SHOULD THE U.S. DO AWAY WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

Doing away with the electoral college and electing a president based on the national popular vote would be a more directly democratic means of choosing the people's highest representative. It would mean that every citizen's vote would have equal weight regardless of the state that they reside in, and that is obviously more in line with basic democratic principles. There is already a movement that is gaining ground in bypassing the electoral college at the state level, thereby effectively eliminating it without the need for a constitutional amendment. For more on the NPV movement see our previous post on the subject (CLICK HERE) and visit the NPV website. - Editor

Should the U.S. do away with the electoral college to elect the president?

Yes: A direct popular vote would serve the will of the majority

By: Matthew Spearman , Duluth News Tribune
Published October 20 2008
Source: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/76169/group/Opinion/

I do not want to tear up the Constitution of the United States of America — just the part about the electoral college.

Yes, the time has come for the electoral college to go. The will of the majority should be served in a majority-rule system. I cast my vote for who I want to be president, and the candidate with the most votes should become president. That’s democracy. Technically, that’s direct democracy. And that is what we need.

I believe the electoral college should be scrapped and replaced by direct popular vote for picking the president. I believe this for three reasons: It would ensure we do not face another Constitutional crisis as in 2000. It would allow my vote to be counted toward the person I voted for. And it would increase national voter participation.

Although in most elections, the candidate with the most votes also wins the most electoral votes, this is not always the case. This was not the case in the 2000 election in which Al Gore won 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush. The majority did not rule. Not only did the majority of the people not decide who became president, the electoral college did not adequately provide this function, either. Rather, the Supreme Court, a body that should never be involved in electoral politics, essentially decided the election. In 2000, we in the U.S. witnessed the failure of the electoral college — a Constitutional crisis.

One may say that the result in 2000 was the exception rather than the rule set forth by the founders in 1787. After all, the process has been stable for more than 200 years. However, in a democracy as important as ours, we should never have to face such a Constitutional crisis.

The more clearly we understand what the electoral college is and how it works, the farther away our votes travel from the candidates for whom we voted. The U.S. electoral college is a group of people (electors) who are designated to cast a vote for a certain candidate, dictated by the winner of the popular vote of a certain state. For example, Minnesota has 10 electoral votes and 10 electors. So when I cast my vote for president, I am actually voting for a set of 10 representatives or electors. If my candidate wins the state, those electors will vote for my candidate. If not, the winner’s set of electors will vote. In short, electors get to vote for the candidate, not me. And not you.

Direct democracy demands that every vote cast for a candidate count — and not count only toward a state’s electors. It allows my vote to count directly for the person for whom I voted.

One main argument for needing the electoral college is the protection of small states which otherwise could be ignored in a national campaign. This argument carried more weight in years past. Now, the electoral college does not protect small states. It protects swing states. There are solid blue states and solid red states, and then there are a number of swing states that have been the deciding factor in the past several elections.

Ironically, the elimination of the electoral college may protect the smaller states because candidates from either party would not write off red or blue states and would spend more time in those states because there are voters there. In each state, regardless of how it generally leans — red or blue — there are undecided voters, independent voters and intermittent voters. There also are those who often do not vote, but would if they believed it would make a difference. Blue voters in solid red states, or the reverse, would be more likely to vote if their vote counted directly toward the candidate.

The brilliance of our system, as put forward by the founders of our nation, is in its adaptability — and in our ability as a people to change that which no longer works in government. It’s time for that change to occur regarding the electoral college. It’s time to tear up that section of the Constitution and replace it with the direct popular vote of our highest official.

Matthew Spearman of Duluth is a special education teacher at the North Shore Community School.

OBAMA'S ARMY: PARTICIPATION BEGINS, NOT ENDS, ON ELECTION DAY

Keeping Obama's Campaign "Army" Mobilized as a Force for Change in Peacetime

Gara LaMarche
Posted November 7, 2008 07:32 AM (EST)
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gara-lamarche/keeping-obamas-campaign-a_b_142027.html

Speaking to tens of thousands of his supporters in Chicago's Grant Park, President-elect Barack Obama said his smashing victory was not about him but about "you." In his effort to unify, he meant all of America, but he also was crediting a very special group of people -- his "peacetime army" of millions of volunteers and contributors who grew the electorate and upended the electoral map in the name of change.

