We Are The Revolution (Thurman James)

Thurman James -- World News Trust

Oct. 24, 2009 -- To salvage the environment and reform our economy we must first break the stranglehold that the money mongers have on our government. The first priority for those of us concerned with any kind of economic or environmental reform must be congressional and election reforms. In order accomplish these things we must infiltrate our Congress with representatives who are not beholden to corporate campaign financiers. Then and only then can we move forward with the electoral reforms that will allow all other changes to begin.

School children in the United States are taught that we live in a democracy, but not until we reach adulthood do most of us realize the ugly truth: our representative democracy doesn't represent very many of us at all. Our election process doesn't allow us to elect people who represent our values and needs. Instead, we are presented with a handful of carefully vetted candidates willing to maintain the status quo of the corporate oligarchy that controls our government and enables their election. The true will of the people, those of us who work to produce the real wealth of this nation has virtually no representation in our government.

In earlier posts I've pointed out how a corporate elite controls our government and I've made the case for mandatory public financing of all elections before any real reform can take place. I briefly touched on the idea that a diverse non-partisan coalition, raised outside the official two-party machine may be our best and last hope of ever gaining control of our government without another violent, bloody revolution.

If such a coalition could be held together long enough to penetrate both houses of the Congress, lasting reform could be accomplished even if the sitting president refused to play ball. For any such peaceful revolution to make a lasting difference, its prime directive must be the total, unequivocal reform of our congress, both the way it is elected and its composition. All other issues, though of great importance, are secondary to electoral reform.

~ Ballot Access Reform

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to reclaiming our democratic birthright is the two-party establishment. While campaign finance reform is essential to the salvation of our democratic republic, ballot access laws make such changes unlikely in the face of the entrenched two-party dictatorship. Most Americans do not realize the enormity that our current mish-mash of state ballot access laws present to third-party candidates. There is no national standard for ballot access, even for federal elections. Every state writes its own ballot access rules and these laws are intentionally worded to eliminate competition outside the existing two-party system. Ballot access rules should be reasonable and uniform nationwide. Once a new, minority party qualifies for ballot access within a minimal number of states, access in the remaining states should be automatic and persist for at least twenty years in order to give dissident viewpoints an honest chance to be heard, evaluated, and voted upon. If our goal is a more democratic society, then ballot access reform is a necessary part of the solution. ~ Instant Run-Off Voting

Many people oppose third-party participation in our elections because third-party candidates often siphon votes from one candidate and hand the election to a less qualified individual. Under our current system of two-party, winner take all elections, this is a valid concern, but it doesn't need to be that way. Instant run-off voting (IRV) is a method of guaranteeing that the winner of any election has a majority of votes, regardless of the number of candidates or parties on the ballot. Under this system, voters rank candidates according to their preference, eliminating third-party spoilers and perceived wasted votes. Here's a link to an excellent interactive demonstration of how IRV actually works. IRV could also end the need for expensive primaries and run-off elections which historically suffer from low voter turn out. Supporters of the status quo argue that IRV will do irreparable harm our two-party system of government. These individuals either fail or refuse to see the harm that the two-party reign of terror has already done to the democratic ideals of our founders. The two-party system not only needs to be harmed; it needs to be abolished. ~ Reconstituting the Congress

Nothing in the Constitution demands that  congressional districts be drawn the way they are today or even that we select our representatives from specific districts. For this reason some have suggested that we adopt proportional representation and elect congressional representatives at-large, either statewide or from a few large districts within each state. Some cities are large enough to be represented by more than one person, and in those places at-large selection might be a good idea.

At-large representation would require a very delicate balancing act because candidates from heavily populated municipal areas could easily gain undue advantage over those from more sparsely populated rural areas. These two populations often have very different economic interests and cultural values. Without careful non-partisan oversight this method of representation could lead us right back to where we are today, with highly gerrymandered districts designed to benefit specific populations at the expense of real democratic values.

Another step toward a more vibrant democracy would be to enlarge the House of Representatives in accordance with what some call the Wyoming rule. The Wyoming rule calls for expanding the House so that the representative-to-population ratio equals that of the smallest entitled unit - currently the state of Wyoming. The proposal addresses the fact that some House districts contain almost twice the population of others. For example, there are about 944,000 people in Montana's single congressional district, almost double the number of people living in Wyoming's single district of approximately 515,000. Based on 2008 census estimates, such a change would result in an additional 155 members, increasing the total number of representatives from 435 to 590.

