Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

A Citizens' Assembly in the Golden State

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted February 27, 2006.


A fairly radical proposal is on the table to reform California politics by giving its citizens the power to offer proposals directly to the voters.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jan Frel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

What does real democracy look like? Certainly not like the political system in California, where 80 Assembly members in the lower house of the Legislature purportedly represent the interests of 36 million citizens -- a ludicrous proposition on its face. For decades in the Golden State, political reform activists have found themselves stymied by the entire political establishment in Sacramento resisting institutional changes to the hilt.

Now, Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg, and Keith Richman, R-Northridge, two Assembly members with a close political relationship and a history of offering resolutions to reform California politics, are floating a new, fairly radical experiment in direct democracy. They propose addressing electoral reform through a Citizens' Assembly, a concept largely modeled on a novel democratic experiment in the Canadian province of British Columbia.

In what started as a 2001 campaign promise by British Columbia premier candidate Gordon Campell that was established by a unanimous vote by the province's Legislature in 2003, academics picked a Citizens' Assembly composed of two members from each of British Columbia's 79 electoral districts using a random selection process from a list of almost 16,000 names. Two representatives of British Columbia's native residents joined, bringing the total of voting members to 160, and Jack Blaney -- a former university president and veteran negotiator -- was named chair, charged with organizing and overseeing the project.

The Assembly spent eight months in a learning phase starting in January 2004, meeting on weekends to discuss ideas with elections experts and to hold public hearings. The members then debated various proposals over the next few months, and submitted their final proposal to establish proportional representation in the Legislature. The Assembly's proposal was placed as a measure on a referendum ballot in May 2005, requiring 60 percent of the vote for passage.

Blaney, who chaired the Citizens' Assembly through 11 months of deliberation and its final vote in 2004, was exultant after the 146-7 vote that the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly made in favor of throwing out the province's 19th-century electoral system. The standing winner-take-all format was rejected, and in its place the Assembly proposed a system of proportional representation. "This really is power to the people," Blaney said at the time.

In the final tally, the proposal came short in the public's referendum vote, receiving 58 percent. But voters in British Columbia will have the chance to vote for the Citizens' Assembly proposal again this year. The idea of imitating a Citizens' Assembly is under consideration in the province of Ontario, and talk has spread abroad to Australia, the United Kingdom and Taiwan.

Although Canciamilla and Richman's stands on policy issues are quite moderate, the bipartisan pair is widely viewed by colleagues as outsiders for their focus on political reform. The reception in Sacramento to their Citizens' Assembly idea was chilly to say the least.

When Richman and Canciamilla made their announcement in late January, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez hid behind the democratic mechanism of voting to dismiss their proposal, telling the press that, "If voters want reform, they can make that decision at the ballot box every November. There is no need to spend millions of dollars to create another government entity with no proven track record."

Canciamilla said the spokesman's statement revealed just how ineffective the mechanism of voting has been for California citizens who want to fight back against the political establishment in Sacramento.

Canciamilla and Richman have been aided by academics at California universities and voting experts like David Lesher and Steven Hill of the New America Foundation. The idea of a Citizen's Assembly was recently the topic of a three-city speaking series hosted by the Commonwealth Club that featured Gordon Gibson, the architect of the British Columbia model.

The Citizens' Assembly in California

How exactly would a Citizens' Assembly work?

First, the proposal for a Citizens' Assembly would be placed on the ballot and offered to the voters of California. If a majority approves the proposal, then a selection task force of six California university academics would pick one man and one woman from each of California's 80 Assembly districts. Ten additional members would be selected to ensure greater diversity on the Assembly panel. Members who agree to serve on the Assembly would be offered a small stipend. The task force would also pick a nonvoting chair of the Assembly to run and organize the process.

Politicians who fear their constituents might attempt to radically restructure the state have little to worry about. "They'd have a narrow mandate," Richman says, limited to electoral reform.


Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
A good idea.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Feb 27, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This seems to me to be a good idea, but I think that it is too complicated and not democratic enough.

A simpler and more democratic solution is The Lincoln Initiative. In this grassroots movement each member demands from both parties that his most important issue be met. It is up to each party to accept his/her demand or forfeit his/her vote. These demands are made before the election when votes have power. Once a vote is cast it has no power.

