Vote.org: National ballot Initiatives for REAL Democracy!

Evan, You hit the peg square on the head. I personally have no hope that the system of governance we have evolved (however good) is neither fair, just or representative of what We The People want or envision for outselves. I have checked out your info about Sen. Gravel and the National Initiative and find it exciting to see someone has proposed something that could really make a difference. Thanks.

looks like a fair way to go!

Corporate control be damned... let's give the power to the people to knock em out with national ballot initiatives. Stele Ely www.EarthE.org

Thanks to everyone for their votes & comments!

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

Indeed, for 160 years the Swiss have voted as much or more than 4 times a year on the broad issues of their governance, leaving the details up to their legislators. By doing so they maintain, as a civic whole, a watchful eye over the actions of their politicians. That is the definition of "eternal vigilance" and why they have succeeded so remarkably, by trusting the people with direct power.

i think you're on to something here. i feel like most of our problems stem from a mass ignorance about our activities. it might be painful at first, but voting constantly might be the first step toward an educated populace that contextualizes our country's actions instead of just trusting the politicians.

UncleOsbert, you've got it: empowerment is a powerful incentive for people to educate themselves. After 160 years of it, the Swiss read the most newspapers per capita in the world. No wonder: politics isn't just a game to watch there; people need info before they vote for the future they want.

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

A much better idea is to do away with the political party system altogether and insist on electors being chosen in open gatherings at the neighborhood level. No need for voting machines or for secret ballot. You raise your hand and vote for someone you want to become an elector for you, who will consult you and say how s/he voted and why. Also I think we need one woman for every male elector... In fact, I would just as soon vote for a woman and let men decide who they want to vote for them. Although I suppose you might grant half your ballot to a man and half to a woman. The "No-Party Party to wipe out all Parties" including itself as soon as voted into office (i.e., after legislating to dismantle the political party system) might be a way to carry out a peaceful revolution that will restore true democracy to all. The principle of subsidiarity should be taught and observed: no higher entity is to do for a lower one what the lower one can do for itself. Muncipality and inter-municipality throughout the continents... That would be the global way to observe human rights and migratory efficiency. Direct exchanges from house to house when it comes to people and most things. Also biorregional solidarity in order to protect local agricultural production and distribution... If your read this far, good for you and Thanks!

Power to the people!

Honestly, do think about what you are suggesting. Do you really think that a straight democracy protects the rights of minorities?

No. The majority will always vote for their own interests, that is why this is a Democratic Republic. I'm so dismayed by the level of ignorance of our Constitution and what a representative democracy is.

I'm stunned that someone thinks we should no longer have a secret ballot - can you spell Communism?

Of course there is nothing wrong with a secret ballot and I'm more concerned about fascism than I am about communism. But more to the point, this is a republic, not "because the majority will always vote for their own interests", that's a given. My sense is that its a republic because back in those days there was no feasible way for it to be anything but....

The rights of the minorities are always protected by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the courts. We're being ruled right now by a minority of special interests representing the wealthy. The military/political/media/financial/industrial complex has bottled up power. Lobbyists have a seat at the table every legislative cycle but citizens have to wait 2, 4 or 6 years before they can try to express themselves with one vote, whereupon we give their power to someone who may only claim to represent me. Our only other choice is to march in the streets....Freedom is participation in power. Cicero said that a while ago. I would like to vote regularly and directly on the broad issues of my governance. Then I'll leave the details up to my representatives.

Beth, please do this research: just google "altruism studies" or something similar to see if the majority "always vote for their own interests." This is a very sad view of people. When men in 13 states voted (secret ballot, remember) for Women's Suffrage, wasn't that "bigger" than your view? Read the words of the founding fathers on our http://Vote.org website.

Are you accusing US of thinking "we should no longer have a secret ballot."? Surely you jest, or are confused.

