A Just Democracy

This July 4, lets put election reform on the agenda.

Are you a pro-democracy patriot? I am. Like millions of Americans, I experienced a surge of hope after the most nationally inclusive race for a presidential nomination in US history. It was that hope -- a sense that the time is ripe and right -- that moved me to write a manifesto about how to invigorate our democracy and capture greater power for the people. My essay, "Just Democracy" addresses the crisis of our democracy, the opportunity we have to repair it and the steps we can take to build a more perfect union.

While The Nation has published clarion calls for change before -- most recently in 2001 and 2004, the confluence of events suggests there may never be a better time to renew our electoral process. Just a century ago progressive forces brought about a flurry of constitutional amendments, including women's suffrage and direct election of senators. We have a similar opportunity to pass the reforms that will build a more just democracy. A pro-democracy movement already has the grassroots and netroots in place, as well as the principles and concrete proposals. Of course, it will take political will, savvy strategy and hard-nosed organizing -- organizing that should be integrated into the 2008 campaign and continue after this year's voting is done.

By developing a holistic and galvanizing democracy agenda, the larger public interest and progressive community can unify and amplify particular issues -- health care, the environment, an end to reckless war and economic injustice.

What would a core agenda be? How about Just Democracy -- a program to ensure that every voter can vote, that every vote gets counted, that money talks no louder than the many and that every challenger gets to make his or her case? Many of the reforms I propose are embodied in legislative proposals that have already been introduced in Congress.

A Just Democracy movement will require determined idealism and hard-nosed realism; it will demand a broad coalition committed to making these reforms a high priority. Working together, I believe we can repair the broken system we've been handed and confront the crisis of disenfranchisement that has overtaken our democracy. We want 100 percent registration. We want increased participation. We want full representation with majority rule. We want the right to vote. We want to vote without fear--that our votes will not count, or be counted by hacked machines.

Isn't it long past time to place democracy at the center of our politics? This July 4th, let's begin to make America a more perfect union.

Comments

[Cosatjockomo]

Want true dmocracy in the legislative process? Have the legislature propose the legislation and the people vote it into law. Watch the pork disappear. Watch the power of the majority and minority leaders evaporate. Watch the lobiests become worthless (replaced perhaps by PR firms instead). Watch us actually watch what they are doing in Washington.

[texfly]

My eyes were opened when I read Shenkman's book "Just How Stupid Are We". In it he makes the case that the Founding Fathers were fearful that "We the People" would have enough power to strip them of their wealth. So they stacked the power in the Constitution to give themselves an edge. On this July 4th, with Barack Obama succeeding as he has so far, I am glad to see that the Constitution has evolved to be a document that is the foundation of a democracy where "We the People" can exert enough power to check the power of the entitled. The key to that was education. You will see that in some of the earlier postings. But our national stupidity still exists and is increasing. Unlike some I feel that Ross Perot"s 30 minute "infomercials" in 1992 served to educate the electorate about issues. Not sound bytes, just facts, figures and interpretation. This, just at the cable news channels were ramping up the use of tremendous quantities of airtime dedicated to news. Oh, what an opportunity! The fourth estate could use Perot''s success as template for reporting and educating the electorate. Sadly, it has squandered it and provided a forum for talking heads and propagandists to spew their rhetoric. The lying and misrepresentation makes money and is entertaining. And, yes, it keeps "We the People" from ever knowing who's telling the truth. The framers of the Constitution can rest easily, the wealthy are well-protected from the masses.

[Godfearing]

Partial information received from the Progressive Media USA's McCain Source, June 26th, reads as follows: Senator John McCain's support for spending trillions of dollars in Iraq over the next century will bankrupt the United States while making billions in profits for defense contractors. Also, profiting from the Iraq war are Washington lobbyists, who represent the defense contractors. Senator McCain has recruited many of these same lobbyists, Charlie Black for one, to run his presidential campaign. A McCain presidency will continue the war in Iraq that have enriched the defense contrators and lobbyists, who in turn have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the McCain campaign. Senator McCain repays the defense contractors by voting against efforts in Congress to investigate defense contractor waste, fraud and abuse. Now that Karl Rove and Fox News are in the McCain camp the Bush/Cheney shell game will continue for the next four years if he is elected.

