Category: News

The Post and Courier of Charleston on the statewide initiative process:

The Legislature is the dominant force in South Carolina’s government and, no surprise, hasn’t been willing to give the voters access to a statewide initiative process. For the sake of accountability, that ought to change.

Jim Gordon, state director of Voters-In-Charge, cites the absence of a provision for statewide initiative petition, as well as the high threshold for citizens to force local referendums.

A threshold of 8 percent of the voters who participated in the most recent presidential election, suggested by Gordon, would make it much easier for citizens to petition for a ballot measure.

At the state level, that percentage would be in the middle range of the 24 states that allow the process. …

Voters should have the option of petitioning for legislative review or for a public referendum on an issue of broad concern. But the threshold should be sufficient to ensure that a measure has substantial public support, particularly on ballot questions. The bar should be high enough to ensure that the process isn’t hijacked by single-interest groups.

At present, there is no opportunity for South Carolina voters to bring a matter to a statewide public referendum, short of convincing their legislators to do so. That’s why populist measures such as legislative term limits have never gotten serious consideration in this state. There’s not even the threat of a publicly initiated referendum to force the issue.

Statewide initiative would serve as a safety valve for the voters. Its passage would help encourage greater honesty and accountability among our elected officials, particularly if it were coupled with a provision allowing the voters to force recall elections.

The toughest vote on statewide initiative petition and referendum will be in the Legislature, whose members have the most to lose by granting a limited option for direct democracy.

If legislators really support representative government, they should provide the opportunity for voters to force ballot consideration of issues on their own — and not just at the local level.

Online:

http://www.postandcourier.com

Read the full transcript of TheDC’s interview below:

TheDC: You’re famous for reading the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. Do you see Julian Assange as a modern day Daniel Ellsberg?

Mike Gravel (MG): Yes, in point of fact, this is the most significant effort to save democracy (which is slowly being eclipsed by the Military Industrial Complex) since the release of the Pentagon Papers. The revelations of Wikileaks are not an endangerment to American troops in our far-flung Empire, but they truly are an embarrassment to America’s political leadership today. The response of this leadership is merely an effort to hide their malfeasance and to protect their reputations.

TheDC: You’ve called for an investigation into 9/11. Do you think the government was behind the attacks?

MG: Individuals in and out of government may certainly have participated with the obviously known perpetrators of this dastardly act. Suspicions abound over the analysis presented by government. Obviously an act that has triggered three wars, Afghan, Iraqi and the continuing War on Terror, should be extensively investigated which was not done and which the government avoids addressing.

TheDC: Are you considering another run for president in 2012? Would you consider a primary challenge against President Obama?

MG: Both are possible.

TheDC: You’ve praised Sarah Palin in the past. Do you think she could beat Obama in 2012?

MG: I never praised Palin. What I’ve said and continue to believe is that she is a very talented politician. Policy wise and intellectually, I think she leaves a great deal to be desired. I don’t think she could beat Obama.

TheDC: What political cause would prompt you to chain yourself to the White House fence?

MG: The shortcomings of Democracy will not be solved by protests. The solutions are not with chaining oneself to a fence. The shortcomings will be solved by empowering the People to make laws. The central power of government is law making. Without this power the People can only protest and under the structure of representative government today that changes very little. I will continue my efforts with the National Initiative which is the best approach in this regard.

JESSE FREESTON, PRODUCER, TRNN: In our previous segments with author and journalist Ben Dangl, we discussed the developing conflicts between leftist leaders in South America and some of the social movements that brought them to power in the first place. But the book [Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America] also touches on how the methods of Latin American social movements have influenced people in the United States.

BEN DANGL, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: The challenges that we face in the north and the south are similar as far as, you know, having corrupt bosses, facing unemployment, terrible economic policies, environmental destruction. In many cases movements, activists, governments, politicians in Latin America have been much more successful at overcoming these obstacles than we have on such a scale in the US. Some successful examples of that are participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where people have power over how their budgets are organized and spent within their local communities, and that’s pulling political power away from the government and into the communities, where it’s needed the most.

