People Before Parties: Politics and Electoral Reform Group Releases Recommendations for Electoral Reform at #OWS

Two weeks ago, I relayed a number of recommendations for electoral reform being considered by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street in NYC, in which I have been active.  This past Sunday, the group came to full consensus on the proposal, which has now been posted in full on the group forum at NYCGA.net.  That document is published here in its entirety.  Please distribute widely.


People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform
A proposal of the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service.  They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people.  Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government.  Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.

The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States.  No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.

Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States.

A vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed.  Americans are not apathetic.  They have been demoralized by a forced choice between two corrupted political parties. The two-party system is incapable of providing adequate representation for the many diverse interests constitutive of the American electorate. This is a crisis of democracy and representation. It is a crisis of government.

In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.

We call for experimentation with reforms to create a level playing field for all voters and for all candidates for elected office – whatever their party affiliation may be, or whether they have none at all –, and to curtail the influence of corporations and narrow political factions over our system of government.

We recommend experimentation with (in no particular order):

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as 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 own voters.  A bipartisan commission is not a non-partisan commission.  Independent council and computer drawn districts can remove partisan bias from the redistricting process.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  It is time to expand 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.  Proportional representation has been used in the United States in the past to break up party monopolies.  It can be implemented again.

• Expansion of franchise.  Laws that restrict the right to vote should be repealed.  Those who are denied the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised. Participation can be encouraged through simple reforms such as election day voter registration.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment.  Fortunately, the people need not wait for officials to implement laws limiting their own terms.  The people can impose term limits at any election by voting for alternatives to the representatives of the entrenched factions.

• Ballot access reform.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates, which are common in all fifty states, should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

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

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda and to recall any elected official.

• Vote counting.  Electronic voting machines are produced, operated and serviced by a small number of corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.  Unless there are significant controls to protect against the rigging of such machines, hand-counted paper ballots should be re-introduced into our voting systems.

• Holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.  Election day should be ruled a holiday to encourage voter turnout.

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

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an instant runoff between the top four candidates from the primary in the general election. Countless other possibilities.
This list is not exhaustive.

We urge assemblies across the country to deliberate on reforms that can help break the ruling political monopoly in government through free and fair elections, and put people before parties. We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.
-------
This proposal was developed by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street between September and November 2011. It contains input from well over 100 individuals who attended group meetings in Liberty Plaza as well as many others from across the country who influenced the proposal through online discussions.  The document was produced through a collaborative writing process.  It was approved by the Politics and Electoral Reform group with full consensus support on November 6, 2011.

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?

The People's Limits: that's Democracy for Ya

Though it was the tense atmosphere and the booing and heckling from the crowd at Arlen Specter's town hall meeting in Lebanon, PA that grabbed headlines on Tuesday, the exchange that caught my attention had nothing to do with the heated discussion of health care reform. One attendee suggested to the Senator that he "go back [to Washington D.C.] and propose a bill for term limits." Specter's response: "The people of Pennsylvania can impose term limits anytime they want to. That's democracy." This, of course, holds true for every state and district in the Union. However, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Pennsylvanians have little experience in this aspect of democracy, at least so far as Specter is concerned. Elected in 1980, he is the longest serving senator in the history of the state. However, the problem posed by the power of incumbency is not confined to Pennsylvania. This is a puzzling issue for anyone interested in strengthening and expanding the scope of representative government beyond the limits imposed on the people of the United States by the Republican and Democratic Parties: why do Americans continue to elect and then re-elect professional politicians whom they despise?

This is a difficult question precisely because it admits of so many different answers. Many Americans simply vote for the candidate they perceive to be the lesser of two evils; perhaps they are more comfortable with the devil they know than the one they do not; or maybe they are simply deferential to power and experience; or they are disillusioned and apathetic; perhaps their consent has been manufactured by professional propagandists; maybe they take their political cues from parties who have an interest in maintaining the political status quo, even if it is not in their own best interests; or maybe they simply feel powerless, convinced that it is impossible to change our political culture. Whatever the answer may be, one result of the paradox is the desire on the part of voters for the imposition of rules that would effectively take the decision, and the responsibility for it, out of their own hands – term limits for instance. Another example is provided at Fort Hard Knox in a post arguing for national referendums and provisions for recalling federal officials:

This is about the people’s right to force dishonest elected Federal Representatives out of office before they are allowed to suborn the Constitution. Currently no State permits recall of Federal Officials. This right was denied voters early in the history of this Republic by Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th Century. It is about time the people took back this right. We all know politicians lie. Right now the only option for the voting public is to wait until the next election cycle but by then it becomes a choice of the lesser of two evils. We the people must be able to control our own destiny and recall elections is one tool that has been removed from our arsenal. [Emphasis added.]

