Seeking Input for Electoral Reform Wish List: What Say You?

Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in downtown Manhattan on September 17th, I have noted on a number of occasions that there is an inspiring amount of independent and third party activity and organizing taking place at the demonstrations.  Members of the Green, Libertarian, Socialist and Reform parties, among others, have been involved in the movement from the very beginning, in addition to legions of Independents. 

Much of the organizing work being accomplished at Occupy Wall Street is being done within autonomous working groups and caucuses.  There are working groups devoted to everything from media and internet to outreach, direct action and reform.  There are a number of groups, of which I'm aware, that should be of special interest to independents, third party advocates and opponents of the two-party state.  Over the next couple days, I'm going to provide some info on these various groups and relay portions of the documents and proposals they have been working on, all of which can be found through the New York City General Assembly's website for Occupy Wall Street.

Today, the focus will be the Politics and Electoral Reform group – in which I have been active for a number of weeks.  The group is working on a proposal recommending electoral reforms that could be implemented by states and localities to level the playing field for those who have been marginalized, and whose interests are not represented, by the Republican-Democrat two-party state. Numerous reforms are being considered by the group, which is collaborating on a working draft document for the proposal.  Here is an excerpt from the section of the document specifically devoted to the recommendations for reform:

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their voters.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  Expansion of the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. There are alternatives.

• Expansion of franchise. Those who are denied of the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Term limits should be imposed by law or by the people at the ballot box.

• Ballot access reform. All should be equal before the law regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A publicly funded election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses and conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda.

• Vote counting. The reintroduction of hand counted, paper ballots, or the introduction of significant controls to protect against the rigging of electronic voting machines, which are produced, operated and serviced by corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.

• Weekend or holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Campaign finance. Publicly funded election campaigns, or matching fund systems that allow candidates who refuse to accept corporate donations to compete on a level playing field with candidates who are heavily financed by corporate interests.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an IRV runoff between the top four candidates from the primary. Countless other possibilities.

(Note: the proposal is a living document, and any of the above could and probably will be changed by the group at some point.)  I'm relaying this excerpt because many readers here at Politea have thought long and hard about a lot of these issues, and could provide some interesting suggestions that could be taken up by the group.  So what say you, folks?  What do you think of the recommendations as they stand?  Should any be amended? or dropped? or edited?  Are there any important potential reforms that are missing from the list?

A Crisis of Democracy? Voter Turnout in the Pennsylvania and Kentucky Primary Elections

Is the non-vote a vote of no confidence in the two-party state and duopoly system of government? We are told that yesterday's two most closely watched US Senate primary elections represent a significant defeat for the Democratic-Republican political establishment: Democrat Joe Sestak defeated career politician Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania (54% to 46%), while Republican Rand Paul routed Trey Grayson in Kentucky (59% to 35%). (Via Memeorandum.) Yet, these results are not nearly as impressive as they may seem when one considers them in the context of overall voter turnout numbers, which hovered around 30% in both states. US News and World Report provided the following statistics in the case of Kentucky:

Kentucky Secretary of State spokesman Les Fugate said early turnout appeared to be low, but was expected to be around 30 percent statewide. In 2008, with a presidential primary on the ballot, turnout came in at between 25 and 30 percent. In 2007, with a gubernatorial primary on the ballot, turnout was about 21 percent.

Pennsylvania's Commissioner of Elections sounds almost as if he'd be surprised if a third of all voters cast ballots in the election. From a local CBS News affiliate:

a disproportionately low number of voters will actually cast their ballots on Primary Day 2010 according to Pennsylvania's Commissioner of Elections Chet Harhut. "I think, generally speaking, it will be lower than a Presidential (race)," Harhut said. "I think if we can reach the 30% turnout, it'll be a good day." In 2006, the last time Pennsylvania held an off-year, primary election statewide turnout was 18%.

