"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." - Thomas Jefferson


We as Americans all remember being taught when we were young about our nation's founders, the patriots who stood up to the tyranny of the crown of England, the drafters of the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the bill of rights, the documents that became the framework for a system of governance that they believed would maintain a balance of power within a truly representative government, that would preserve the basic rights and liberties of the people, let their voice be heard, and provide to them a government, as Lincoln later put it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

What we may not be so quick to recall, however, is that there was much debate between the founding fathers as to what model our system of government should follow. Those such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry on one side favored a pure and direct democracy with the legislative power vested in the very hands of the people, while others such as James Madison, John Adams and George Washington held that a representative democracy would better serve the people than a true democracy because they believed it would protect the individual liberties of the minority from the will of the majority. Alexander Hamilton even went so far as to support the creation of a monarchy. In the end, those favoring representative democracy won the day and that is the system they put in place in the hopes of creating a "more perfect union."

Now we must ask ourselves, what would the founding fathers think if they were resurrected today to see what has become of their vision? One can only assume that they would begin to search for modern day patriots to meet them once again at the liberty tree in order to plan a new struggle for freedom and self governance. Although we continue to praise and honor those who founded our nation and sought to create a truly just form of government for it, do we really stop to reflect on whether we as a nation have in fact succeeded in preserving what they fought so hard to create?

Today, in contrast to our revolutionary ancestors, we as citizens of the United States generally observe politics from afar and the vast majority of us may participate in the political process only to the extent that we go to the polls once a year to vote. Over the decades and centuries we have allowed the erosion of the ideals of the founding fathers and the corruption of the principles which they enshrined in those so carefully conceived documents. We have been left with essentially no real power to influence our "democratically" elected officials. We may write an occasional letter to our senator or representative that generates a form letter in response and a statistical data entry that may or may not be weighed against the influence of some powerful corporate lobby. We may be permitted to participate in a march or demonstration of thousands or even millions, something our patriots of old would have marvelled at, only to be dismissed as a 'focus group' with no bearing on policy decisions.

How then is the government held accountable to the voice of the people? Are the people meant to speak only at the polls when given a choice between a select few candidates that may be equally corrupt? No, as Jefferson and his allies rightly believed, the people should be heard much more than that.

In spite of their good intentions, the system of representative democracy that the founding fathers opted for has been systematically undermined and has ultimately failed in preserving the well being of the people of this nation. Most of us accept this reality as being beyond our control and continue to observe, comment, and complain without aspiring to achieving any real change. Our local leaders and activists in our communities, and even those local elected officials who may have the best of intentions are for the most part powerless to make real positive change happen in our neighborhoods, towns and villages when there is so much corruption from above.

We have become so accustomed to this failed system of representative democracy that it may not occur to us that there are other alternative forms of democracy. In various places around the world participatory or direct democracy has been instituted both in concert with representative democracy, and as a replacement for it. It is a form of democracy that is designed to take directly into account your views, and the views of your neighbors, and to politically empower you to make real positive change possible in your communities. Initiative, referendum & recall, community councils, and grassroots organizing are but a few ways in which direct/participatory democracy is achieving great success around the world.

This site will attempt to explore in depth the concept of participatory democracy and how this grass-roots based form of governance could help bring us back in line with the principles this country was founded upon if it were allowed to take root here. In the hope that one day we can become a nation working together as a united people practicing true democracy as true equals, we open this forum…



WashingtonOregonCaliforniaAlaskaHawaiiIdahoNevadaArizonaMontanaWyomingUtahColoradoNew MexicoNorth DakotaSouth DakotaNebraskaKansasOklahomaTexasMinnesotaIowaMissouriArkansasLouisianaWisconsinIllinoisIndianaMichiganOhioMississippiAlabamaGeorgiaSouth CarolinaNorth CarolinaFloridaTennesseeKentuckyVirginia West VirginiaPennsylvaniaNew YorkMaineVermontNew HampshireRhode IslandConnecticutNew JerseyDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaMassachusetts

Friday, February 13, 2009


Gay Congressman-elect calls for more, better, and national ballot initiatives

by Ross Levin
December 13, 2008 at 16:45:58


With Prop 8 passing in California and various other civil rights-restricting ballot initiatives passing elsewhere, direct democracy (or more accurately, a hybrid of direct democracy and representative government called "codetermination") has been receiving a strong rejection by the gay community nationwide this year. But someone who could potentially be one of their greatest allies in all of politics not only accepts ballot initiatives, but is pushing for their expansion to the rest of the nation (currently in the United States, initiative voting exists in 24 states and Washington, DC).