The key question now for Obama and all who support the change he called for is, "What happens to this peacetime army?" This powerful force was galvanized by Obama and his campaign. His Web site allowed any supporter to act immediately, and it reached millions with a flood of targeted e-mails and text messages. The campaign organized tens of thousands of events through which Americans reached out to other Americans. Many thousands of paid and volunteer organizers worked for months to register voters, identify supporters and get them to the polls. They travelled to battleground states to knock on doors and make their case for change in person. In many states, Obama's on-the-ground presence dwarfed that not only of the McCain campaign, but of the Democratic Party and virtually every other contemporary political institution and social movement in American society.

Ordinarily when a presidential campaign ends, organizers disperse and some of them join the administration, if the campaign has been successful. The list of donors and volunteers is often treated as a precious, proprietary political resource to be sold or loaned to allies. Obama's was no ordinary campaign, and that business-as-usual approach would be a mistake in this extraordinary year when so many want change.

While Governor Sarah Palin taunted Obama for being a "community organizer, whatever that is," Obama understands better than anyone who has been elected to the presidency that true political power and progress depend not only on presidential leadership, but on an engaged citizenry, and that elections are a crucial but only passing moment in the life of our democracy. To govern effectively and promote his agenda on economic security, energy, expanded health coverage, education, the restoration of civil liberties and other matters, Obama will need to keep his army mobilized. Doing this is as important as drafting legislation and picking cabinet secretaries.

Obama and all those who want to seize the moment for progressive change need these talented and passionate organizers who helped deliver the presidency to stay in the field and work with state and local organizations to deliver the change that Obama promised and they labored for. They would offer a huge boost to local coalitions and organizations, many of which are far less powerful and sophisticated than the Obama campaign.

These organizers are essential to sustaining the passion and engagement of millions of donors and online activists, who can take action in support of the agenda they share with Obama.

Progressives understand that this army needs to be a force for keeping the new administration true to its promises - supporting Obama when it agrees with him, pushing him when he needs to be bolder, and opposing him when they disagree. They did that this summer when thousands of Obama supporters used the campaign Web site to convey their dismay with his support for a Congressional compromise on government surveillance of U.S. citizens under the Foreign Intelligence Services Act. In the tough challenges ahead, this peacetime army can press Obama to stay true to his promises and his supporters.

Obama understands better than any other politician that the success of his agenda depends on his supporters being mobilized and engaged. What we have seen in the last year is a rebirth of participatory democracy, infused by the energy of millions. Imagine what this energy can do if it channeled into ongoing action.

THE NOVEMBER 5TH COALITION

We the editors have been saying for a long time now that the struggle for a more participatory and direct democracy must begin in earnest on election day 2008. The historic election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States does not signal the end of that struggle, but rather that our voices must be raised louder than ever, and our activism and participation in politics must be raised to the highest level possible. This is because with this election, the doors to the corridors of power in Washington appear to be opened ever so slightly, perhaps enough that for the first time in decades 'we the people' have a real chance of getting our foot in the door enough to bully our way in. This will of course require maintaining and increasing the levels of popular political activism we have experienced during this campaign. If we do not, we run the risk of missing an historic opportunity for change. Real change will come from the people, not from Obama alone. - Editor

New Civic Politics

Source: http://www.novemberfifth.org/

Enough is enough.

America's politics should be driven by the priorities of the people, not sound bites, special interest money, partisan gridlock, and polarizing rhetoric.

It is time for a change.

We believe that politics cannot and should not be a spectator sport. No politician, party or ideology will solve America's mounting problems alone. Only by providing authentic opportunities for the people to be part of the solution can we rebuild trust in our political institutions and create mandates for meaningful action on the critical issues facing our nation.

We challenge candidates and each other to recognize lessons from communities across the nation and around the world where citizens have played vital roles in addressing difficult problems that range from health care to education reform, from keeping communities safe to climate change. We need an outpouring of ideas about how Americans can build on this history, developing skills of working together across divisions of party, faith, race, income, and geography to address common issues. Such work is difficult. But it is crucial.

The November 5th Coalition is an all-partisan alliance committed to civic partnerships that address our biggest challenges. The Coalition is named for the day after the election in 2008 when a new chapter of America's civic history begins. Wherever the people gather they should be able to ask candidates “November 5th questions” about how they plan to tap the talents of the whole society, instead of posing as superheroes who will solve our problems for us. We will also develop leadership networks and civic policies that can serve as resources for a new administration. We encourage our fellow citizens to join with us in calling on candidates to rise above excessively divisive partisanship and to promote the common good.

We invite all Americans to help us shape a new civic politics that can galvanize the energies of the nation, drawing us from the shopping mall back into the public square. We must renew Abraham Lincoln's “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” to achieve a rebirth of liberty and justice for all in the 21st century.

