Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Pro-Democracy Wildfire in America's States

Posted by David Sirota at 12:17 AM on April 6, 2007.


As Washington and Wall Street elites happily try to choke the life out of democracy, states are fighting back on three fronts.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

The ruling class in Washington and New York are likely clinking glasses this weekend in a grand celebration. This week, with the announcement that both parties' major candidates are vacuuming up corporate cash like never before, they treated America to the beginning of the first billion-dollar presidential campaign, and the final gruesome execution of that thing known as "democracy." The suites of K Street and Wall Street and the mansions of Georgetown and Northern Virginia are the gallows, with bundled, six-figure campaign contributions serving as the noose. Candidates of both parties step right up, slip their heads through the loop and happily grin as the floor drops out from underneath them, snapping whatever spine they had - all while the crowd of big donors and political reporters cheers like beserk baseball fans in Yankee Stadium's right-field bleachers. The deranged mobs at Paris's blood-soaked guillotine during the French Revolution have nothing on America's anti-democratic political elites today.

But out in the heartland - the place where too many Beltway-focused activists, donors, pundits and strategists too often ignore - something of a revolt is going on. Beyond the view of Washington newspaper bureaus, Capitol Hill offices and Dupont Circle wine and cheese fundraisers, states are waging their own multi-pronged pro-democracy fight - and with increasing success.

On the most basic expression of democracy - access to the vote - Iowa just became the 8th state to legalize Election Day Registration. And thanks to the coalition of legislators and advocacy groups like Demos and the Progressive States Network, the other states are aggressively moving in the same direction. In all, 74 percent of eligible voters participated in states with election day registration, compared to only 60% in non-EDR states.

On another very basic issue - the concept of "one person, one vote" - states are moving forward with major reforms. Specifically, Maryland and Hawaii took key steps toward creating a national popular vote for president - a system that would scrap the anti-democratic electoral college that essentially writes entire states out of presidential elections. Under the proposal being pushed by National Popular Vote, Fair Vote and the Progressive States Network, states' electoral votes would automatically be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the state's individual vote. The system, which would create a national popular election, would take effect only if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes approved such legislation. Big surprise - Beltway elites are against the idea, with the dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, actually writing that the electoral college's anti-democratic fundamentals are a "formula for healthy politics." Such hysterical, substance-free arguments are yet more proof that states' bold moves are frightening the entrenched special interests in Washington that enjoy owning America's political process.

Finally, various states such as Washington, New Mexico, New Jersey and others are moving forward with plans to publicly finance elections - the ultimate pro-democracy step in giving candidates a way to run for office without having to shakedown special interests for cash. Earlier this year, I was in Seattle for a speech on public financing in my role as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, and I can tell you that this is an issue that an increasing segment of the population understands - and, as polls confirm, is ready to get behind.

The cable chat shows and radio talk fests will no doubt continue being dominated by Beltway pundits hyperventilating over the presidential money sweepstakes. As we've seen, these people hate democracy, because they understand it is a threat to their relevance and status. But as long as citizens can resist the urge to focus all of their political attention on Washington politics and actually expend some of their energy changing their own states and communities, we are going to start seeing more and more pro-democracy successes throughout America.

Digg!

Tagged as: public financing, election day registration, national popular vote

David Sirota is a veteran political strategist and author of Hostile Takeover, a New York Times bestseller about the corruption of both political parties.


Breast Flaunting for Jesus
The life of a failed California beauty pageant contestant gets even weirder.
Post by Thers. November 11, 2009.
Dobbs to Quit CNN
Dobbs, under fire, to seek greener pastures.
Post by Staff. November 11, 2009.
Under Pressure From Tea Party Activists, Charleston GOP Censures Lindsey Graham For Bipartisanship
Part of the fury from the right against Graham is being spurred by the oil and coal industry.
Post by Lee Fang. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Misguided efforts.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 6, 2007 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The beginning of the article tells just why voting reforms are futile. Big business owns our government. Period. As obvious as it is, most people don't seem to get it. The Pharmaceutical Industries, the Defense Industries, the Financial Industries and big budinrss in general doesn't finance both parties because they want both parties to win. They finance them so that it makes no difference who wins. What part of that is hard to understand?

The corporate establishment controls both parties. We won't have a Democracy until the people control both parties.