The man I am talking about is Jared Polis, the Democratic Congressman-elect from Boulder, Colorado. Voted into office this November 4th, he is the first openly homosexual non-incumbent elected to Congress. And yet he still believes that expanding ballot initiatives to the national level would make American government better. He will, therefore, be introducing a bill into Congress next year that would actually establish a process through which any qualified citizen--most likely that will simply mean a registered voter --will be able to propose a law and then (if it gains enough support beforehand) have the entire voting public vote on it.

Why would a gay man--a man whose community has been injured and insulted at the ballot box for a number of years--support an increased use of initiatives on a scale that is larger than they have ever been used? Listen to the man:

I've been involved with many ballot initiatives here in Colorado. Our system of ballot initiatives, not only in Colorado but in other states, doesn't work perfectly--and that's important to acknowledge . I believe it's far better that we have one than we don't have one.

There are some policies, which by their very nature, are unlikely to be implemented by an elected legislature. These are things like campaign finance reform, term limits, types of issues where it affects the members personally.

We passed, here in Colorado, a very strong ethics law that banned lobbyists from giving gifts to legislators,. We passed campaign finance reform. We passed sunshine laws, which, again, the legislature is not likely to pass. They require open meetings--the US Congress doesn't have that.

Polis brings up a few good points. First, governmental reform would be more likely to occur with a national initiative process supplementing our current legislative process than simply having Congress by itself. That is, the people who have power (Congress) are less likely to reform themselves and curb their power than the people who are being hurt by their corruption (the general populous). And Jared Polis is no novice when it comes to reform through initiatives--he was the main sponsor of Colorado's "Ethics in Government" amendment, a law passed by voters in 2006 which severely limited the power of lobbyists in Colorado state government.

Something which fewer people may have noticed his saying, but something that is equally important, is that "our system of ballot initiatives not only in Colorado, but in other states doesn't work perfectly." As seen from the infamous Proposition 8, there is much wrong with the current state and local initiative systems. Just think about this--approximately 30% of voters voted yes on Prop 8, because there was around 60% turnout and the vote was close to 50-50. That means much less than 30% of adults, let alone the entire population, of California voted yes on a constitutional amendment, and yet it still passed. Clearly, there is something wrong with California's initiative and referenda process, and this is just one example of that.

A national initiative process would be an amazing opportunity for reform of state initiative processes. It would bring a new form of direct democracy onto the world stage and offer solutions to the problems posed by our current direct democracies. Also, the most credible current proposal for a direct democratic process in the United States - the National Initiative for Democracy, which can be read at http://www.vote.org would give states a choice to either keep their current process or adopt a new one based on the National Initiative for Democracy. In fact, the National Initiative proposes that half of all registered voters would need to vote "yes" for a constitutional amendment on the ballot to pass. If that rule were in place in California, over 80% of the people who showed up at the polls would have had to cast a "yes" vote on Prop 8 for it to have passed. And this is just one of several safeguards that would be put in place by the National Initiative.

Jared Polis was actually involved in the creation of the National Initiative for Democracy, even though he currently objects to a few aspects, and therefore will not be introducing that exact bill into Congress next year. The bill he will be introducing will probably resemble the National Initiative, though, and if you would like to read up on it, I have a few suggestions.

1. There is the text of the "Democracy Act" and the "Democracy Amendment" (Which, together, make up the National Initiative for Democracy, along with an ongoing online election at http://www.vote.org )

2. An annotated version of the Democracy Act and Democracy Amendment, which include explanations and dialogue from the 2002 Democracy Symposium (a conference which was held to work out the kinks in the two documents)

3. Books on the topic of direct democracy, ranging from Mike Gravel's Citizen Power to the simply titled Direct Democracy (which is available online for free) to "For the Many or The Few" by John Matsusaka, a law expert who teaches at the University of Southern California.

