Welcome to Real Democracy

Ultimately, we should amend the Constitution to make our system more democratic, to eliminate the distinction between government and the people, to ensure that we are all represented in the processes of governing, and to require more deliberative decision-making in all aspects of government.  However, that is certainly not something that will happen easily or of its own accord.  Therefore, we must create a strategy, with certain steps that we can begin immediately.

The most important factors in a successful democracy, and in the success of any people’s movement, are organization and participation, so let us begin by building these.   While I do not intend to destroy partisanship, in order to build a truly democratic people’s movement, we must be able to set aside our partisan differences when organizing.

Right now, we have single-member districts in Congress, and single-seat Senate offices elected separately in different election cycles.  So, in every Congressional district, we are each supposedly represented by one person, despite our ideological differences.  Of course, it is impossible for one person to represent the diversity of viewpoints of over half a million people, so each representative is really only representing the majority who elected him or her to office.  The remainder of people in each district are more or less unrepresented.  If we presume the average margin of victory in a Congressional election is 60-40 (and I certainly do not know the correct average, but if you do, please fill us in), then about 40% of the voting population is unrepresented in Congress.  Furthermore, at least 30-50% of the voting age population either registers but doesn’t vote, or never even bothers to register.  Another roughly 30% of Americans are not yet old enough to vote at any given time.  By my calculations, as many as 78% of us are not actually being represented.  Furthermore, even those who did vote for the candidate who won the election do not have an equal amount of influence over their representatives as do the lobbyists or the corporations and other interests they serve.  When viewed in this sense, only those who can make very large campaign contributions and/or offer something else to the political careers of these politicians can really hope to have their ears.  It is very hard to even attempt a calculation of how many people this leaves out, but I’d venture a guess that less than 5%, and probably closer to 1% of the population is actually being represented, and another small percentage may agree with the decisions of their member of Congress or other elected officials enough of the time to feel represented.

The question is: what do we do about it?
Well, to begin with, I think we need to organize at the most local levels.  That is, we need to form associations in our voting precincts.  The two major parties already do this in most precincts, but these are partisan organizations that ultimately work to serve the status quo, which as I’ve pointed out, really doesn’t serve the people.  We need to build pan-partisan organizations in every precinct that can assemble occasionally — perhaps once a month? once every two months? — and discuss the issues that concern them.  At the local level, we may find there is less polarization of views than we see in national politics, but even if there is just as much, we must not let that discourage us.

Then we must form associations with the other precincts that are in the same counties, congressional district, state legislative districts, etc.  In many places (like here in Texas), this may require several different coalitions of precinct organizations.  For instance, here in Austin, most of the city is in one county, Travis, but the county is divided into five state legislative districts, and three different congressional districts reach into the county.  While there will be several precincts that will share city, county, state leg. district and congressional districts with mine, others will share only some of these.

It would be great for these citizens’ organizations to push for embedded jurisdictions to eliminate these different associations, but each state may have to develop a different answer for that.  Here in Texas, we have 34 Congressional districts, 31 state Senate districts, and 150 state House districts.   One way we might remedy the problem here would be to change our state constitution to make the number of state senate districts equal to the number of congressional districts, and to make their boundaries identical.  Then we might add that each of these districts be divided into five legislative districts, or that each district will elect five representatives to the state House by a proportional representation method.  Using proportional representation, we might also push for different divisions, and I believe proportional representation will serve the people much better, but we can reserve these discussions to our assemblies after we form them.

In any case, until such reforms are made, each precinct may need to elect one set of delegates to represent it at the county assembly, and a different set of delegates to represent them at the state House district assembly.  Congressional districts and maybe some other jurisdictions may also need to be divided into subdivisions in order to have effective assemblies.  I’d suggest each precinct, and each higher level assembly, should elect 3-6 delegates to represent its various constituencies at the next higher level assembly.  I’d also suggest that they carry with them proxy votes according to how many people each is representing.  At some point in wider area assemblies, it may be more efficient to have each proxy represent 100 or some other number of votes, but by carrying the proxies up through each level, we will still be representing each person.