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

beth, you believe we are animals. i am asking you if we're ready to be human. it's your choice not to evolve.

when was the last time you were proud of your representative? when was the last time you felt adequately served? i don't deny that representative democracy is what our constitution lays out, but i would like you to consider the fact that the constitution itself came out of revolution. perhaps it's time to trust that our forefathers knew what they were doing, when they trusted the constitution to be a living document, to serve a living people. it was never meant to stay as-is.

Let's see: Switzerland is about twice the size of New Jersey with approx 7 million citizens. It is not a world player in any sense of the word and mostly deals with internal matters much like New Jersey does. FYI- US population is over 300 million!
Applying their method would bring total paralysis to our federal government.

No, I think the Swiss got it right. You haven't considered how the system works, you are just blithely dismissing it. Give it some understanding. The population of the nation of Switzerland decides issues of broad national policy on a regular basis and they leave the details up to their elected representatives.. Every several months they come back to express their opinion again on how things are going.....What's so hard to understand about that? That is the definition of "eternal vigilance." Otherwise we are left with no power what so ever. And our tax money get poured down the drain....And when the "perfect storm" of fascist opportunity rises, we lose our democracy all together.

Not sure how I feel about this, but Switzerland is definitely a major player in the world. Just because they don't get involved in wars doesn't mean they're not players. You notice they haven't been invaded or occupied in recent history, they are host to the UN, CERN, the Red Cross and other organizations, they are influential in the UN and the OECD, and they sit successfully outside the EU, suggesting that they can achieve their interests without the collective weight of the European Common Market.

With today's technology this kind of governance could work in America... maybe. But think of all the lost jobs in the Federal government.

Good point about the jobs, Kenny. :)

Rather than using Switzerland for comparison, why don't we look at what happens with ballot initiatives in our own country? In California, for example, it seems we have a dozen or so ballot initiatives every election. It's more than I can keep track of, and I suspect most people just vote along party lines. That's hardly an example of "eternal vigilance."

Paul, as the description says and the http://Vote.org site describes in detail, we propose many improvements to the initiative process. In Switzerland they vote 4 to 6 times a years to keep the ballot short each time. If you don't want to take the time to understand everything, just vote on what's important to you.

Now, on the Federal level Congress has a monopoly on legislating. The result is torture, war, spying on us, etc. We need an free marketplace of ideas, not a monopoly.

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

Paul, you dismissed the system in Calif as being inconsequential as a democratic process. Granted, it could certainly be improved. By having it happen more often would be one way. And I think it is true that when voters are involved with power it is intimidating to legislators who then know that voters are watching what they do, or don't do...and that the more often voting citizens are involved in exercising power, the more positive effect and power their collective vigilance exerts.

Problems with the 24 various state ballot initiative systems have developed in part because the self interest of legislators is to keep decision making power unto themselves rather than make it easy for citizens to exercise that power...Thus only 24 states even empower their citizens with ballot initiative procedures, and many weaken their system by making it harder and more expensive to use it...None the less, I suspect very few citizens in those states which are so empowered would vote to give up that power.... It seems to me that a "new and improved" system of ballot initiatives, such as Senator Gravel has defined, providing plenty of deliberative opportunities, enabling an informed populace to learn to govern themselves, would be widely supported by those who believe we must "Take Back America".

Citizen empowerment is clearly a popular idea. That may be why, in his recent SOTU address, Bush said the following in paragraph 5, "As Americans we believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of our citizens. And so, in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures." and then in the closing paragraph, "And, so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our union will remain strong." It's nice to see him be right.

It's great to begin discussion about methods of making our democracy more democratic. It's important to keep in mind as we do so that the entrenched systems of power sharing/mongering that have made our government so often inefficient are also those that have made it so stable.

It seemed improbable to elite Europeans in the 18th Century that our new nation would remain intact for long without a monarchy and peerage to hold it together. With all the disparate factions vying for power in any nation, what's kept them from tearing us asunder over the last 2 1/2 centuries has been the elaborate and intricate systems of government designed by the brilliant minds who wrote our Constitution.

Therefore as we consider reconfiguring the mechanisms by which our nation deliberates and arrives at decisions, legislative and otherwise, it behooves us to pay careful mind to the benefits of sluggish government, and to ask ourselves what exactly will be in place in a future system to contain one faction's power to diminish the power of another.

