Democracy101 is an entry-level forum/workshop on the process and practice of Democracy, starting with the basics.
What IS Democracy?
The word, from the Greek, means "rule of the people." In ancient Greece, it referred to a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of Democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.
According to Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary Democracy is: 1b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically-held free elections.
Ideally, a Democracy is, as Lincoln described, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." And the people should be ALL the people!
History of Democracy
Democracy first flourished in the Greek city-state, reaching its fullest expression in ancient Athens, a small state where the people were politically educated, and was limited since the majority of inhabitants were slaves or non-citizens. There, citizens, as members of the assembly, participated directly in the making of their laws.
Now, this was not seen as a GOOD thing by all. To Aristotle, pure, direct Democracy was equivalent to mob rule, and was one of the worst forms of government, tyranny by the masses. There is, and always has been, an elitist streak -- usually among those who see themselves as properly noble, wealthy, and educated -- that hesitates to share too much, if any, power with whatever people are seen as not sufficiently noble, wealthy, or educated.
Even our revered founding fathers were wary of giving the vote to any but white, property-owning males, and we are still living with the residue of many of their 18th Century prejudices, including the Electoral College. But men like Madison, Hamilton, and Adams were practical and realistic -- understanding the corrupting nature of power and the temptations humans are prone to -- but also idealistic and optimistic, willing to experiment with something new: a government without monarchs or aristocrats, where the PEOPLE are sovereign, where power is divided and balanced, and where the rule of LAW limits the rule of men. They would have agreed with Winston Churchill, who said, "Democracy is the WORST form of government… except for ALL the others."
Improving Democracy
Our goal is to see how, theoretically AND practically, Democracy can be made better.
"The only cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy." So said Social Reformer Jane Addams (1860-1935). Let me suggest an even briefer version: "Improve Democracy with... MORE Democracy!" Finally, as the ultimate expression of what we need, and as the touchstone we can measure all words, principles, and actions against, let’s pare it down to one simple phrase: "MORE DEMOCRACY!"
This simple slogan is the rallying cry with which we will call, rouse, motivate, organize, and empower our fellow citizens to expand and strengthen Civic Rights, Civic Education, and Civic Participation. As Ralph Nader says: "Nothing can stop the power of an informed citizenry when it is empowered, organized, and motivated." We are calling the vehicle for this work… Democracy101.
What is Democracy101?
Democracy101 is envisioned as a forum/workshop within a "Citizen’s Electoral College," a broad-based assembly for reform-minded Americans, whose purpose is to study, propose, discuss, advocate, and implement principles and practices that increase citizen inclusion and responsibility in elections, policy-making, and governing, from local through national levels. Using local get-togethers as kick-offs, we hope to establish ongoing, community-based "Electoral University" classrooms, think-tanks, and incubators, to be supplemented and linked by virtual, online communities that use the power and reach of the Internet.
The History of America (and much of World History) can be seen as the ever-widening enfranchisement of people into decision-making and power-sharing. Democracy101 will draw from the vast pool of theoretical and practical solutions from American and Global experiments with Democracy to construct and fine-tune a worksheet of do-able fixes to the political/electoral system, founded on the following basic, pro-democracy principles, or Six Fundamentals:
Politics and Democracy101
These principles are NOT the exclusive property of any party or group. No one party has a monopoly on wisdom, or the clout to make it reality. Democracy101 must reach across party lines to include fair-minded, justice-seeking patriots of all stripes who are determined to "cure the ills" of Democracy by working for more Democracy and a more authentic Democracy.
But some parties HAVE made electoral reform, campaign reform, and government reform central to their platforms, primary among them the Green Party, of which I am a member, and therefore, it should come as no surprise that many in the forefront of this project will be Greens.
The Green Platform that Ralph Nader ran on begins with this affirmation of Grassroots Democracy:
"Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations that expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process… Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens."
The Greens call on the nation to use the current political opportunity to clean up the many injustices in our electoral system and make it easier for the disenfranchised to participate. These include:
The Six Fundamentals
1 Person = 1 Vote
"The ideal of one person, one vote is central to our system of government and must not be compromised." (Joe Lieberman)
Ah, if only that were so! If only this phrase, like "the will of the people" and "the rule of law" were not merely sacred mantras brought out as pious rhetoric for speechifying, yet cynically ignored and repudiated in practice. And few systemic compromises of this principle is as egregious as the Electoral College.