Goals

We will intervene by:

Creating an environment in which it pays for candidates to engage with other politicians and citizens in more authentic, productive, citizen-centered ways. Modeling better forms of interaction between candidates and voters.

Making it more difficult for candidates to get away with fake versions of civic engagement on the campaign trail (such as town meetings that are scripted and controlled)

Creating an environment in which it pays for candidates to propose serious policies, programs, or ways of governing that will enhance citizen-centered politics. Making visible and strengthening the array of policy options and ideas for citizen-centered politics.

Reconceiving the campaign as about all of us -- and what we will all do after the election, not simply to get someone elected

Using the campaign season to direct attention to citizen-centered activities that are already going on and groups already doing public work

Ensuring that we have a political system and democracy that welcomes the participation of everyone (rather than prohibiting it

SARAH PALIN AND DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN ALASKA

The Palin Pick, and Alaska's Direct Democracy

Joe Mathews -
August 29, 2008 - 1:00pm

Source: http://www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2008/palin-pick-and-alaskas-direct-democracy-6643

Get ready, America, for a lesson in one of our country's strangest states. What makes Alaska so different? It's not just the cold and the empty landscape. (CORRECTED 9/4): Alaska is one of a few states to have had direct democracy since its founding. Arizona has had the initiative and referendum since statehood, and Oklahoma since shortly after it joined the union.

So it's fair to say that Alaska has been shaped more profoundly by direct democracy than almost any other state in the union. As every bit of Gov. Sarah Palin's life is scrutinized, you'll hear lots of odd things for which direct democracy is part of the answer. (Here's my strongest prediction about this choice: once Americans learn how Alaska works, Leno and Letterman will start making jokes -- and it'll be years before they stop). For example, she'll have to admit -- as she has done in the past -- that she smoked marijuna. But she'll have an explanation that may surprise people. Marijuana was LEGAL in Alaska until 1990, and not just for medicinal purposes. Thank the voters for the right. The voters also took the right away.

You'll also hear about her love of hunting and fishing, and her husband's work as a commercial fisherman and in the oil fields. You'll hear a lot from environmentalists about state management of public land. Alaska law in all these matters has been profoundly shaped by the ballot. And you also should expect to see her attacked by good government types as "not a real reformer" for her decision not to back a ballot initiative establishing public finance in Alaska. The measure was defeated in Tuesday's primary elections there.

For an overview of Alaska's initiative and referenda history, check out the state page on ballotpedia.

BEYOND OBAMAMANIA: HOLDING OBAMA'S FEET TO THE FIRE

Barack Obama has promised changes in the form of increased government transparency and citizen participation in government, which bodes well for moving the nation towards more direct democracy. (See our previous posts on Obama's platform for more information). Nevertheless, as Obama moves to the center on many important issues in the runup to the November election, it is becoming more apparent than ever that if real change has any hope of becoming a reality that it will only come if the large popular movement that has sprung up around Obama's campaign maintains the pressure beyond election day and demands that change come in real terms and not in mere rhetoric disguising pandering to special interests. Change will be the product of the people's increased political activism and participation, not of the belief that one man will revolutionize Washington politics. - Editor

Holding Obama’s feet to the fire

Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Holding-Obama-s-feet-to-the-fire

This is an edited transcript of ‘A People’s President? Barack Obama and the left’, a discussion at the Brecht Forum, New York, on 19 June 2008. Transcript: Jennifer Nelson and Lena de Casparis

With his appointment of a series of Clintonite economic and foreign policy advisers, Barack Obama has attracted fire from the American left. But does this mean that hope in his campaign for the presidency is misplaced? Doug Henwood, Gary Younge, Jo-ann Mort, Betsy Reed and Ta-Nehisi Coates debate the politics of Obama’s candidacy and the huge mobilisation of support behind it

Doug Henwood: There is something about the shift from the primaries to a general election that brings out the worst in a Democrat. First, there is the appointment of Jason Furman as an economic advisor. Furman famously argued that raising Walmart’s wage levels would force Walmart to raise prices, which would hurt the working class more than it would help them.

Furman is a Democrat Leadership Council (DLC)-style Democrat, someone out of the Clinton-Rubin summer school. [Rubin was Clinton’s treasury secretary and the DLC is a corporate-funded association of Democrat moderates, closely associated with the Clintons.] He joins Austin Gouldstein as Obama’s chief economic advisor. Gouldstein is famous for eulogising Milton Friedman, and for having been the top DLC economist.