[jackwaddington]

What is missing this fourth of July is a hard look at what the Declaration of independence and the following constitution is all about. In actuality the American revolution was not that great a revolution as revolutions go, and the constitution, though it has been eulogized since it's creation, is not that great a document. It's absolute adherence to capitalism was rendered obsolete after the writings and considerations of Marx and Engels in the mid 19th century. But the American psyche and politics was never able to look into this for fear it might see that what it had, was really not that great, and in effect, set out (in order to maintain it's own privilege) to subvert any other nation that had a better (another) idea.

[knighthowl]

What is missing from your comment is a reference to any other nation that had a better idea. Your assertion that our Constitution was rendered obsolete by Marx and Engels is at best naive, but more likely delusional. Which system has failed utterly? And I must question your claim that the Constitution absolutely adheres to capitalism. How exactly does it do that? The provision that we not be deprived of property without due process of law? Even a communist system might have such a provision. Indeed, any rational system would.

And you say our revolution was not that great a revolution as revolutions go. Which revolution was more successful? The French? The Russian? The Chinese? Or do you define a great revolution as one involving great loss of life? If so, you might choose France, Russia or China. If you define it as successful, I am at a loss as to what revolution you could possibly imagine was more successful. Please enlighten me.

I would like to reemphasize that the mid nineteenth century ideas of Marx and Engels could not possibly have been more discredited than they already have been. What planet have you been living on?

[katmeyster]

I love the ideas. We need the ideas. But the great forces of power and wealth will be very difficult to counteract. It will take both grassroots efforts, and courageous leadership. Why would wealthy congress members vote to change their own meal ticket? Corporations are so completely integrated with government now that the reversal of their presence will take uncommon will. I constantly mention the need for wholly publicly financed campaigns, but am met with confused looks and comments such as, "how can we afford that?" How can we not.

Also remember that many of those in power do not believe that the rabble should be voting anyway. They create incredible systems to prevent voting, especially by the poor and minorities. Why can't we register to vote the day we vote? Why do we need ID when there is no evidence of voter fraud, why do we need an election day -- can't it be an election week? Or why don't we have the day off like other countries? It's the old concern about the tyranny of the majority. Keep people uneducated, unmotivated, and distracted, and the prophecy is fulfilled -- they live poor, and vote for the best interests of the rich. Or they don't vote at all. Success!

But given all that I still attempt to convince people of the need to vote and participate, the need for public financing, and finally the need to get rid of the electoral college. Fight On Democracy!

[RandomStu]

When people vote, they have a #1 preference for who'd they'd like to be elected president, but they also have a #2 preference. As our voting system is currently set up, they can express only their #1 preference. This takes away power from the voter for no good reason at all.

When Bill Clinton first won with 43% of the popular vote, that would have been the perfect time to address this issue. It's absurd that anyone could be elected president with less than 50%, and it's obvious that a fix was needed. If there had been a system in place for the Perot voters to declare their #2 preference, only then would we know who the People REALLY wanted to be president.

But not a peep about changing the system this way, not from Clinton, not from the liberal/progressive community. If they'd fixed it during Clinton's first term, then GW Bush would never have been president, because most of the Nader votes would have chosen Gore as their #2 preference.

Anyone who's really interested in democracy, in really setting up elections so that they best reflect the will of the people, would support reforms like this. On the other hand, anyone who's most focused on us-vs-them, on getting an edge for their own party's agenda, isn't really interested in this type of democracy.

[metalpipe]

What are you talking about; 50% of the vote? What if three competative candidates take 30%-30%-40%? Do we have continuous elections until someone gets over 50%?

The key is removing the electoral college. The primaries we just went through show clearly that an even split of delegates from each state according to the popular vote/caucus outcome yields the best man (so to speak). Look at who the Republicans are stuck with using the winner take all approach. Now we actually have to bite our nails hoping nothing wierd happens at the Dem convention. The whole thing is overly convoluted.

I completely agree that a voter's #2 vote preference should be utilized when their choice falls into 3rd or 4th place in the national election. This would inspire manymore people to take the chance of voting out of the two party system we have fallen into.