FREESTON: Porto Alegre began the process in the late 1980s. And by 2006, a report from the Worldwatch Institute estimated that more than 1,200 municipalities in the world had adopted participatory budgeting. And by 2009, it had arrived in the United States. The Real News spoke to Ines Sommer, a filmmaker and resident of Chicago’s 49th Ward.

INES SOMMER, FILMMAKER, RESIDENT OF 49TH WARD, CHICAGO: We were all told that there are other municipalities in the world, mainly in South America and some in Europe, that use this process with great results. But we would be the first municipality in the United States to actually try this out. From the beginning it seemed like a very kind of idealistic, almost utopian kind of project, that we as neighborhood residents were allowed to come up with our own projects that then would be voted on by the neighborhood. And some people were kind of suspicious: Why is this being done? Is this worth my effort? Etcetera. But after a while I think a lot of people were won over. And it was really quite an incredible energy, because people got very excited that they were being asked about changes in their own neighborhood. Then people decided to sign up to different committees, and we met for many months and came up with proposals. Those proposals were then being presented in several open meetings and online to the neighborhood. And then I believe in April people came out and could vote on these proposals. The day of the vote was just incredible. There was such an energy there. Nobody knew how many people would show up, maybe 100 people, 200 people, but I think the last count was that it was, like, 1,500 or 1,600 people showed up to vote. And people spent a lot of time at that polling place just reading through all these proposals that had been put together, being very kind of considerate and thoughtful about how they wanted that money to be apportioned.

FREESTON: In 1996, the World Bank reported that after seven years of participatory budgeting at the mayor’s office in Porto Alegre, Brazil, health and education spending had risen from a 13 percent share of the budget to almost 40 percent. In the case of Chicago’s 49th Ward, the city limited their $1.3 million allotment to infrastructure spending only.

SOMMER: Projects that got the most votes really had a lot to do with more cultural projects, such as beautiful murals that now grace a lot of the underpasses, or artistic bicycle racks.

FREESTON: Sommer points out that while it’s certainly a more democratic process than having just the elected officials vote, there’s still work to be done to make it fully representative of the community.

SOMMER: Not everybody can really participate. There might be language barriers; there might be the fact that people work two jobs and don’t have the time to participate. So those are all stumbling blocks for sure.

FREESTON: But Sommer was pleased with the steps taken to remove some of the legal barriers to participation.

SOMMER: People didn’t have to be of voting age; they could be 16 years old or older, and then they were allowed to vote. And the same was true for residency requirements. So nobody checked if you were an immigrant or not an immigrant, if you were legal, etcetera. So it really opened the door for a lot of participation. My now 17-year-old son, who is a high school senior, decided to return to the participatory budgeting process this year, and he now actually chairs a committee, which is an incredible responsibility for a 17-year-old, and he really feels that there are opportunities for pro-democracy in this country, which is wonderful to see, that, you know, he feels empowered to participate in a process that is really usually just open to adults.

End of Transcript

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Talking heads. Push-polls. Stacked town hall meetings. Attack ads. Free speech for sale.

Many voters, particularly younger ones, are increasingly disaffected or even disgusted by the vicious vaudeville that’s taking the place of thoughtful political and public-policy discourse.

What if we were to return to the roots of our democracy by putting more real deliberation back into it? What if we could sit a diverse, representative group of citizens around a table, give them useful information, take away the spin and the talking points, and just let them talk, listen and learn?

We can. And we did.

On Sept. 25, about 185 randomly selected citizens of Allegheny County gathered at Carnegie Mellon University to think through issues of local government and, specifically, policing. The process is called a deliberative poll.

Participants received a booklet of background information on municipal government structure, taxation and public safety in advance, along with a preliminary survey; when they convened at CMU early that morning, they sat around tables, each with a moderator and note-taker. They discussed challenges facing the city and its surrounding communities and formulated questions. After lunch, the questions were submitted to experts for their responses. Having heard the experts’ answers, the citizens were surveyed again, about both their conclusions and the deliberative process itself.

