Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 14, 2011 at 1:31pm

very important point gisele..direct democracy that is not supported and informed by consensus building, discernment true invovement would not be very meaningful.  I do believe in the common wisdon..I do believe it can emerge through a facilitated process.  I also believe we have no choice even with direct democracy ( i.e. having a direct voice on all legisltaive matters, being heard on all legsilative matters we care to engage, even being able to initiate a citizens referendum directly that would over ride our representatives, but I think we have no choice other than delegation to represnttaives, more wisely chosen, more closely monitored.

Wouldn't it be great right now to have a way to initiate and pass a citizens referndum that totally by passes congress on the payroll tax extension to take out the pipeline and the roll backs on toxic emissions from boilers, on a 28th amendment addressed to Citizens united, on Stop Online Piracy Act to protect freedom of speech on the internt.  That's where I see direct democracy working  and that is feasible.

At my blog www.lindsaynewlandbowker.posterous.com I have a proposoal I call "LEGBOOK" that is a version of this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 14, 2011 at 1:43pm

Lindsay, I'm working with people who are working a California ballot initiative right now against Monsanto. I'm in support of initiatives and referendums especially now when our reps are bought. But actually I would just prefer our reps not be bought. It's extremely expensive and time consuming to get a proposal on the ballot. Personally I'd like to just be living my life, knowing that our government is functioning on behalf of the people and not on behalf of big monied interests.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 14, 2011 at 1:55pm

Victoria..would appreciate a link to your initiative on Monsanto..

I am talking about a citizens referendum process that is not at all like what we have now..one that will quickly allow a citizens referndum with a certain critical level of support to actually override a vote on the floor or prevnt a vote forom reaching the floor.  It shouldn't be so hard for a citizen's initive to emerge and go forward.

Now with big national groups like moveon and movement to amend and others it really doesn't take long to reach a critical mass on a peition.  That could be taken several steps further..a petition of a certain citical mass requires that the legislature draft a bill reponsive to the issue and put it up for citizens review..Citizens say yes it goes, no it doesn't and has to be redraftted addressing citizen input. Needs a lot of work (including most centrally citizen idenity and voting security which isn't presnt now in peitions)  But it is doable and I think a worthy goal.

 

I have monitoring what happens on the foor every day and writing every day to and about my reps behavior and posting that on facebook and elsewhere.  It is not so hard to know what is going on.

.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 14, 2011 at 2:00pm

Lindsay, you can't have citizen review of decisions that can only be made by elected officials. Either you have government by representatives and they have the final say, or you have a system (I hesitate to call it direct democracy, but that's what it is) where citizens have an equal voice and the will of the people cannot be ignored or overridden by elected officials.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 14, 2011 at 2:13pm

The entire distribution of power can be redesigned, Mark.  The entire relationship between citizens and elected reps can be redefined, re enigineered, including citizen recall  of those reps not performing.  That 's the work.  To keep the legsilaive process contunually in the ultimate control of we the people.

If you think about it, I think it addresses in a constructive and positive waya everything that has buried you so deeply in your refuse to vote ideology which is not constructive, not actrive good wok to rebuilding it the right way.  Our vote on everything would have the ultimate power.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 14, 2011 at 3:08pm

Yes, Lindsay, our vote on everything would have the ultimate power if we had the power to ensure that our votes were counted, if we had the power to ensure that our votes couldn't be ignored or overridden, and if we the people were in control of the electoral system and the legislative process.

But we're not. And as long as we're not, continuing to trust in that process to reform itself isn't likely to change anything.

In order to redesign something, Lindsay, say a toaster that keeps burning my bread even on the lowest setting, I can't just keep putting bread into it. I'll have to stop using it, take it apart, and rebuild it so that it works. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 14, 2011 at 3:28pm

Exactly mark..and that's what akll of us are committed to..fxing the broken toaster..taking it apart and even revisiting what's the best way to make toast..join us in that process..in that re engineering.

