The Way I See It - Sad days in Congress

Paul de Armond  //  Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 9:04 am

I’m currently reading Godfrey Hodgson’s More Equal Than Others: America from Nixon to the New Century.

One point he makes is the shift in politics came with the rise in importance in television advertising beginning in the 1960 presidential campaign.  It’s so expensive that pluralist groups of citizens got raised off the table by economic interests and their proxies.  Increasing the cost of political participation turned citizens from producers of political discourse into consumers of propaganda.

It’s not a small ticket.  This year over $1 billion was spent on political advertising, mostly on television.  http://tinyurl.com/yaxd7fk.

Add to that mix the relentless political commercialization of the media, particularly talking “entertainers” who have trivialized discourse into mud wrestling.

Those who pay the piper call the tune.  And if the piper is so expensive only a fraction of the nation can pay to play, the citizens get stripped of their sovereignty.

So any change in political discourse will have to revolutionize communication to discount and discredit the bought-and-paid for stooges barking to their masters command.

And that means the citizens are going to have to shoulder the burden of approaching political discourse as something other than another form of reality show interspersed with advertising (all controlled by the same sponsors.)

Frankly, I don’t see it.  A mass movement based on common sense and engagement doesn’t seem possible in a nation that has become addicted to cheap passive amusement.

The founders intended frequent elections to be a remedy to unresponsive representation.  But when the electorate turns into shallow, reflexive couch potatoes, elections no longer can serve that function.

As we’ve just seen with Congress and the health care legislation and the County Council’s inability to appoint someone to a vacant seat, institutions have been so corrupted by polarization that they can no longer engage in meaningful reform.  Their corrupting funders are served and their passive audiences are entertained.

<quote>...like a herd of cats looking for mice in a dog pound.</quote>

That’s brilliant.

Tip Johnson  //  Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 11:59 am

It’s a simple fix, made possible by the information age.

Turn Congress into a national monument.  Sit congress folk down in their district office, linked electronically to their colleagues. One wall of flat screen would probably do it. Make it easier for constituents to see what representatives are up to and more difficult for lobbyist to monopolize their time.  District offfices should have an observation deck where citizens can watch their representatives at work.  This would add a lot of daylight to the process and be a great boon for local civics classes.

Next, we need some serious campaign finance reform.  Limit personal campaign contributions to registered voters in the district.  Pool corporate and PAC contributions in a public financing fund equally distributed among candidates.

Finally, limit campaign expenditures to two months before each election. Follow this up with implementation of provisions for instant runoff voting and proportional representation.

Isn’t representation what it’s all about?

Ham Hayes  //  Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 12:05 pm

Paul,

Good points about the impact of high economic barriers on public discourse and political participation. The best and perhaps only tool available today to counter those restrictions is the internet.  We are seeing the dynamic of government control playing out in Iran and China most noticeably.  And if we are not careful, we could also see the dynamic of corporate control play out here, with our government?s approval, of course.  I expect open access to the internet to be attacked in force.  The outcome is uncertain.

Doug karlberg  //  Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 12:08 pm

Boston was the center of the American Revolution. Where resentment towards the government simmered, and complaints about the American condition under the King were ignored.

Like now, it too appeared daunting, and well ? hopeless.

One of the odd critical things that the Boston men did was to form the Committee of Letters. This Committee was charged with writing letters to other citizen groups in the other Colonies detailing the complaints that the ?Boston men? had against the far away, and remote King.

The letters to citizens far away, in the other colonies, were sent.

When the return letters from other Colonial citizens began to pour in, the Boston men came to realize that they were not the only Colonial citizens who had similar complaints with the King.

There was in fact, a large crowd of disaffected citizens. This single event was empowering.

We were not alone, we were many.

The internet is today?s equivalent of the American Revolution?s Committee of Letters. We need to harness its power to turn a single shrill voice, into a thundering chorus.

Like it or not, today?s Tea Parties do get the politician’s attention. So do Town Hall meetings. In both cases, the citizens control the agenda completely.

For the first time in years, single average citizens could stand up and in their own voice tell their elected leaders how they felt. It was empowering. Some were maybe a little too empowered, but for many it was a once in a lifetime event, so I don?t blame them too much, for their enthusiasm. Many, who would normally be cowed into silence, were empowered to stand and speak without fear.

Today, almost half our citizens do not vote. If we could empower them to use their voices, I think the politicians would sit bolt upright, and pay attention.

I believe that the Internet holds the key. Designing a website that allows for registered voters to actually get one vote, on any issue, would be powerful. Making it easy to vote on a variety of issues in real time, would be powerful. Being able to show elected leaders the results of these ?advisory? votes before they cast theirs on any issue, would be powerful.

Such a website if well designed could bridge some of the partisan divide amongst citizens, If we add in a few ?couch potatoes? that normally are not part of the political process now ? we will have created our thundering chorus that politicians cannot afford to ignore, and still get elected.