On Dec. 2, the survey results will be published, along with phone poll responses and online comments, by the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute of Politics and the Allegheny Forum at www.alleghenyforum.org. This will culminate a five-month project sponsored and supported by the institute, the Program for Deliberative Democracy (a joint effort of CMU’s Center for Applied Ethics and Political Philosophy and the Coro Center for Civic Leadership) and a constellation of foundations and organizations, including the Pittsburgh Foundation, The Richard King Mellon Foundation, the Grable Foundation, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, Sustainable Pittsburgh and the Local Government Academy.

The hope is that all the public brainstorming will provide insight and direction to local leaders.

The Program for Deliberative Democracy has conducted deliberative polls for six years now, as a more wholesome alternative to mainstream polling, which is marred by framing and agenda-setting by professional strategists. Most polls neither assume nor require any level of knowledge of the issue — but if a majority of people believe the Earth is flat, that doesn’t mean it’s true and public policy based on that belief won’t be sound. A deliberative poll, by contrast, replaces loaded yes/no questions with an informed, structured conversation that transforms individuals with preferences into citizens with judgments.

How did the participants feel about it? More engaged, for starters. Asked "Will you become more engaged in your community as a result of this deliberative poll?" 90 percent answered definitely or probably yes. And they didn’t regret the effort; asked "Given what you know now, would you still have participated in the deliberative poll conversation?" 99 percent said definitely or probably yes — 80 percent "definitely."

This contradicts the claim of critics of deliberative democracy that most citizens aren’t interested, either because they don’t want to listen to people they don’t agree with or because they just don’t want to be bothered with wonky policy puzzles.

Emily Unikel of Friendship had never deliberated before and found the conversations "very interesting and very necessary." She learned the "structure of different governments, the structure of the city of Pittsburgh and how it works."

Kevin Lischner of Munhall was also new to the process. He said such a poll is "a good idea because you get to discuss issues with a diverse group of people. It will be a good consensus to pass on and to be acted upon."

John Zarra of McCandless, another first-timer, thought "the event was extremely well organized and thought out" and as a citizen, he was "definitely learning."

It wasn’t just the deliberators who learned; moderators and note-takers also found enlightenment and inspiration.

Pitt grad student Abby Wilson has been interested in the deliberative democratic movement for some time but had never been involved in a poll. She feels American politics needs a way "average citizens could work through differences outside the echo chamber of an increasingly polarizing media and civic culture.

"I have long wondered how opinion polls would change," she said, "if participants in them had the opportunity … to better educate themselves about a controversial issue." As a moderator, she admired the participants’ "desire to find real solutions to problems like strapped municipal budgets, burdensome but maybe unavoidable tax bills, aging infrastructure and fragmentation in and across governments.

"My small group generally seemed to feel like elected leadership was too often interested in conflict for conflict’s sake — rather than in … solving people’s problems — and that people were tired of feeling like elected officials were ‘fighting’ all the time without a particular aim in mind."

Students assisting from Carlow, Carnegie Mellon and Chatham universities were impressed by the spirit of respect and cooperation. As one wrote, "People only do what they know to do. We must first understand something before we can change it or pass judgment on it." Another noted proudly, "They were able to work together on important topics and share in each other’s passions for a better community. … We worked together to find reasonable solutions."

Many of the tables resolved to meet again in the future, informally, to continue their conversations and learn more. Allyson Lowe, chair of the Political Science Department at Carlow University, called the day "transformative."

"Community builds at those tables," she said. And it can continue to grow afterward, even across distances and municipal boundaries.

We know how to nourish our democracy with community and constructiveness rather than distrust and rancor. Wouldn’t that be better?

New Zealand needs to embrace the tools of direct democracy to halt its slow slide towards totalitarianism, according to a new organisation set up by two Nelson men.

Tourism operator Chris Salt and deer farmer Mike Waring formed For Real Democracy NZ earlier this year to push for binding citizens-initiated referenda in New Zealand.

Mr Waring said the goal was to make votes cast in a referendum binding on Parliament, giving the voting public real control over government policy.

The organisation will hold a public meeting tomorrow, with Swiss Ambassador Marion Weichelt-Krupski and businessman Colin Craig speaking about the issue.

Switzerland has a long history of direct democracy, and Mr Craig stood on the platform of binding citizens-initiated referenda during his run for the mayoralty of the Auckland super-city this year.

