DEVELOPING a 50 YEAR PLAN to BRING DEMOCRACY to AMERICA

[ulTRAX]

Like all here I am sickened beyond belief that Bush was finally elected... with a 3 million vote lead to boot. But I can vomit, lick my wounds and bash Bush some other time. What I want to do is look at the road ahead. I keep raising the topic where's the democracy in the Democratic Party?

If we could bring democracy to the US government, what would it look like? Presumably it would be based upon simple democratic principles such as:

* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.

Actual implementation of such democratic values might look like:

* All representative legislative bodies should be based upon the principle of proportional representation.
* Presidential elections based on a popular vote with some provision for a run-off to insure no one wins with less than 50% of the vote.
* A reformed constitutional amendment process so our future is not held hostage to a dwindling proportion of the US population. The 12 smallest states that can theoretically block any amendment is now down to 4.5% of the population.
* Vastly increased voter-age participation (VAP) to insure an election outcome is morally legitimate. Remember that Reagan's "landslide" represented a mere 26.6% of the VAP.
* The outlawing of Gerrymandering. Members of the House should be in proportion to a percentage of vote totals. Some states might benefit from multi-seat districts.
* The Senate might become a national parliament based upon party election so that citizens who favor minority parties can finally get some official representation in government.
* Striping corporations of rights reserved for citizens. Taking Big Money out of campaigns.

What are the obstacles? I believe that it the anti-democratic and undemocratic nature of our political system that poses the biggest obstacle to enacting a Progressive agenda as have most advanced industrial democracies. But equally problematic are the lack of democratic values in the ordinary citizen. Even the vast majority of so-called Democrats can't take off the ideological blinders and see the Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy itself. With all its defects, too many have been brought up to believe we must defer to the politics of the dead Founders rather than see this as a nation belonging to the living. How many times have you heard someone support that anti-democratic abomination called the EC because the Founders wanted X,Y & Z?

Any direct assaults on the reforming the federal government are probably doomed. One strategy I think might stand a better chance is to reform the amendment process itself. That would make other reforms easier.

But I also believe that the fight for democracy should start on the state level. It's easier to pick off one state at a time then to tackle the entire federal government. It's a process that can slowly introduce citizens to the value of democratic reforms. Neighboring states will pick up on the debate. Other states will get whiffs of the debate on the news... especially in presidential election years.

Take my state of Massachusetts. It reflects many of the same undemocratic features as the federal government. We have two legislative chambers... both based on geographical districts. It's this districting system that perpetuates a dysfunctional 2 party system. Political minorities may make up a sizeable minority statewide but can never muster a win in any given district. Surely trying to reform of the state senate so seats are based on statewide party elections is a key to introducing democratic concepts to the public. More than any other reform, it would give rise to viable third parties. I hope viable Green or Progressive parties are not a threat to Democrats. The ruthless attacks on Nader, where the Dems attack Pregressives, is like the proverbial circular firing squad.

Another possibility is instant run-off voting. Today it may not play a factor in state races since there's a primary system for the main parties and rarely any additional candidates. But what if a reformed senate leads to viable third parties that can finaly compete for house seats or for governor? I also believe that since states control their elections for federal officials... there's no need to wait for IRV on the federal level... where we know it can't be instituted without a constitutional amendment. Maybe it's best instituted state by state. If Florida had IRV it might have solved the Nader "problem" in 2000.

Such state reforms might take decades. Reforming the Constitution even longer. Given the obstacles this might take 50 years. That proverbial journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step. I'd like to think that groups like DU have the most potential to realize we need a long term strategy and would begin to place a bigger emphasis on implementing democratic values.

But if no long range strategy is devised and followed, then we are dooming our nation to an anti-democratic future with more Election 2000's and with a Constitution that is more and more reform-proof. The Democratic Party is already AWOL on the fight for democracy. What REALLY concerns me is even those who consider themselves Progressive Democrats have no committment to democracy. We know such reforms will NOT come from te RIght. So if Progressives can't muster the will and conviction to fight for democracy... who will?

[davepc]

1. I like the Constitution as written and so do most Americans

friction and inertia were purposefully built in.

[ulTRAX]

2. what cost stability?