When the assembly of delegates meets representing the entire congressional district, the decisions reached there can be taken to the member of Congress for that district, and the people can tell him/her that the people of your district want X, and if any member of Congress should make a habit of ignoring the will of the people in that district, there should already exist through these assemblies a strong enough organization to remove that member from office in the next election.

Eventually, we need to force our representatives to propose constitutional amendments to bring in proportional representation with proxy voting so that each of us will be represented, but until then, we can at least each participate at the local level and be represented in these assemblies that will take our issues directly to our elected leaders servants.

In most places, organizing these assemblies will not be easy either.  Americans have largely become too complacent, apathetic, or just too damn busy trying to make ends meet to be involved in politics.  However, that doesn’t mean they don’t have opinions.  So, prior to forming precinct associations, we might need to conduct precinct-level surveys, or surveys for the relevant jurisdiction based on the issues being addressed.  Undoubtedly, these will be more informal and less scientific than surveys by professional pollsters, but I don’t think we should let that discourage our efforts.  We need to form local polling groups who will try to get opinions from as many people of as many varied perspectives as possible within the relevant jurisdiction to the topic, and take those results to the elected representatives, and to the press.  Make sure everyone there knows the results, and knows that the official(s) in question also knows them.  If these results are routinely ignored, or ignored on the most important issues, use that information against them in their next bid for reelection.  Once the surveys show some clout, it may get easier to get people to get involved. And really, the local assembly is just a survey taken in one time and place.  And of course, the larger the percentage of participation, the more valid the results become.

Please share your thoughts, critiques, additional ideas, etc.

Published on May 23, 2007 at 4:45 pm

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

12 Comments Leave a comment.

  1. On May 31, 2007 at 6:58 pm bigfathairycaterpillar Said:

    3 quick short comments:

    We also have a do nothing U.N.

    Need worldwide socialized medicine.

    Must have War made illegal on this planet by a tribunal of menopausal grandmothers that make all the laws for the entire world.

    Peace,
    M

  2. On June 7, 2007 at 5:29 pm realdemocracy Said:

    Actually, the UN is quite active in a number of different areas. However, the US is usually behind in paying its dues, and is often a roadblock to the UN accomplishing things, and since the Bush administration, has also tried to undermine some UN programs.

  3. On June 10, 2007 at 8:59 am daniellytle Said:

    If we can get a man like Ron Paul in office that would be an excellent start. Here is a man for ten terms has never voted to pass a bill that doesn’t follow the principals of the constitution. He intends to abolish the IRS and the federal
    reserve & all thats associated with it in his first week of office.

  4. On June 10, 2007 at 11:16 pm realdemocracy Said:

    I’ll admit that of the two “major” parties’ candidates, Ron Paul would be the third best choice for President, given the fact that there is not much likelihood of abolishing the office of President in the next 17 months.
    Just curious, but do you know what Dennis Kucinich or Make Gravel have in their platforms? Do you know who Elaine Brown is?
    Personally, I don’t support anyone for President, because I think the office should be abolished. Having a position with that much power invested entirely in one person is just foolish. since our election process has more to do with fundraising, being photogenic and charismatic, and other factors that are generally unrelated to competence, we have no way of ensuring that someone qualified will win that post (if anyone is truly qualified for such a position). In fact, I can’t think of anyone in my lifetime who was, and I’d be willing to argue that none of this country’s Presidents was worthy of the position, although I will admit that before World War 2, it was not such a powerful position as it has been since, and as such, being qualified to hold the position as it was then may have been more of a realistic possibility.
    Even if we found someone who was ideal for the position, after two terms we’d need to find someone else. And if we changed the Constitution to allow our “perfect” President to remain in office beyond two terms, we are asking for greater problems. One, because power corrupts even the greatest of people, and two, because even if our perfect President never becomes corrupted by the immense power of the position, eventually death would remove that President from us, and we would have to find another, and then we’d have a Constitution without mandatory term limits for President….scary!
    No, the only rational course is to change the way we make decisions, to spread the power of decision-making to all Americans, to incorporate sufficient deliberation to prevent decisions based on mass hysteria, and to include protections for minority opinions and individuals.