Votes in referenda had become practically meaningless, with politicians often ignoring the results, Mr Waring said.

The proposed system would change this, he said.

"If enough people vote in a referendum and say `we don’t like this’ then it doesn’t happen."

Without such a move, the country risked drifting towards totalitarianism, Mr Waring said.

"I think that individual sovereignty will be further reduced [with] more and more state control over people’s lives."

Mr Waring said he hoped the meeting would be more widely attended than their last, which saw nine people turn up.

"It’s pretty well make or break for us," he said.

By Charlie Mcbride

ONE OF our most esteemed political commentators, Fintan O’Toole, is appearing at the Town Hall Theatre next week in a reading/discussion centred around his provocative new book Enough Is Enough; How to Build a New Republic.

In Enough Is Enough, O’Toole detonates the five myths that govern Irish life – from the notion that politicians properly represent their constituents and ‘get things done’ to the dangerous idea that Ireland in the early 21st century became one of the richest countries in the world.

Each of these myths is held up to the light and shown to be false, and positive suggestions are offered as to how the existing institutions could be reformed. He proposes five fundamental ‘decencies’ that should guide this reform process and argues forcefully that Ireland’s future depends on such change.

While visiting Galway last Friday to address a conference, O’Toole took time out to talk about his book and the reforming ideas it advances. He began however with his thoughts on the then-unfolding news of the IMF bailout.

“It’s a historic moment,” he tells me. “Irish history throughout the 20th century has been marked by a steady progress of sovereignty leading up to the Belfast Agreement when we got to exercise self-determination as a whole island.

“You can chart that via the foundation of the State, the expansion of powers within the Commonwealth, the 1937 Constitution, getting back the Treaty Ports, the declaration of the Republic, all those big moments. And this is really the first time since the establishment of the first Dáil in 1919 that things have gone in the other direction.

“We’ve lost a key part of our sovereignty for the next four or five years at least. It’s a terrible, terrible day for the country.”

No-one can do it but us

O’Toole’s book sets out many compelling suggestions for positive changes to our political system – the Appendix comprises an impressive ‘Fifty Ideas For Action’ but how might these reforming ideas actually be implemented?

“That’s the key question and the one I’ve been getting in events done around the book,” he replies. “Lots of people respond positively to the suggestions but then there’s always the question ‘Who’s going to do this?’.

“The only answer I have is that no-one can do it but us. It’s not going to come from within the elite; the governing culture is not interested in reforming itself to anything like the radical extent necessary. What I am suggesting is that we need a very large civic movement of people who could then put enormous pressure on the system.

“So I intend to put together a very simple set of summaries of the stuff in the book about the political system and how it has to change, and put that online – at www.fintanotoole.ie – and ask people to sign up to it.

“I’m being kind of deliberately optimistic here but say you got 300,000 people to sign up to something saying we’re not going to vote for anyone who doesn’t accept the need to do these things, that would have an effect.”

In readings and discussions he has already done for the book, O’Toole detects a darkening of the public mood.

“People’s sense of crisis has deepened,” he observes. “It was possible last year to believe that by this year we would be beginning to see some kind of economic stabilisation and that you could then chart out a way forward, but this time I found it very difficult to find anyone who has faith in anything we’re being told.

“The level of complete disillusionment with authority is enormous. The problem is our democracy has imploded and only citizens can rebuild that democracy themselves. I’m not saying if you read my book it will turn Ireland into a paradise; like everyone else I’m just desperately trying to articulate some sense of what a way forward might be, but none of it is worth a barrel of spit if it’s not a part of a process of people getting engaged themselves.”

One of the threads running throughout Enough Is Enough is the idea that more power should be invested in local government.

“One of the fundamental problems with our system is that we have very little real power at local level,” says O’Toole. “What happens is everything gets pushed up the system so you get parish pump politics at national level and a whole attitude to national politics that has proved to be disastrous.

“There’s no point in having a new system of local government if it’s just a reproduction at a minor level of the decrepitude of national government. So this needs to be the place where you have to do your basic experiments in new ways of doing democracy.