Let's consider the actual numbers in the Democratic and Republican Senate primary races in Pennsylvania and Kentucky respectively. According to the elections returns page at the PA Department of State, in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak received 564,169 votes (54%) to Arlen Specter's 481,351 (46%). Thus, 1,045, 520 Democrats voted in the US Senate primary. As I noted yesterday, PA's primaries are closed, so only Democrats could vote in this race, and there are 4,310,317 registered Democrats in Pennsylvania (out of 8,443,188 registered voters). Just over 24% of registered Democrats cast ballots in the PA Democratic primary. And, in the end, 13% of registered Democrats voted for Sestak, providing him with a "major upset." Considered as a percentage of total registered voters, these numbers are even more telling: just over 12% of all registered voters cast ballots in this race and Joe Sestak received the support of just 7% of all registered voters!

Now let's turn to Kentucky. According to the state's most recent voter registration statistics reports, the Bluegrass State has 2, 851, 996 registered voters. Of them, 1,618,011 are Democrats, 1,044872 are Republicans and 189,113 are registered "other." The State Board of Elections puts voters turnout in yesterday's primary election at 32.65%, with 931,145 voters casting a ballot. 351,912 voters participated in the US Senate Republican primary: Rand Paul received 206, 812 votes, or just under 59%, soundly defeating Trey Grayson, who received 124,710 votes, or 35.5%. Considered as a percentage of registered Republicans, these numbers look quite different. Just 20% of registered Republicans cast a ballot for Paul, while Grayson garnered the support of only 12% of the same. Interestingly, as a percentage of total registered voters, Paul's support in Kentucky is roughly equivalent to that of Sestak: only 7% of registered voters cast a ballot in favor of Rand Paul in Kentucky!

And this brings us back to my original question: is the non-vote a vote of no confidence in the two-party state and duopoly system of government? Less than a third of all voters participated in the Kentucky and Pennsylvania primary elections. Democratic and Republican US Senate candidates are capable of scoring "major upsets" with the support of just 7% of registered voters. Of course, the apologists of the ruling parties explain such facts away by alternately, and contradictorily, asserting the existence of voter apathy or voter contentment. But is this not a crisis of democracy?

Democratic-Republican Party Government: Unnecessary Wars, Recession, Unconstitutional Legislation, Rampant Corruption etc.

How many more reasons to vote third party and independent do we really need? In an opinion column for the News Record, a student newspaper at the University of Cincinnati, Jeremy Davis argues in favor of supporting third party and independent candidates for office in the voting booth this November. Some choice excerpts:

We’ve given the Democrats and the Republicans more than enough chances to get it right. In return, they’ve given us numerous unnecessary wars, a recession, unconstitutional legislation that we didn’t want and a corrupt two-party system that ran its course long ago . . .

The monopoly that the Republicans and Democrats have over elections, both local and federal, is quite undemocratic. Those who choose to run as a third party have had to traditionally jump through so many hoops they’d be better off working for Cirque du Soleil rather than with the political clowns in office all around the country . . .

I’ve heard so many times that a vote for a third-party candidate or a candidate who isn’t thought of as viable is a wasted vote. More often I’ve heard that some will go and simply vote for someone they view as the “lesser of two evils.” I don’t accept that argument because if you’re voting for the “lesser of two evils,” you’re still voting for evil.

To me, voting for a candidate — even if they seem like they have no chance of winning — is not a wasted vote. A wasted vote is voting for someone simply because they’re not the other guy . . .

Its time the Republicans and Democrats get their wake up call and voting for a third party in this years’ elections is one of the most effective ways to do it.

Democratic-Republican Politics and Homegrown Suicide Terrorism: Cause and Effect?

