directly from the Democrats. Think of the recent Presidential debates. Who was on the stage? And who wasn't allowed on the stage? If you didn't see candidates like Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader on the stage, that's because the Democrats blocked them from doing so.
Of course, then you look at instant runoff voting itself, and why isn't it being implemented. Its because the two corporate parties, the Dems and the Repubs, both enjoy having a monopoly on power and they refuse to give it up. Try to get this implemented where you live, and then look and see who is opposing you.
To me, the first thing we need to do is to stop voting Democrat. Make them lose. Then, when they come back to us begging us to once again support their awful pro-war, pro-corporate candidates, we can put things like IRV and letting other candidates have a voice in the campaign as what we want as a part of some deal that might create a coalition that works together.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
IRV is an important pro-democracy reform. Of course we need to eventually get proportional representation (PR), but IRV is a crucial step in that direction, by introducing the ranked-choice ballot also used in "Choice Voting" form of proportional representation. Minneapolis adopted both IRV and Choice Voting PR together recently. My own city of Burlington (VT) started using IRV in mayoral elections in 2006. It has worked flawlessly, and even elected the Progressive Party candidate as mayor (by beating the Democrat in the instant runoff after the Republican was eliminated.) We had higher voter turn-oout than recent elections, and fully 99.9% of the ballots cast in the IRV race were valid ballots. Exit polls showed voters overwhelmingly preferred using IRV to the former election method.
Before the U.N. sends monitors into a nation to "certify" their elections as legitimate, free and democratic, the nation's election system must meet the minimum requirements established to call its election system "democratic" and thus to qualify as a "Democracy." The United States fails to meet these minimum standards on three important counts. These are: 1) The one man, one vote rule. No electoral college is permited in a true Democracy. 2) The only legitimate voting method is a paper ballot that is traceable from the voter to the vote count, which must be a manual count performed with at least two sets of human eyes. It is well understood by the international community that machine counting at any point in the voting or tabulation process is subject to corruption and renders the results suspect. 3) In a Democracy, it is against the law for candidates to buy or broadcasters to sell political advertising as it is through broadcast advertising that money most profoundly controls the opinions and thus the choices of the electorate. In true Democracies, to obtain a liscense to broadcast, a broadcaster must donate free of charge ample air time to be equally divided between all qualified candidates and the broadcaster must remain neutral in the rest of his programming, no matter what his or her personal views might be. If number three were instituted by the FCC here in the U.S., there would be little need for political parties as their main function is to direct wealth during campaign cycles. New parties would develop around issues and coalitions of independants would spring up leading to healthy debate and to compromise.
The problem is that those in power that might move us toward a true Democracy and appoint an FCC board that would do what is obviously right regarding the use of the Public Airways all owe their positions and their power to the system under which they were "selected." Our masters understand that if we were a true Democracy that We The People would be led by a far different group of individuals. There seems to me to be little chance that the foxes will ever willingly relinquish control of the hen house to the chickens.
Still, the more people that understand that we do not live in a Democracy and why and what must be done to change it, the better the chances of real change become. Please help to spread this information to all you know. If enough people do this, perhaps an awakening is possible. Peace, Tom
Televised Debates that don't exclude some candidates is also something that I've seen on other lists of minimum requirements for a democratic election that we don't meet in this country.
The last bit of your post is something I think is very important. There is a myth spread in this country that we are somehow 'the greatest democracy on earth'. Or that our 'democracy' is so perfect that it can not be changed or improved upon. To me, those are both propaganda messages designed to try to prevent any changes in a system that is tilted by those in power to try to maintain power.
And, when you look at other democracies that have been organized since our Constitution was drafted, you see other systems that are much fairer.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Share the wealth, hell no! I made 13,412 bucks last year. I ain't sharing nuttin
Grappa
My two cents on the issue of power vs democracy is this; it isn't power as the predicate , never has been, power is a means, it is about privilege. This is the same ideology that served the south during 17th, 18th, & part of the 19th century.