“I’m not suggesting anything in the book that hasn’t been done elsewhere. Direct democracy is being done in lots of cities and communities around the world where you have continual consultations with members of the public, continual public assemblies discussing, setting priorities, defining choices, deciding how resources should be used, how people want their taxes to be used.

“I think the key here is local government without local funding is meaningless, because then it will just be top-down stuff again. You have to re-establish a link between people’s taxation and the decisions that are being made at local level.

“In Ireland, at local level we’re very good at people getting involved and feeling part of the community. The key thing is to try and translate that into a way of doing politics. If you could get half the amount of energy around local politics as you have around local football teams we’d have a fantastic local democracy.”

Do we get the governments we deserve?

O’Toole lambasts the corruption and incompetence of our political elites, yet it has to be acknowledged that these elites are themselves a product of our society and its value-systems. Could one play Devil’s Advocate and argue we get the governments we deserve?

“We invented machine politics,” O’Toole declares. “The first place in the world where you had mass democracy was Ireland. Daniel O’Connell invented mass democracy machine politics where you had every parish in Ireland organised.

“You had literally millions of people actively engaged in a political organisation. There was no parallel for that anywhere else for at least another 50 years. Even people who were poor, relatively uneducated, in some cases barely literate, were able to ‘do’ politics, their system worked.

“But the problem is we’re stuck with machine politics; you’re right, it’s in our social DNA. We know how to do it, we’re used to it; Fianna Fáil is arguably the most successful political machine in western Europe in the 20th century. Once it took power it very seldom lost it. And we’ve endorsed that and given our blessing to it.

“So you have this machine that has stayed in place. It actually started out with a purpose but now it exists for no purpose other than power and we do have to decide whether we still feel that represents us politically.

“I’m hoping we’re at a key moment where structures and attitudes that have been in place right back to the 19th century will now be kicked away.”

Part of the impetus behind the book stemmed from O’Toole’s reflection on the possibility that Ireland’s wrecked economy might prompt his own sons, who are aged 24 and 20, to have to emigrate.

“My sons were brought up in a society that was telling them everything is rosy, you’ve got fantastic opportunities,” he states. “Now, it’s not just that they have to face the prospect of austerity, austerity, austerity, and nothing else. It’s also that austerity is in order to pay off the gambling debts of people who were, in some cases, crooks.

“Some of what went on in Anglo Irish Bank was clearly criminal and these guys are still walking around, there have been no prosecutions. What I’m really afraid of is we are setting up an immediate future that is enormously unattractive to any young person to stay here.

“My eldest son is already retraining, doing a TEFL course. We could go right back again into the whole problem of mass emigration and you don’t need to be a historian to know how debilitating that was for society.

“Those of us who are older have a duty now to try to have something to say to our younger people why they should stay here, but we can’t do that unless we really set out to fundamentally transform our society and the institutions it operates through.”

In Iceland the new constitution will really be the voice of the people. There are elections being held to choose 31 people who will forge a new charter. This exercise in direct democracy is in part a result of the outrage at government that followed after the nation’s economic crash.

The citizens will form a Constitutional Assembly which will convene early next year. The process is a source of pride for Icelanders. Berghildur Bergthorsdottir who is entrusted with organizing the assembly said:"This is the first time in the history of the world that a nation’s constitution is reviewed in such a way, by direct democratic process," Iceland’s present constitution is simply an adaptation of the Danish constitution aand was created in 1944 after Iceland gained independence from Denmark. A review of the constitution has been on the agenda ever since. As if often the case with respect to changing constitutions it takes ages for anything to be done. The economic meltdown convinced many that not only regulatory changes were needed but changes also in government structures.

After the economic collapse in 2008 citizens gathered outside the parliament banging pots and pans to show their fury. Many believe a tighter constitutional framework including a more precise division of powers was needed to minimize or even prevent the damage.

The prime minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said:"It is very important for ordinary citizens, who have no direct interest in maintaining the status quo, to take part in a constitutional review," We are hoping this new constitution will be a new social covenant leading to reconstruction and reconciliation, and for that to happen, the entire nation needs to be involved."