Satyr9us, that's interesting. I think what usually "contains one faction's power to diminish the power of another" is human decency, which is common among commoners, less so among dominators. When 1 faction tries to belittle another, the majority in the middle tend to step in to moderate. Notice how people pull apart people fighting. The Constitution's checks and balances enable that, but they came from The People who wrote it. Not all were geniuses, but all were decent.

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

This is probably the most decent discussion going on on this website, and kudos to those participating.

I think I'm now on the side of the idea poster. We could make this work if we had the political will to do it. Switzerland is a good model for this type of thing, especially since it's a highly federalized polity, like our own.

The people can be like a fourth branch of government, and contentious issues could be approved/vetoed based on percentage rules and things just like we have in the congress. The biggest problem with the idea though, is the disparate populations of the states. North Dakotans, for example, would have virtually no say in matters, while Californians could virtually run the show.

And just a quick note on Bush's statement: he says in his SOTU speech that trusting the people is best for our country, though he frequently talks about how he doesn't make decisions based on polls, which is basically to say that he doesn't really trust the people to decide issues, or rather that he only trusts those who agree with him, as evidenced through his administration.

This is a problematic notion, but not a huge concern, as I seriously doubt Bush would be party to any reform resembling the ideas being discussed on this thread.

Kenny, having promoted this idea since 1989, I've found that the only occupational groups opposed to this are politicians and the people who control them. Most people believe in people. Bush, like most pols, says publicly he trusts the people, but in private, most pols will talk about how the "adults" need to step in to "prevent the inmates (that would be us) from running the asylum."

I hope you and others here will read Sen. Gravel's proposal, which he has worked on for 30 years -and which hundreds, including me, helped with:

http://Vote.org/amendment and
http://Vote.org/act

Thanks!

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

Do yourself a favor and read The Federalist Papers. There is a reason why the Founders of this nation made this nation a Republic rather than a Democracy. Democracies do not stand the test of time, but Republics do. The unbridled passion of the people can quickly resort to the violence of the mob if not tempered by a system that restrains that impulse.

To borrow a few quotes:

“In a democracy the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority…and that oppression of the majority will extend to far great number, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. Under a cruel prince they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes are deprived of all external consolation: they seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species.”- Edmund Burke

“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”- James Madison

Both Burke and Madison were correct. Democracy (except at the smallest of levels) inevitably degrades into nothing more than the rule of the mob. That is why America is correctly referred to as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Those who call for direct democracy should be aware that they are typically those who hold minority views and would be the first to see their voices silenced by the din of the mob.

Way ahead of you, Jay. I read the papers many years ago. Their theories are trumped by 160 years of real experience with national ballot initiatives in Switzerland. None of that fear-mongering happened.

Pay attention: your choice isn't between "representative" and "direct" democracy; it's between ONLY (mis)representative or BOTH representative AND direct democracy.

Let's see, right now it's the "republic" or "representative democracy" which has rolled over for torture, domestic spying, aggressive wars and a host of unpopular AND unconstitutional ways of oppression. That cries out for a "check and balance."

Come out of the the theories of the past and into the realities of the present. It ain't over until it's over. Madison ISN'T the last word in government!

Wake up, man! Just because someone involved in starting the country centuries ago said something, doesn't mean it still holds.

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

Contrast "Black Budget" and "Taxation Without Representation". I want an honest Budget, no tricks.

Thank you Evan and thank you Jay....Thank you Evan for stating my opinion sooner and better than I could have....Thank you Jay for presenting so nicely to me for the first time, some of the content of the Federalist Papers. I now know that I disagree heartily with both Burke and Madison,...for precisely the reason Evan has stated. When the will of the people is "misrepresented" by the rich and powerful, and the people have no recourse to power, they will rise up, and they must be allowed to rise up. That is what we are witnessing now with the Barak Obama phenomenon. Isn't it nice to see real change come about in an open, decent democratic manner?

