A New Direct Democracy

By: Russ Brewer

It’s our duty to question and debate. In our quest to create a more perfect union, we have been found rigid and complacent. Our system of government has not seen a major change in its form and function ever since the founding fathers’ laid it down. I say it is long over due for reorganization.

The American dream, for me, is summed up in one phrase, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, one of the most famous phrases out of the Declaration of Independence. These are our inalienable rights and I believe they are being squashed and ignored in very fundamental ways. Under the current system, every person is without opportunity to have these rights.

Life: How might people be allowed to live without great suffering if they are denied medical care? 47 million Americans continue to be uninsured. They live, get sick or injured, and die. You may only survive to ripe old age if you are lucky and have the monetary means to pay for health care. The poor and downtrodden, how do they afford premiums? Providing equality and insuring access to care is essential to one having a life. In effect, they are denied rights that we should all have inherently.

Liberty: Our freedoms are handed over to the government. The freedom of choice is retarded in that our choices to elect officials do not rest in the hands of the voting population. The choice of the people is provided by moneyed interests. They donate campaign funds (vote by monetary means) to make their candidate more visible. Money wins elections, not ideas.

Happiness: Money can’t buy you love but it can surely allow you to have a higher standard of living. Immense greed has shipped jobs overseas, plunged the population into unprecedented consumer debt, and created the largest gap between the rich and poor ever seen in America. Without restraints on personal and corporate hoarding of wealth and more opportunity provided to our lower class, the divide will only continue until you have one man with everything and all else with none.

These are the rights all Americans value, but none truly have unless you are comparatively wealthy. The power of the vote is diminished as it is not up to the voter who is elected or what legislation becomes enacted. The power lay in the hands of those who paid for the advertising for the electoral campaign and also those that hold office that act in the interest of their backers and not of their larger, poorer constituency. People are given the nominee of each party. Each party raises private funds to inform the public that they should be elected to office. The candidate with the most funds wins the election. To be re-elected, the official votes so that they may receive the most campaign contributions thus winning the next cycle.

“Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians.”
— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary

I do not believe our founding fathers intended to let our nation be ruled by a few wealthy interests as the people were ignored and taxed. They revolutionized the nation with a government based on equality of the vote. As it sits today, our aristocracy are better known as corporations and private wealthy citizens. The legislature ignores the economic plight greater America is facing right now. They are lobbied and bought off to tax our future generations to pay for the mistakes of greedy financial institutions and auto manufacturers. The American people did not have a choice where a $700 billion bail-out went. We empowered “Representatives” to make the choice for us.

In what way, if our rights are ignored and our national wealth is squandered, are we still “represented” by our legislature? If the people were given the vote to enact their own legislation, their vote would be all the representation they need. “They (Founding Fathers) saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the “leveling impulse” of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large.” – Wikipedia. And the fear that the “mob” would disproportionately tax or institute discriminatory social policy is no more of a threat as what we have today with a republic. If we wanted to protect groups from unfair taxes or social discrimination we would write our constitution to reflect that. Perhaps rights of commerce be written to include a non-progressive tax or other protections to keep the mob from being self destructive.

Why can’t the American people be their own advocate for how the nation is to conduct its business? The people are no less intelligent, no less capable of voting yea or nay, and no less qualified in any way to be able to say what is in their best interest. At one time there were reasons to elect a person to speak on our behalf. Before the advent of telecommunications, you couldn’t press a button to communicate your personal vote to Washington D.C. whenever a bill was to be decided. Instead, we put our trust in a corrupt few to shape the lives of the many.

“But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign.” -Aristotle

I attest that the Legislature, composed of Congress, is a relic of our past inability to communicate our personal votes instantaneously. I also attest that private funding has no place in a system based on equality of every man indiscriminate of his means, and that being given a choice means that every alternative is given an equal chance to be heard in the public arena.

Therefore, there are two fundamental changes I suggest we as a nation make to our political body;

Firstly, we are to dismantle congress entirely. We shall instead have the general public be required by law to vote on bills proposed by public committees.  They could, when voting, choose to abstain on an issue if they wish. The committees would be persons, self organized, from any walk of life who demonstrated general support for a cause worthy of legislation.

They would then be given a predetermined amount of public funding to gather signatures and garner support, like through advertisements, for their bill. Any persons opposed to the bill would be allowed the same amount of funding to run the opposition campaign against the bill. No other funds, favors, gifts, properties or compensation of any kind could be received or given by any person a member of the committees or any volunteer of either side.

After adequate popular support for the bill had been established, through the number of signatures collected, the bill may go to the public vote. This would be a period of a few days regularly scheduled throughout the year when people would exercise their civic duty by deciding law and policy. Those proving a reasonable complication to their ability to vote would be allowed to abstain. Persons without justification for missing a vote would simply be fined. (A practice now in place in Australia’s political system) A vote would be cast online via an internet website where people could login with identification in the comfort of their own home or any public library. For any portion of the electorate without access or wishing an alternative means of voting could still vote by paper ballot and by mail.

