Dear Occupy: Do Democracy First.
Jan/120
Dear Occupy Boston,
I am honored and blessed to stand with Occupy. Together we are reawakening the nation, and the world, to go straight to the heart of our collective political life to demand with urgency and conviction: Democracy is for people!
Consider this our formal introduction. I write to you as a democracy reformer of seven years. I sit on the board of MassVOTE, and I’m a volunteering member of Common Cause, The League of Women Voters, and MassPIRG. I also run Citizens for Voter Choice. These organizations have spent decades fighting to reform democracy to make it more honest, responsive, and inclusive. These groups are strictly non-partisan in their goals, and only MassPIRG and LWV take positions on bread-and-butter issues like health care, jobs, and education.
We need to study these organizations and their full history of political struggle. Their staffers and board members are older and in many ways wiser than many of us. And in my opinion, they hold the golden lesson for our activism: we must dig deeper to help people better access the power-infrastructure which undergirds our shared plight. We must act to change our democratic system itself. The victory does not lay in winning Wall Street regulatory reform, or full funding of public schools, or even a health care system that puts people before profits. These issues are all crops, and a farmer who merely inspects her crops for good health will not succeed. The farmer must be utterly obsessed with the soil, to ensure the crops are getting what they need to grow. Thus, I urge us to invest most of our energy in tilling and enriching this soil — this soil of democracy.
The soil of democracy is how democracy works. There are rules to the game that will make the difference between passing a good bill into law this year, in three years, in ten years, or not at all. As most of you know, business interests in Washington have spent billions of dollars to study and master these rules, to ensure that bills favorable to the 1% pass this year; and bills unfavorable to the 1% are stymied indefinitely until they either pass under public pressure, sometimes with watered-down language; or, more commonly, they just never pass at all.
Understanding what we, the 99%, are up against in the political arena, I would like to emphasize: whatever the specific policies that we demand and win, we must ensure that our democratic system will keep these victories protected, lest they fall prey to future influxes of special interest money to dismantle our gains. It is in the understanding of this danger that I strongly urge the Occupy movement to make democracy reform the central policy demand, and view our other demands as secondary spokes to this wheel, as they will become attainable and maintainable — once we win a more responsive democratic process.
Here are what I identify as the most urgent problems at the core of our democracy, and the best working solutions:
Citizen-Funded Elections: Get Money out of Politics and People Back In
Problem: A culture of corruption has embedded itself in Washington in which well-meaning elected officials survive by exchanging legislative favors for campaign contributions. Candidates and office-holders are corrupted by unlimited private donations and by independent ad spending from allies.
Solution: A Citizen-Funded Election System (aka “Clean Elections,” “Fair Elections”, or public financing of elections) at the federal and state levels, as well as mandated disclosure of all independent political spending (e.g the DISCLOSE Act). Clean Elections works by requiring candidates to qualify for a taxpayer-funded campaign grant by raising a large number of small-dollar (e.g, $5) contributions from individuals. Once the campaign is over, all money raised is returned to the public treasury, which would put an end to massive campaign war chests. Clean Elections thereby breaks the dependency of legislators on lobbyist and special-interest funding, and incentivizes candidates to engage with a very broad base of small-dollar-contributing supporters rather than big-dollar bundling and fund-raising dinners for the wealthy.
Clean Elections has already been implemented successfully in Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona, and between 60-80% of all state legislators chose to run using this system.
Recommended Reading:
Capitol Punishment by Jack Abramoff
So Damn Much Money by Robert Kaiser
Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig
More on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance#Further_reading
Ranked Choice Voting: End the Party Duopoly and Make Elections More Competitive
Problem: In the most diverse nation in the world, we, the voters, typically have a mere two choices in our general elections. Worse off are the people of Massachusetts, wherein a single political party controls about 90% of the state legislature, and about 70% of our state legislative seats go uncontested in general elections. Even competitive races leave us, the voters, with the feeling that we’re not getting the best choices. A critical “design flaw” of our current voting system is known as the “spoiler effect.” In our most competitive elections, there are oftentimes two candidates who are ideologically similar. So the weaker candidate’s presence in the race siphons off needed votes from their stronger counterpart, votes crucial to win the election. The result? The candidate who is ideologically opposed to both of them ends up winning, and s/he is not the candidate that a majority of voters actually want. (The most famous example is Bush, Gore, and Nader competing in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election.)
