Category: News

Mike Gravel, who ran to be the Libertarian nominee for president this year, was recently interviewed on Al Jazeera English. He talked about various subjects, including his presidential campaign, his book A Political Odyssey, Sarah Palin, the United States’ role as a world police, and, most notably, how the two major parties rig the system to work in their favor and against other candidates. The interviews can be seen below:

Part 1

Part 2

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Citizen-initiated measures, such as gay rights and physician-assisted suicide, are not a uniquely Western U.S. phenomenon as traditionally thought, but have their roots across a wide geographical area that includes the Deep South, a new University of Florida study finds.

“Our study challenges the dominant historical narrative of why citizen initiatives were adopted in some American states a century ago,” said Daniel Smith, a UF political science professor whose study appears in the current issue of American Political Science Review. “The phenomenon may bring to mind places like Oregon, California, Colorado and Washington — states with populist and progressive traditions — but we found that lawmakers in the West were no more likely than those from other states to accede broad powers to voters in this way.”

Smith, who collaborated on the study with Dustin Fridkin, a UF doctoral student in political science, said political considerations — the degree of competition between political parties in a state legislature, party organizational strength and the presence of a third party — are the strongest predictors of whether a legislature gave voters the power to make their own decisions through the initiative process.

In 1898 South Dakota voters became the first to approve a constitutional amendment granting residents the power to decide initiatives and by 1918 voters in 20 states had followed suit, he said.

Southern states were thought to be more apprehensive about the initiative process because of its potential to mobilize African Americans, but the facts do not bear this out, Smith said. The legislatures of Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi and Texas were among the early states to place referendums on the ballot-granting residents the opportunity to adopt direct democracy reforms, he said.

Minnesota and Wisconsin, two progressive states, have never implemented this form of direct democracy because voters ultimately did not approve it; and the supposed populist explanation does little to explain why Missouri adopted the initiative, Smith said, but not neighboring Kansas, a hotbed of populist sentiment a century ago.

“Lawmakers inherently don’t like the initiative process because it takes power away from them, so it raises the question of why they would give up their institutional authority in order to allow citizens to pass laws,” Smith said.

The study found that legislative competition between political parties played a key role in lawmakers’ decision to give citizens a direct role in shaping public policy. On average, the majority party’s surplus of seats was 22.5 percent among the 20 early state legislatures that referred the initiative process to the ballot compared with 26.7 percent for those state legislatures that did not, Smith said.

“A minority party might be willing to sell out the institutional powers of the legislature and allowing citizens to gain political power, in order to curry favor with the people and hopefully become the majority party,” he said. “And the majority party is put in the position of not wanting to be anti-populist.”

Also more receptive to citizen initiatives were states with weaker political parties — possibly because they achieved statehood later and had fewer established political traditions — and states with third parties, which further diluted majority power, he said.

In place in 24 states today, the initiative process is arguably the most important political institution available to citizens, but it has repercussions, Smith said. By allowing citizens to pass laws and constitutional amendments that can impinge upon the legislature’s ability to raise money, restrict certain taxes or direct types of expenditures, state legislatures become inherently weaker, he said.

“I think there are some aspects to it that are clearly troubling when you have votes taking place that are not fully informed and there’s no iterative decision-making — it’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on a particular policy with no chance to amend it,” he said. “On the flip side, there are a lot of positive ‘educative effects’ about the initiative process.”

States with initiatives over time have higher turnout in midterm and presidential elections, drawing voters to ballot measures and presenting candidates with substantive issues that can help set the campaign agenda, Smith said.

“People who live in initiative states are more likely to talk about politics and contribute money to interest group,” he said. “It makes sense because they are more engaged in the process, which is something the Progressives argued in its favor back in the early 1900s.”

RENO, Nev.—Nevada voters will decide only a handful of ballot measures in November after what started out as a dizzying scramble of competing initiatives was reduced by court challenges or behind-the-scenes compromise.

Of the four statewide questions remaining, one deals with eminent domain; two involve tweaking tax law oversight; and a third would remove from the Nevada Constitution a six-month residency rule for voter eligibility—a requirement the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional more than three decades ago.

The bigger, still-simmering issue involves what won’t be on the ballot—a dozen or so citizen initiatives that were either withdrawn by their backers or scrapped by the courts for failing to meet tougher new qualifying requirements adopted by the 2005 Legislature.

Legal challenges over Nevada’s revamped petition procedures continue and ramifications for this year’s ballot remain uncertain. But with time running out before the November election it’s unlikely voters will see any of the previously tossed measures on the ballot.

Advocates of the disqualified measures and political observers say they are likely to re-emerge in future elections.

First, a snapshot of what voters will be asked to decide:

— Question 1: Amends the Nevada Constitution to remove an unconstitutional requirement that a person must reside in Nevada for six months before being eligible to vote. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 and later years ruled that lengthy residency requirements for voter registration were unconstitutional. State law already imposes a less restrictive, 30-day residency requirement, which has been deemed reasonable by courts.

— Question 2: A constitutional amendment restricting government use of eminent domain to acquire private property for public use. Voters in 2006 passed the measure 63 percent to 37 percent. It needs final voter approval in November to become part of the Nevada Constitution. But after critics feared it would cripple local governments and public works projects, a compromise law that took effect in October, along with another proposed companion constitutional amendment, was passed by the 2007 Legislature. Lawmakers in 2009 must pass the amendment again before it goes to a public vote in 2010 for final action. It would supersede Question 2.