Here is what the League of Women Voters said in testimony to Congress in 1997:
The Electoral College system is fundamentally unfair to voters. In a nation where voting rights are grounded in the one person, one vote principle, the Electoral College is a hopeless anachronism.
First, a citizen’s individual vote has more weight if he or she lives in a state with a small population than if that citizen lives in a state with a large population. For example, each electoral vote in Alaska is equivalent to approximately 112,000 people. Each electoral vote in New York is equivalent to approximately 404,000 eligible people (based on 1990 census data). And that’s if everyone votes!
The system is also unfair because a citizen’s individual vote has more weight if the percentage of voter participation in the state is low. For example, if only half of all people in Alaska vote, then each electoral vote is equivalent to roughly 56,000 people. Moreover, the electoral vote does not reflect the volume of voter participation within a state. If only a few voters go to the polls, all the electoral votes of the state are still cast.
[And it doesn’t matter if the winner wins by a 4-to-1 romp or by a single vote. And if the winner wins by just a single vote, which in a three way race could be as low as 33%, that could, in Alaska, be less than 19,000 votes per electoral vote. Can anyone justify that a voter in Alaska should have a vote equal to 4 times, 10 times, or more, the value of a vote cast by a New Yorker?]
For all these reasons, the League believes that the presidential election method should incorporate the one-person, one-vote principle. The President should be directly elected by the people he or she will represent, just as the other federally elected officials are in this country. Direct election is the most representative system. It is the only system that guarantees the President will have received the most popular votes. It also encourages voter participation by giving voters a direct and equal role in the election of the President.
The EC is an outdated, creaky anachronism based on the political needs of 1789 power plays -- as was the compromise of slaves being 3/5 of a person, or even 2 senators for every state regardless of size -- primarily so that less-populous Southern states would agree to ratify the constitution. The result: with the exception of John Adam’s one term, the first 36 years of the Republic were led exclusively by Virginian slaveholders as President.
The same people who created the EC said that women, blacks, or 18-year-olds were NOT entitled to vote. We have rectified THOSE oversights; the EC should be similarly examined and scrapped for the same reasons, namely it is UN-democratic in nature and gives some voters more influence than others.
In at least FOUR previous elections the EC did NOT work well (Jefferson, JQ Adams, Hayes, B Harrison) where the popular vote winner did not automatically become president and corrupt "deals" determined the winner. And again now, it will likely create unforgiving enmity between supporters of one candidate who got more popular votes (maybe, since we’d have to investigate the propriety of EVERY election district) but who lost the electoral vote in a suspicious manner.
Unfortunately, it will take a constitutional amendment to shelve the EC. That means a 2/3 vote in Congress, and passage by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Since the ONLY argument for maintaining the EC is that it CAN’T be changed, since small population states are SELFISH and don’t want to lose their privileged status, a national PR campaign to SHAME those states to yield to a MORE democratic reality will be needed. To be accurate... WE won’t have to shame them; they will shame themselves IF the only argument they can offer to keep the EC is their brazen claim that a voter in THEIR state was somehow worth more than a voter in a larger state.
Meanwhile, until that is done, we CAN demand that state legislatures follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, which can reject "winner-take-all" results and divide up the electoral vote proportionally, so that, for example, in the current race in Florida, Gore might get 12 votes, Bush 12 votes, and Nader 1 vote. This, and ultimately scrapping the EC, would also eliminate the suspicious specter of "vote-swapping," which reared its head this election when Gore supporters offered to vote for Nader in "safe states" in exchange for Nader supporters voting for Gore in "contested states."
Other one person, one vote issues include:
[In a point of extreme irony, thanks to the Clinton/Gore perpetuation of the War on (some people who use some) Drugs, 1/3 of black men in Florida were unable to vote in this election; had they voted 90%+ Democrat, as had the rest of the black vote, Gore would have won handily, and all this hand-wringing would have been moot.]