Iceland has a population of just 320,000. In the past it has been rated as among the best places to live in the world in spite of its harsh climate. It went from economic miracle however to economic basket case during the recent economic global meltdown.

During the financial bubble preceding the bust Iceland fell prey to an invasion of financial Vikings although many were Icelanders! Icelandic investors called Viking raiders snapped up properties globally mostly on borrowed funds from foreign banks!

In October 2008 Icelandic banks collapsed.. Iceland currency also collapsed along with them. Unemployment soared along with the cost of living as prices of imports soared. Costs of the money borrowed in foreign funds soared as the Icelandic krona plunged in value.

Icelanders were furious at those responsible for the crash and the destruction of their standard of living. Misdeeds and incompetence were exposed both in the public and private domains. Although their country had been near the top of the anti-corruption index turned out all of a sudden to be steeped in corruption.After a parliamentary investigation a 2,000-page report showed that the foundations of Icelandic society were decayed and that sweeping changes in the social framework was needed. The prime minister hopes that the new constitution will help restore confidence in government again.

The new constitutional assembly will be made up of 25 to 31 delegates chosen from the 31 people elected.It will be made up of regular citizens elected by direct personal voting. Anyone is eligible to stand for election, with the exceptions of the president, lawmakers and the committee appointed to organize the assembly. The new assembly will draft the new constitution next year.

A lot of the ground work has already been done through another exercise in participatory democracy. One thousand randomly chosen Icelanders between the ages of 18 and 89 offered their views of what should be in the constitution. 523 people are running to be elected to the group of 31 that will form the constitutional assembly, They represent all walks of life from: truck drivers, university professors, lawyers (of course) journalists and even computer geeks. Each person is given equal time on Icelandic radio to present their opinions as to why they should be elected. Those chosen will receive a salary the same as that of Icelandic parliamentarians while working on the constitution. Icelandic employers will be legally required to grant leave to employees elected to the assembly.

As one would expect not everyone cheers on this democratic exercise. Some see the whole process as a frivolous and expensive exercise in populism. One candidate is even running on a campaign to keep the present constitution arguing that a time of crisis is the worst time to change the constitution. He argues that the constitution had absolutely nothing to do with the bank collapse and does not stand in the way of rebuilding either. Whatever the case Icelanders have shown themselves to be pioneers in experimenting with new forms of democratic processes.

Listen Thursday, November 11, 2010 from 2-3 pm on the Progressive Radio Network to hear the story behind a book listed by Ralph Nader as one of the top ten books to read! Ordinary People Doing the Extraordinary: The Story of Ed and Joyce Koupal and the Initiative Process was authored by Dwayne Hunn, PhD., MA, Executive Director of Peoples Lobby, about his mentors and founders of People’s Lobby (PLI).

In the ‘70’s, PLI used the initiative process to solve problems, qualifying two clean environment initiatives and then passing the Political Reform Act with 70% of the vote to establish California’s Fair Political Practices Commission. PLI also directed the 18 states Western Bloc Safe Energy Campaigns and organized three days of Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on establishing a National Initiative Process.

Dwayne was a Peace Corps volunteer in the slums of Mumbai, India, on the startup team of the California Conservation Corps, selected to Who’s Who in California, a partner on the Recycled Building Company, one of six founding members of the SunTrain Inc., and has worked on over four Habitat building projects. He is currently working on legislation creating an American World Service Corps and a proposal to Return to Fair Tax Brackets, which address some of the major problems we face today. His work is dependent upon public support and involvement- you can help by signing the petitions on the website for policy changing legislation.

The show’s host, Carol Brouillet, became particularly interested in the initiative process, when she learned that all the major gains of the Populists followed the success of getting the initiative process started in several states in the 1800’s. The challenges of the Populist Era confronting corporate power, corruption, a hostile media parallel the current struggle against the enthronement of corporate power. (She wrote and spoke about the populists in a presentation of Strategy for the Monetary Reform Movement in Chicago last October.

Dwayne Hunn has also experienced how the corporations learned from the Koupal’s success to further their own interests and push for initiatives that enhance their power at public expense.