Lets look at the experience of the native peoples of the U.S.. These types of people, with the mentality that they could come onto lands of the native people, and take without asking, or giving reparations for their taking. These people believe in taking and view giving as a sign of weakness.
Part of this thinking stems from the Christian /Judaic ethos of family as narrow in formation and structure.
"Redistribution of the wealth," John the Candidate was saying. "That's one of the tenets of . . . socialism."
The Bankers and Wall street crooks used loopholes and deregulation to put this country into massive loan and credit card debt.
Legal loan sharking. The money is being horded by those that knew the collapse was coming.To add insult to injury they came begging for a bail out.
If you ask me , we have already had a "Redistribution of the wealth,".The middle class is dying a slow economic death.
Do the rich elite who were supposed trickle down the wealth expect us to come and work on their plantations for a hot meal and a roof over our heads.
Please, John McCain, stop the bullshit,stop spreading poison pills of hate, you did your best. You should not have listened to that scumbag Karl Rove.Your done.
Tell your buddy's theirs going to be a new sheriff in town, " We the People" and we our going to fire all the old judges,sheriffs and the non-Patriot Act, and hire a new ones.
You know, the kind of employees who will remember who's the boss and to protect the Constitution.
That's right " We the People" are going to speak out with our votes.
Special thanks to 4 star General Colin Powell. You sir , are a genuine American Patriot, and a class act.
Maybe the media did not hear what you said this weekend , but I did. You are correct, this country can not afford to seat two Conservative judges on the supreme court in the next 4 years.The only way we are going to repeal the Patriot Act and restore the Constitution is to lean the court left again.
The Democrats need the White House,Senate and the house of Representatives to take control away from the Religious right Wing Lunatics trying to steal our country.
BornFreeMen
The whole election and legislative system needs to be reformed - from the bottom up. The only recent improvement is early voting - there are too many citizens in this country and myriad work schedules to only have voting on one day - the voting period should be at least a week or two (unfortunately, I live in PA and we don't have early voting).
Instant runoff voting sounds like a good idea, first we need to get rid of the Electoral College, that would immediately make voter fraud less of a concern, as the individual votes in ALL states would count equally - makes it harder for politicos to screw up the tally - now they only have to do that in a couple states that have a lot of Electoral votes.
Term limits for everybody - doesn't have to be just 2, but something needs to be done to keep pols from getting too comfortable. Public financing is a must - PACs, lobbying, etc. need to go away. And, we should definitely allow for as many parties as there are folks who want to form one.
Real Democracy might be fun!
j.a.h. My Democratic Secretary of State de-listed me from Green Party to "Un-affiliated".I don't know the exact reason.My registrar of voters has not responded.But I suspect it was because a few of the Green voters died or moved away from the small town i live in.It seems to me that under our Constitution even a lone Communist Party member should have the right to register and vote with his/her party,and vote for thier candidate.Ballot access should be a given.Any citizen with a few thousand signatures with or without a party affiliation should be allowed and encouraged to run.
I am so sick of wimpy Democrats blaming me for Gores' reluctance to contest.Kerry never pushed for the Ohio recount until we Greens sued,and prooved the fraud.It ain't easy being geeen!
I would like to vote for a person like Cynthia ,but alass she is not on my ballot.Ralph i love you and Claire, but you are more valuable to Amerika as a voice of discent against Fascism.
I.R.V. 1-2-3 runnoff voting has beeen a part of the Green platform for many years.The platform is worth reading for all political party members.Indeed if you do not understand the position of your advisary you know not where you stand.
THIRD PARTY DEBATE TONIGHT 9PM CSPAN2 (Live)
Tonight, Ralph Nader (I) & Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) meet in a 3rd Party debate, hosted by Free and Equal. This is Mr. Nader's fourth presidential campaign. Mr. Baldwin is a radio talk show host and Baptist Minister.
********************
While I would have preferred to see all third party candidates participating, this is a start.
BTW, IRV or any other voting systems are not very useful if third party candidates have limited access to money and media and are excluded by the abusive Republican/Democrat Commission on Presidential debates.