Among that collection of ghouls, Obama recently announced his appointment of foreign policy advisors. They include former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously said that half a million dead Iraqi children killed by the sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration was a price worth paying. They also include Lee Hamilton and David Boren, two Congress people known for their protective attitude toward the CIA; Anthony Lake, Clinton’s national security advisor; and Susan Rice, another Clinton leftover and cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.

I can’t say that I was surprised by any of these appointments, because I never doubted that Obama would be anything but a loyal servant of the empire, but it shouldn’t get past anyone that thought he represented a fresh start.

I think that there is no doubt that the lust for Obama, the mania that he has inspired, the departure from rationality and critical thinking, does represent some fantastic longing for a better world, more peaceful, egalitarian and humane. He is not going to deliver much on that, but there is some evidence of an admirable, popular desire behind the crush, and those desires will never leave disappointed. But, as I have argued for many years, there is great political potential in disillusionment with Democrats.

The working class are really, really pissed off at their standard of living, and the way that the rich have got more than the rest of us. I don’t think that Obama’s administration would do much to change that. But never did that possibility of disappointment offer so much hope. That is not what Obama means when he uses that word, but I think history can be a great artist.

Gary Younge: Doug Henwood’s analysis would work best if Obama was standing in Sweden, or some other place where there was a large left wing that could support him wanting to turn left. He isn’t, he is standing in America and, for the best part of eight years, it has seen of one of the most reactionary governments that we have had for some time. You have to deal with the reality that exists, rather than one that you would like.

I think that most of the criticisms Doug makes of Obama are fine. But then you have to say, okay, Obama goes to AIPEC [America Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group] and he genuflects, like John McCain and Hillary Clinton, so let’s go support the pro-Palestinian candidate. But there isn’t one.

So what I think many on the left are actually arguing for, and there is a case that one can make, is just don’t stand in elections. That the whole thing is corrupt and bankrupt, and that is it.

But if you are going to stand in elections and you are standing to win and be viable, then there is a context there that Obama inherits and didn’t create. I think that it is very important to criticise Obama from the left. But if one leaves it there, then you don’t really get what I think is a crucial question for the left: how do we get from where we are now to this more progressive society? How do we get a better foreign policy?

Over the last eight years there has been a sense of despondency and frustration, and Obama’s candidacy is both the recipient of and a driver for the unleashing of that energy. There is a symbiotic relationship, I think, between Obama and his base.

The energy that you see in Obama’s base is among people who are desperate for something better, and that is what has enabled his candidacy to do so well. Which brings us to the question: are these people just deluded? Are we dealing with a massive, collective mania and false consciousness? Or do they see a possibility that they hadn’t seen in John Kerry or Al Gore?
The truth is that Obama has roused constituencies that had long been dormant, notably the black and the young. There is possibility in this – definitely the possibility of disappointment, but also the possibility of something better.

So we must ask ourselves two questions. First, are we going to abandon these people to disappointment, disillusionment and cynicism? Or are we going to engage them in a more progressive agenda that puts the pressure on Obama when he starts to flake? Do we provide him with critical support when he is starting to flake in certain areas already? Or do we decide cynical support or no support at all?

Second, who else? If you are on the left and you think that this is all delusional, all crazy, who else then brings 75,000 people out in Portland? Even for a half-way progressive programme, who else gets voter registration people working 12 hours a day in Louisiana? If not him at this moment, then who? Or what, or how?

Because in the five years that I have been here, and in the eight years since Bush came in, I haven’t seen as much possibility as I have now and if you don’t like this, you have to suggest something else. You have to go to Portland and say to those 75,000 people, you should be somewhere else. And they better go there, because otherwise all you are doing is sending them home.

Betsy Reed: We are always looking at Democrat politics as both the more grass-roots and radical elements and the corporates, and these are very disparate elements. The former was in the forefront during the primaries in a very real way, in the form of the small donations that propelled Obama’s campaign, the sort of grass-roots, more progressive elements that have played a key role in bringing out those 75,000 people to those rallies, and really energising that black vote. This could completely revolutionise the electoral maths. There is discussion that a state like Georgia could actually be contested by Democrats.

That is nothing to shrug at, but the other thing that we have started to see more recently is that the corporate-Democratic hold on the party becomes painfully apparent when it shifts into general election mode. With the demise of the Hillary Clinton campaign, Obama has folded in that establishment element into his campaign, in particular with the hiring of Jason Furman as his campaign’s economic policy director.

If that is where we are beginning, it is pretty depressing. There have been some nods to the left. Obama’s people have mentioned the names of some progressive economists, but the people who are beginning to surround him now are similar to those who created the Clinton phenomenon. The key question is ‘what role can the left play?’ We should have some leverage based on the grassroots energy that his campaign really depends on – he needs those volunteers.