  5. On June 11, 2007 at 4:15 am daniellytle Said:

    Honestly, I have never believed in our government, all three branches including the 537 elected officials who have control over the national political sphere. I’ve always felt that their are entirely to many flaws in our current system, our supposed Republic. Even with a direct democracy participants turning down titles of nobility, gestures & lump sums of money in exchange for their own personal or political gain, success or gratification is inevitable.

    I suppose, for some it may be a false hope to believe in a politician/man like Ron Paul. Just one man in a fake plastic office with fake plastic people telling him what he should do & not. I can think of several remarkable individuals as I would assume you could that have touched the lives of millions and still do even after they were shot & killed for going against the agenda.

    What is the agenda? Who is standing behind the curtains whispering false truths in the ears of masses? Who is profiting & funding this war? Can the war on terrorism ever be won realistically? These are questions I have been asking myself every since I witnessed the tragedy on September 11, 2001. While many people have become more aware of what is happening behind the scenes these past few decades. Others can’t even grasp the subject or just plain flat out choose not to.

    ” I believe that the banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson.

    All the money circulating in the U.S. is backed by nothing & every dollar has interest on it. If I were to take a trip to the bank and try to exchange $500.ºº for an equal amount of gold or silver no one would be able to for fill my request. And If i insisted I would probably be arrested and thrown in jail. For all Americans paying income taxes, one third of a yearly salary goes straight to the federal reserve to pay off the the interest on money you think you earned but in fact your really borrowing.

    ” I am a most unhappy man, I have willingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by it’s system of credit. we are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson.

    The last statement by Woodrow Wilson was made after signing the bill which started the gears for the Federal Reserve…..Ron Paul’s statement on his plans to abolish the IRS and the federal reserve his first week of office took me by surprise. Honestly, I have never had the opportunity to sit down with Ron Paul for dinner to discuss this issue. But If I could I would commend him on leading in the effort to restore our republic.

    “They must find it difficult…Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.” -G. Massey

  6. On June 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm realdemocracy Said:

    Certainly MLK and Malcolm X were trying to make our society more just, and were killed for it. I really don’t know enough about RFK to have an opinion on where he was politically at the time he was killed, but I know sometimes politicians say things that are little more than rhetoric, and don’t act on their words when they get the chance, so whether or not RFK would have done anything remarkable as President had he not been killed is something we will simply never know. Now if your statement above referred to JFK, I have to take some exception. I know he was very popular, and that he apparently issued an Executive Order just before he was killed to put the US on a silver standard and take at least some power away from the Federal Reserve. I also know that many people speculate that this was the primary reason he was assassinated. I don’t know enough about finance to really KNOW that this was the wonderful act that many say it was; however, I am prone to believe that it would have helped the average American, and cut into the profit and power of the banks…and that is a good thing, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I also feel that we must hold JFK accountable for increasing the number of military advisors and troops sent into Vietnam, and for continuing, or even escalating, the confrontational nature of relations between the US and USSR. Basically, I believe the Cold War was one of the greatest mistakes of political history, and we should have worked together with the Soviet Union to improve each other’s nations and the rest of the world for the benefit of THE PEOPLE instead of governmental power grabs in the service of ruling elites. Even though the Cold War was in full swing when Kennedy became President, I think if he was really interested in working for the people and not the ruling elites, he would have found a way to end the Cold War (or at least begin that process) and cooperate with the Soviets.

    One of the reasons I don’t support Ron Paul is because he is among the people who believe that the free market will work everything out, and that we should leave it alone. I very much disagree with that economic philosophy. I think fairness is much more important than “freedom” when it comes to economics. I think personal liberty and human rights are vitally important, but I think that “free market” economic policies work against both of these, as well as against democracy. In order for people to have individual liberty, they must have political liberty, which must come from political equality, which is dependent upon social and economic justice. Therefore, markets must be controlled and regulated, not by some elite government as it was in capital-C Communist countries like the USSR, but by all the people working together to make both political and economic decisions for the benefit of all.

