Sciguy
06-14-2008, 11:45 AM
Wacco Folks:
Gore Vidal has long been critical of the system of political representation we use in this country, calling us a "Republic" instead of a "Democracy". I agree with his castigation of our system. When we were just a small collection of 13 states, we could use a town meeting, on the local green, to make political decisions, where everyone represented himself. As we grew, this process became unwieldy and so we went to a system where we elect representatives and then turn them loose for two, four or six years, to act independently. To me, this is major political defect, since the representatives are free, in the instant, to represent NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES. Sure, they may remember that their constituents exist a few months before re-election time, but during their term, they are free to "vote their consciences", play political games that benefit themselves, make obeisance to lobbyists with the money, join the opposition, take popular demands "off the table", etc. Many of us, in the mistaken belief that there is no alternative, completely accept this kind of representative corruption (reprup?) and soothe our misgivings with nostrums about how it has always been thus and always will be.
Says who?
Technology has given us a new tool to reconnect this disconnect and reestablish the bonds between the individual in the New England town meeting and her government. I refer of course to the Internet.
Suddenly we have the ability to have a connected public debate and vote on every significant question that arises in legislative bodies. Why should we still be allowing representatives to make all of our important decisions, when we have the tool to draw back from a republic and install democracy?
The reason I bring this up locally here, is that we are blessed with a city council that is progressive and open to new ideas. My question to Wacco members is this - are there people who will join me in importuning the political leaders and players in Sebastopol to test out a new way to make decisions, by asking the citizens to make the large decisions for the city? Are you interested in this project? Let's do an experiment and test it out.
I have never been a fan of the federal approach to initiatives. That is to convince some players that they will be able to personally benefit by appropriating millions or billions of other people's money (the representative effect again) and starting a huge experiment under legislation written by some involved lobbyist. Instead, I would like to see political experiments tried out locally, fine tuned, improved, expanded and only then grown larger. That is why I think that Sebastopol is a perfect place to try this out. We have an electronically sophisticated citizenry, we have ways for people without computers to use those from friends or neighbors or the library. This is the perfect place for an experiment in democracy. Is Berkeley the only place to try out everything new?
Here is what I am specifically proposing. Let us create a political decision making process that works by asking the citizens to vote DIRECTLY on many issues that have traditionally been the domain of our representatives. Those are not to be advisory votes but determinative votes. The representatives will lose power. Will they fight like mad dogs to retain their power, against all comers? Or will they join the citizens in this progressive experiment and see the advantages of a shift toward democracy. In Washington, of course the former would be the absolute rule. But in Sebastopol, I have much more faith in our leaders and citizens than that.
There are many questions to be answered. Who gets a vote? How are passwords used to identify voters? What software is used? What role will representatives retain, if any? We will need to convene a conference to discuss this and other issues. But do we even have the grassroots interest to see if we can make this happen? Please email me or Wacco and let's toss it around.
I took heart from this report that appeared in the last Rachel Newsletter #963:
"PACKER TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, PASSES LAW CONTROLLING CORPORATIONS
Municipal government bans corporate sewage sludge dumping; becomes third community in nation to ban chemical bodily trespass; strips corporations of claim to constitutional "rights." Ordinance recognizes the rights of nature; asserts civil rights of residents to sue corporations as state actors
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania -- On June 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors for Packer Township in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, voted unanimously to enact a law that bans corporations from dumping sewage sludge as "fertilizer" and for "mine reclamation."
The Ordinance also states as a matter of law that, within the community, corporations possess no constitutional "rights," privileges or immunities intended for people. The community included this provision as a challenge to corporate representatives who use court- bestowed constitutional "rights" and legal privileges to nullify local laws and override the legitimate rights of citizens. "
If one township in Pennsylvania can overturn the hallowed rights of corporations, why can't we initiate an experiment in voting. It used to be that most people thought that elections were some kind of holy observance that could not be messed with. After two stolen elections, and flawed machines used in hopes of obscuring future elections, I hope we are all realizing that elections need to be designed and adjusted to serve all of our purposes. Why not go back to elections on important local topics, rather than merely for representatives?