It is in this way that law or policy enacted would be by the wish of the majority of the voting public. Whether that is a simple majority or another split could be up for debate. This would truly be a representation of the wishes of the American people. The many, my hopes are, will enact progressive policy to help the most citizens.

You probably ask then, “Where is the rest of the system of check and balances? The Executive and Judicial branches?” Well, the courts would remain intact mostly. Its primary function as making sure rights are observed and protected in the law making process and also on the legal side of things. Appointed by the President and confirmed by the justices of each state they would be selected by their peers. Each state would have their judges vote in new Supreme Court Justices.

The Presidency would function much as it does now, a figure head to work with foreign powers and a leader to communicate a direction for the nation. He would retain his veto power and executive order privileges as there are exceptions when swift action must be taken. The real difference would be how they would become elected and keep office.

The top ten political parties would be given the same amount of public funds to campaign for their candidate. Anyone wishing to participate may petition to receive an equal amount of public funds. No part of a candidate’s campaign may be funded privately as previously stated. When it comes time they would come to public vote. No electoral college map to disenfranchise voters, giving some purportedly more or less say in the outcome or handing the “real vote“ to unelected delegates.

The candidate with the most votes would be president. He would sit for four years or if reelected, for eight. If decisions are made by the president that the people disapprove of, they may petition to the supreme court to send the impeachment to public vote. Impeachment in this sense is to “remove the President and his cabinet from office” to be replaced by a new Administration voted on just as it was a normal election, but perhaps with a more restricted time table. This way, an elected official may be ousted at any time.

Any of the petitioning that goes on must have fairly significant public support. Only signatures gathered using public funds through grant writing or private funds not supplied by business interests would be considered for any part of the governmental process.

People deserve exactly the government they vote for. With the most people possible with legislative power I feel as they wouldn’t act contrary to their interests they would sculpt law to meet their needs. Society will fulfill the requirements of government to ensure the inalienable rights. Most people want to live and allow others to live with out having to suffer with out health care. The majority of us would like our rights respected and to able to shape how we are ruled. And everyone wants the opportunity to prosper. By the will of the people it will be so.

I believe then, with the power in the hands of Americans, this can once again be a nation by the people, for the people. The alternative is a nation of contradiction, touting freedom as champion and giving the real vote only to those with deep enough pockets.

America: Bought and Paid

Sure, I’ve been called naive. I fear that my personal inexperience about the world and the challenge put before my generation might prove too expansive for any one person. But I’m not so afraid of not having something that I won’t fight to get it. My experience is one of but a perspective of a child watching the world leave people behind economically and deny them the right of the equal vote. And as for the vast challenge of change, the ideals of right and fair; I don’t stand as the only discontented soul to want for greater freedom in this late age.

The freedom of which I speak is one of equality in the eyes of the state as it pertains to the vote. Today, we do not have a system of  “one person one vote”. It is true when you walk up to the polling station you are the only person in the booth making the choices about how you are to governed. But, have you ever thought about how you and every other voter makes their “Informed” choices?

Chances if you choose to participate in the voting process you became aware of the issues and candidates through media of some kind. This media exposure doesn’t come cheap and is accessible only to those with money. Television, newsprint, mailers, phone calls or how ever you became aware of who wished to represent you in law making, were in influenced by the single most corrupt establishment to ever perpetrate the evil of disenfranchising the public of its rights since slavery.

The lobby; a private organization who employ persons to stand in the lobbies of the offices of public officials. They wait to give a particular perspective, that of a narrow few, to those in public office. As well as a conversation behind closed doors over lunch, deals are made. The lobbies representing private industry give money to our representatives and senators. In exchange for the gift to the future campaign of the representative, bills are voted on and passed to benefit those in private industry or whoever gave the contribution.

Of course everyone knows that money wins elections. With the institution of the lobby the moneyed few have the opportunity to cast their vote with greater power; the power money will buy. When it comes time for re-election it becomes a contest of who ever has the most money. The ideas and values of the candidate who can raise the most money will be heard over any one with less financial capital.

That runner up might have not been able to garner enough moneyed support, even if they had the message that would resonate with more of the public. Without private financing, without compromising your integrity by making deals and voting in the interests of the few, an ideal candidate has little chance to compete equally.

The main interest of an elected official today is to collect monetary support to be re-elected. That requires compromising their responsibility to act in the interests of the many. The majority of us do not contribute to campaigns. Any one who has ever taken private money has corrupted the core of what an elected representative represents.

If I were to give a dollar to a presidential candidate as well as my vote my political power would be greater than my neighbor, a man without the means to give money in support. And the other guy across the street in his lavish home and a corporation to run; his contribution was greater still, perhaps to the opposing candidate. He has more political power than any of us.

Is America founded on the principles that money enables you dominion over policy? And you see then that all our great democracy has devolved into is an illusion while we are ruled by the wealthy class. Where our choices our picked by those wealthy contributors because that’s all we see in the media.