Chris Hedges is Moderator...
YES!
Instant Runnof Voting strenghtens democracy, reduces negative campaigning. It COULD have helped the Democrats in the past, as you mentioned, and opened up space for others such as the Greens. New voices, new ideas -- a chance to change the dialog and narrative -- what could be wrong with that?
Of course the Democratic Party, did nothing about it since 2000, in spite of all the crying and blaming. They did not lift a finger, finding it easier to continue thier same 'ol practice of making it harder for third parties to register or run. They do not want to share the stage with Greens, preferring to do what they can to make them disappear or go away. So much for democracy or the "marketplace of ideas."
So...they must live with what they create. Fact of the matter is, they ONLY listen to their corporate funders/handlers while ignoring overwhelming evidence that the majority of Americans(!) want:
• an end to the war and preemptive war in general
• impeachment and following the rule of law
• Greens & Nader in the debates
• justice for those who caused the crisis and called for the 'bailout'
• single-payer health insurance
We NEED a change -- or, better, changes, that make democracy real. To that end, those two major parties, as they stand, are not bringing us one inch closert -- the likelihood that they would, all of a sudden, are dim. New voices are essential in any early stages of change. The cowardice of the Democratic 'leadership' and its delegation in Congress facing historic and monumental crimes is astounding and treasonous. And they tell US, who are appalled, to be quiet. (Shhh...don't talk about the war, don't bring up impeachment, etc.)
Not one more penny to either major party who throw it away, or use it against us. They are a symbiotic bully-team. If one should fail, the other will go too. They only work in tandem. Fund the New Voices now. Open the debates. Work for IRV. Get this thing started.
Sioux Rose
WEBWALK: I've pondered the same questions. SAMSON/RICH M & WSWS.ORG are a few who make extremely convincing, cogent arguments (based on evidence) for the similarities between both candidates' positions. Chomsky, David Lindorff, Robert Scheer, and Norman Solomon realize there are small differences, these have been defined in some in this forum as relative appeasements by team B so that team A basically runs the program and allows for a semblance of compromise so that voters not lose faith in the entire system. And this may explain Rove's position. Americans love a good ballgame, as far as I see it, sports have become the new opiate of the peoples. The competition itself seems to override the actual positions (or platforms) being promoted by supposed polar opposite ideaological candidates. Seems the passion for the game, for the contest, has totally overcome the CONTENT of all that is at stake; and right now, EVERY THING is at stake given the imploding condition of our economy, ecosystem, criminal justice system, foreign policy, housing crisis, ETC. What an elaborate show of smoke and mirrors to keep the masses placated, while the money is being carted out behind the scenes! The obscenity must make the angels cry as Haitian mothers meanwhile feed their babies cakes made of mud.
Webwalk asks: "Why have the Republicans played so ruthlessly for so long to make sure that they defeat their opponents? "
Perhaps individual Republican legislators have fought ruthlessly to keep their own personal seats and personal power. But I think the real back story is that corporate campaign contributors give lavishly to both parties so that whoever wins, whether Democrat or Republican, will be equally beholden to them and will do their bidding. That is why the "differences" between the two parties have shrunk so dramatically.
A number of election concepts have been suggested over the years--instant run-off, proportional voting, etc.
But how do we implement these things? It seems that anything allowing citizens to have more direct political input will be strongly resisted. Back in the 1980s, I was heavily involved in supporting a third party. But so much effort was spent on court battles fighting with state and local election commissions that were tweaking the rules dealing with petitioning, ballot access, etc. Laws that had hardly changed in a century suddenly needed "improvement." It was mostly a knee-jerk reaction to voter disenfranchisement and the rising interest in third party candidates.
Recently, I saw a bumper sticker that said: "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal"
Fivecorners asks explicitly a question that's implicit in a number of other comments: But how do we implement these things?
