Author: jpritikin

It’s is a political truism that big donors and special interests (hello, both sides of Indian gambling Propositions 94-97!) drive California’s ballot initiative process. But now, taking a Web page from social networking sites like Facebook and Linkedin, Republican political consultant Mike Madrid has launched a site he says will make it easier for the masses to reclaim direct democracy.

The site, Californiapropositions.org , lets people to organize online by forming their own issue and campaign groups and find like-minded groups, just as they do on other social networking sites. But biggest benefits, Madrid says, will be in the two parts of the proposition process that cost the most — raising cash and getting valid signatures.

An initiative requires 433,971 signatures to qualify for the ballot. (Or 694,354, if it’s a constitutional amendment.)  It costs about $2 million to hire specially trained signature gatherers, the ones who annoy you as you enter Rite Aid, trying to remember which prescription you need to get refilled. But Madrid’s site gets around all that by allowing anyone who wants to download and print out a petition, gather a handful of signatures and send the petition in.

Because they are free from finance limits, past initiative campaigns have usually relied on big gifts to run their operations, which means trade groups, unions and rich people get great political clout over how initiatives are written. Madrid also says the site will make it easier to reach thousands of small donors who can give $10 or $20, doing what the Barack Obama campaign has done. He notes that the campaign for a high-speed rail line — not exactly the sexiest political issue — has nearly 38,000 members on Facebook.

“I’m a huge proponent of the proposition-industrial complex,” he says. “Most people think it’s a cancer on the body politic. I think it does was it was designed to do, only it hasn’t been as accessible to the masses as it was originally intended.” The main downside of his approach, he predicts: It will make recall campaigns of politicians even more frequent.

— Jordan Rau

Photo: Boxed petitions for a California ballot initiative. Credit: Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times

Mike Gravel is a former senator from Alaska who ran for president this year – twice – once as a Democrat and once as a Libertarian.

In his campaigns, he has criticised the military-industrial complex that shapes US policy and fought for "direct democracy" – allowing ballot initiatives at the federal level so people can decide laws without Congress.

Gravel is a leading critic of the Iraq war and all pre-emptive wars, including war with Iran. He joins Riz on Wednesday.

You can join the conversation. Click here and send us your feedback or email riz@aljazeera.net to let us know your views.

This episode of Riz Khan airs on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, watch live at 2030GMT, with repeats at 0030GMT and 0530GMT.

TO INSTITUTIONALIZE true democracy, it is important to ensure that it is operative at the grassroots, the primal base of a political system, whence emanates state sovereignty and all government authority.

To speak of the grassroots is to refer to one’s community – in our case, the barangay. It is our basic political and economic unit.

What’s your take on the Mindanao crisis? Discuss views with other readers

One wonders whether anyone knows that governing a barangay means giving due attention to its three dimensions — as a government, as a public corporation, as an economy.

Unless these three elements are recognized and appreciated, all we have is a caricature of democracy at the grassroots and a non-performing base for our national economy. Only in the barangay is it possible to exemplify democracy as "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

How is the barangay a government OF THE PEOPLE? Before 1991, it was merely an appendage to the municipal/city government, with no powers or resources and no legal personality. Its officials were basically coordinators, with a quasi-official role and no real authority.

Today, it is a full-fledged government with power to tax, to police its jurisdiction, and to exercise eminent domain or expropriate private property for public use).

Like the municipal and upper levels, it has three branches: executive (office of the chairman), legislative (sanggunian), judicial (lupon). And its officials are elected by the people.

Thus it is a government of the people. They create it through their votes, just like the higher levels.

Is it a government BY THE PEOPLE? Here one encounters serious difficulty; because in fact it is not the people who govern but their presumptuous servants.

In the context of the local government code, "government by the people" means it is a direct democracy — like the canton in Switzerland and the kibbutz in Israel — the Athenian model of direct democracy. There all villagers convene periodically to discuss and decide how to manage or regulate their affairs. They pass laws or ordinances, or approve them directly — meaning the people govern directly.

It is the same in our case as stipulated in sections 384 and 397-398 of Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code). Barangaynons are supposed to govern directly. They do this as members of the Barangay Assembly, which is supposed to convene periodically to deliberate on community concerns, to initiate measures for its welfare, to approve its budget, to ascertain the will of the community on any issue, and so on.

But in no barangay is this happening. On one hand, the officials are illiterate, ignorant, or mindless about the law; on the other, the residents are unaware or ignorant of what the law binds them to do. Thus neither the rule of law nor democracy is operative in the community.