Solution: Ranked Choice Voting (aka “Instant Runoff Voting”) and Proportional Representation (aka “Choice Voting”) provide the proper incentives for voters to vote their values with a smart ballot on which they rank their preferences in numerical order. The design of RCV/PR eliminates the spoiler effect entirely, and encourages more candidates to run for office who previously wouldn’t, since never again would they be pressured to drop out of a race for fear of being a spoiler. RCV/PR can radically improve our elections with healthy competition, more public debate, a more diverse menu of candidates, majority winners; and consequently, better representation.
RCV has been implemented successfully in several US cities to elect their mayor and other offices, including Cambridge, MA; Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkley, CA; Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN; Portland, ME, and others. RCV is also used nationally in Australia, Ireland, and Malta; as well as in various localities around the world.
Recommended Reading:
Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone
“Rank the Vote” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos (The New Republic, October 1, 2010)
More on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#External_links
More Democracy Reforms
There are many other policies in the areas of transparency, ethics, and elections which would benefit every hard-working family in the United States by making government more accountable, accessible, and responsive. I’ve decided to highlight the two game-changing policies above to ensure my contribution stays as focused as possible. However, I am happy to help the Occupy movement to organize behind any of the following:
- Public Official-to-Lobbyist Ban (end the “revolving door”)
- Same-Day Voter Registration
- Early Voting
- Election Day as a National Holiday or Weekend Voting
- People’s Hours (evening-time bill hearings and other public meetings)
- Candidate “Common Application” (a standard assessment package for each candidate that requires full itemization of work history and topical essay questions).
- Public Records Online (in a timely manner and in accessible, easy-to-navigate formats)
- Participatory Budgeting
- Term Limits (for legislators)
- And much more!
I am here to serve the movement in the best way that I can. Let us work together to create lasting change for our nation, and for the world.
Sincerely,
Adam Friedman
Somerville, MA
617-784-8993
MWDN: Investigation shows state lagging in online presence
Dec/110
[Adam's note: The following is a re-post of a brilliant MetroWest Daily News article penned by Katie Lannan and Adam Tamburin (original source). If we the people of Massachusetts got angry and active enough, we could force our representatives to solve these serious transparency gaps within a few years.]
–
Second in a series.
Although the Web has made some State House information and online videos of hearings a click away for interested citizens, the use of the Internet has become a double-edged sword, limiting other aspects of transparency.
Staff members on 15 of 22 major committees surveyed by the Boston University State House program said members sometimes vote via email.
Rules about public access to these emails are vague. Ten of the committee staff polled said the votes were not available to the public.
Lawmakers are increasingly absent from their committee’s public hearings. Many sessions are conducted with a fraction of the committee members present. Even sponsors of legislation are often no-shows.
The extent of the problem is hard to measure. Only six of 22 committees surveyed said they took attendance. Few make available the minutes of their sessions.
Some legislators and observers say shrinking attendance and roll call voting are symptoms of a trend that concentrates the decision making to the legislative leadership.
Peter Ubertaccio, professor of political science at Stonehill College, says this trend is a natural result of a firm political majority. Democrats have overwhelming majorities in the Massachusetts House and Senate
“It’s probably par for the course,” he said.
Ubertaccio said committee chairmen use their power to set schedules that decide the fate of a bill in conjunction with party leaders; the chairmen can sit on bills that are controversial or don’t fit into the leadership’s agenda.
“Typically, bills that the leadership doesn’t want to come to the floor don’t come to the floor,” he said. “They can do that in a variety of ways that are outside of the public viewing.”
There was an attempt, led by Republicans at the beginning of the session, to require all committee votes to be posted on the Legislature’s website. It was defeated.