This initiative is simple and direct. Join The Lincoln Initiative and help make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on a new idea

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

» RE: A good idea. Posted by: brunowe
» Well, the LI can't hurt, but Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well, the LI can't hurt, but Posted by: debbieaustin
» RE: Well, the LI can't hurt, but Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A good idea. Posted by: debbieaustin
» RE: A good idea. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A good idea. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A good idea. Posted by: Phenix
» The single thread Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The single thread Posted by: JessB
It's actually almost Athenian
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 27, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certain offices in ancient Athens were filled by random draw. However, doesn't this open the door to much litigation if there is any variance between the racial percentage in the Assembly and the population at large, with two members/district, what is the possbility of a variance large enough to raise that questions. Also, don't the ten diversity seats open up the same door?

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

» RE: It's actually almost Athenian Posted by: debbieaustin
If it was really up to Us the People...
Posted by: Otherbam on Feb 27, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I wholeheartedly believe that marijuana would be at least de-criminalized: if the voters themselves could vote on this issue instead of our "elected" officials, we would stop imprisoning people for using marijuana. Whether it's to get high, to help their chronic pain or depression, or because it's the only way they keep food down due to chemotherapy, whatever.
Why alcohol is legal and marijuana is not is one thing I'd like to see changed in my lifetime.

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

Of Course The Authors Are Termed Out
Posted by: ashrock on Feb 27, 2006 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just for the record, Canciamilla and Richman are termed out at the end of this year. As much as I would like to see it "on the table," this idea is dead in the water.

...But what does have traction is Clean Money. It's taken us 30 years to get to this point. So, support this idea people!!!

Ash Roughani

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

Lincoln Initiative
Posted by: Phenix on Feb 27, 2006 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll be to the point. This initiative is stupid and basically has no chance of ever succeeding. If you want to change society you can not just sign a petition. We need real democratic reform meaning clean elections, proportioanl representaiton in the states, and instant run off voting to encourage more political parties. You can not just have 2 parties for 275 million people and signing up for the Lincoln Initiative will solve none of the problems we face today other than make you feel good about yourself.

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

» RE: Lincoln Initiative Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Lincoln Initiative Posted by: JessB
Town meetings and representative town meetings still happen in New England.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 27, 2006 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But this proposal sounds like nothing more than a citizens' advisory committee, of which there must be dozens in California even at the state level. Yes, such committees don't usually offer ballot items, but I expect that some of them have on occasion.

In my city, those committees are usually made up of the same people who are active in the established political parties. So while it is a good training ground for potential political candidates, it is easy for their reports to find their way to the circular file.

What struck me about the BC model is how small a voter population they represented. If you want citizen interests stirred, then create representative bodies at a small population level.

That can't be done because neighbors in my city don't know each other, don't talk to each other, couldn't care less about each other. I don't believe that is because people are cold and cruel but because our voices do not matter. Read the Moyers' article: all that matters is campaign contributions.

I put a lot of hope in Participation Politics in 1970. At that time, the rukus in the streets and the war in Vietnam had stirred up a lot of feeling and interest. Some good things happened. But they were oriented to specific issues.

This proposal sounds to me like the sort of thing that corporations and governments do periodically. They reorganize. Like Bush's Homeland Security bs. Tell the folks in New Orleans about it. So many agencies at all levels were involved that they all just assumed it wasn't their job; someone else would do it, but no one did.

Reorganizing seldom works, in my experience. It just shuffles things around in an attempt to cover up whatever it was that was messed up. The most costly and painful California version of that process was the ballot measure on term limits. Yeah, right, let's replace experienced legislators with greenhorns who depend on lobbyists to tell them what to do--the quality of state government has drifted lower and lower ever since.

Or else this proposal sounds like an attempt to secure permanent government funding for something that the colleges and universities have always done. It's called a "study group" isn't it?

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

Seems too complicated
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 27, 2006 6:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not just put initiatives directly on the state ballot? The explanation given was just doubletalk.

Such a commission might be a good end-run option if reformers were having trouble getting a proposal onto a ballot, but otherwise it seems too cumbersome.

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

Being a centrist politician in California has never been easy
Posted by: Dave in Northridge on Mar 1, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beside Messrs. Canciamilla and Richman being "termed out" (we have term limits in California because the Republicans couldn't figure out how to unseat Democrats in the legislature in actual elections), there's also the problem with primary elections in California. Keith Richman could not win a statewide primary in this state because he's just too liberal for the Republicans who vote in primaries here. Hence, another solution to a problem that wants to circumvent the regular electoral process.

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