Is it a government FOR THE PEOPLE? Despite the claim of the officials, it is not. It serves their purposes more than the people’s. Except for token benefits derived from the pork barrel of their political bosses, which they distribute to gullible segments of the community, the officials spend most of the barangay’s income to cover their own allowances/expenses. They serve their personal and family interests more than the people’s. The allowances they allocate are for their own pockets. The jobs they create are for their sycophants or supporters.

The benefits they distribute are for the gullible, the naïve or the squatters — people who pay back such "generosity" with their votes. They don’t even clean or cover the neighborhood canals, or build sidewalks so people with no vehicle are safe and comfortable. Their reading center or library, if any, is laughable. There are no skills development programs, nor the cultural or educational sort.

Go over the substance or efficacy of ordinances/projects they initiate, which they claim at election time as "achievements;" mostly political gimmicks! Rarely, if ever, do they consult their constituents. What little good they do advances their interests more than the people’s.

This portrait of governance at the grassroots is but a caricature of democracy, a make-believe arrangement, where the sum total of a citizen’s participation is to cast a vote on election day, only to be forgotten till the next election.

Much of this can be blamed on the elite classes who leave the fate of the community to incompetent but politically savvy sectors. More on this topic in subsequent issues. But if you can’t wait, talk to Bencyrus Ellorin, James Judith, or Fr. Nathan Lerio of Camaman-an.

A former UN executive and vice chairman of the Local Government Academy, Manny heads the Gising Barangay Movement. He writes Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays. valdeman_esq@yahoo.com

Nov. 4 will be a seminal day. We the people will be able to gain a stronger voice by voting yes on a ballot question, "Shall the state Constitution Convention be convened to revise or amend the state Constitution?" This question appears every 20 years as provided for in our state constitution.

The coalition supporting the yes vote has proposed a constitutional amendment to provide for direct initiative rights for Connecticut citizens. Today, 31 states have direct democracy laws, which include initiatives, referendums and recall. Sadly, Connecticut is one of only 19 states to not have these citizen empowerment laws.

The first state to allow popular referendums was South Dakota in 1898. The last was Mississippi in 1992. The evidence to date suggests that the Constitution State would benefit greatly from having this mechanism at our disposal.

John Matsusaka, a professor of finance and business economics at the University of Southern California, recently wrote a book called, "For the Many or the Few." Examining over a century of tax and spending data from all 50 states and 4,700 cities, he found some intriguing differences between states that allow citizen-initiated referendums and those that do not.
 

For example, Matsusaka found that states with the initiative mechanism had significantly lower taxes and spending. From 1960 to 1990, per capita spending was about $83 lower in an initiative state than a non-initiative state — or a $332 savings for the average family of four. He also found that 70 percent to 80 percent of voters are glad to have initiative and referendums in their state.

Another benefit of allowing citizen-sponsored referendums seems to be a greater interest in politics as a whole. Indeed, recent studies by Mark Smith, a political scientist at the University of Washington, show that when there is an initiative on the ballot during mid-term elections, voter turnout climbs.

Many of the Founding Fathers had an intuitive faith in the initiative process. George Washington was very clear when he stated, "With Initiative and Referenda there will be no need for further Constitution Conventions. People will be able to revise the Constitution when necessary. The basis of our political systems is the right of people to make and alter their Constitutions of government."

The initiative-referendum mechanism could further arm Connecticut voters by providing them with an opportunity to speak loudly and clearly on issues such as property tax caps, the repeal of the state income tax, a three-strikes law, medical marijuana and term limits, to name a few. The proponents of the campaign are Democrats, Republicans, independents, liberals, moderates and conservatives. Their goal, in addition to citizen empowerment rights, is to help facilitate what brings us together rather than constantly focusing on what tears us apart.

We believe that Connecticut voters would regret not following the wisdom of yesteryear’s founders and today’s scholars. Looking to November, we should consider listening to that wisdom and vote yes for a Constitution Convention.

Matthew M. Daly is chairman of the Constitution Convention Campaign. John J. Woodcock III, a lawyer, is an adjunct political science professor at Central Connecticut State University and a former Democratic state representative.

Vote NO on 105 and protect voting rights PHOENIX, Sept. 10

PHOENIX, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The Voters of Arizona gathered today
simultaneously in Phoenix and Tucson for the official NO on 105 Campaign
Kickoff. In opposition to Proposition 105, the "so-called" Majority Rules
amendment, the Voters of Arizona Committee cited the pitfalls of this proposed
constitutional amendment as an attack on the act of voting and on Arizona
voters.