Paul Palmer
Gore Vidal has long been critical of the system of political representation we use in this country, calling us a "Republic" instead of a "Democracy". I agree with his castigation of our system. When we were just a small collection of 13 states, we could use a town meeting, on the local green, to make political decisions, where everyone represented himself. As we grew, this process became unwieldy and so we went to a system where we elect representatives and then turn them loose for two, four or six years, to act independently. To me, this is major political defect, since the representatives are free, in the instant, to represent NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES. Sure, they may remember that their constituents exist a few months before re-election time, but during their term, they are free to "vote their consciences", play political games that benefit themselves, make obeisance to lobbyists with the money, join the opposition, take popular demands "off the table", etc. Many of us, in the mistaken belief that there is no alternative, completely accept this kind of representative corruption (reprup?) and soothe our misgivings with nostrums about how it has always been thus and always will be.
Says who?
Technology has given us a new tool to reconnect this disconnect and reestablish the bonds between the individual in the New England town meeting and her government. I refer of course to the Internet.
Suddenly we have the ability to have a connected public debate and vote on every significant question that arises in legislative bodies. Why should we still be allowing representatives to make all of our important decisions, when we have the tool to draw back from a republic and install democracy?
The reason I bring this up locally here, is that we are blessed with a city council that is progressive and open to new ideas. My question to Wacco members is this - are there people who will join me in importuning the political leaders and players in Sebastopol to test out a new way to make decisions, by asking the citizens to make the large decisions for the city? Are you interested in this project? Let's do an experiment and test it out.
I have never been a fan of the federal approach to initiatives. That is to convince some players that they will be able to personally benefit by appropriating millions or billions of other people's money (the representative effect again) and starting a huge experiment under legislation written by some involved lobbyist. Instead, I would like to see political experiments tried out locally, fine tuned, improved, expanded and only then grown larger. That is why I think that Sebastopol is a perfect place to try this out. We have an electronically sophisticated citizenry, we have ways for people without computers to use those from friends or neighbors or the library. This is the perfect place for an experiment in democracy. Is Berkeley the only place to try out everything new?
Here is what I am specifically proposing. Let us create a political decision making process that works by asking the citizens to vote DIRECTLY on many issues that have traditionally been the domain of our representatives. Those are not to be advisory votes but determinative votes. The representatives will lose power. Will they fight like mad dogs to retain their power, against all comers? Or will they join the citizens in this progressive experiment and see the advantages of a shift toward democracy. In Washington, of course the former would be the absolute rule. But in Sebastopol, I have much more faith in our leaders and citizens than that.
There are many questions to be answered. Who gets a vote? How are passwords used to identify voters? What software is used? What role will representatives retain, if any? We will need to convene a conference to discuss this and other issues. But do we even have the grassroots interest to see if we can make this happen? Please email me or Wacco and let's toss it around.
I took heart from this report that appeared in the last Rachel Newsletter #963:
"PACKER TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, PASSES LAW CONTROLLING CORPORATIONS
Municipal government bans corporate sewage sludge dumping; becomes third community in nation to ban chemical bodily trespass; strips corporations of claim to constitutional "rights." Ordinance recognizes the rights of nature; asserts civil rights of residents to sue corporations as state actors
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania -- On June 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors for Packer Township in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, voted unanimously to enact a law that bans corporations from dumping sewage sludge as "fertilizer" and for "mine reclamation."
The Ordinance also states as a matter of law that, within the community, corporations possess no constitutional "rights," privileges or immunities intended for people. The community included this provision as a challenge to corporate representatives who use court- bestowed constitutional "rights" and legal privileges to nullify local laws and override the legitimate rights of citizens. "
If one township in Pennsylvania can overturn the hallowed rights of corporations, why can't we initiate an experiment in voting. It used to be that most people thought that elections were some kind of holy observance that could not be messed with. After two stolen elections, and flawed machines used in hopes of obscuring future elections, I hope we are all realizing that elections need to be designed and adjusted to serve all of our purposes. Why not go back to elections on important local topics, rather than merely for representatives?
Paul Palmer