The Constitution provides stability at the expense of morally legitimate government. I believe we can have both. But to do so those CLAIMING to be Democrats have to get back in touch with democracy itself. Else they'll always be locked in the primitive federalist politics of 1787.

[ulTRAX]

5. what is desirable about........

The Framers did a great job representing select segments of 1787 America. Others were constitutionally deprived of rights as simple as the vote until slavery was abolished, and women got the vote. Constitutionally all power was allocated along state lines. In that system all represented parties were given some way to thwart others. Yes there is plenty of friction.

But everyone has more than one attribute as a citizen. I may live in Mass but also be politically I'm a Progressive. I may be represented in Congress and the Senate but none of those Democrats represent my political views. In our 2 party system the views of untold citizens are not represented. You find this desirable? Why should we today disregard all the progress made in other nations in bringing democratic government to the people? Why should only some groups based on state residence have added power and privilege at he expense of others? I favor checks and balances, but I also believe in proportional representation for attributes OTHER than the current arrangement allows. Why not have the US Senate become a national parliament based upon national party election so there's an ideological check on the House and President? What is desirable about citizens who chose to live in one state having a 3.5X bigger vote for President than citizens who chose to live in another state? What is desirable of a system that sometimes gives a minority of citizens the ability to rule over the majority?

[catbert836]

15. The Constitution is outdated

The Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, never imagined the United States surviving for more than 50 years.

[ulTRAX]

16. The US has a bad case of Frounder Worship.

Granted the Founders/Framers included some of the best political minds of their times... but a couple centuries have passed and most other advanced industrial democracies are not stuck in 1787.

I believe the US has a bad case of Framer worship. It includes all the dysfunctional dynamics of a religion, all be it secular. We're brought up to gloss over all the obvious faults in the Constitution and never to rethink what desirable ideas were compromised away during the Constitutional Convention. Let's not forget that the Framers did NOT want a bill of rights. The states demanded this as a condition of ratification.

Even to this day most Progressives place the politics of the dead over that of the living. Ya, that it will tale 50 years to bring democracy to the US is not unrealistic.

[Lorien]

3. Environmental catastrophy is right on the horizon

there's no way in hell humanity has another 50 years. 20, maybe.

[ulTRAX]

4. we have to assume the best

Like some Christians who believe it doesn't matter how bad things are, the Rapture is coming soon... I hope your assuming the worse is not an excuse to say the hell with the hard work of reform. I have to assume we WILL be here... and if nothing is done, the US WILL become MORE anti-democratic in 20-50 years than it is today.

[Lorien]

7. No, assuming the worst gives us ten years

I have a good friend in Antarctica who has studied global climate change for over forty years, and things are swiftly getting very, very serious.

You need to make a five year plan, not a 50 year plan. Trust me on this; if this don't change quickly, we won't have anything on our plates other than the most basic needs for survival. We must find a way to bring democracy back to America before the next election, period.

[ulTRAX]

8. sanity or democracy?

This thread wasn't about the environment. That being said I wasn't suggesting that there was no reason to be concerned about the environment... just that it should not be used as an excuse to give up on the long term battles.

As for the US... we've never been a democratic nation so there's no possibility of bringing it back. Hopefully we can bring a bit of sanity back the system.

[jdonaldball]

6. From 1775 to 1789 it took only 14 years.

[ulTRAX]

9. and?

And your point is?

[Big Blue Marble]

10. I do not like this "reform" idea.

* A reformed constitutional amendment process so our future is not held hostage to a dwindling proportion of the US population. The 12 smallest states that can theoretically block any amendment is now down to 4.5% of the population.e will be damn grateful for this important limit on change. That is that 12 small states can limit changes to the Constitution.*

If we would lose our last small level of federal power, the filibuster,
we will be very grateful that 12 small states can resist change to our constitution.

[ulTRAX]

11. why does it have to be the states?

Thanks for an example of just what I was saying. In the US most on the Left do not support democratic values.

Problem with your approach is that you underestimate the negative side of granting such a tiny minority the ability to obstruct positive legislation. It was the racist southern states that used the power of the filibuster in the 50s and 60s. You're also ignoring the another aspect: 15% of the US population already has 50% of the Senate seats. Why should THIS minority have a veto? So does that mean in theory 30% of the US population can pass a bill?