It is useless to battle over votes and elections when they mean so little. The time to use your vote is before the election, when both parties want it. The way to use it is in The Lincoln Initiative, a strategy based on the successful tactics of labor unions. Make your demands and back them with an "or else".
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is important, but not talked about much:
Posted by: Swan on Apr 6, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope you don't mind an off-topic comment, but I think this is important: There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a few days ago about the mainstream media's (specifically Time magazine's) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html


What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meet Up Time
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 6, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to begin the ANTI-campaign and restore democracy in America. Every voter is allowed to write-in a candidate and if enough do it- we can derail all the big money come election day. Make the candidates come to us- not via TV and attack ads- but via the candidates and their local proxies coming to monthly meet ups until we select a candidate.

Let's get indie meet-ups and all commit to write-in the same candidate come election day. eff the DLC-ocrats and the Repugnicans. There are more than enough people hacked off to do this. All it takes is serious commitment, community organization and follow through. Let them piss 1 billion away in the process of losing. It will send a strong message.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» These are good thoughts. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Meet Up Time Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Meet Up Time Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Direct Representation. Posted by: aouie01
Loved the gallows and guillotine image of the Beltway.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 6, 2007 6:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And thanks for the update on state action to extend democracy.

My druther would be multi-party politics, as with the parliamentary form. So I figured that maybe the electoral college where voters choose individuals to cast a vote could be rigged to allow minority parties some exposure.

But the assignment of electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote is a much simpler and probably more effective way to counter the domination of the lesser-populated states. I am encouraged--not a whole lot, but even a small change makes a big difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Repeal 17th Amendment Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» More Gridlock--- the Better! Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: More Democracy --- the Better! Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: epeal 17th Amendment Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: epeal 17th Amendment Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: epeal 17th Amendment Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: epeal 17th Amendment Posted by: albrechtkrausse
It is telling that the fundraising numbers for the candidates are the
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Apr 6, 2007 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sole headline(s) in the past week. Finally, after many years of hand-wringing and consternation, the press (corporate owned) have finally given up and just told the truth. Money is the only thing that matters. Money shows who is the candidate and money shows who the people desire. Luckily for the press (and their corporate ownership) the people have bought into this-- because it is true. Unless we devolve power from the Federal government to the States (first step) and then to the Counties (second step) and then to the Cities/Schoolboards/IncorporatedTowns(third step) money will be the only influential factor in politics. As long as the tax-and-spend Democrats and debt-and-spend Republicans are in office there is simply too much money to be made out there. Power corrupts and this aggrandisement of influence brings out the worst in capitalism (as well as other political/economic systems) as people realise that they can gain MORE from political intrigues/alliances/cronyism then hardwork, competition, and innovation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New is not always progress
Posted by: edith on Apr 7, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the author mentions hawaii and maryland's endorsements of ideas to circumvent the Electoral College's indirect election of Presidents. The states in favor of the MD-Hawaii reform would award their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote regardless of how the state's voters split. So Maryland, a normally Democratic state, would award its electoral votes to say, John McCain, if he were the winner of the national popular vote in 08.

Replacement of one flawed system with another does not signify progress. Various states for a multiplicity of reasons are more attractive residences for certain social, ethnic and yes relgious groups than others. Massachusetts is known for its "liberalism", Wyoming for "conservatism", and Michigan seems to lurch back and forth between the two poles.

The Unites States, unlike France, is a federation of states sovereign except insofar as the Constitution awards specific powers to the Federal gvt. If discontent with the Electoral College, a certainly imperfect mechanism, is so widespread, then let Congress and the states abolish it by constitutional amendment. If the broad support to warrant an amendment is not in place, however, let the current system proceed. Local biases are not in themselves bad, and they account for demographic changes. Vermont used to be reliably Repub lican, now it is Democratic as the result of population influxes from New York and Massachusetts, plus the residence for longer periods of students and former students of the many progressive colleges in that state. California increasingly is responsive to the needs of Latino populations.

A federation does not speak with one voice. It tries to accomodate all the voices through compromise and reason. Let the Electoral College continue, coupled with enhanced efforts by states to prevent voter fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New is not always progress Posted by: brainvib
» Popular v Electoral Posted by: edith
» RE: Popular v Electoral Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Popular v Electoral Posted by: EncinoM
If money is all that matters...
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 7, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, I have an idea: Why not make the winner of an election the one who gets the most votes per dollar spent?

Not only would this encourage candidates to spend less (because the result is based on a ratio, with money being in the denominator), but the very idea is consistent with ideas of efficiency, most bang-for-the-buck, etc. It could also conceivably get the ruling class to limit elections to some sensible time period (like 8 or 10 weeks), since people really don't even need that much time to make up their/our minds and additional time just means additional money spent with no real return.