The Obamamania thing was thrown around a lot by Clinton supporters, but there is something to it; there is a bit of hero-worship. It’s hard not to get a crush on the guy when you hear him because he is an amazing talker. And there is this desire to believe in him and not really think about what might be going on, and what might be wrong with him, and how we might try to push him in our direction.
Jo-ann Mort I want to start by picking up on something that Gary said: ‘We can have a discussion like this if we are in Sweden.’ But in Sweden the social democrats lost power and the conservatives are in power; it just shows how weak the left is globally. Even where there has been pretty much left-wing hegemony all of these years, there is a crisis of what defines the left and where the balance of power is.

I have been incredibly excited about Obama from the beginning. It is an amazing thing that America would nominate someone like him, and do it enthusiastically, and that he in fact may end up being the president. Now, as someone on the left, did I see him, and the excitement that I feel for him, as part of my left-wing agenda? No. I have never been one to think that the president of the US is the standard bearer for the left.

However, I think that now, in 2008, having lived through eight years of the Bush administration, an Obama presidency is a prerequisite for there to be any left at all in this country, and certainly for us to have the power in terms of the unions, working-class issues and opposition to corporatist economics. The fact is that we, as the left collectively, are as weak as we have ever been. The only way that we are going to be able to build power is to have some breathing space in Washington, in the White House, that is going to make a difference.

I honestly don’t know if I can survive four years of John McCain. Just recently, I got an email to say that the US supreme court, Bush’s supreme court, made a decision that had struck down a California law that barred publicly-funded companies from speaking out against unions. We have a supreme court, a federal judiciary that is as anti-union as we could ever imagine, and then we have all of the regular Tory agencies against them. Bush has never had a meeting with the head of the AFL-CIO or the head of Change to Win, the two labour federations.

The current labour secretary thinks that her job is to investigate union leaders for corruption and block laws that would support workers’ rights on matters like health and safety in the workplace. So we need a good, elected Democrat in the White House, and I happen to think Obama is a centre-left candidate who will govern on the centre-left.

It doesn’t mean that we don’t do any of those things that Betsy and others have said in terms of keeping his feet to the fire. But we do have to look at the Jason Furman appointment in relation to how you get elected. This is still a very close election, but whereas McCain is moving to the right to sharpen his base – which to me shows that he is in trouble – Obama is moving to the centre, which is where you get the 50-plus-1 per cent of the votes you need to win.

The quick response to Furman’s appointment from trade unionists and others also made a big difference. Obama has pointed out that his economic team also includes Jared Burnstein from the Economic Policy Institute [a left-leaning think tank, which is close to the trade unions]. Robert Reich [Clinton’s labour secretary] has also been quite outspoken about the Furman appointment.
Do I have any illusions that the pro-Wall Street, pro-free trade agenda is not going to be the agenda leading the day? No, but that is because the labour movement is so weak.

The only way we are going to be able to strengthen the labour movement is to be able to strengthen laws, to allow workers the right to organise and allow workers to take back the power that they need. And I feel very strongly that the only way that is going to happen is to get Obama into the White House.

Ta-Nehisi Coates: I’m going to talk about the most obvious thing for me, which is Obama as a black president.

We have to face the fact that at the end of the primary this man was commanding a 98 per cent majority in the African American community. To get 90 per cent of black people doing anything, much less going to the polls and going to a voting booth, that doesn’t involve Densel Washington, Electric Sly etc is a tremendous thing.

I have many reservations too. Obama is a man who is expressing nothing explicit, nothing tangible – a great racial transcendent, in fact, and this may offer an excuse to those who don’t want to talk about race to completely get out of the discussion.

Despite this, we still have to stand back and ask: what sort of condition are we in now? What sort of world are we in that he is commanding 90 per cent? What you have to face up to is that African Americans have really paid the price of the last eight years – when you look at Katrina, or the Iraq war.

The possibility of the most famous African American in the world not being an entertainer or a ball player is really encouraging. As an African American, you come home and what you see on TV is always bad news with your face on it, about a black person defiling some child, or getting arrested, always really bad news.

The idea that you come home, you turn on the TV and find Barack Obama on there beating the crap out of John McCain – I don’t know what that is worth, I don’t know how that measures against economic policy, or anything like that, but that is a cause for some sort of optimism.