The 2010 Forum in San Francisco on Modren Direct Democracy stated:

"Modern Direct democracy is one important way to bring the people into representative government at all levels — local, state, national, and transnational. It is a process that works best in places where freedom and human rights are protected. To improve direct democracy, we must continue to learn from each other, bridging boundaries of nationality, ideology and party.

Having gathered here in San Francisco, we also must note that California’s initiative process needs greater attention and perhaps improvement, because the reputation of the state’s direct democracy is negatively and unfairly affecting perceptions of direct democracy around the world.

We agree that three values must be applied to direct democracy everywhere: transparency, open access, and deliberation.

Transparency: At every stage of each direct democratic action, and in every aspect of the initiative and referendum process, citizens have a right to know as much as possible about the people and money behind each measure, so long as individuals are protected against coercion and retribution for their votes and for their signatures.

Open access. Access to the process, especially the qualification of measures for ballots, should be based on measures of substantial popular support – and should not be dependent on money or on the sanction or approval of public officials or political parties or interest groups. Technology and other innovations should be fully incorporated into the process consistent with the values of expanding access and ensuring transparency.

Deliberation. A deliberative process that is driven by and managed by citizens themselves should be part of every direct democracy. We believe that the most important factors in deliberation are the ability to hear multiple views from all sides – and the time to consider each direct democratic measure fully.

We cannot stress enough the importance of sufficient time to the health of direct democracy. We are concerned that many direct democratic systems, particularly those in the United States, fail to provide the time necessary for thorough deliberation and open access.

This show will be recorded and archived on the Progressive Radio Network.

By Paul M. Davis

One of the most vexing problems for voters in states that allow ballot initiatives is determining how to separate the truth from heavily-funded, misleading messaging from special interests. Intentionally confusing initiative descriptions and deep-pocketed allies and foes mislead many voters. While publications and fact-checking research groups can provide some illumination, these organizations often have their own axes to grind. During this election season, Oregon is presenting a third way: non-partisan Citizen Judgment Reviews that sift through the rhetoric, misleading advertisements, and research to provide Oregonians with an impartial take on the initiatives.

Credit: joebeone/Flickr

The State of Oregon has embraced the reviews, printing the statements of the Citizen Judgment Reviews within Oregon’s Voter Information Booklets. In a press release, Tom Atlee of the Institute for Global Communications describes the process:

“Two ‘Citizen Initiative Reviews’ — panels of randomly selected ordinary Oregonian voters — have passed ‘informed public judgment’ on two ballot initiatives Oregonians will be voting on this November. Authorized by the state legislature and the governor, their thorough study, expert interviews, and deliberations have clarified the issues and facts so Oregon’s voters can more intelligently decide how to vote, to reflect their highest values…This innovation could revolutionize elections. The initiative form of direct democracy could once again become a tool of the popular will. Broader use of the Citizen Initiative Review process could overcome special interests bent on turning popular will against the common good.”

24 “randomly selected, demographically balanced panels of Oregon voters…evaluated ballot measures over 5 full days”, releasing reviews of Measure 73 (Mandatory Minimums) and Measure 74 (Medical Marijuana Dispensaries) that can be found at Healthy Democracy Oregon.

It’s hard to find fault with a process that allows a demographically diverse and informed electorate to directly respond to the misleading ads and campaigning that surrounds these divisive issues. At The Oregonian, guest columnist Harvey Platt writes:

“…ballot measures are often complex issues that have significant financial and social implications for our state. Campaigns and interest groups spend tens of millions on flashy print ads and blaring commercials in an attempt to influence with sound bites, but not necessarily inform. Conversely, the Citizens’ Statements are written by an informed microcosm of Oregon voters, not politicians or pitchmen. It’s the opposite of the dumbing down of voters we have seen in recent years.”

Using a deliberate process, the Citizen Judgment Reviews cut through the rhetoric in favor of sober consideration of the issues and facts, and present an example to other states. In the process, the states engages its informed electorate in the fevered debate surrounging the issues. While the concept of a Citizen Review panel raises some questions, such how to ensure that the panels represent a demographically diverse swath of the electorate, it is certainly deserving of consideration.

This story originally appeared at Shareable under a Creative Commons License