We want both a representative and a direct democracy. It is not control of mob impulse that we (the mob) need to worry about, it is "the wisdom of crowds" that we need to listen to more often,..and we need a peaceful, honest means of keeping our representatives honest. If citizens have the power of the polls, they can redirect "mis" representatives.. The representatives are literally our public servants and in this age of communications we have the capability of informing them directly, and often, on their job description.

We need to put systems of democracy in place so that in the future our representatives never again wander so far from representing the intelligence and desire of a well informed people and we need to speed up the education of the public...as we all know, our media has been dumbing down our public for years. We the public, can no longer afford to be kept in a dumbed down state. Our future is at risk and we can no longer afford to wait for the wheels of this old political system to turn at such a tiresome speed. We need to get caught up to the times. We need to vote more often on more things. The people need better info and we need to make up our minds faster. Even Barack Obama won't be able to create the "Turning effect our situation demands. Especially if he is assassinated. It has to be "We the People Do Ordain..."

So thank you,

George Ripley
DC

Secret ballot - if not, and an employer demanded you vote their way or be fired (secret threat) they could control votes.
Republic - good, but the US practices democracy - voting etc. and the Congress votes "democratically". To maintain the power the people must have at least a veto, through the Initiative and Binding Referendum. It can be contested but a 2/3 vote on referendum would be deciding. We must not let government run like the king and his men or we are slaves. Bruce

So let's say a group of us across the country want to have a vote for a specific system of universal health care or taxation...We draft it up as a bill.....We present it to the public for discussion......and we vote on it? What if there are other competing universal healthcare or taxation ideas. Don't all the ideas need to be discussed and the best parts incorporated? How long does that take? And then how do we decide upon one as opposed to two others?

George, any complications like you describe would be dealt with by the (elected) Electoral Trust, which would administer the system of ballot initiatives. Sen. Gravel purposely left detailed operation to them.

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

I think this is a fantastic idea. Also, if you read Gravel's ideas on this, it is not just the majority vote that wins. There is "oversight" by our elected officials. So, it wouldn't just be a free-for-all.

I would trust the people more to run the country (or help run it, in this situation) than money-grabbing politicians, because the people would feel the effects of their legislatioin.

One of the convincing arguments for me is that "...because", as the writer before me says, "the people would feel the effects of their legislation", the people would be quick to change any legislation which proved to be a mistake...!!!
Think about that the next time you hear of a politician like Bush or Hillary refuse to even think about admitting to a mistake...

It is in the people's interest to correct mistaken legislation as quickly as possible. It is never in a politicians interest to be remotely connected to a mistake, so, as they all hide from mistaken legislation, problems build to insurmountable hurdles, and strong nations collapse.
Let's empower ourselves to take this country back... This is how we can do it but to succeed we will all have to devote serious effort over the rest of our lives towards educating others.... Of all the serious electoral reform issues this nation needs to confront, I believe this is the most fundamental...The National Initiative is the next evolutionary step of democracy...

There have been a few articles mentioning the National Initiative recently (although none too positive in the mainstream press), and disturbingly, they all seem to say that the National Initiative would replace the legislative branch. This is not true!

Yes, Ross. Even Time Magazine yesterday perpetrated that lie. ALL my "representatives" since 1990 have lied the same way. They want their monopoly and will lie cheat -and maybe kill- to keep it. But their own families think the National Initiative is a great idea: see http://Vote.org/udall to see how "my" Congressman Mark Udall repeatedly lies and evades this issue, while his brothers have officially endorsed it!

Please let me know when you see this lie elsewhere!

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

Bush:"The CONSTITUTION is Just A Piece Of Paper."

We have this system in Washington State and it is nearly impossible to get anything done. Every issue is cussed and discussed to death and then it starts over. The state is mired in blah blah blah with this method. Everyone thinks their little nuance on the subject is the last word and must be heard. This takes inordinate time and energy and achieves nothing.