I live up in Harlem, and everywhere you go there are Barack Obama posters. I was at this great event called ‘Real Men Cook’ this Saturday, and all the people who came up to speak had this great excitement and optimism in the African American community that I have not seen in a long time. For all of my criticisms of Barack, it is very hard for me to dismiss that and say that it just isn’t worth anything.

Doug Henwood: When it comes down to it, Obama is just another Democrat with a sleazy real estate guy in his past, and the level of hope that people are mounting around him is just extraordinary to watch.

In terms of a president that can move us away from uncritical support of Israel – well, I’m afraid that a guy who’s middle name is Hussein is going to go out of his way to prove that he is not that guy, so I think that is another example of misplaced hopes.

Now people point to the degree of enthusiasm and support that he has drawn out, and that is interesting because the people who are so enthusiastic about supporting him are perhaps ahead of him, and perhaps ahead of what our judgment is of what the American population is willing to accept.

Maybe the working class really are pissed off, maybe they are ready for something more progressive than what we think they are, so that kind of mobilisation and enthusiasm is very encouraging in itself.

But I think that we need to prepare for the fact that these people are going to be very disappointed when they see what kind of government he runs. I think we have to be prepared for the disillusionment that comes, and be ready now, think about how we talk to people. It may take a year or two for people to realise how disillusioned they are but we have to be ready to talk to them when they are.

Gary Younge: Well I think being on the left you are always prepared for disilluionment. That is the psychological nature of the left.

The challenge is really to be prepared for hope, and to be prepared for something that is actually better. It is really about the possibility – but not the certainty – that these huge numbers of people that you are seeing turning up aren’t deluded.

Maybe they have seen a vehicle for what they want. And the issue is, do we become a vehicle for him? Or does he become a vehicle for us? And those two things are not mutually exclusive, or assured.

That doesn’t mean we should be uncritical until Obama wins. In the UK, Labour tried the ‘just shut up and wait for the guy to get elected, everything will be fine’ line, and then we ended up with Blair, Brown and the most decimated left that we have had for years.

You shouldn’t give people a blank cheque. The left shouldn’t be taken for granted, and the idea that McCain moving to the right is a sign of weakness should be treated cautiously. Actually, Bush didn’t move to the centre. What Bush did was rally his base. And there is a way to win where you rally your base, and you get everybody out: that is actually how Bush won twice, not by moving to the middle.
Betsy Reed I think that there is some Obamamania out there. But I don’t think it is fair to say that he has run a content-less campaign. If you look at a lot of the speeches that he has given, he has a lot of ideas – although you might not agree with all of them. But in his challenge to trickle-down philosophy, he says there is something that government can do about the problems we face.
There is also his race speech about the legacy of racial pressures and what the responsibility of government is to respond to that. That is a different language from the one that we hear from Republicans, certainly, and it is a more progressive language than any we have heard from viable presidential candidates in my memory.

If you look back at Kerry, he didn’t even oppose the war. Sure, you can fault Obama for his war plan – I think that has been really under-scrutinised. In fact, Obama would preserve the green zone and the biggest embassy in world history. Basically, his plan would require anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 troops to remain in Iraq.

Despite this, Obama has a broadly anti-war agenda and a platform, an opening for the anti-war movement, if he is elected, to push him to end the war.

This is an edited transcript of ‘A People’s President? Barack Obama and the left’, a discussion at the Brecht Forum, New York, on 19 June 2008. Transcript: Jennifer Nelson and Lena de Casparis

OBAMA INVITES PARTICIPATION THROUGH 'PLATFORM MEETINGS'

In another initiative that is a continuation of his professed policy of opening up U.S. politics to more public participation and increasing transparency in Washington, Barack Obama is inviting the public to have their say in the formation of the Democratic party platform for this year's election. 'Platform Meetings' designed to permit the input of the people into the process are now being held across the country. Visit the following link to find one near you: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/listening/ Although it remains to be seen whether this experiment will have the desired effect of allowing meaningful direct participation in the process of drafting the platform, it is definitely a step in the right direction, and an encouraging sign. To learn about Obama's other proposals to increase participatory democracy visit the following link: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/ If enacted these measures will serve to marginally open up government to popular participation and will hopefully be the harbinger of more signficant steps toward direct democracy. - Editor

Listening to America:
The Democratic Platform for Change

Source: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/listening/

Supporters like you have opened up the political process like never before. But now you can do even more.

You can write the next chapter in the history of the Democratic Party.

This year, we are proud to be the first major political party to open its platform process to all Americans. And we want you to contribute your ideas and input. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have a real impact and help set the agenda for the next four years and beyond.

