3 things that would improve our "democracy" & society. Right NOW.

It wouldn't take but one party to get off their high horse and make these things happen.

Results. That's what matters and these three concepts are the first step.

Serious problems require serious solutions do they not?

So here we go:

Fusion Voting for more representative choices at the polls. Basically you could vote Green or Socialist or whatthehellever and still have your vote go against the Republicans.

Citizens Jury for deliberative public policy decision making at all levels of society. Simply select a stratified random sampling of the population effected by a policy and then have them decide.

Deliberative Polling to inform citizens about core issues and not just sound bite politics. A mild, non-empowered, version of a Citizens Jury.

What do you think about these ideas? The beauty of them in my opinion is that the only real argument against them is that they are TOO empowering and "democratic".

"I think it's a wonderful development. And if there is anybody in this group who wonders whether or not this is going anywhere or has accomplished anything, you should stop wondering because I think it has been a tremendous success. I think you have started something great here. And I think that the great Barbara Jordan, who died this past week, should be remembered for many things, but among them should be her work in helping to make this whole event and process happen."

Vice President Al Gore
National Issues Convention broadcast, January 16, 1996

:kick:

Here

Termination of the Projects by IRS
"In 1993, just as the Center was collaborating with the League of Women Voters of New Jersey to conduct a project on the New Jersey gubernatorial election, the IRS informed the Center that it going to revoke the Center’s tax-deductible status and fine it for conducting these projects. In 1996 the Center finally agreed not to continue the projects in order to preserve its tax status. But the positive results of these projects has led to the creation of the Citizens Initiative Review and the Citizens Election Forum."

I don't think it's effect is significant. I would rather see instant-runoff voting which was used in the Burlington, VT, mayoral race recently.

Actually I'm much more interested in Citizens Jury and Deliberative Polling. Why? Uninformed voters and passive citizens.

When I talk politics outside my usual circle I am sometimes amazed at how little people know. We can't depend on the media, for sure.

...so the effect in NY is probably limited.

Here's an intersting article on it though:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:3yxHuV60EEAJ:www.thenation.com/doc/20050912/katz+fusion+voting+new+york+state&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

I just don't think our educational system is producing enough critical thinkers to make this work the way it should. Call me an elitist, but I just don't know if this would help. Plus, I don't see it as exactly democratic because it's still a few deciding for the many.

Conversely, what do you think of this idea--Eliminating the House of Representatives and replacing it with the entire nation? I'm not sure how the bill creation process would work, but each bill could be voted on by referendum. This would eliminate a barrier to true democracy which really isn't necessary anymore.

Also, I think instant runoff voting is the best system. And I'm not entirely sure what deliberative polling is.

How is that any less representative than our bought and paid for political system?

Here is a neat site with and explaination:

http://cjp.anu.edu.au/cj.html

"Citizens' Juries involve the public in their capacity as ordinary citizens with no special axe to grind. They are usually commissioned by an organisation which has power to act on their recommendations. Between 12 and 16 jurors are recruited, using a combination of random and stratified sampling, to be broadly representative of their community. Their task is to address an important question about policy or planning. They are brought together for four days, with a team of two moderators.

They are fully briefed about the background to the question, through written information and evidence from witnesses. Jurors scrutinise the information, cross examine the witnesses and discuss different aspects of the question in small groups and plenary sessions. Their conclusions are compiled in a report which is returned to the jurors for their approval before being submitted to the commissioning authority. The jury's verdict need not be unanimous, nor is it binding."

I would argue that it's much more representative of the population. Plus the information and deliberative process usually weeds out the problems you suggests. They can also be binding decisions.

This is all about making us an more informed population. I agree it seems that we're somewhat dense right now but human beings have potential. At least I hope so or fuck it all.

Here are some comments on the process:

"I believe that it is about time that information that is understandable by the average voter is available. This, I think, will make voters more informed and educated on the initiatives so more people will vote." Anne Kellogg, Tacoma

"I was impressed by the ability of this randomly selected panel to achieve consensus and results in a short period of five days. The varied backgrounds and the eclectic mix of persons on the panel provided a rich and many faceted discussion of problem points. " Ralph Peak, Shoreline

"This experience ... has opened my mind to our government and the need for everyone to participate. I think if not for this opportunity I wouldn't have a newfound excitement for our political system." Christopher Johnson, Sedro Wooley

"I found it very comforting that a widely diverse and politically varied group could become so attuned to this process. ...It is also my feeling that this process offers a wonderful chance for Washington state citizens to be given needed information." Robert Bruce Gregory, Friday Harbor

"The honor of being part of this group has been one of my life's greatest experiences. The chance to be able to make a difference in the democratic process is definitely part of that honor." Rosie Trupp, Grandview

what we've got now.

For the BushCo regime and prosecutions for all the little co-conspirators who helped to build it.

more advanced concepts.

My three

1) Auditable, trustworthy voting with accountability, inspectability, recountability. I would be most in favor of the Canadian Way...paper and pen ballots

To be able to vote in this way, 2) Voting Day should be a National Holiday

3) Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and the breakup of the Media Monopolies.

Don't get me wrong...I like your three, but first Amerika must regain the 'c' in our name and rejoin the Free World first.

They're the egg not the chicken:-)

http://www.healthydemocracy.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={0D8A9E9F-1C82-4911-B25C-F3920D62C5F3}

BTW: Nice to see you!

EDIT: What I mean by the "egg" is that the delibarative polling or Citizens Jury could be used to evaluate in a reletively bulletproof way the eletoral system outside (or inside) of that system.

HealthyDemocracy looks like a pretty sharp outfit

It's a spin off of the Jefferson Center which developed the Citixens Jury concept.

All that it would take to make these ideas blossom would be a major organisation taking up the cause.

Or a monster grant from a Progressive trust.