The immediate politicization of Joe Stack's final act by partisans of the Democratic and Republican Parties simultaneously demonstrates both its success as an act of political terrorism and the degeneracy of Democratic-Republican politics. Examples are not hard to come by. At No More Mister Nice Blog, Steve M. writes:

So how do you think the more shameless howler monkeys of the right blogosphere and punditocracy are going to react? They're going to accuse Stack of "class warfare." They're going to say he hated God. In other words, they're going to call him "Liberal Terrorist Joseph Stack" -- probably before the day is out, and for weeks to come . . . And so it begins:

Andrew Wilcow of the Sirius XM Conservative Talk Radio Show - The Wilcow Majority, was able to pull down a copy of Joseph Stack’s "manifesto," before the FBI pulled it off the web. It proves Joseph Stack was anti-Bush, anti-founding fathers, anti-constitution, pro-Obama and pro-communist. The left wing will get their ass handed to them on a platter when they suggest that he was an anti-establishment "tea bagger." He was in fact a left wing radical domestic terrorist.

On the other side of the duopoly divide, Michelle Malkin writes:

within minutes of the story breaking, a furious, left-wing blogger at the popular Daily Kos website – where countless Democrat leaders have guest-posted – fumed: “Teabagger terrorist attack on IRS building.” . . . At the eponymous mega-website of Arianna Huffington, a 2,000-plus comment thread was filled with allusions to “teabaggers”: "I would bet he has a membership card to teabag nation and the Glenn Beck fan club!" . . . "I hope teabaggers are proud!!" . . . "Great opening day for CPAC [the Conservative Political Action Conference] isn’t it??" . . . "He was a Tea Party Terrorist."

The obvious glee among Democrats and Republicans as they each identify Stack's motivations with the ideological impulses of the other is matched only by the clear enjoyment they extract from the act of denouncing the other for doing so. When confronted with the absurdity of ideological Rorschach phenomena such as this, sometimes the most appropriate response is simply to consider the two lines of attack together and take them to their logical conclusion. To wit: suicide terrorism is the result of Democratic-Republican Party politics. Stack implies as much in the opening paragraphs of his suicide letter:

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

There are likely a great many Americans who would basically agree with this statement. Indeed, consider the results of a Rasmussen poll released today:

Seventy-three percent (73%) of U.S. voters agree . . . that “Washington right now is broken.” . . . 75% of all voters now say they are angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. Sixty percent (60%) think neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today . . . Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are “united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers.” He adds that “the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”

The longer the Democratic-Republican political class is allowed to wage its undeclared war of attrition against the people of the United States in the interests of maintaining and expanding the power of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, the more likely we are to see a rise in acts of violence directed at the symbols of state power.

Ross Levin on the Vicious Circle and Third Party Politics

As part of a Green Change campaign to raise awareness of issues relating to electoral reform, Ross Levin has penned a lengthy article on the necessity of thinking beyond the two-party system, that covers everything from the perception that there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties to the power of incumbency, ballot access restrictions, gerrymandering and district rigging, the devolution of the system into a one-party state, and voting system reform. Some excerpts:

I’m not going to pull any punches here. I detest the two party system. I believe that it undermines representative government. It makes our government more responsive to corporations than to citizens. It decreases the chances of progress and it results in many good ideas being shut out of the national political debate.

The limits imposed on this nation by the two party system are slowly leading to its demise. Partisan gridlock in Washington, outright corruption, the absurd difficulty of kicking out incumbents, corporate control of Washington, and the infamous backwardness of many local governments (among many things) are all symptoms of this same disease. And I do not use that language lightly . . .

Basically what I’m saying here is that the two party system is not as much of a naturally occurring phenomenon as many people believe it is. There are many laws and practices in place that create a vicious cycle of third party failure. . . .

A few months ago I spoke to Terry Bouricius over the phone about the Progressive Party’s success in Vermont. Terry is rare, politically. He was actually a successful third party politician, elected to ten years on the Burlington City Council and five terms in the Vermont House of Representatives. He ran as an independent, and then later as a Progressive. Now, the Vermont Progressive Party is the most successful third party in the nation. Terry told me that one of the three most significant factors in that success was that when it started in Burlington, the city was filled to the brim with Democrats and no one else. Voters wanted choices, and they were sick of the comfortable Democrats not listening to their demands. So the Progressives stood up and successfully filled that gap. They now hold the mayoralty of Burlington, along with two city council seats there, five seats in the state House of Representatives, and one seat in the state Senate. Not to mention, although he’s not officially affiliated, US Senator Bernie Sanders is closely associated with them. They are a political force in Vermont.