1 Vote, More Choice
There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties. George Washington belonged to no party, and distrusted them. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt ran as third-party candidates. There is no reason we have put up with a two-party duopoly stranglehold on the political process other than habit, inertia, and the unholy power they’ve amassed through that stranglehold. Does anyone believe that all the ideas, philosophies, and proposals that reflect the broad spectrum of American political thinking can be found solely in two look-alike, corporate-friendly, centrist wings of ONE Republicrat Party?
One merely had to try to stay awake during this year’s presidential debates as Tweedle-Gore AGREED with Tweedle-Bush again and again, yet they never once brought up issues that begged to be discussed: the role corporate money and influence has in politics, the War on Drugs, globalization of trade, a military budget still rising 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Star Wars, the death penalty, child poverty in America, lack of a living wage, dependence on foreign oil instead of building sustainable alternatives, public transportation and infrastructure, and all the ways people felt powerless before entrenched power concentrated in ever fewer hands.
Thanks to corporate-controlled media and the two-party duopoly, we were told there were huge differences between Gore and Bush, and if you elected the wrong corporate-shill, sock-puppet privileged son of a privileged political hack father, all hell would break loose. And don’t even THINK of picking one of those OTHER guys from one of those fringe parties; besides being way too extreme to the left or right for "real" Americans to accept, they CAN’T win, so you’d be throwing away your vote. What’s worse, they’re "spoilers" who can only "siphon" votes away from one of the "real" candidates who can actually win… so shut up, give up, and vote for Gush or Bore, or stay home. Enough!
If people are to feel that their voices are heard, the spokespeople for those voices must not be gagged. Legitimate alternative parties, who represent significant portions of the populace, must not be systemically forced to jump over unreasonable hurdles while wearing the leg-irons and handcuffs of arbitrary ballot access requirements, media blackouts or derision, debate exclusion, manipulative polls, and every other barrier to a level playing field.
Further, there is no reason anymore to limit all choices to one pick only. How do we know whether someone actually voted FOR Gore, and supports HIS programs, or, more accurately, voted AGAINST Bush, but really wanted to vote FOR Nader, yet was frightened into a Gore vote? Thanks to computers and technology, we could vote for shades of gray, levels of support or dislike, ranked options, backup choices, reasons for our choices, what are our most important issues we want to see addressed and how. We CAN do this, and MORE Democracy would allow for it.
One of the best proposals is for Instant Runoff Preference Voting (or IRV) where voters rank ALL candidates in order of preference (1,2,3, etc.) and votes are distributed according to preferences in instant runoffs, where the lowest vote-getters are eliminated in turn, and their voters’ next choices are counted upward until one winner receives a majority of votes (to guarantee that the winner has majority support) and that voters aren’t relegated to choosing between the "lesser of two evils." Computers can do all the math instantaneously, so we don’t need separate runoff elections; we eliminate the so-called spoiler effect, so alternate-party candidates can show the true measure of their support; and we eliminate candidates winning with less than majority support.
Add binding "NONE-of-the-above" options, particularly in uncontested races or races with nothing but BAD choices, and we can eliminate the "evil wins no matter what we do" effect. This leads to the next Fundamental:
1 Vote + 50% = Win
One of the advantages of IRV is that there will NEVER need to be a winner who labors under the stigma of minority support. This method can be applied to other elections, including referenda and initiatives, where complex issues are often narrowed to two less-than-ideal choices; why not offer a menu of options, and let the IRV process show the true nature of public support?
We may also want to consider quorum voting, where a certain percentage of registered voters MUST vote for results to stand. After all, even a 51% win in an election where only 1/3 of registered voters vote represents the will of only 16% of the registered voters, and perhaps only 10% or less of all citizens.
We may also want to consider a "Super-majority" requirement for matters of supreme importance, as some legislatures now require 2/3 votes on some issues. As one of the greatest fears of democracy is the potential that minority rights may be ignored, we may even want to consider that certain bills or initiatives may require majority approval WITHIN an affected minority group to pass. But one of the best ways to improve this situation is to implement the next Fundamental:
1 % of Voters = 1 % Representation
Nearly EVERY modern democracy in the world EXCEPT the U.S. has embraced some degree of proportional representation in its elections and legislatures. In the U.S. winner-take-all system, one remain in an eternal loser-class again and again: a Democrat in a state with a 60% Republican majority may ALWAYS have to live with a Republican governor, a near unanimous Republican state legislature, a near unanimous Republican congressional delegation, and an uncontested presidential race where ALL the state’s electoral votes are assured in the Republican corner. Blacks, or Latinos, or Greens, or gays, who may represent about 10% of a state or national population, may NEVER have any ORGANIZED voice in any legislature, since they will always be outvoted roughly 9 to 1 unless they infiltrate the major parties and compromise their positions.