Find or host a Platform Meeting in your community, and get involved now:

Find a Platform Meeting near you: July 19th through July 27th

Every four years, the Democratic Party assembles a platform that outlines the party's position on a variety of issues. Traditionally, the platform is written by paid professionals and then presented to the American people.

This year, that's going to change.

From Saturday, July 19th to Sunday, July 27th, everyday people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their homes, or in their local churches and even coffee shops, to help build the Democratic Party's platform for change from the bottom up.

Attend a Platform Meeting and tell us what matters to you, so we can incorporate your ideas into the party's platform. A few participants may even be invited to appear and testify at the National Hearing.

No experience is required to host or attend an event. We'll provide all the materials and help you need. Use our zipcode search to find a Platform Meeting near you.

WINNING AND RUNNING THE PRESIDENCY AS A PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

In the opinion of many who support him based on his promises of real change in Washington, Obama has begun to fall short of the mark on several issues. Questions about his shifting goalposts on FISA, permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq, NAFTA and other policy issues are worrisome to those who have looked to Obama as someone who is willing to make a stand and confront the powers that be in Washington. As Obama seeks a more centrist posturing in the lead up to the November elections evidently in order to appeal to undecided voters, it becomes ever more clear that, as Obama himself has stated, he alone will not be capable of effecting real change. Instead it will require a continuation and expansion of the grassroots movement that has grown around his campaign. It will only be through continued political pressure and participation on the part of the masses that any kind of breakthrough has any hope of being achieved. We reiterate this point and stress that the struggle for change does not end on election day in November, that is the day that the struggle will truly begin in earnest, regardless of whether it is Obama or McCain who emerges the winner. However, as the following article illustrates, Obama continues to be the sole candidate with a chance of winning that will allow the doors to the corridors of power in Washington to be left ajar just enough for the people to have a chance of getting their foot in the door. In his platform he is inviting the participation of the people in federal government to an extent never offered before by any major candidate. Please read about these proposals by clicking HERE. Although this would only be the beginning baby steps towards a truly direct democracy, it is nevertheless a beginning. The alternative offers no hope at all. The question is whether the people who have currently become politically energized will have the perseverance and the determination to push the agenda through even if the candidate that has promised them change does not turn out to be the champion they envisioned him to be. - Editor

Winning -- and Running -- the Presidency as a Participatory Democracy


By Craig Newmark - Huffington Post
Posted July 8, 2008 03:50 PM (EST)

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-newmark/winning----and-running_b_111498.html

This election is historic, it's the beginning of a long tipping point where networked citizen involvement in the election marks the start of large scale participatory democracy. This year is comparable to 1787, when the Founders defined our system of representative democracy.

As more of us get Net access, we're getting the tools for the kind of representative democracy the Founders envisioned. Whoever wins the presidency will be faced with an electorate that is genuinely empowered. (There's still a digital divide issue, slowly being addressed.)

Barack Obama has signified his commitment to a role for American citizens in his election and his presidency, and he's following through with his commitment. (more below)

John McCain, who I admire, seemed to start with a similar vision, but has recently committed to sharing the current administration's view of democracy: "The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up." (video here). (Note that he's now hiring people with a record of deceptive campaigning; check out the first link.)

1. The financial contributions of ordinary citizens, including myself, constitute the best of Americans demonstrating their dedication to shared values. It's the most genuine, honest form of public electoral financing. Given the choice between genuine, grassroots electoral financing, and a coercive, tax-based public financing, the grassroots approach is the one consistent with American values.

So, the factual perspective is that Obama honored his commitment to honest public financing by refusing taxpayer based public financing. However, swiftboaters have already used this material for deceptive advertising. Additionally, commentators who don't understand participatory democracy have misinterpreted it.

2. Many parts of the FISA Amendment Act are subject to debate. However, in America, no one should be above the law, including telcoms who may have broken the law.

It should be noted that the Qwest case established that illegal wiretapping started well before the current Adminstration was interested in counterterrrorism, and that intelligence specialists have stated that current FISA mechanisms are effective. One might observe that Ronald Reagen never broke the law in this manner to fight Communism.

I feel Obama has the right position, and is also listening to the grassroots efforts opposing amnesty for illegal activities on the part of the telecoms.

3. After the inauguration of President Obama, real change will be facilitated by the evolution of the grassroots network into an effort for participatory governance. This is a matter of considerable discussion, but some concrete examples include:

-- transparency: all governmental work should be disclosed in an easily accessible manner. If we all can see how the sausage is made, at least it could be made increasingly better. Naturally, there will be sensitive matters which should not be disclosed. (credit to Jeff Jarvis.)