Like many governance reforms, IRV and proportional voting have to start at the local level. And that's happening. IRV has already been adopted in towns and cities ranging from little Takoma Park, Maryland to Pierce County, Washington, with Sarasota, Burlington, Oakland, San Francisco and others in between. Each adoption adds to to the momentum. Already, electoral reformers in one state (Vermont) were able to get an IRV bill all the way to the governor's desk.
It can be done, although it can't be done if you try to start at the top.
Of course, IRV is long overdue. It's no longer a new idea and certainly isn't radical.
But, as Matt Gonzalez (VP candidate on Ralph Nader's ticket this year) has explained, it was the Democrats who have thwarted IRV in the San Francisco area. In Tucson, it is the Democrats fighting electoral reform efforts now. IRV is not a Democratic Party priority, to say the least.
Indeed, thwarting democracy is a bi-partisan undertaking:
1. Control of the presidential debate process.
2. Encouraging Pay-to-play politics.
3. Failure to contest in scores of Congressional races.
4. Discouraging fair, non-partisan efforts to create competitve Cong. districts.
5. Protecting draconian ballot access thresholds.
6. Lack of interest in creating and enforcing national election day rules that comport with our stated "one-person, one-vote" standard.
to name just a few of the more obvious anti-democratic measures that abuse our system of government.
If IRV is such a good idea (and it is!), why hasn't it been adopted around the country? Answer that and you will know where the problem with our politics lies.
So there's a group of neocons who want to rule the world. And for them the ends justify the means. Old news. Why doesn't anyone ever ask WHY there's such a group? What is it about our society that allows neocons to gain traction? Do you think a "neocon type" group could arise in say Native American society?
Which one?
I'll take the Karl Rove GOP over Priests-that-skin-you-alive such as the Aztecs had at one time.
Such "groups" arise in all societies.
Constant Zombie-absorption of TV, incredibly useless general education, isolated living systems, horribly meaningless work, compulsive consumption, and a high background level of unhappiness, confusion, depression, and out and out fear-induced panic and anger.
These all help the success of people seeking unwarranted power.
But don't be fooled, the "neocons" may be the most nasty and destructive, but they are on their way out and they were never the cleverest or most successful "group" to rise to power in the U.S.
I guess I wasn't clear. What is it about our society that gives rise to a group of people who view the world as us versus them. Who want to dominate the world? And what gives rise to a group willing to be ruled under them? I fault western style religion. It's what's behind American Exceptionalism. It's behind the notion of a solitary "saviour". It's the root of most evil, at least in the western world. (Might be true of the east as well, I just am not familiar with Eastern religions.)
If we want to fix America, we need to address the underlying cause...our exceptionalist mindset.
Australia charges a nominal fine to those who don't vote. As for receipts from voting machines they mean nothing if the actual votes aren't counted properly. Paper ballots are the best and they can be electronically scanned and counted at the precinct level and reported from there so they don't travel over a system where they can be hacked. Hacking electronic voting machines is sooooo easy. Check out http://www.bradblog.com/ for more info on this important issue.
People should still have a right to chose not to vote if they don't want to vote usually because they hate politics, hate the candidates, or have no hope that their favorite 3rd party candidate will win anyway !
They don't have to choose a candidate for the Presidency, but why wouldn't they want to participate in their local office races, which really affect them?
You do have a point. It's just so sad that the more local the office races are, the smaller the turnout. That needs to be corrected first. IMO, that will REFORM our corrupt system in the long run.
The author writes:
"The core of the problem, as I see it, is that the debauched neocon belief in power at all costs -- their "dreams of managing history," as H.D.S. Greenway put it recently in the Boston Globe, quoting theologian Reinhold Niebuhr -- has corrupted our system almost beyond recognition. A powerful, ruthless clique that wants to run, uh, keep running, the country has figured out how to game the system..."
i believe this is true - the neocon / Rove / Cheney clique that has seized the top of the Republican Party and the White House sees major differences between themselves and the Obama Democratic presidential campaign that gets so persistently trashed here for being no different than Republicans.
i've asked this question a couple times here: if the "real elites" in the United States are perfectly happy with either a Democratic or a Republican president, then why have the Republicans played so ruthlessly for so long to make sure that they defeat their opponents? Why are the ruthless thugs in Republican presidential campaigns such ruthless thugs, if it really makes no difference which party is in the White House?