— Question 3: A constitutional amendment approved by lawmakers in 2005 and 2007 setting parameters that must be satisfied before the Legislature can grant property, sales or use tax exemptions. It requires a finding of specific social or economic benefits and mandates that exemptions have an expiration date.

— Question 4: Amends the state Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 by authorizing the Legislature to amend or repeal provisions to comply with federal law or interstate agreements. Any tax increase still would require voter approval.

Voters in Nevada’s two most populous counties, Clark and Washoe, also will vote on an advisory question backed by the Nevada State Education Association and some Las Vegas casino giants to increase hotel room taxes in those counties by up to 3 percent initially to fund public schools. The cooperative effort was forged in a deal that included teachers dropping an earlier initiative that called for a 44 percent increase in casino taxes.

As of this week, voters were not going to be asked to decide other contentious issues, such as various measures taxing casinos, funding education and capping property taxes. The property tax cap pushed by former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle has failed three times to qualify for the ballot. Though Angle is pursuing an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mark Gibbons questioned whether any legal remedy is available, since Nevada’s secretary of state already has told local election officials to remove the measure from November ballots.

Supporters of the failed initiatives point to changes made by the 2005 Legislature that they say effectively hog-ties citizen petitions.

Kermitt Waters, a Las Vegas attorney and supporter of several measures removed from the Nov. 4 ballot, on Thursday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, arguing the state law that limits initiatives to one subject and requires a 200-word explanation is unconstitutional.

"The fact they knocked them all off (the ballot) makes our case that much more stronger," Waters said.

Political observers are split over whether the initiative requirements are for the better or worse.

Supporters argue the requirements will bring simplicity and clarity to a process prone to "hijacking" by special interests, and point to the 2004 election as an example of why reforms were needed.

In that election, a group tied to the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association backed two measures that purported to roll back insurance rates but instead sought to prohibit limiting damage awards or attorneys fees in malpractice cases. Both failed.

Fred Lokken, political science professor at Truckee Meadows Community College, said while initiative backers are generally "well intended," the process is "really subject to abuse."

The only way to preserve the opportunity for citizens to actively push law changes is to "come up with some logical ways to sort of clean it up … and tighten the language so that everyone can understand it," he said.

Others worry of unintended consequences.

"It’s an effort to restrict this aspect of direct democracy," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. "I say you tread there at your own peril.

"We’re in this odd kind of anti-initiative backlash, but it’s coming from within government, which I think is very dangerous.

"I don’t disagree that the initiative process has been hijacked by special-interest groups," he added. "But you’re still taking away the right of voters to review that hijacking."

Today, September 17 is Constitution Day, but very, very few Americans know this or will celebrate it.  If you think of yourself as a politically engaged, civic-minded and patriotic American, then I urge you to celebrate today by expanding your mind about a critically important but never-used part of our Constitution.

 

All you have to do is go to www.foavc.org the site of Friends of the Article V Convention and spend some time learning the truth about the option given to us by the Framers because they anticipated that Americans would lose trust and confidence in the federal government.  That day has surely arrived.  So I beg you to suspend your current beliefs and fears and open your mind to learning the truth about this option.

An Article V Convention was envisioned as a temporary fourth branch of the federal government that, once convened, was not under the control of Congress, the President or the Supreme Court.  The Convention of state delegates could only propose constitutional amendments, just as Congress has done during our history, and like those they would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

 

So why have we never had an Article V Convention?

 

Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and the oath of office by not respecting the one and only requirement for a Convention given in Article V.  That is applications from two-thirds of the states.  Well, here is an indisputable fact that you can verify by going to www.foavc.org: there have been over 600 such state applications and our group is the first and only group to make these available to the public (our job of posting these is not quite yet complete).

 

Why has Congress refused to allow us to have an Article V Convention?  They and all established political interests on the left and right fear direct democracy as manifest through such a Convention.  They fear many kinds of constitutional amendments that are the only way to obtain major, systemic political reforms.  Many examples of possible amendments are on our site, though our organization does not advocate for any amendment, staying totally committed to a nonpartisan advocacy to compel Congress to grant us the first Article V Convention.

 

Want to rid the political system of corruption by moneyed interests?  Then contemplate an amendment that would remove all private money from all political campaigns and activities, replacing it with strict and pure public financing.  This approach has been called Clean Money/Clean Elections and has worked when adopted by several states.

 

Want to eliminate the perverse impacts of using the Electoral College for presidential elections?  Then contemplate an amendment replacing it with the popular vote.

 

Want to reduce the excessive powers accumulated by the presidency?  Then think about an amendment prohibiting presidential signing statements that undermine the legislative actions of Congress, and also making unconstitutional for Congress to, in any way, transfer its power and authority to declare war to the president.

 

Not only go to www.foavc.org to expand your knowledge, please consider becoming a member of our organization so that we become strong enough to impose effective pressure on Congress to obey the Constitution.  What a fine way to celebrate Constitution Day.

 

 

www.delusionaldemocracy.com

Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments. He is Chair of the Independent Party of Maryland.

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