As you can see, ballot initiatives are not something to be easily dismissed as a tool of special interests or the bigoted majority. They are more complex than that and, according to someone who is both a gay man and a direct democracy expert, much more useful.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Tell your representative in Congress to support Polis's national initiative bill
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Ross Levin a young activist who also writes for keystonepolitics.com, operationitch.com, independentpoliticalreport.com. He first became active in politics in the 2008 presidential campaign through Mike Gravel's quixotic run for the Democratic nomination, but is still actively promoting the centerpiece of Gravel's campaign: the National Initiative for Democracy, which would allow citizens to make laws at all levels of government. You can check it out at www.ni4d.us and vote.org.

Sunday, January 25, 2009


Union-Made Lattes

The Industrial Workers of the World ramps up its campaign to organize Starbucks

December 29, 2008 By Sam Stoker
Source: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20077

On Aug. 31, the light-rail train from Minneapolis to the Mall of America was boisterous. During the ride, several dozen Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) members - known as Wobblies - belted out the radical workers' anthem 'Solidarity Forever' in unison. The reason for their elation was because Erik Forman, 23, was returning to work as a Starbucks barista.

Forman, an IWW organizer, had been fired on July 10, his boss told him, for discussing with co-workers the disciplinary action that was taken against him after showing up late to work. But Forman believes the real reason was because of his outspoken advocacy for the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) - which is part of the IWW - and says that his termination was an attempt by Starbucks, the world's largest coffee-shop chain, to bust a growing union movement among its employees.

Forman filed a complaint for illegal termination and anti-union malfeasance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) a week later. In support, Starbucks' baristas throughout the Twin Cities signed a petition demanding Forman's reinstatement. After a series of work stoppages and protests, Starbucks settled the complaint on Aug. 31.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company did not admit guilt or that the IWW's actions influenced its decision to rehire Forman. But it did agree to reinstate him with back pay for missed time and to post signs in the shop for 60 days, informing workers that management would not interfere with attempts to organize.

More than half of Forman's shop is now in the IWW - and at the Mall of America the Wobblies were planning 'to drink some union-made lattes' in a sign of solidarity.

`We are the union' A handful of baristas started the SWU in a single Starbucks shop in New York City in May 2004.

'The union was sparked because workers had become fed up with low wages, unsecured scheduling, a prohibitive healthcare system and a lack of respect from managers,' says founding member Daniel Gross.

The SWU soon spread to Starbucks across the city, all while embracing the tenets of the IWW - particularly solidarity unionism. Unlike the prominent union model that uses a hierarchical power structure and focuses on bargaining with employers, solidarity unionism embraces direct democracy with members supporting one another directly.

'We are not part of a union,' says Gross. 'We are the union.'

Members of the SWU say Starbucks embarked on an anti- union campaign since its inception. They allege management threatened employees who expressed interest in the union, and spied on and interrogated employees about union activity. SWU says the most outspoken union advocates were fired.

Starbucks denies these charges. 'Such allegations are baseless,' says Starbucks spokesperson Tara Darrow. 'Starbucks strictly abides with laws and guidelines associated with labor law. We wouldn't do that because it is against the law.'

Yet Starbucks' settlement with the NLRB complaint on Forman's behalf was the third such settlement in three years. During that time, Starbucks has reinstated four employees after they filed complaints with the NLRB, and two cases remain open.

In New York, Gross is still awaiting the decision of an August 2007 hearing in which the NLRB filed 30 complaints against Starbucks for anti-union malfeasance, in addition to a complaint that he, Gross, was fired illegally. More recently, in Grand Rapids, Mich., the NLRB filed a complaint against Starbucks, charging that the company illegally fired barista Cole Dorsey for union activity.

According to Dorsey, the SWU began organizing in Grand Rapids in 2006. But baristas who were interested in joining the union became concerned that repercussions might be taken against them for organizing publicly.