    To your question “Can the war on terrorism ever be won realistically?”

    Not by military means, but if you’ll click on the link (on the right at top of page) that says “Issues/My Blog” and read the article entitled “The So-Called War on Terrorism” there is a link to an organization called War Kids Relief, which offers the kinds of support to kids, especially in Iraq (for now), that will help keep them from being recruiting targets for terrorist and extremist groups. That is exactly how we can win a “war on terrorism.” Not by attacking people with bullets, bombs, and torture, but by addressing the socio-political factors that lead people to choose terrorism as a path in life.

    BTW, Mike Gravel also wants to abolish the IRS, but doesn’t plan to starve the government and the programs that help so many people. Instead, he supports the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org). I am still undecided on whether or not the “Fair Tax” would truly be fair, and thus, whether or not I support it, but I am definitely willing to entertain the idea.

  7. On June 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm freedomfest Said:

    You only have to look at Switzerland to see the advantages of direct democracy and decentralized confederation government. For more about Switzerland their their direct democracy model, go to
    Switzerland: is Still #1 in Liberty, Direct Democracy & As a Financial Center at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve23.htm

    From the free online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution”

  8. On June 24, 2007 at 3:54 pm realdemocracy Said:

    I don’t really consider Switzerland to be a direct democracy, but indeed, they are much closer than we are in the U.S.

  9. On July 12, 2007 at 8:54 am jsduran Said:

    All good or at least interesting ideas here — certainly in the right spirit. But let us not keep making what is becoming the perennial mistake of the American Left, namely undoing ourselves in words. Again, the concepts being put forward here are plausible and should continue to be discussed and promoted, but we have to be more action-oriented.

    Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney have been introduced, they are House Resolution 333. I submit to you guys that it is imperative that, at least for the moment, we put this impeachment ahead of any grander political system changes.

    One might say “this is not what this blog is about” go find one that is. That is fair. But my point is that it is going to take ALL of us. The Right has a habit of thinking little and doing lots. We have allowed this and look what’s happened. Unfortunately, we have the opposite problem: we talk a lot and do little. We have to change this.

    Ideally, in my opinion, the dialogue in every Left/Progressive blog, for the time being, should be about organizing the push for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.

  10. On July 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm realdemocracy Said:

    I definitely think impeachment should be one of the things we as a nation must pursue right now, but as you say, that is not what this blog is about. It is a more long-term project. Furthermore, while we must impeach and convict to remove from office, then indict and convict on domestic and international criminal charges, and then imprison all those who are guilty from this administration, including at least Bush and Cheney, I believe it is vitally important that we must use the anger and indignation that so many Americans are now feeling to make sure that we do not stop there. We must realize that our system of government as outlined in our Constitution, while a drastic improvement over the monarchies that preceded it, and although it served us well for the first 160 years of this republic, it is insufficient to protect us indefinitely against tyranny. The Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and (especially) Bush administrations have made that all too clear. Furthermore, the model we are using to “represent” the people in the House is antiquated, and there are numerous superior examples available to choose from. The idea that a certain class of people are better equipped to ponder and decide the issues of the people than the people themselves is simply erroneous. However many examples one may have from anecdotal experience of the ignorance or stupidity of the common man, opinion polls provide ample evidence that the people, when taken as a whole, are often ahead of (i.e. more progressive than) elected officials (when also taken as a whole) on many important issues. If we had a democracy, we would probably have had a universal health care system in the ’40s. We would likely have less unemployment and less poverty, less crime, not be engaged in a useless drug war, and we would already be out of Iraq.

    Actually, I believe this issue is possibly more important than impeachment. While impeachment will get two bums out of office who only have a year and a half left anyway, and MIGHT deter future scumbags from attempting some of their tricks (but will more likely just make them try to avoid their “mistakes” that allowed them to be caught), changing the system will make it impossible for any individual or cabal to exert enough influence to commit such crimes, or at the very least will force them to figure out a new scheme for trying to subvert it.