The whole piece is definitely worth a read.

Tea Party Split: Co-dependent Infiltrationists vs. Independent Activists

A New York Times report on recent activities of those involved in the tea party movement is, unsurprisingly, careful to focus on those who advocate a strictly infiltrationist policy of "taking over" the Republican Party, while avoiding any mention of those taking independent action against the ruling order of the Democratic-Republican two-party state. We read:

The Tea Party movement ignited a year ago, fueled by anti-establishment anger. Now, Tea Party activists are trying to take over the establishment, ground up. Across the country, they are signing up to be Republican precinct leaders, a position so low-level that it often remains vacant, but which comes with the ability to vote for the party executives who endorse candidates, approve platforms and decide where the party spends money.

A new group called the National Precinct Alliance says it has a coordinator in nearly every state to recruit Tea Party activists to fill the positions and has already swelled the number of like-minded members in Republican Party committees in Arizona and Nevada. Its mantra is this: take the precinct, take the state, take the party — and force it to nominate conservatives rather than people they see as liberals in Republican clothing.

In effect, this faction of the tea party movement has allowed itself to be hijacked by partisan Republican operatives. Their situation is not dissimilar from the way in which the anti-war movement was co-opted (and then defeated) by Democrats over the course of the last decade. However, not all of these tea party activists are as gullible as one might think, given that they appear to have been duped by apologists of the reigning Democratic-Republican two-party state. Many remain skeptical. Minuteman Project co-founder Chris Simcox, who plans to challenge John McCain in this year's Republican primary in Arizona, is quoted at Sonoran Alliance:

All in all it seems the McCain party establishment is nervous. They are being challenged from within by independent minded folks who actually live the conservative platform but have no voice even when they are welcomed to the table. Some folks, part of the “establishment” attempted a last minute New Year’s Eve coup to control the message including the state party money which by decree meant that all efforts and money would go to protect incumbents only.

Common Sense prevailed with a unanimous vote to hold off until this Saturday’s Arizona GOP State Party elections. Many independents, conservatives who left the Republican Party waiting for a viable change in the party structure are watching carefully how this power play will affect the so-called grassroots party vote. Will so-called grassroots leadership stick with principle or play it safe with the status quo?
The “party” convinced thousands of independents to come back and re-register with the party; the “party” encouraged folks to get involved as precinct committeemen and state committeemen; the party welcomed (begged) the Constitutional conservative independents to return to the Republican “party” and have now given them a seat at the table. The question is will they have a voice and how will their votes affect state party leadership? Or, will it be business as usual?

Elsewhere, in Washington state, for instance, conservative tea party activists are fiercely guarding their independence from the Democratic-Republican ruling establishment, and continue to call for organized opposition to the political organs of the two-party state. Constitution Party activists participated in a protest at the state capitol in Olympia yesterday. As reported by the News Tribune:

About 300 people gathered on the Capitol steps Thursday for a "Winter Sovereignty Fest," and participants called for legislators to pass laws reasserting Washington's right to sovereignty . . .
Karen Murray of Quincy, spokeswoman for the Constitution Party of Washington, said she traveled to Olympia for the rally because she believes the federal government has usurped powers not granted in the Constitution. "Slowly over the years people have become aware of how much has been taken away from them," Murray said. "I'd like people to read the Constitution. They can see there exactly what the federal government is able to do. We gave them those powers and nothing else." . . . Murray said the Constitution Party plans to run candidates in 2010 elections in hopes of breaking two-party rule.