Perhaps a system less rewarding to the greedy and unprincipled among us would be in order. All we need is more disasters like the Enron debacle or the current home mortgage fiasco and we
will be entirely in the hands of the Chinese and the Oil barons.

I don't have an answer.

Thank you Janzie, Perhaps you could elaborate a bit so we could perhaps devise a system which is workable. With a Cyber program, people can post their ideas and people vote on them. This eliminates many and the few good ones float to the top. Than these could be sent to referendum. I post a webpage under construction which leads this way.
What do you think?
Bruce

Janzie, there is an organization working in Washington to improve your initiative process: http://cirwa.org

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

PS: Gravel's National Initiative also addresses the problems you mention -and these improvements would apply to state and local ballot initiatives as well. Please read:

www.Vote.org
Taking the "mock" out of democracy!
Evan Ravitz, founder 303-440-6838 www.EvanRavitz.com
"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." -Rumi

Point of definition: Initiatives are initiated by the citizens themselves. Referrenda are referred to the public for a vote by the legislature.
In response to Janzie -- I'm reminded of the bumper sticker that says, "If you think education is expensive try ignorance." insofar as to say, look at the mess our trusting all to our representatives has gotten us into. No one ever said citizenship should be easy. I daresay, residents of those 24 states where there are legal procedures to empower citizens with the ability to make law "of, by, and for" themselves, would never consider voting to deprive themselves of that power.
Blah Blah Blah indeed, if it is true that we get out of something what we put into it, just look at the state we're in and ask yourself if we ought not to be putting a bit more attention into our own governance.

I am also in WA state and formerly of NJ where I don't think we had such initiatives on our ballots. I think the WA state way is the right way to go. Yes, there may be lots of bureaucracy involved in the process, but at least we have a say and if someone has a good enough idea to get signatures to get it on the ballot it gets aired. This is SO much better than being told what to do by the people we elect. It's totally backwards without the initiatives.

Mike Gravel for President 08
www.allthingsgravel.com
www.gravel2008.us
www.nationalinitiative.us
www.vote.org

I've been on political forums lately, trying to spread the word of the National Initiative. I figure it's the least I can do.

I've been on the IMDb Politics forum a bit, the www.ronpaulmarch.com forum a bit, and a few other places.

Evan - do you know about that organization? Are you working with them? It seems like a great opportunity, especially with Gravel in DC right now.

Sorry, that was dumb. I didn't realize you posted it.

Anyone interested in joining a Mike Gravel meetup group (www.meetup.com) in the Philadelphia area, please contact me at inkabinkaboo182@aol.com

I am interested in organizing a speakers training conference on the subject of the National Initiative sometime after the Nov. election. Anyone want to share some brainstorming on that prospect?

There's a mass donation week going on right now for Mike Gravel. Check out http://youtube.com/user/phillyforgravel for a video that contains all the info you need on it.

http://gravel2008.us/donate_now

I think the first initiative I would table would be colluding between the big states to cast all electors for the winner of the national vote of all states instead of the electoral college that distortedly empowers small states, thus de facto forcing all states into a national popular vote without constitutional amendment.

Not likely to happen without national initiatives. Good idea!

something here in the comments distresses me.

first, madison had some good ideas. he was right to worry over the power of the minority of the opulent and the rabble; they do not balance each other well. we can see that was true because of the evolution our justice system had to experience. we no longer require people to own property in order to vote. these mechanisms that have evolved in the law are necessary and speak volumes about the true strength of our system: it can be changed.

however, it still falls to us to change it. as much as i like obama, he is a politician. i can count the number of truly magnanimous and trustworthy presidents on one hand. these systems are only as good as we the people make them. the fact that so many of us would rather just believe in one person, who can maintain them for us is what gets us in trouble every time, because we stop paying attention.

national ballot initiatives truly represent a third way, that we haven't tried before. maybe it still isn't suited to our culture. but i will not again hand over these reins so lightly, when i see how easily and eagerly the politicians will run this horse, our country, into the ground. no one is perfect. we should just accept that truth and move on with a system that distributes more of these choices among the people who will have to live with them.