Why should ANY US citizen have a bigger voice that another? That's what the Senate does. I don't believe one's choice of state residence should confer them extra rights... or lessen their rights. It taxation with unequal representation. It also leads to occasional minority rule. So where is the moral legitimacy of a government deriving its just powers from the CONSENT of the governed?

I'd much prefer a parliament style Senate based on national party elections. If the Greens or Libertarians each get 10% of the national vote... they each get 10% of the seats. That way each seat represents the same amount of voters. And there's nothing to stop them from blocking legislation.

[ulTRAX]

12. what DU really needs is a.........

Sometimes a topic posted at DU gets a flurry of responses then disappears. A few hours or days later the same thing happens.

There are many topics posted at DU for which there's just no continuity. Where this COULD be a on-line think tank for Progressives... the pace here prevents ideas from ever being fully developed. That's not a problem with the ideas.... it's a problem with the structure of these forums. I think some see the fast pace here as an asset. I don't. This thread is an example of a topic as basic as bringing democracy to the US... yet it's been buried. So what's the point? I think DU's need to think big!

Last March in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1251971#1252101 I wrote:

As possibly the premier Progressive Left site on the web... what should its role be? Is this just an information site? A place to rant or discuss ideas? A place to network? I'm thinking bigger. I think DU should aim for nothing less than using grassroots energy to reshape American politics and our political system.

There is another Democratic board that markets itself as Democratic Think Tank. It's not doing that well.... maybe 5-10 posts a day. But I see SO much potential HERE to serve as such function. We don't have to be Rhode Scholars, have doctorates in PoliSci or work at Brookings to think big. Look how the Deaniacs helped shape that campaign.

I believe that can be accomplished by revamping the topics of the forums. Think about the function of such forums. They serve to bring people together around a topic of mutual interest. If the topic is too narrow the forum languishes. If the topic is too broad like the General Discussion forum.... it becomes a mess. Currently great discussions are being duplicated and lost in the GR board. It's averaging about 280 threads a day... not posts... THREADS. The Campaign 2004 forum gets about 155 threads a day. Good ideas are being lost simply because the pace is so frantic they can't be developed fully... it's too hard to find a topic of interest... or there's duplicate threads on the same topic which deprives a topic of synergy of ALL those interested in that topic. In a few days they're archived and locked... and the random discussions begin again... and again. Anyone interested in what dedicated Progressives are thinking would have to wade though a sea of posts to find some gems. It's a lost opportunity to build up DU and for those who could benefit from an additional source of ideas. Why is that important?

I'd like to see the 2004 Campaign forums subdivided. One on the issues of the day... a few that give our advice to the Kerry campaign.... on both short-term tactics and long term strategies. Will The Kerry campaign listen? I've seen some GREAT ideas for the Kerry campaign... but who reads them now? We have to prove ourselves.

DU already gets some national attention. It's time to make DU indispensable not just with the quality of our ideas but how efficiently we generate them... and much of that depends on how the forums are structured. Under the Campaign 2004 header I'd like to also see forums on devising and coordinating inexpensive pro-Kerry activities on the local level.... advice on how to run local candidates.. etc.

I'd like to see another grouping of forums on longer range ideas of where Progressives want to take this nation. Unless we have that shared vision for a Progressive agenda for reform.... then 20-40 years from now the Progressive movement will still be trying to tweak a dysfunctional political and corporate system.... as corporations continue to run amok and our federal government becomes more anti-democratic and more reform-proof.

I believe that the DU contains such a great assemblage of politically like-minded people it's a tremendous political resource... if it can only be effectively harnessed. Once that snowball gets rolling, additional synergistic processes start up: a good reputation attracts more talent. Can anyone else see the possibilities?

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. We might get some voting reforms. Time will tell.

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[ulTRAX]

14. we're NEVER going to get voting reforms as long as Democrats...

I fear there's no hope for ANY true voting reforms as long as Democrats refuse to confront their core internal contradiction: that they are Democrats in name only and lack any real commitment to democratic values.

True Dems fight for voter registration and access... issues like that. But how can we ever hope for REAL democratic reform such as TRUE proportional representation and run-off voting unless the Dems find some value in democratic principles and effectively are willing to argue the case to the public?