Make it easy to participate. You get to vote anytime you want, on any issue you want. Your vote is secret, and we will count it for you along with all the other citizens who would like to vote also.

Then concisely present the results to our elected leaders, before they cast their votes. It is real time voting.

While not binding voting, it would, if enough participated, be like the Mafia ?making them an offer, they could not refuse?.

When we can show a politician that the liberals, conservatives, independents, and couch potatoes have united behind a specific policy, then it would be very, very difficult for a politician to deny the citizenry their wishes.

I fear that we are seeing the creation of a permanent class of people who are the political elite of America. This will be difficult to dislodge, and I am fearful for America?s future, with a permanent political class.

I fear the day, when ordinary people, with extraordinary talent, cannot rise up to lead politically.

?Democracy is ? the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities, in ordinary people.? Harry Fosdick

Paul de Armond  //  Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 1:21 pm

Falling communications costs through the internet, cell phones, long distance via fiber, etc.  have favored networks over institutions.  In DC, John found the major thrust of the infotainment media (we can’t really call those guys journalists anymore) is either subsidy or government imposed transaction costs to cut force communications dollars their way.

Lowered communication cost are what made parapolitical activities like the WTO protests, the Spanish elections following the train bombings, Tea Parties, etc. possible.  Now the institutional response is to try to put the genie back in the bottle.

For those who might think that the internet economy is an example of free market forces, I point out that the internet became possible through government funding, not by private enterprise.  It’s worth thinking about the role of centralized government in providing public goods that markets would never make possible.

David Camp  //  Thu, Dec 10, 2009, 4:59 pm

It’s hard to be approving if an institution which is supposed to represent and serve you but clearly does not. Consider our so-called “representative”, Rick Larsen, who only randomly responds to emails from his constituents and stays away from his office in B’ham for months on end because he refuses to meet with peace activists. But when some muck-a-muck from Boeing calls him, he stands up and salutes at his desk.

Two party rule is only marginally better than one-party rule, especially when both parties serve the same master and it ain’t us.

Consider the Senate’s gutting of the public option in the health care bill - yet another act of, by, and for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries at the expense of what the people want.

Now, also consider real estate values plummeting in all areas of the country - and contrast it to Canadian real estate values, which are hitting record highs (the average price of a house in Canada was C$282,583 in Oct 2008, and C$341,079 in Oct 2009, an increase of 21%. In US $, because the US $ has weakened, the average Cdn. House price was US$241,524 in Oct 2008, and US$318,765 in Oct 2009, an increase of 32% !).

When people’s votes don’t count they vote with their feet.

Why should people slave away to pay for a corrupt regime that regards them with contempt? That disregards rule of law and betrays the ideals of the founders of the Republic? That plunders the treasury to line the pockets of bankers and war profiteers?
That actively devalues its currency and the savings and incomes of its people in pursuit of global hegemony? That locks up 1% of its population, more than totalitarian China, and even South Africa at the height of apartheid?

This is such a great country - with a federal government apparently bent on destroying all that makes it great. Ruled by prostitutes, buffoons, racketeers, and mammon-worshippers.

It is to weep.

Marian Beddill  //  Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 3:20 am

Doug karlberg wrote: “…a website that allows for registered voters to actually get one vote, on any issue,…Your vote is secret, and we will count it for you….”,

Sorry, Doug.  No deal - even though I adore the goal you are hoping to reach - I, too, want to empower the citizens. But - no internet voting on any significant issue - forever, as far as I can see.  Sam Reed, his predecessor, and a bunch of geeks in their crowd have been pushing internet voting for years!  It “is so cute, and so easy!”  See: http://noleakybuckets.org/ .

And it is so super-easy to be corrupted by the operators - with the fox REALLY not only guarding, but owning the hen-house.  Already, just voting (and counting) on computers is dicey, without the internet. There is noting on the internet that is secret (imho.) All encryption can be decrypted. Every message sent from any computer contains the numerical URL of the source machine = your identity! (“Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is a type of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that specifies where an identified resource is…”).  The end of secret voting.

So I cannot tolerate any internet voting scheme which is granted any “authority”, while run by those who are in control. Maybe something by citizens, with substantial public transparency by any concerned citizen.…etc.

Even that can conflate into the other future problem mentioned here - “net neutrality” or “Who has the authority to shut the internet down?” (fully or selectively.) The answer that I believe - “Those folks in DC whom you are trying to influence, have the power to shut down this public piggyback on the ARPANET.” 

Ergo - no internet voting.

Doug karlberg  //  Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 10:21 am

Merian, I apologize. I did not explain myself well. Not the first time.