Expansion of the most democratic legislative body in our government is long overdue. Enlargement of the House of Representatives would make the legislative branch of our government much more responsive to the needs and desires of the people and provide the additional benefit of making the Electoral College more reflective of the popular vote in our presidential elections.

~Restoration of the Senate

The House of Representatives was designed to be the people's house; a large body of popularly elected representatives expressing the will of the majority. The founders realized that such an assembly held tremendous potential for the abuse of power if unchecked. The Senate was created to balance the power of the popular majority against the needs of state governments.

The Senate was originally composed of two senators who were elected by each state's legislature, but after the Civil War the Constitution was amended and senators are now elected by popular vote. Many reasons have been put forward to explain this change, but the end result was a tipping of the scales of balance. Today, universal education and advanced technologies have increased the need for more direct influence of the people on our government. The time has come to restore the influence state governments once held over U.S. Senators and to restore the congressional balance of powers. In so doing one of the biggest arguments against national ballot initiatives and direct referendums lose much of their energy.

~ Direct Democracy

The framers of the Constitution had some qualms about direct democracy, and at the time those fears may have been well founded.  The framers were not confident in the average citizen's ability to understand complex issues, and more than two hundred years ago that was very likely true. Few people were well educated, even fewer could read, and most people we would today call the working class were too busy scratching out a meager living to devote much time to policy issues and politicians. The same argument is still used today by those opposed to the expansion of direct democracy and unfortunately it's still somewhat valid. Many of us are too busy just trying to survive or too distracted by cheap, readily available entertainments to make informed decisions on important issues. Until a majority of our fellow citizens wake up and start to examine issues for themselves in order to make truly informed decisions, full direct democracy must remain an unknown ideal. A direct democracy is a government in which the citizens decide policy matters personally, through town meetings, ballot initiatives, and referendums. A republic is a system in which people elect representatives who then make policy decisions on behalf of the people. Some states allow policy questions to be decided through popular ballot initiatives or referendums, but this is more the exception than the rule. Once our congress has been restored to it's original balance, and the House of Representatives expanded to reflect the true will of the majority, the right of ballot initiative and referendum should be expanded to every state in the union and when appropriate applied to national policies as well.

The argument could be made that the power of direct democracy was omitted from the Constitution to protect the financial and political interests of the elite class of men who framed the document. Without the shield of carefully selected representatives to protect the interests of the ruling class, they may have worried that the majority might someday realize the power of their superior numbers and through direct democracy insist on a more equitable division of the wealth of the nation. Given the shambles the corporate elites have made of our economy many times over the past century, and the growing threat our under-regulated industrial civilization has become to the planet, perhaps the time for such a bottom up revolution has come.

~

The United States government of today is among the least democratic institutions in the world, controlled by a fraternity of multinational corporations and people who value money over every form of life on the planet. Ballot access laws are a tyranny which must be reformed. Public campaign financing is essential to any effort to salvage what's left of our nation, if not the world. If the founders of this nation could see the sad state of this country today they'd be appalled at our collective cowardice and apathy in the face of a corporate oligarchy ruling the United States of America. When did Americans become such spineless, whimpering, cowards? Too often I meet people who agree that reform is needed, that things have gone too far, but quickly they add that it's just the way things are - real change is impossible. Bullshit!

These people cannot possibly be descended from the same people who rose up and fought the British Empire, the most powerful nation on the planet at the time. Nor can any among us be more than pale reflections of our immigrant ancestors who in leaving behind all that was comforting and familiar made a leap of faith, despite the hardship, sacrifice, and insecurity they faced.

We've become so indebted - literally mortgaged up to our eyeballs - so dependent on corporate employment for everything from food and shelter to our health care and transportation that we, the descendants of patriots and revolutionaries are too afraid to stand up and demand justice.

Be strong my brothers and sisters. The time has come to rise up and claim the heritage you were taught to love and respect as school children. Not with violence and bloodshed, but with civil disobedience and refusal to play our parts in the operation of the corporate death machine. This is our country - our world. Only we can save it from the few who would steal it all for themselves and leave us nothing but hot ashes.