I am here at Occupy not to sell any ideology, ot wedded to any particular agenda, not trying to impose my views on anyone or persuade anyone to my views, nor to be constantly barraged by  the comments of members who are insistent on imposing their ideology on everyone else.

I have stayed here on tis threda for a few rounds because of the excellent and constructive input Victoria and Gisele and Mr. Blue have made here recently..ideas and postive directions I resonate with and wanted to explore with them.

 

I am here at Occupy tto listen to thers, to learn, and to offer whatever of my own expereience might be useful in exploring things members are putting up for discussion.

 

Although I agree with most of your analysis, I do not at all agree with your solution which to me is reactive not constructive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 14, 2011 at 5:45pm

I aqree with your earlier comment, Lindsay, that computer transactions can be secured. I myself buy and bank online. But I know that computer systems cannot be secured from insiders, those who own and program the computers.

In the case of stores, I buy things online because I know that insiders who control those stores' computer systems have an incentive to ensure that customers are not defrauded. The incentive is that if customers were defrauded, they'd stop buying things online from those stores and the store could lose millions of dollars in business.

In the case of banks, I make financial transactions online because I know that insiders who control those banks' computer systems have an incentive to ensure that customers are not defrauded. The incentive is that if customers were defrauded, they'd stop doing financial transactions online with those banks and the banks could lose billions of dollars in business.

In the case of elections, where rigging computers to manipulate elections and control legislatures can benefit insiders to the tune of trillions of dollars, there are trillions of dollars of incentives for insiders to continue to rig elections, and no incentive whatsoever for them to stop. Even knowing that elections are rigged, and that fraudulent elections can result in trillions of dollars of losses to our economy, there does not appear to be any danger that people will stop voting.

If knowing that rigged elections can result in crooked officials enacting legislation that enables private business interests and the Pentagon to continue stealing trillions of dollars isn't enough to get people to to stop voting in rigged elections, what's the incentive for those who benefit from rigging elections to see that their systems are secure? If they did that, they could lose trillions of dollars. And if they keep rigging elections there is no risk that people might stop voting.

So I'll continue to bank and shop online, because I know that the insiders who control those systems have a huge incentive to see that their systems are secure. But I won't vote because unless people stop voting, there is no incentive for election insiders to stop rigging elections, and there is an incentive for them to continue to rig elections--the trillions of dollars they can continue to steal by controlling legislatures.

Continuing to vote in rigged elections isn't taking the system apart and reengineering it, Lindsay, it is continuing to use a broken system by imagining that if you use it in new and different ways, for example putting the toast in the toaster upside down, squeezing in more toast, using food colors to write on the toast, "Don't burn me!," etc., you can convince the toaster to repair itself and stop being broken.

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 14, 2011 at 3:18pm

here is one link to the really excellent initiave is referring to:

 

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/03/cbi-t...

 

very exciting and the engineered food issue is another one that is critical to highlight and wokr on disempowering.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 14, 2011 at 1:55pm

Thanks for the constructive criticism, Gisele. You're right and I apologize for being out of line with my comment to Victoria. I allowed myself to become defensive when attacked and I shouldn't have. Gotta remember to engage brain before putting fingers in motion.  ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 14, 2011 at 8:38pm

Mark, for the sake of argument, let’s say only 5% of people vote in the election. Those 5% will decide who governs. To actually remove them from office people would have to physically rise up. So let’s say that people do that. They insist that the President and his immediate team resign. Now there is a power vacuum. What are the possibilities?

Traditionally the military takes over. Generals step forward and run the state machine. They may volunteer to oversee elections, like in Egypt. Let’s say the people rise up and refuse that option.

State governors might take over. The ruling-class, through corporations and banks, would still be in control through pressuring states to form a system in which they continue to be the power behind the throne. They would threaten the country with economic disaster if they didn’t stabilize the system. The ruling-class would not hesitate to deliberately destabilize the economy until people saw reason.

Another possibility is that the states would split up into red states and blue states, or simply split up altogether. That would cause battles over how the treasury should be split up and how everything the Feds currently pay into will be maintained like schools and interstate highways etc. What would we do about the military? There are thousands of bases around the world. We can’t just disband it as was done in Iraq. They still have to be paid.