I realize there are some devilish details, especially with regard to accurate accounting, but as long as we're re-working the election system I thought I'd throw the idea out. I money is inevitable in politics, let's at least factor it in in a way which is relevant.

If it had been in place in 2000 I think Nader would have been the winner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If money is all that matters... Posted by: monkeywrench
At this point we should just sell political office to the highest bidder
Posted by: ateo on Apr 7, 2007 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Essentially that is what we do anyway.

This is the inevitable outcome in a nation that exists for long enough - the rich elite write the rules of the game to keep themselves rich by influencing elected politicians then they take over the government itself using their money. That's where we are today, money is all it takes to obtain elected office.

Why are moral issues at the forefront of both the Republican and Democratic parties? Because those are the issues that corporations and the rich do not care about. They only care about anything that would hurt their bottom line. Let the peons debate abortion and religion to their heart's content as long as they don't start to talk about additional taxes to pay for social welfare programs like health care, education, etc.

There are certain things neither party is allowed to talk about by their corporate masters, if you need proof that democracy is dead in America - there it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OPEN LETTER TO THE "NEW" CONGRESS
Posted by: ibemee on Apr 7, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Status of impeachment by states is here: (25 listed here)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index title Efforts to initiate the impeachment of george w bush Lists 17 states:
1 Alaska
2 California
3 Colorado
4 Illinois
5 Indiana
6 Maine
7 Massachusetts
8 New Hampshire
9 New Mexico
10 New York
11 Oregon
12 Pennsylvania
13 Rhode Island
14 Texas
15 Washington
16 Wisconsin
17 Vermont

See also: http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/states.html
AND the best coverage of the resolution FROM BUSH's (chosen) HOMESTATE of TEXAS: http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/lofiversion/index.php /t13621.html Bill HRC 154

WE ASK CONGRESS: AND WE DEMAND ANSWERS!!
How many citizens does it take to impeach ... ?
...and how many congressmen does it take to impeach ... ?

There is obviously a pernicious and insidious undercurrent that floats the 'ship of state'
WHAT IS BEHIND THE CONSPIRACY TO SUPPRESS THE CITIZENS OF THE U.S.A. ?

Is it that the Democrats have become nothing more than a FRONT GROUP for the Neo/PNAC's ? Is it that supporting Big Business is so profitable for politicians ??

And... how much has this to do with AIPAC ? WHY are you hellbent to support the RADICAL Zionists in Israel instead of your own citizens? Just what IS in it for you ? Why are so many of OUR tax dollars going to israel instead of Americans ? Isn't that because you have been promised some great reward for aiding and abetting the PNAC agenda of World Domination ? We Americans have a RIGHT TO KNOW !?

Timeline of BETRAYAL !
Resolution by Rep. John Conyers to investigate Bush for impeachable offenses in 2005
On December 18, 2005, Conyers introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) that would create a special House committee to investigate a variety of allegations against President Bush and possibly make a recommendation to the full House that the allegations merit impeachment. It was assigned to the House Committee on Rules, where the committee's chairman in the 109th Congress, Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), did not bring it up for a vote. [5] Many believed, however, that if the Democrats won control of the House in November 2006, Conyers, as likely chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would continue to pursue the matter.

http://www.sourcewatch.org title= Efforts to initiate the impeachment of President George W. Bush

COSPONSORS
As of NOVEMBER 2006, the bill had 38 co-sponsors THIRTY-EIGHT!!

AFTER THE ELECTION WE GET = Z-I-L-C-H !!
Tell me that isn't BETRAYAL!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but political offices ARE sold to the highest bidder
Posted by: ibemee on Apr 7, 2007 5:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the money comes out of the pockets of Corporations who get it right back in the form of tax write-offs, and the advertising their candidates pay for, which goes to the Corporate Owned Media, which 'donates' it to candidates who pass legislation lowering the taxes on Corporations, while outsourcing our jobs to make it possible for Corporations to avoid paying Union Wages and employee benefits to slave-labor in foreign countries, and who legislate it to be perfectly legal for Corporations to hide their assets off shore....

...etc etc etc without end....

...and it doesn't really matter *WHICH* candidate "wins" because they are ALL vetted through the CORPORATE-OWNED PARTY MACHINE before they are ALLOWED to BECOME "Party Nominees" in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]