My concept of being able to vote, is not something sponsored or even compiled by the government in any way. We do not have to even ask for their permission.(I like that a lot)

It would simply be a place for folks to gather and be able to register in as a user of the site. Like we already do here.

Your registration would be checked against the voter registration list, and as long as you are a registered voter, you would be allowed to vote.

You would then be allowed to vote on any public issue. You might even be able to change your vote, if you changed your mind. This might happen if you were to read something that caused you to change your mind, like a great editorial in the NW Citizen.

Your vote would be compiled along with others, and the vote would only be advisory in nature.

It is really just an active poll, but with one twist, only registered voters would get to vote, and only once per issue.

Let me try to put this idea, into a concrete example below. (It is just an example)

Bob Kelly resigned his County Council seat, and the County Council has punted the decision for his replacement to County Executive Kremen.

One of the big decisions surrounding Kremen’s appointment is; Should the person appointed agree to not run for this office in the next election?

So we put this issue up as an advisory question to be voted on. Folks debate the pros and cons, and over a week’s time folks are invited to vote.

The vote is compiled, and on Monday morning the advisory pools close, and we now know that 3479 registered voters have weighed in and 78% of the voters would like to see Mr. Kremen chose a County Council appointment that agrees not run for that Council seat, in the next election.

Mr. Kremen would need to take this advisory vote, into serious consideration.

Beats writing him a letter, individually. A real time saver, voting from home over a week’s time.

Having an easy outlet for folks to register their voting opinion, might give some power back to the voters, without having to wait until election day.

Politician’s would get some real-time feedback from real voters on a variety of issues, which may not even hove come up in their election campaigns.

Or course there would have to be some safeguards in place, so that it is not rigged, but the safeguards so not need government authority or debate.

While not a binding vote, I do think that if this concept became popular, it would have an effect on political decisions being made, like virtually no other available to the common everyday citizen.

What if we got 10,000 people to vote, and had a healthy debate on the issues via citizen editorials. It would be unsafe for any politician to ignore.

That would be harnessing the power of the Internet.

We might even gain back some of the power, now wielded only by special interest groups.

This format for advisory voting, would allow the citizens to control which issues are voted upon. It is easy to vote on many issues, even ones that might not get much attention normally.

Sure would drive a lot of traffic to one site. No competition currently.

Today we use the Internet to yak with one another, but we do not have much understanding of how many folks feel the same way about an issue.

The power is in compiling how many people feel about a particular issue, and presenting these vote totals to the elected leaders, BEFORE they cast their votes.

I hope this is a better explanation.

Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 10:53 am

A little off-topic, but hopefully not too far off.

University of Victory environmental law professor Michael M?Gonigle published two columns recently on a popular British Columbia blog, ?The Tyee?.  His columns comprise a two-part letter to his friend ?JB? who is attending the global warming conference in Copenhagen.  Both columns are excellent and worth the read; however, perhaps more interesting are the fascinating comments about the way governments are failing worldwide.

The Tyee itself is very far-left leaning; but the comments come from a variety of places on the political spectrum.  I mention these stories because there are many suggestions in the comments that parallel and enhance our dialogue; but also to illustrate what NWC could be.

To date, Professor M?Gonigle?s articles received a whopping 179 comments combined.  Most of these are comments of substance.  Imagine having that type of conversation on NWC regarding local issues that we could actually impact.

Here are links to The Tyee blog:

?Against Copenhagen? (Part 1):

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/12/06/CopenhagenContradictions/

?The Elephants of Doom in Copenhagen? (Part 2):

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/12/08/ElephantsOfDoom/

Marian Beddill  //  Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:38 am

Doug;
Oh, you did explain your idea quite well enough.

And I stand on my assertion that—while charming and really simple and cool—it will be seen as way too dangerous two ways. I’ve been strong on this issue since about 1999.

Two scenarios:
1)
You set this privately-run thing up, and thousands of people use it and adore it. It’s a love-fest. Then the Government sees that it is “good” - and WAY cheaper than mailing and managing paper ballots, so they buy it from you for a luscious price that you will have a hard time refusing. They then declare (with supporting legislation) that it now IS the election system.  Wham!

2)
You set this privately-run thing up, and thousands of people use it and adore it. It’s a love-fest. Then a crew who wants things that you do not want, sees that it is “good” - and WAY cheaper than other ways of getting people involved, so they start using it to accomplish their goals, in just the same way you intended to accomplish yours. Or, they run it, but simply report out the results they wanted to see. Sham-Wham!

Sorry, no dice. No internet voting - ever!

Anyway, you did not comment on the final snag.

Scenario 3)
You set this privately-run thing up, and thousands of people use it and adore it. It’s a love-fest. Then the Government sees that it is “BAD” - cause it puts pressure on them that they did not want. So they shut it down - singly with some trumped-up charge, or if it’s the Feds, just shut down the internet (or severely constrain it.) 

Marian