  11. On July 13, 2007 at 8:55 am jsduran Said:

    I really cant disagree with anything you’ve said, except perhaps with the relative importance of the issues. Certainly I am not suggesting that the notion of direct democracy not be promoted. What I am suggesting is that you dont get from A to B in one step, and realistic strategies should be sought — action-oriented, with a focus of the next doable thing. Surely you agree that going from where we are now to the system you suggest in one step is not a plausible notion. The change we seek cannot possibly be implemented top-down. The “top” is taken and they arent going to let go just because we ask. So it has to be bottom-up, with a focus on making measurable progress. One has to play the hand one has been dealt, not the one one wishes he had.

    I think you may overestimate the “outrage” of the people. There just has not been to this point an effective, salient, and uniform effort to uphold the shame of what has happened and the criminality of those responsible.In my opinion, this is the first task at hand in the way to where I think you would want us to go. Not only would it expose the criminality of what has occurred, but it would also show that the Left can actually get something done, which is of much practical value in pushing for future change.

    In other words, my point is that when the house is on fire, it may not be best thing to react by talking about fire-retardant building methods. Or we can, but then we look like people that are content with talking and do not seem to have an interest in actual participation.

    But to close here. I am by no means trying to change the thrust of this blog. The ideas for which you started this blog must have a public forum and you are doing a commendable service by providing it and I encourage you to keep it up. I was just passing by and thought there was a point needing to be made (not just here but on just about every other progressive blog at present).

  12. On July 13, 2007 at 10:27 am realdemocracy Said:

    I also cannot disagree with much of your comments. Indeed, moving toward the goals outlined here (or anything like them) would require several steps and likely considerable time. Any such change, without a complete collapse of the current government, would require Constitutional Amendments, and that process is generally time consuming and requires some degree of cooperation among the establishment, since it must either originate in Congress or in a Constitutional Convention requested by 2/3 of the states’ legislatures. Furthermore, I have read some allegations that the legislatures have often made such petition to the Congress, without Congress fulfilling its constitutional duty to call such a Convention. While I have not yet researched the validity of these allegations, if true, this suggests that the only way to achieve these goals would require first getting Congress to propose such amendments. And since the amendments I propose are unlikely to appeal to anyone who aspires to a career as a politician, it will require electing a Congress wherein at least 2/3 of each house would support such measures. Given that the Senate only elects roughly 1/3 of its members every two years, this would require at least two such election cycles (if pro-democracy candidates could win 100% of those Senate races). Furthermore, that would mean a very strong popular movement which could maintain its momentum for several years. One strange thing that would result from this would be that theoretically, we might elect a 2/3 majority of pro-democracy Representatives to the House 2 to 4 years before a sufficient majority would exist in the Senate. Consequently, some of these Representatives might be intoxicated by this time in Congress, and might not retain their revolutionary spirit….

    So, yes, the challenges are significant. And yes, impeachment is more pressing currently. My concern is that if we get impeachment, conviction and removal, with or without criminal prosecution and imprisonment, that people may then fall back into complacency, in the belief that the problem has been dealt with, and that no further reform is necessary. So, I am trying to use whatever anger there may currently be to introduce this idea to people who may not have even considered it yet. And the resistance I have received so far from even very progressive people who vehemently support impeachment tells me that I cannot consider diluting my message at all.

    Furthermore, I would like to suggest to you that most, if not all, who might be interested in my ideas for a considerably more participatory democracy (I am trying not to use the term “direct democracy” because for many that implies simply legislation by national referendum, which might still be better than our current system, but would not be sufficiently deliberative or participatory) are likely already opposed to the imperial presidency, and in support of impeachment.

    However, I will gladly add links to other blogs and websites dedicated to impeachment on my blogroll. Actually, I am part of a group here in Austin, TX that just produced an impeachment forum, and due to that, I am already aware of some such websites, and will start adding some of these to my blogroll. Please feel free to send me links to other blogs and such to post there as well.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.