'We were attempting to organize a union election, a tactic we thought could be effective here in Michigan, but we believe management found out,' says Dorsey.

Those baristas collectively decided that Dorsey - at least initially - should be the union's public face while others remained underground.

Dorsey was fired on June 6 during the union election campaign. Starbucks' Darrow says Dorsey - who had worked at Starbucks for two years and had won employee awards - was fired for being tardy after receiving a final warning. As in other cases, Starbucks denies allegations of union-busting activity.

'The backbone of my case is that I was fired for less than what other employees have done,' Dorsey says.

In a response to Dorsey's NLRB complaint, Starbucks' attorneys reiterated the official reason he was fired, and added that he was a 'salt,' suggesting that Dorsey had no interest in working at Starbucks and was there only to organize.

'I guess it is true in a sense because I am organizing people, but what they fail to understand is that I also depend on the income from my job, and they took that away from me,' Dorsey says. 'We never wanted this to be a contentious issue. We want a union so that we can improve workplace conditions. Starbucks has made the situation contentious.'

Improving working conditions In the past year, the SWU has grown more than it had in its first three years combined. The group says it has around 250 members nationally, with most congregated in Chicago, Grand Rapids, New York City and the Twin Cities.

SWU members say that the Twin Cities have the fastest growth rate nationwide, attributing much of the growth to the controversy stirred up by Forman's firing.

Forman says the union's local growth is only a step in a larger campaign to challenge Starbucks to improve worker conditions. With stores in 60 countries, Starbucks employs 150,000 people worldwide.

'The union needs to become international and it eventually needs to spread into all of the service industry,' Forman says.

A global movement against the corporation appears to be underway. Dorsey's termination coincided with the firing of Monica (who wouldn't reveal her last name because she fears being blacklisted by other employers), a Starbucks barista in Seville, Spain. Monica is a member of the Confederaci - n Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), the Spanish counterpart of the IWW.

Like Dorsey, Monica was also allegedly fired for union organizing. Their terminations sparked an international day of protest on July 5 at hundreds of Starbucks in cities across the world.

But, according to spokeswoman Darrow, Starbucks doesn't fear such organizing.

'As far as we are concerned, our [employees] have free choice [to unionize] at all times,' she says. 'We feel we have great communication back and forth with employees and we pride ourselves on providing a good workplace.'

Starbucks' pride in its 'good workplace' stems from the employee pay and benefit packages that the company often trumpets - benefits that include stock option programs and healthcare benefits that the company claims cover 65 percent of eligible employees. But the bottom line for the SWU is that a person simply cannot live a decent life as a Starbucks worker. The wages, which generally hover slightly above each state's minimum wage, are too low; the hours are unstable; and health insurance premiums and deductibles are prohibitive compared to earnings.

'There are many corporations like Starbucks that exploit workers, but few have succeeded like Starbucks in portraying itself as a socially conscious corporation,' Gross says.

While the most common response to such a situation is `Why don't you quit?' Forman says, 'The fact is there are not many industries a person can get into with no skills, and retail is one of them. The best thing people can do is organize.'

Back at the Mall of America The Wobblies' Aug. 31 party on the light-rail was cut short two train stops before the Mall of America, when police officers boarded the train and questioned the group. Police told them the Mall of America is private property and that no demonstrations or protests are allowed there.

The union members explained that they were simply joining their friend for his first day of work and assured the officers they were not there to demonstrate or disrupt shoppers. The officers let them pass.

But when the train arrived at the Mall of America, a line of police in riot gear blocked the doors to the platform. Among them were FBI agents. (Aug. 31 was also the day before the opening of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, which may have explained the police presence.) A co-worker text-messaged Forman that management had been speaking with police in their shop. No one was allowed off the train and police threatened to arrest anyone who tried to exit.

'It's ridiculous,' Forman later says. 'Management, the police and the FBI are working together. They say they didn't want us demonstrating, but we assured them that was not our intent. I think it is clear, what they really fear is us organizing.'

Sam Stoker is a freelance reporter based in Chicago.

Sunday, January 4, 2009