[davidpeace]

The task before us is enormous. It's so big that overcoming it might be impossible, at least in this generation. But how many generations do we have left in this country? Alongside the need for election/government reform is the need to save the planet, because we need to elect leaders with the vision necessary to break through the wall of corporate lies that blocks our way forward. It is fortunate that there are people with very progressive ideals running, but how many of them are getting the necessary media exposure so that the public that votes for them know they are a choice? Websites are powerful tools, but aren't sufficient to do the whole job. As LeonBNJ said, a lot of money has to be raised to get "mainstream" media access. That obstacle, put in place by the corporate powers, prevents almost all but those that can self-finance a campaign. As for donations, too many of us are struggling more and more to make ends meet with fewer and fewer dollars. Are the cards stacked against us? We'll know in November.

[RepublicanBrain]

I like the idea. I'm not quite sure how this is a "nationally inclusive" race, our politicians are pretty much cut from the same cloth, the cloth of wealth. The problem, indeed, is money, but the people don't have the money to finance such an election. The government's money comes from the people through taxes, so that's not going to work either.

The problem I have with more people voting is "what do they vote for?" I know this woman who only votes straight Democrat because that's the only way she knows how to vote. Although I like that she is participating in her civic duty; I wouldn't count her vote, as it is uninformed due to ignorance (she can't vote any other way)

The idea is sound, what you want to do with it, is, like the Constitution, vague enough to work, but it would get muddled through idealism. I don't care much for your essay, but this blog post is decent enough.

[knighthowl]

Strange that you, RepublicanBrain, would choose a woman who only votes for Democrats as an example of someone whose vote should not be counted. Personally, I would feel that anyone who describes him or her self as RepublicanBrain should not have his/her vote counted. How does that work for you? Works for me.

Perhaps that is why every vote should be counted. You and "this woman" you know conveniently cancel each other out.

[earlglocke]

Sorry folks we live in a representative republic, not a democracy.

[breakfast]

On paper, we have a representative republic. In practice, big money global corporate interests own most of our "representatives." We are in the final stages of sliding into fascism, the deal is done and is being consummated.

My experience has been that few people are actually concerned with freedom and justice and liberty as principles; what they are concerned about the most is their their own personal economy. Thus, the American experiment has been cast aside for a few pieces of silver.

[rwoodsathome]

Hogwash! There is no elected official in Congress that was not elected by the people in their district or state. None. So what you are really saying is that your neighbor is an oaf for voting for the same corrupt politician while your vote is pristine.

This is Obama elitism at it's worse. I read in post after post of giant corporate interests corrupting our virginal representatives and there is nothing we can do. If there was such great, pent up mass of voters wanting change, we would have change.

What we have is a few elitists telling us what is good for us. If you had the support you say our representatives would not be re-elected with the frequency they are today.

It's not the big money interests that win elections, it's that the common folk detest elitists!

[sufi66]

One can always hope, but Obama's recent altering of positions makes me worry. I hope he is no illusion.

[rwoodsathome]

Better get used to it. Obama means change. Change his position that is. The man has no core values he is willing to stand up for.

Listen to what he says. "I want a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage". In other words what do what want - I'll (the government) will give it to you. Just vote for me.

So far he has changed positions on his pastor, his church, his grandmother, Iraq, FISA, abortion - and it's only July!

He preaches a 'new way in Washington', but how will that be accomplished. The only way would to replace the Congressional leadership in Washington - and he's not signing that tune. How do you think he will work with Republicans with Harry Reid, Dick Durban, Charles, Shumer, Nancy Polosi, Dingle, and all still as committee chairmen? Will he have the fortitude to stand up against these folks when he can't stand up for his position on Iraq and FISA? I't obvious to me he won't.

He wants to be president, but doesn't know why.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Katrina you always remain a true progressive liberal democrat and my journalistic heroine.

[jfor]

HuffPost's Pick

In a Country that prefers arguments over what people choose to put into or take out of their own bodies it is a long shot that we ever will be able to see the big picture and focus on the issues that are truly important. It is 2008 and we are bickering over issues that have already been discussed and settled by those who came before us, in some cases long, long before us. Yet we carry on as if we are the first to ever think that God may not exist, Science is a tool of the devil, infantcide and homosexuality never occured before and that republicans are better than democrats and vice versa.