And the follow-up question would be, is there "no difference" in the threats posed by this Republican team versus the threats posed by this Democratic team?
"... is there "no difference" in the threats posed by this Republican team versus the threats posed by this Democratic team?"
I'll address that as best I can in a minute. I would state, first, however, that the far more important point is that both parties suppress the voice of the people and both parties turn votes during both elections and the legislative process into commodities to be bought and sold to the highest bidder and both parties fail to address the stranglehold by a handful of corporations on the mass media and both parties have badly corrupted any hope for real democracy.
So, having gotten that out of the way, I'll make the following response(s) to your question.
If we accept the basic premise that Republicans steal elections, alter vote counts, prevent people from voting and threaten the possibility of martial law, yes, these are greater threats to the republic than the Democrats seem to bring. Still, if the voices of the candidates I support and the ideas they promote have been cheated out of existence before election day even rolls around, I am hesitant to get into the ranking of abuses.
Left with only two corporate candidates, admittedly different, there is no hope that the changes we require can be brought about through the electoral process.
Consider this - let's say the Republicans do steal the election. Would Democrats expect Greens and Nader supporters to join them in the streets when it was the Democrats who un-democratically forced their candidates into obscurity? Progressive Democrats, if that's not a misnomer by definition, would be best served by fighting for a voice for minor parties instead of fearing their electoral impact. Do that - then we'll talk about compromise and alliances where we can find some common ground.
************************
THIRD PARTY DEBATE TONIGHT 9PM CSPAN2 (Live)
Tonight, Ralph Nader (I) & Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) meet in a 3rd Party debate, hosted by Free and Equal. This is Mr. Nader's fourth presidential campaign. Mr. Baldwin is a radio talk show host and Baptist Minister.
First of all the "no difference" thing is a Strawman.
No one I know of says there is "no difference" in the candidates. (Obama's a lot taller just for starters)
Many people think there is too much similarity to justify voting Obama when they can vote for someone more in line with their view -that's all.
To your questions:
1. The Republican campaignng "thugs" are NOT the ""real elites"". Of course it makes a difference to THEM if they win or not. Don't think of it like a conspiracy-before-hand. It is more like Hedging-your-bets. And from the Corporatist point of view, that's just good business.
2. This is a strange question. Are the candidates now issuing "threats" to the Citizens? This is falling into the "vote against" concept that is really nothing more than a failure to think outside of the box that is presented by the parties in a negative campaign ad. Frankly the use of the term "team" shows a bit of overexposure to propaganda terms as well. You can do better than this.
But if you mean: Is there a difference in the way these two candidates will operate in Office, and if so whether one is no less potentially harful than the other?
Then I would say that Obama is clearly the superior choice and we're all fortunate that he appears likely to win by a very large margin (for recent elections). But we mustn't forget the Congress's role in shaping the outcome of Government. The President is not a King, and the certain Dem Majorities in Congress could hinder a McCain Presidency just as the Republicans hindered the Clinton one.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
Manditory voting is un-enforcable, but to give Election Day off as a national holiday... now that might get more voters out to the polls. The second you apply for college somehow you are automatically registered in the draft, why not automatically registered to vote?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts."
-- John Keats
The difference is that Elections are run State-by-State, not Federally like the Military.
But you would still think the problem could be overcome.
With a National database for registered voters accessible by the States perhaps?
An Election Day Holiday is badly needed, I agree.
We get friggen' President's Day off, but not Election Day, an we call ourselves a Democracy? Ridiculous.
I have heard (on here I believe) that mandatory voting works pretty well in Australia.
Sounds good to me. Constitutional amendment, anyone? (Along with one for universal voter registration, mandatory voting, and *gasp* voting machines that give voters a receipt of their vote to counter election fraud)