Our founding fathers fought for our freedom from the politically oppressive British. Their misrepresentation is just as treacherous and ours. Yet with each election cycle we surrender our freedom to our new kings, land barons, slave owners… Why must our votes be culled like so many herds of sheep? Why are we not given a real choice and real equality of the vote?

We have not demanded it.

How do the American people regain their independence from political oppression?  Reform , short of revolution. Strict campaign finance reform to cut all private money from the pockets of officials. Let no public servant profit from our nation’s policy making process.

Ideally the government gives representatives all they need to live on and oversight ensures that no contribution is taken before, during, or after office as to not sway their judgment. Their need for funds to inform the public of their political position will be met by an equal portion financing, given to each candidate, by the state.

Rules would have to be developed as to how a person could be qualified to receive public funding. More people from more perspectives should have the opportunity to participate in the contest ideas. Again the body politic may have a choice about how they are governed by having more choice. If they are governed poorly they can make the choice to bring someone in to do a better job either mid term or during election. And it will be the people making that choice. Not a special interest.

In this way we can cut the influence of money from our system. Equal exposure and access to information will enable people to participate in a real democracy. This would be how a person with a dream for a more equal vote can realize it. That is real freedom from the few and wealthy interests. They who would engineer a system where it is nearly impossible for the common man to have his visions embodied couldn’t deny people political equality anymore. This gives power to anyone who would take it. This is liberty.

The Right to Alter or to Abolish Government

We have the right to change our government when it doesn’t work to provide for our unalienable rights. It is our duty to lay the foundation for a government  that seems most likely to ensure them.  Why does our current form of government need to be changed? How can it be said that direct democracy will be any more effective in making sure we have our rights?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The government is failing to provide the unalienable rights; life is denied to all those poor to pay health insurance premiums. We discriminate against the poor; we deny them access to health care.  The government provides it to veterans, the elderly, our military, members of the three branches of government. Why do one people deserve to live more than another? ———————— use NDD

Liberties are taken from us all the time. The right to vote, for one.  I speak of how the upper class contribute money to elect politicians who speak on their behalf who, really have any vote at all. The freedoms of speech and the press are being effectively denied as the media outlets are controlled and censored by the private sector. If you have enough money to buy air-time then you have access to more media outlets. That access and those rights are not for people not privileged enough to pay for them.

And one’s happiness could be described as how stressful a person’s life is and the quality of life they are able to afford. Its obvious to see how the wealthy have little monetary stress. Systems are instituted to prey on the lower classes. Abusive lending through unqualified payday loans, credit cards and arm home mortgages keeps the people who can afford them the least bogged down, economically depressed.  Also an actual livable minimum wage and domestic manufacturing mandates would help give a measure of dignified living to the growing lower classes.

To me, the system fails at living up to its obligations. But then again, how would you go about creating a system that could?

If you accept the premise that government fails at its obligations because it serves only the wealthy few; then you might assume a government that serves all the body politic would do a better job. All people empowered with the ability to legislate and vote given a balanced volume of information would do a better job expressing their individual wishes. Why would anyone make decisions not in their best interest? Reasons a person might vote against themselves (in effect) could be they might be uneducated, misinformed, coerced, if not intimidated or frightened.

A system engineered to allow the people without an intermediary so that their wishes were reflected would need participants competent enough to understand what they want and how to effectively make decisions to attain that. Information, uncompressed and easy to absorb would be one component to let someone know what it is they are deciding.  Protections from entities that would have them act irrationally is another key component.

The finance committee would ensure a bill was written clearly, perhaps in a great fewer pages then they are today. It might be found there is practicality in limiting the volume and scope of any one particular bill. Personally, I feel twenty pages is still too much reading for what the attention span of an average citizen is capable of. You run the risk of narrowing the detail of a bill. The specifics as to how best clearly convey legislation should provide for great debate.  The people are capable of metabolizing law and policy if given the chance.

The Ethics and Rights Committee would look out for bills of drastic consequence; war, quick financial appropriation, anything really that the public and media call for hastily. A ruthless dictator might refuse the UN into their country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction.  After capitulating and the inspecters find nothing, the nation, fueled by the media, become convinced he is hiding them and is a threat to security. A petition is collected in overwhelming support for action against the suspected antagonist. It should be properly investigated the involvement of all partys prior to such a situation and during so the public would be well informed what they are getting into. Especially if there were no weapons to begin with.

The public deserves the government they vote and elect for and nothing less. They have just as much power to mess things up, denying groups rights, oppressing the poor, waring against the world. Information and the truth are their greatest tools. Without guarantees to make sure they have them they could elect a system that is counter productive to their interests. Just as we have now… No information as to how disfunctional a government we have. And no patriots armed with information to fix it. Ignorance and apathy are our greatest enemys. The status quo is fine and thrives with the public ignorant of their dealings and apathetic to their consequences. So far, we deserve the government we have. Its time to wake up, smell the coffee, pop some happy pills and demand more from our government. Greater equality of the vote, for starters.