Another current problem is district lines being set by the party in control, usually to further strengthen their control, even if bizarre gerrymandered districts result.
Why not introduce Proportional Representation into nearly every legislative body? If the Greens can get 10% of the New York vote, they will have 10% Green representation in Congress, in the state legislature, and in national and state executive appointments. These Greens can run on a platform that reflects their beliefs, and can then work with other parties in the legislatures to form ongoing or ad hoc coalitions as needed to pass legislation. Perhaps a reasonable threshold of registered voters, or votes cast in an election, may be needed to grant a party PR status, perhaps 5% minimum to get PR voting representatives, with 1-5% qualifying for a single non-voting "delegate" in any assembly of more than 100 members, to insure that even THAT viewpoint is at least heard.
In countries with proportional representation, where every voter feels his or her voice is not forever lost, voter turnout is higher, citizen participation is greater, debate is more open, and new, vibrant parties and leaders have a chance to be heard and have influence.
1 Nation, 1 Electoral System
This may be as hard to realize as eliminating the EC, since habit, entrenched power, and the federal nature of our United STATES, have put elections and electoral structure in state and local hands. And the results are painfully obvious: butterfly ballots; dimpled chads; voters turned away from polls; different states treating absentee ballots to different standards of compliance, or treating ex-felons differently, or having different mandatory recount triggers, or different poll closing times (even, as in Florida, WITHIN one state). Where this may be less critical in local elections (although poorer districts may be consistently stuck with cheap and faulty ballot equipment), it is unconscionable in national elections.
At the very least, elections for President/Vice-President and for Congress should involve national uniformity, with rules established and implemented by the FEC, with monitoring supervised by a non-partisan entity, perhaps the Postal Service, or IRS, or independent accounting firms under contract.
First, we can give voters a standard voter ID card, like a standard social security card, with a unique voter ID number and photo like a driver’s license to minimize fraud. The card can be encoded like a credit card with essential info, like address and voting districts, and party registration for primaries. If we go to computer or ATM-style voting, it can be used to access any terminal anywhere and verify one vote cast per election, as well as print out a receipt.
Then, we can shorten campaign periods to something tolerable, paid for by public financing, with no PAC money or soft money, and free airtime and subsidized limited print media space. We can also make it easier for alternate party candidates to get on the ballot, and eliminate the current inconsistent and arbitrary requirements from state-to-state, which made it impossible to vote for Ralph Nader in North Carolina or even write-in Ralph in some states, like Oklahoma.
Next, we can have national elections start at the exact same minute, say 12:00 AM EST Saturday morning, and end 48 hours later at 12:00 AM EST Monday morning, EVERYWHERE in the U.S., for an Election Holiday Weekend. This will eliminate many excuses for not voting due to time constraints, and end the exit poll nightmares where 7 PM results leaked from Florida affect California voters who still have 5 hours left to vote. With computers, votes MAY be cast earlier, or even revisited and modified, up until the midnight deadline, which could lead to meaningful, unbiased polling data. Using advanced computer technology, the votes can be tabulated simultaneously, including IRV results, so we can all know the winner at 12:01.
By being able to vote from one’s home or office computer, or from public computers in libraries or schools, hardware expenses for new voting machines is nearly eliminated. We’d need to develop powerful, secure software that eliminates errors and fraud, and provides a hard copy receipt for the voter AND hard copy backups for the election monitors. But we’d have clear screen ballots that can be sized up for the visually impaired, be visible in dozens of languages, give equal ballot space to any number of parties, include color photos or sound/video samples of the candidates, offer hypertext links to official websites to clarify positions, prevent multiple votes where prohibited, allow IRV ranking where offered, allow for weighted voting or non-binding opinion surveys, and key each vote to an individual encoded number to allow for recount verification IF needed without compromising ballot secrecy.