UPDATE: At Conservative Firestorm, Rich V. argues that the tea party movement is a "blueprint for a third party." He writes:

all the political parties that have risen throughout our history have started locally. Thus, to make a new, "3rd" party viable, this proposed party must begin working at the local level before all else. That means developing a viable party platform, finding people who are like minded and then banding together and working on local issues . . . The 2nd step in this process must be recruiting and then electing members of this nascent party to state offices, such as representatives/delegates and state senators . . . The 3rd step must be getting party members elected to the US House of Representative and Senate. This is nearly as great a step as the 2nd, but if getting members elected to state houses occurs, then capturing governorships isn't out of the question at this step either.

Rich dismisses popular caricatures of the tea party movement and argues that it has the potential to coalesce into a viable moderate third party:

the Tea Party movement has started organizing locally, though they are also sponsoring a national convention in the near future. That's why I believe this movement has the ability to evolve into a viable alternative to the existing major parties. Despite how they are painted in the major media, most people who profess to the solidifying ideology of this nascent party, they aren't far right wing 'nuts'. Most are much more moderate in their viewpoint. It's only fiscally that they are conservative.

Therefore, this movement has the distinct possibility to become the long wished for "moderate" party. This will be possible as the moderates of BOTH existing major parties are being driven from their respective folds as they move to the left and right . . . Is this possible? Yes it is.

Read the whole thing.

Don't Call the Arsonists to Put Out the Fire: Democratic-Republican Government as On-going Criminal Enterprise in New York State

Due to a minor technical glitch, The Whig was down for a brief period over the holidays, but it's now back up and running. In a recent post, Septimus relays a NYT editorial calling on the people of New York to vote out all of their state legislators this year. Here are a few excerpts from what The Times calls "the worst of the worst" of the NYS legislature:

New York has been on the brink of economic collapse, but the Legislature blithely ignored the problem for months. When the deficit reached a truly alarming $3.2 billion, the lawmakers grudgingly agreed to last-minute fixes while carefully protecting their political buddies and donors . . .

Senate Republicans had abused their 40-year majority and secretly used state money to pursue party business. Among the discoveries: a secret plant, with 75 employees, to print Republicans’ mail to constituents; a Republican-only television studio; secret Republican Party research staff . . .

The Republicans’ longtime Senate leader, Joseph Bruno, stepped down in 2008 before he was indicted on eight counts of exploiting his office for personal gain. Earlier this month, Mr. Bruno was convicted on two felony counts involving “theft of honest services." . . .

let’s not forget the Republican coup in June, abetted by two of the least-qualified Democrats: Senators Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens. Never mind that Mr. Espada was — and is — being investigated for allegedly living outside his district and failing to report campaign contributions. And Mr. Monserrate already had been indicted for assaulting his girlfriend.

This is not the first time the NYT has made calls for blanket anti-incumbency. But, as Septimus argues, simply voting out incumbents does not go nearly far enough. From The Whig:

While replacing everyone might help in the short term, it doesn't get to the core of the problem. If you vote out all of the current crop of corrupt Democrats and Republicans, you will only be replacing them with other Democrats and Republicans, and the political machines that we call the two major parties will keep humming along under different names.

We need more profound and deeper change. It is becoming apparent that we need to rethink how we conduct the serious business of politics. Just replacing Democrats with Republicans, or vice versa, is not enough. If you replace an office holder with another who embodies the same political culture, you will get only a change of rhetoric, but not a change of any substance.

That is the main reason I am not more enthusiastic about efforts to simply vote out incumbents. One of the main efforts is at goooh.com. GOOOH stands for "Get Out Of Our House" and is an effort to replace incumbents. This effort does not go nearly far enough.

If we were to replace every Democrat with a Republican, and every Republican with a Democrat, the control of the House would change, and that would be about it. Not only did the corrupt political culture not change when the Democrats took over from the Republicans, but the downward trend of our politics only accelerated. Didn't the "Contract With America" Republicans of 1994 degenerate quickly into the corruption of Tom Delay?

Replacing one with the other is not the answer. We need more political competition. Only this will produce the fairness, common sense, and moderation we need so badly.