"Simply put, Prop 105 is misleading and encourages voter apathy, and if
passed, would make elections unfair," said John Wright, chair of The Voters of
Arizona Committee at the Phoenix press conference held on the Senate Lawn at
the Arizona State Capitol. "Prop 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution and
will require that non-voters in an election are automatically counted as NO
votes.  It's just wrong to count people who don't vote.  Prop 105 is not fair
to voters who take time to vote."

During a simultaneous press conference in Phoenix and Tucson, business and
legislative leaders from around the state joined forces to stand up for the
rights of Arizona voters adamantly stating that Prop 105 does not belong in
the Arizona Constitution.

"The purpose of our state constitution is to protect important and
fundamental rights of our citizens and Prop 105 takes away these rights," said
Barbara Klein, vice president of the State League of Women Voters at the
Phoenix press conference.

If Prop 105 passes, 80 percent of those voting on a ballot initiative
would need to vote yes for it to pass. Prop 105 effectively kills the
initiative process in Arizona, which is the closest thing we have to a direct
democracy. If Prop 105 was already in place, a number of initiatives that
passed overwhelmingly would not have become law, including public safety,
education, and health care measures.

"Voting can be confusing and many voters choose to vote only on the things
they are educated about," said Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup at the Tucson press
conference at Old Pima County Courthouse. "If Prop 105 had already passed a
voter who deliberately chooses not to vote on a ballot initiative would be
counted as a NO vote on that section of the ballot. This is not fair to those
who choose to actually cast their vote."

Proponents of this measure falsely call it "majority rules," but a true
majority in an election can only come from those who chose to vote.

"Prop 105 is an attack on the act of voting," said Jack Lunsford,
president of WESTMARC, at the Phoenix press conference. "The entire election
system is centered on whomever or whatever receives the most votes wins. Prop
105 wants to change that election system so that a YES vote can be 'cancelled'
out by those who do not vote. The act of voting needs to be protected, vote NO
on 105."


About The Voters of Arizona

The Voters of Arizona is a political campaign committee composed of
individuals and organizations. Visit http://www.TheVotersOfAZ.com for more
information.

Paid for by the Voters of Arizona - No on Prop 105 Committee. Major
funding by: Arizona School Boards Association; United Firefighters of Arizona;
Arizona Education Association.


SOURCE  The Voters of Arizona

It would have been a great experiment in direct democracy.

At the turn of the century, there was a politician by the name of William Jennings Bryan. He was called the Great Commoner because he claimed to represent that era’s person on the street –Êor in those days, it was just as likely to be the person on the farm.

He must have been popular, because three times the Democratic Party nominated him for president: in 1896, in 1900 and again in 1908. He was a forerunner of the later Progressive movement and pioneered reforms such as the referendum, recall and initiative.

It is through such devices that people in our form of governance can take matters into their own hands when their elected representatives fail.

Our system is designed as representative democracy, not direct democracy. Yet Bryan’s slogan was "let the people rule," and he believed the public fully capable of making critical decisions.

"To Bryan, truth and virtue were determined by the popular will," wrote Ray Ginger. "He resented the experts in government as much as he resented the plutocrats in business. He insisted that ordinary people are fully competent ‘to sit in judgment on every question which has arisen or which will arise, no matter how long our government will endure.’ And so Bryan advocated all measures that would extend direct democracy in government: the initiative, the referendum, direct primaries."

In barring the reform proposal from the ballot — despite the fact that some 400,000 Michiganians signed petitions to put it there — the three judges of the Michigan Court of Appeals stressed that "we do not act to prevent the citizen from voting on a proposal simply because that proposal is allegedly too complex or confusing. Nor do we seek to substitute our own preferences as to governmental form, structure or functioning for those of the electorate."

But you have to wonder. Among other things, the proposal, billed as an amendment to the state constitution, would have reduced the number of appellate judges and cut the salaries of those who remain –Êamong other things.

Be that as it may, the reason the court gave for striking down the proposal was that judges said it constituted a general revision of the constitution because it dealt with more than one subject. They pointed out that the proposal affected four articles of the constitution, seeking to modify 24 sections and add four others.

But as Andrew Nickelhoff, attorney for Reform Michigan Government Now! pointed out, there is no such specific language in the constitution restricting the amendment process.

Oddly, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, one of the organizations seeking to invalidate reform group’s petitions, itself proposed a ballot plan last year seeking to change multiple sections and articles of the constitution.

