Election WG Meeting minutes 12/30/2011
01/05/2012 in Election WG
The Election WG minutes were also posted to our site
- Brief discussion of “Occupy” PAC & how to respond
- Decided to schedule an afternoon this week to meet with founder to learn more
- Marvin suggested a proposal to the GA to reject the “minority plurality” amendment being proposed.
- Consensus to craft such a proposal and a separate proposal to state support for simple runoff voting or instant runoff voting instead to better support the will of Vermont’s citizens
- Marvin will re-send document to Jeremy, and group will work through some edits, hopefully to present in time for the next GA
- Discussion of direct democracy & 2012 election
- Jeremy presented an article in the works that addresses some of Marvin’s misgivings, will be posted shortly
- A brief discussion of transparency, accountability: representatives *can* vote in opposition to the majority of voter sentiment, but would sign a contract that would allow him or her to be recalled; range voting/weighted plurality possibilities for voting on issues/bills
Yeshua said on 01/05/2012
Question: what does PAC translate to?
beeleelou said on 01/05/2012
It seems like there is so much work to do around voter turn out and education and building real participatory democracy before running any kind of “occupy” candidate. Also, some of this thinking seems to assume that there is a unified “occupy” voting block, which I don’t think there it. If the goal is to get the occupy issues (wealth disparity, corporate greed, revised tax structures) on the table in the elections, are there other strategies that could do that more effectively? Or are there ways that a more comprehensive approach could be taken rather than this one tactic? It seems counter-intuitive to the movement of many leaders to be looking at running a “leader’. I am open to more information and thinking on this, but am feeling ambivalent right now.
Jeremy said on 01/06/2012
> there is so much work to do around … building participatory democracy
This is true! However, nobody else has stepped forward to spearhead such efforts. The proposals we are working on will hopefully be a step towards building a participatory democracy that is not restricted to the small minority of the 99% who can (and want to) participate in General Assemblies. Town Hall meetings and voting are familiar to virtually everybody. Why not use them to take one step closer to participatory/direct/horizontal democracy within the confines of the existing system initially?
For what it’s worth, the NYCGA recently passed a proposal regarding electoral reform that said in part, “We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.” (http://wp.me/p22IXk-M)
Consider this my attempt to begin an experiment.
> some of this thinking seems to assume that there is a unified “occupy” voting block
Not at all – what we’ve been discussing is about including all Vermonters, not just the Occupy folks, who represent a much wider range of opinions than even the GA attendees.
> If the goal is to get the occupy issues…
Rather than focusing on the issues of Occupy, we’re focusing on the structure of Occupy, and considering ways that it can be incorporated into our existing electoral system. If we wanted to focus on the issues, you’re right, there are probably better ways!
>It seems counter-intuitive to the movement of many leaders to be looking at running a “leader”
Yet we still have our existing representative democracy, and an election in November. I think this is about taking Occupy’s cornerstone of valuing every citizen’s voice equally and applying it to our admittedly flawed system of government.
Thanks for the comment!
Jeremy
Jeremy said on 01/05/2012
Good question: Political Action Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
beeleelou said on 01/05/2012
PAC= Political Action Committee, I think this is a reference to the “Americans for a better today today” superPAC started in VT recently.
mmblanchard said on 01/09/2012
An interesting discussion. I can see both sides. Once we work out a shared vision, and some common strategy, I would like to see a variety of tactics spearheaded by a variety of us Occupiers, depending on interests and skills.. It’s unrealistic to think we’re all going to participate in all the same actions. Given that electoral politics is still the name of the game, and given how polluted it is, I don’t think we can ignore this arena. It’s one important place where we can communicate our values about democracy and campaign finances. On the other hand, I’m fairly content with our current congressional reps from Vermont, and am wary of the effect on the general election of extra-party candidates–we probably would have had Gore for President instead of Bush if it hadn’t been for Ralph Nader. Nonetheless, I support this initiative as long as it gets sufficient feedback from the G.A..
Jeremy said on 01/11/2012
>On the other hand, I’m fairly content with our current congressional reps from Vermont
I’d like to point out that the Democrats are still bought-and-paid-for corporate candidates. I’d also like to note that Sen. Leahy introduced the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) which would not really stop piracy (which it’s supposed to) and severely clamp down on free speech on the Internet. More here:
http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/stopped-they-must-be-on-this-all.html
To me at the moment, Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable in that they can’t hear us. The discussion we’re having is to try to find a way within the current system to 1) break loose of the two-party system, 2) increase citizens’ participation in their democracy, and 3) ensure that citizens’ opinions are actually taken into account.
To start, the Election WG will be introducing a proposal to the GA this weekend about voting alternatives that wouldn’t allow third or fourth parties to “spoil” an election.
Jeremy