The problem with any effort to impose such measures, however, is that they always come to the same impasse: they are not in the interest of the careerist legislators and officials who would be tasked with writing them into law and executing them. Consider the fate of the term limits law in New York City. The law was passed by voters, twice, in 1993 and 1996. Yet Mayor Michael Bloomberg successfully lobbied the city council to gut it. From Wikipedia:

In the fall of 2008, Bloomberg successfully campaigned for an amendment to New York City's term limits law, in order to allow him to run for a third term in 2009. On September 30, 2008, reports emerged that Bloomberg was seeking to amend the law, and on October 2, 2008, he announced plans to request the removal or extension of term limits for elected officials. On October 23, 2008 the New York City Council voted in favor of extending the term limit for elected officials to three consecutive four-year terms, thus allowing both Bloomberg and other council members to run for office again.

But, to quote Specter again, the people can impose term limits any time they want, that's democracy. As Scott Robinson writes at Political Derby:

The time has come to stop voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Rather, we must stand for something; we must elect people whose values are compatible with ours. If there is no such person available, now is the time for us to run.

To do or not to do?

At The Seminole Chronicle, Tyler Yeargain puts together a political to-do list, and makes a case for direct democracy, term limits, ballot access reform and campaign finance reform:

The Electoral College often distorts elections, hurts third party candidates and gives people the impression that their vote does not count. For example, in 2008, President Obama received 52.9 percent of the popular vote, but nearly 67 percent of the electoral vote. And we all remember in 2000 when Vice-President Gore received 500,000 more votes than then-Governor Bush, but lost the Electoral College vote. Cleaning our hands of this dreadful system would certainly add to our reputation as a democratic beacon of light.

Campaign finance reform can make our elections open to anyone, and make our politicians more honest and accountable. I think it is a reasonable thing to say that if politicians were not so much in the oil companies' pockets, then we might actually develop alternative fuels, increase fuel efficiency, combat global warming, and decrease gas prices. Why would politicians vote with an industry that does not employ people in their district and does not provide them with a steady flow of contributions?

Repealing the rule that only candidates who are polling at 15 percent nationwide or higher can participate in officially-sanctioned presidential debates would present voters with more options than the Democratic and Republican parties. The last independent candidate to appear in a presidential debate was Ross Perot in 1992. People often complain about the two-party system, and inclusion of third-party candidates (but not all third-party candidates) would present people with more options.

Implementing term limits for our representatives and senators in Congress would allow more people to serve their country and represent American citizens, thus providing the U.S. with a government that is aware of what the citizens are in support of but would be willing to make risks and stand up for what they truly believe by not having to run for re-election.

Opt Out

This past week saw the publication of two noteworthy letters to the editor. A reader of Florida's TCPalm, Steve Adams of Palm City, argues for congressional term limits and the formation of a viable third party:

Congress just doesn’t get it. When our forefathers drafted our Constitution, they never intended for there to be career politicians. You serve your country and move on. With all the disgust with our representatives and their involvement in the financial mess, maybe it’s time to push term limits. Congress will not support this, so we have to be crafty in forcing our hand. Voters should form a new party, the sole purpose of which is to truly represent us and protect our Constitution.

In Kansas, a reader of the Lawrence Journal World points out that the duopoly is effectively owned and controlled by the interests corporate capital, and decides to opt out:

It does not matter who you support in the two-party system. Your taxpayer money is funneled to members of Congress regardless of their positions. Corporations whose policies you may oppose take your money and curry favor at your expense. The only plausible alternative is new parties. I’m switching to the Green Party; maybe Libertarian is for you.

Limitations of Term Limits

In a post on Dialectics Simplified, Langalibalele makes a strong case against the concentration of wealth and power and for their dilution through cooperatives and collectives. The chief reservoir of concentrated political power today is, of course, the two party system and so he argues for the modest aim of imposing term limits on entrenched political elites. He writes: "How do people dilute political power, that is, how to strip it from the control of a bloodsucking, capitalist two-party system? This same two-party system has led the world economy directly to this seething crisis point. So by imposing term limits the masses can erode this power and the influence of the corporate financiers who back them. Build upon the outrage against the current Congress and other politicos. Demand term limits; even build work for a referendum. This must be done."

The underlying paradox here is that people who desire to 'throw the bums out,' as the saying goes, nonetheless continue to re-elect them term after term. Term limits would indeed force some amount of change in this regard, but, absent third party activism, their imposition would do nothing to dilute the power concentrated in the hands of the duopoly parties and likely lead only to a higher turnover among representatives of the duopoly. On the other hand, term limits would also constrain the potential political effect of non-duopolist candidates who succeed in obtaining office. In this regard, ensuring ballot access to parties typically excluded from the political process would provide the disenchanted and discontented among us with greater latitude in effecting political change than the imposition of term limits.