The only way to break this endless loop of ignorance and willful stupidity is to educate our children. Educate our chldren in our rich and varied history, have them study the lives of our forefathers, have them repeat the words of wisdom uttered by Adams, Jefferson, Madison et al. Make sure they learn our shared history and expose them to the arguments our ancestors have already had and settled. Dates are not more important than events or words that happened on those days and that is what we should be teaching our children. Morals are not important if they come from a skewed and twisted education, Honesty does not matter if you do not know the truth. Beliefs do not trump actual events and wishful thinking does not replace the need for a functioning plan.

[jackwaddington]

Another name for educating is "brain washing" For all the education/brain-washing about those early politicos, youth doesn't really give a damn. There is an American Ego afoot here. Those 18th century political notions have been radically revised by greater genius' since.

[vote4kucinich]

Yes, education is the key. But as a former teacher I must say that the teaching of the myth of America begins in kindergarten and by eighth grade is probably too ingrained to be overturned unless one meets an extraordinary teacher. Teachers grew up learning the same myths that they are encouraged to teach new learners. Teachers who risk trying to 'rescue' their students from this indoctrination are in danger of losing their jobs.

[jacqmac]

Kids aren't being 'educated'. They are being taught to 'pass tests' (another legacy of No Child Left Behind). Just try deviating from a proposed curriculum so that the school can keep from being closed and see what happens. This is NOT education-it isn't even brain-washing. It's 'training'-training kids to 'punch a clock', sit in one place, do meaningless tasks and memorize things to be regurgitated back on the next standardized 'skills' test. And then-when they get to college-they can barely even read a book that doesn't have pictures or write a paper in which there is any kind of original thought. Good for being a 'team' player on the staff of some multi-national, not so good for creating a legacy for the next generation. Teachers aren't babysitters, social workers, nurses, or doctors, yet they are expected to be all that, PLUS teach. Teachers aren't even paid a living wage in most states, yet, when they go on a picket line to protest and to gain a decent wage, they are called names and/or fired. When was the last time anybody you know who was getting ready for college said that they wanted to be a TEACHER??

[CindyMax]

". . . it will take political will, savvy strategy and hard-nosed organizing . . . " It will also take a grassroots effort to steer the media and its addicts away from the banal pap that has mired them in apathy and sunk our culture into these insipid Dark Ages. Take heart though. People are waking up, albeit slowly. Thank you ,Katrina, for hastening the awakening.

[hilts]

Katrina vanden Heuvel is a brilliant thinker and a sex goddess.

[jeanrenoir]

Obama's de facto campaign finance reform revolution this year has been even more historic than his blackness. He's done more to disempower the fat cats and empower the small donor than any candidate in American history. In that sense, he's done more for democracy than any candidate in a very long time, strongly nudging the country in the general direction Vanden Heuvel advocates.

[kj2006]

Just to clarify - 2/3 of Obama's contribution come from fat cats, not small donors.

How is flip-flopping on key issues "nudging the country" toward Vanden Heuvel's ideal democracy?

[texfly]

Oh, please! Give me a break. Most of his money came from hard working people who got his message. Fat-Cats? I suppose that's your code for liberals who earn a good living (>$100,00/yr).

[jacqmac]

Exactly WHERE are the numbers to back up your claim? Seems that I, as a fundraiser, am making MORE calls to people who give $25 and $50 at a time and I seem to remember seeing something that stated that a mere 4% of Obama's money came from any 'fat cats'. Let's get some numbers and then I'll believe you. Oh-and I want hard, HONEST numbers, not some manufactured 'evidence' from the Republicans.

[LeonBNJ]

One important area for change would be to end the practice of many state that bans convicted felons from voting for many years or even life in some states. This disproportionally hurts Black, Hispanic and the poor communities. Keep the ban for those that serve long sentences for serious convictions especially for violent crimes.
Most important would be to limit or ban TV and radio ads. They consume most of the money needed to run a campaign which has to come from those with the most money and their bad influence. Instead mandate true debates and 'town hall meetings" inclusive of some 3rd party canidates.

[rwoodsathome]

Ban free speech. That's wildly progressive! Why is it that when someone wants to say something political that you do not agree with you want to ban it? What not confront it with your opposing view? is it because you are afraid your view would be rejected?