Rep. Dan Winslow, R-Norfolk, plans to propose new rules that would require committees to meet in person and produce records that would illuminate the process of lawmaking for Massachusetts residents.
“It’s the democratic process. I mean, we represent people,” Winslow said. “I think it’s important for government to be open and transparent to the best (extent) that it can be.”
But it’s not just a partisan issue.
Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, is sponsoring a bill that would make more public records available online. Eldridge said government transparency is important at all levels.
“There are decisions being made every day that impact people’s lives and businesses,” Eldridge said. “That information should be as transparent as possible.”
Massachusetts residents can find the full text of a bill on the Legislature’s website and follow its status. Viewers can watch live and archived webcasts of floor proceedings and selected committee hearings.
But Massachusetts remains behind the times when compared to other states, data from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that all states except for Rhode Island offer live webcasts of legislative sessions, with 33 states archiving them and 35 posting live webcasts of committee hearings.
Twenty-one other states, including Connecticut and New Jersey, make it easier for interested residents to follow the process through bill tracking email subscriptions, which send out updates when a legislature acts on a particular piece of legislation.
The National Conference of State Legislatures also says 14 states offer other email subscription services, such as Maine’s list for notification of public hearings.
Twelve states allow people to create personalized lists of bills they want to follow, free of charge, with another five states offering the same service for a fee. Massachusetts does not provide this service.
Eldridge said inaccessibility of information is often an unintended consequence of cutbacks. Many of the legislative aides surveyed said they don’t have the staff to keep formal minutes.
Whatever the reasons, Eldridge said a lack of openness can foster cynicism.
“Unfortunately, the government is afraid of providing the information to the public or they don’t want to let them know all the reasons for why decisions are being made,” he said. “The fact that there have been some scandals at the government level contributes to that.”
The writers are part of the Boston University State House reporting program.
Globe: Legislators’ vital work veiled from public’s eye
Jul/110
I had to re-post this from The Boston Globe, as it captures a central fight we must wage for government openness in Massachusetts. Here is the link to the original article.
–
July 08, 2011 | By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff
The $30.6 billion budget approved by the Legislature last week was negotiated almost entirely in secret, with six lawmakers meeting for 24 days of talks that were off limits to taxpayers. Debates, agendas, and even the times and locations of the meetings were held in strict confidence. No minutes were kept.
Information blackouts are treated with an almost religious reverence by the power brokers on Beacon Hill, who frequently decline to detail what is
White House releases Open Government Directive
Dec/090
The Obama administration, as of December 8th, 2009, is requiring every government agency to release three high-value data sets to the public within 45 days.
The Sunlight Foundation reports:
In a livestreamed chat, blogpost, and document online, the White House has announced a bold new plan for openness in the Executive Branch. The result of months of interior conversations, and three public components, the new policy introduces sweeping goals and initiatives aimed at bringing citizens closer to their government, through technology, information, and public interaction.
I’ve been impressed by the Obama’s emphasis on opening the door to the raw numbers of government. Data.gov was the first great leap forward. And now this directive to institutionalize his spoken priorities looks promising.
However, I do have one lingering question: how do we ensure accountability when we are allowing the agencies themselves to choose these “high value” data sets? We ought to ask the media, or the general public, to vote for or at least suggest data sets that will be of high value — and let the aggregation of those (filtered) suggestions form the strict directive that agencies must follow.
Allowing the departments themselves to discriminate among what data they choose to release (out of the thousands of data sets within the scope of their work) will almost guarantee that they will release inconsequential data sets so as not to make their department “look bad”. Unless agency leadership carries an ethos of constant improvement and critical self-evaluation, all we will get is the gristle.
If we are not ruthless, we could find ourselves with a dangerous new level of Washington “doublespeak,” where the White House hails a new era of unprecedented transparency, but citizens are only let in on 10% of the data that is actually available from the billions of dollars and many decades of agency operations. Erstwhile we are steered clear from the federal bureaucracy’s most egregious inefficiencies and problems.