Another possibility is a charismatic leader will rise up. Under chaos people look for someone strong. Americans now accept more encroachment on their rights than ever before. Why, because they are afraid. A vacuum in power leads to more fear not less. There is no guarantee that whatever this leader sets up will be some form of direct democracy.

For what you want the state governments would have to fall at the same time as the federal government which would create even more chaos. The usual result is military dictatorship or civil war. Why would that be different here?

Americans know that a complete transformation of the power structure would mean hardship no matter what with no guarantee that something better will be waiting on the other side. That is why revolution is so rare. The majority of people have to be really desperate to trade whatever stability they have for chaos, and that is all you have to offer.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say everything remains relatively stable with civil servants running the country responsibly because they are inspired by the transformative potential.

Now what? Who will decide what form the government will take? Victoria isn’t really asking you how a direct democracy would work administratively. What she is asking is what will happen the day after people find out that voter turn-out was only 5%? From a practical perspective, how will that transfer power into the hands of the people?

The Egyptian protesters almost had some sort of temporary ruling council ready to replace Mubarak but not quite. Because of that the military was able to hold onto power.

For America to be transformed into a direct democracy people would have to know what it is, how it works, and they would have to want it. I don’t want a pure direct democracy, not even on a city level, nor does Victoria or Lindsay. I don’t think you have much hope of convincing a majority of Americans to go for it. Chavez in Venezuela has had to build a parallel government in the form of community councils and worker cooperatives to create transformative change. To get Americans to go for direct democracy you would have to build a parallel system that they trusted enough to believe it would work. They would also have to be much more politically engaged.

People who don’t vote may answer that they don’t like what politicians are doing and that they are all the same so it doesn’t matter who they vote for. That doesn’t mean they want a different system that they will participate in. Most still want to go home and watch TV and play sports on the weekend not study politics. They just wish there was a candidate that they liked well enough to go to the polls for. Even if they adored the guy they still wouldn’t work on his campaign or put a sign in their front lawn. Most people don’t want to be that involved, even temporarily during an election.

When Victoria says you have to start where people are that is what she means. People aren’t politically engaged enough for direct democracy. Under the current system the government could be planning a highway through the neighbourhood and some people would protest but most people would be sitting at home even if they agreed with the protesters. Others wouldn’t care because they don’t plan on living there permanently. Others wouldn’t be aware the highway is being built.

You don’t have a means of determining if people are politically engaged enough to want a different system even if they are dissatisfied. You don’t say who would be setting up the new system or how they would be chosen. How do you get from “nobody voted” to “country being run by direct-democracy”?  What would be happening in between?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 14, 2011 at 9:11pm

Mark once asked me what I was so afraid of if the current system failed, what could be worse than what we already have. I had already answered that question before so I didn't answer it again. But Gisele, you understand, what is worse is chaos, power vacuums, in a highly armed world. Mark accuses me of fear mongering but I just don't have any magical thinking about this. I think we need to be having a serious dialog about how to transition out of this situation we're in, toward the kind of world we want to see, but we have to be aware of all the pitfalls along the way. Advocating for extreme solutions that will alienate much of the population doesn't seem to be the way to go. There may be no way to go, we may be fucked -- I'm not ruling it out. Things are pretty bad. But I think a lot of us realize that and we're hear to talk about what we need to do. We need a plan, and we need to act together as much as possible in 2012. I think the movement against corporate personhood, for campaign finance reform, and for economic overhaul, is going to grow. And I think we can do a lot more than just put a few decent people into office. But if we, as a movement, are split down the middle between those who support a representative system and those who refuse to support it . . . well, we will lose half our strength.

And if the argument becomes circular, as it does here, always returning to "the system is corrupt and can't be fixed so why are you advocating for a corrupt system" (answer, we are trying to change the system --  returning again to the same statement, "the system is corrupt" . . . on and on forever, like a mobius strip) then we aren't getting anywhere.

And this is a great example of the problem of requiring consensus. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page