"Talk to the person on the street," said the reform group’s spokeswoman, Dianne Byrum. She said they appeared to understand the proposal as they jumped at the chance to sign the petition.

Critics claim that the group’s proposal was a stealth effort to change the way redistricting occurred in Michigan so as to benefit Democrats.

If true, would the people have been smart enough to figure that out?

What do you think? The proposal as it would have appeared is printed alongside today’s column.

Do you understand it? How would you have voted: yes or no?

Let us know — and why.

Glenn Gilbert is executive editor of The Oakland Press. Contact him (248) 745-4587 or glenn.gilbert@oakpress.com.

Arizona has the best democracy that money can buy. Or, it has the worst democracy that money can buy.

It depends on how much money you have.

That is probably not the situation the state’s founders had in mind when they inserted into the Arizona constitution a provision (Article 4, Section 1) that reads in part: "The people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section or part of any act, of the Legislature."

It’s an excellent concept. It speaks to the passion of ordinary voters. It’s positive. Enlightened. Optimistic. And these days, meaningless.

Particularly when you get to the part that requires 10 percent of "qualified electors" to get an initiative on the ballot and 15 percent to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Signature gathering is a pain. Particularly as the state’s population has grown and particularly in the summer, which is when most of the names have to be collected.

The passion of most ordinary voters is no match for summer heat. So, most folks who want to put an initiative on the ballot hire paid petition circulators. As a result, it is no longer "the people" who get proposals on the ballot, but the RICH people. Or special-interest groups.

One of the many problems with such a process is that people getting paid on a per-signature basis sometimes cut corners.

"We continue to see errors, mistakes and even potential fraud that is very troubling," Secretary of State Jan Brewer told me. "It’s very costly not only for those who hire these paid circulators but also expensive for my office to process them and then challenge those that are not in the correct form. I really think that this is something the Legislature needs to address. The proof is in the pudding. Just consider what we have gone through this time around."

Already several propositions have failed to make the ballot because not enough valid signatures were collected. One such proposal would have ended affirmation action in Arizona. Proponents of that measure, supported by out-of-state money, went to court to get it back on the ballot, then gave up the fight. It’s been a mess. The opposition to that proposal was lead by state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.

"Arizona is the most popular place to come if you are an out-of-state rich person with an agenda," Sinema told me.

Secretary of State Brewer believes the Legislature should pass a law that either would require petition circulators to be paid by the hour rather than then signature. Others want to ban the practice all together. The problem with the latter, Sinema said, is the number of signatures that currently must be collected.

"If you want to eliminate the paid collectors then I think you have to lower the threshold," she said. For example, dropping the required number of signatures from the current 10 and 15 percent to something like 5 and 8 percent. She added, "Otherwise, we’d be eliminating direct democracy for all practical purposes, and I wouldn’t be in favor that."

According to Brewer, one of the main reasons the system hasn’t been reformed is that elected officials benefit from it.

"Our politicians can’t find volunteer circulators, either," she said. "So they’re not eager to make changes in how things work."

Sure, it costs a lot of money to hire paid circulators, but with the help of a few generous campaign contributors, the politicians can afford it.

The question is, can we?

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8978.

This fact was demonstrated earlier this month in a very public way. Thanks again to everyone that helped make this happen. We were extremely busy up until the last minute before the event. We were still buying hardware at 9:00 pm before the polls opened 10:00 am the next morning.

The system was well received by participants, and it worked as expected. The election included five contests on the first day, then six contests on the second and third days.

At 6 pm after the first day, OVC received the list of eleven best-of-show finalists. By 10 am the next morning, the voting machines were ready and the polls opened with the new ballot definition (including voice prompts and tabulation routines updated and checked).

Press was very favorable. Besides the San Francisco Chronicle article posted before the event, there was an excellent Computerworld article that appeared during the 3-day event.

The event was also documented on YouTube.

Hundreds of people signed a support letter.

All of the 816 ballots cast scanned successfully with the barcode reader (in a previous trial in January of 2008, one out of 204 ballots could not be tallied with the barcode reader due to mangling and poor print quality, although the text was readable). Ballots were tallied in batches every 45 minutes or so. Each batch was then sealed in an envelope with a copy of the tally sheet.

A video-taped audit was conducted two weeks after the event. The batches that were checked demonstrated that the tally sheets matched a hand count of the votes. A few individual ballots were audited by checking the barcode output with the text on the ballot. The grand totals were also checked by summing selected contests from the tally sheets.