California has moved ahead cautiously with e-voting pilot projects. On November 7, voters in San Diego and Sacramento counties were able to try online voting from computers at polling places. The test was conducted for the state by VoteHere.net, which ran a similar trial in Maricopa County, Arizona. The company released polling results after the vote suggesting that 100 percent of voters who used the system found it "easy or very easy to use," that 8 of 10 said they preferred Internet voting to the current system, and that 65 percent said they would vote from home if they thought the system was secure. VoteHere has conducted small-scale tests in 10 states. The U.S. military has also been conducting pilot tests.
Yes, there are many legal and security concerns to deal with. But it is no longer acceptable for the world’s most technologically-advanced nation to let its elections be decided by divining pregnant chads. Although this e-voting can be done as a national system and continue to let the state and local voting be as is, the sheer logic and advantages of this system will encourage states and locals to be a part of it. This could also help take vote counting out of the hands of local partisans -- where notorious instances of fraud and manipulation are rife -- and put it in the hands of non-locals or non-partisans who don’t have anything to gain by the local election results.
Moreover, elections, referenda, initiatives, recalls, surveys, and increased use of direct democracy could be held nearly anytime of year without having to involve ballot printing, poll inspectors, or special setting up of poll booths. What was once only possible in a small city-state like Athens, could now be repeated in the electronic city-state of Cyberspace, with all information being at hand and all voices capable of being heard.
1 Voter, More Voice
Finally, why stop with elections? Why limit citizen activity to a few minutes two or three times per year, merely selecting representatives to do all our thinking and decision-making for us? Near-universal education, literacy, and access to information means it is theoretically possible for most ANY citizen to have access to the same facts and insight as any legislator.
One can now log on to the Net, call up any bill, download transcripts of relevant hearings, get additional information from any number of experts and advocates, and reach one's own conclusions, and perhaps be better informed than the elected reps who are swamped with too many bills, not enough time, and depend on their staff and special-interest lobbyists to tell THEM how to vote.
Why not engage more citizens into more direct access and into more levels of the decision-making processes that affect us all? Why not create People’s Legislatures or People’s Commissions, as many as can be accommodated, for various purposes, with much of the meetings and activity being done in Cyberspace, so that people won’t have to constantly travel to and live in physical capital cities to get work done?
As Cicero said 2000 years ago, "Freedom is participation in power."
As the Green platform says:
"We believe in empowering citizens and communities… We encourage building alternative, grassroots institutions that support participatory and direct democracy at the local level. Political reform goes beyond elected politics, ultimately residing in choices each of us makes in our own lives … Greens advocate direct democracy as a response to local needs and issues, where all concerned citizens can discuss and decide questions that immediately affect their lives, such as land use, parks, schools and community services. We would decentralize many state functions to the county and city level and seek expanded roles for neighborhood boards and associations… Individual participation in the life of our local community -- in community projects and through personal, meaningful, voluntary activity -- is also political and vital to the health of community… LOCAL CONTROL recognizes a variety of approaches to solving problems, one that tends to be ‘bottom up’ not ‘top down.’ Green politics does not place its faith in paternalistic ‘big government.’ Instead, we believe face-to-face interactions are essential to productive and meaningful lives for all citizens."
The Next Step
The next step is to review, critique, clarify, improve, add to, fine tune, and broadcast these suggestions for even further review and improvement. Then we must engage the media, politicians, community groups, respected individuals and the citizenry at large to consider, accept, and fight for these fundamental principles and organize to enact and realize their practical applications.
We must make Democracy101 nationally-known and respected, and make the phrase "More Democracy!" a national motto as well-known as "In God We Trust." We must get every citizen to ask of every bill, every law, every candidate, every elected and appointed representative, and indeed, of him or herself:
"What have YOU done to expand and strengthen Democracy?
How will YOU further the cause of ‘More Democracy!’?"
(Written by Steve Krulick, krulick@dem101.org)
For more details, go to:
To join, go to:
© 2000 Democracy101
http://dem101.org
http://egroups.com/group/Democracy101