-- customer service and accountability: the success of city customer service call centers, that is, 311 systems, should be expanded to all government operations.

-- speaking truth to power: the current presidency illustrates the danger when the executive is isolated from the reality of his actions, that is, when kept in a bubble. The grassroots network could be used to provide an alternative means of letting the president really know what's going on.

The participatory movement and concrete efforts like these are the kind of change people talk about.

A VOTE FOR SENSIBLE ELECTIONS: TIME FOR 'ONE CITIZEN, ONE VOTE?'

An insightful commentary from the Government Technology website. - Editor



A Vote for Sensible Elections


Jun 3, 2008, By Chad Vander Veen


Source: http://www.govtech.com/gt/366281?topic=117673

The other day I was going through my morning ritual of visiting certain news sites - in a certain order - to get a quick sense of what's going on in the world. One Washington Times headline, in particular, caught my attention: "Michigan primary revote chances diminish." How is it that in 2008 this nation still can't cobble together a decent, sensible system for electing people to office?

Though the race for the White House is certainly historic, it's also giving more Americans a good look at how dysfunctional our election process has become. The Democrats have gone out of their way to illustrate how cockamamie their system is. Florida, for example, moved up its primary to an earlier date, despite the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) threat to strip the state of its delegates if it did so. Florida did anyway, and now as of press time, the delegates haven't been awarded to either candidate, leading some party officials to call for a "do over."

But the DNC's problem speaks to a larger issue in American elections. Now, I'm as pro-states' rights as any person you'll meet, but it's high time this country seriously considers nationwide standards for electing candidates to national office. It doesn't matter whether it's a nationwide system of electronic voting or paper balloting - just that we design a simple process for casting a vote.

Much of this year's caucuses and primaries have proven themselves totally archaic, so too is the U.S. Electoral College. The time when representative democracy was needed has long since passed. Today direct democracy is socially, technically and logistically feasible, even with punch cards or paper ballots. Think about it this way: The Nielsen system for rating TV shows - in which viewers write down what shows they watch and send that data back to Nielsen - is outdated, inefficient and just plain sucks. But it still works better than the way we vote for president.

Now I know we don't technically live in a democracy. We live in a republic. And those who defend the Electoral College say it's the republic's way of making sure less populous states don't get left out of the process. Under a strictly popular vote system, Electoral College defenders claim large population centers, like Los Angeles and New York, would unfairly skew the state voting results in their favor. The solution, then, is to ignore state lines altogether. Let every eligible American cast a vote, then tally 'em up. The person who receives the most votes wins. Who cares about awarding states? States aren't voting, Americans are.

Sounds simple. But seeing as the DNC can't even hold a simple election for itself, your vote for president may never actually count.

CITIZENS OF INDIANA SAW PRIMARY ELECTION AS OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

The following comments from an Indiana voter just before the recent historic primary election there illustrate how eager most americans are to participate actively in the democratic process provided that they are confident that their vote and their voice wields real power. However, the current power structure of our representative government strives at every opportunity to squelch the voice of the voters, thereby leaving them with the perception that they are impotent within their own (so called) democracy. This in turn generates the apathy among the populus that serves to perpetuate that undemocratic power structure. This 2008 election is inspiring in that it has seemingly broken that cycle more than any election in recent memory. Voters have a sense that their vote does matter this time, and can make a real difference. They are voting in record numbers, most notably on the Democratic side, and thanks in great part to the inspiration that the Obama campaign has generated. This momentum and increased democratic participation must not be squandered and forgotten on election day in November, but must instead be nourished and increased further by the next administration in Washington. The people's voice in government must be amplified, and real power to legislate and decide policy put in the hands of the populus. If we have any hope of achieving true democracy in this country, and of wrestling our future from the corrupt forces that have usurped our democracy for their own financial gain and pursuit of personal power, it will be through direct democracy allowing a government "of, for and by the people" to flourish. - Editor

Making Waves and Ripples

Source: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/OPINION12/805060327/1002/OPINION

Posted: May 6, 2008
By Sandy Sasso

There is a palpable excitement across Indiana on this Election Day. Finally, Hoosiers have been saying with evident pride, "We count! It's not just about New York and California. It is about us!"

While the Democratic Party may have wished for a less contentious contest, for an earlier resolution, Indiana residents are pleased to have been given, for once, a decisive voice. For the first time most of us can remember, our votes matter in a presidential primary. Candidates are listening, paying attention to local concerns from Gary to Evansville, Richmond to Terre Haute. And truth be told, it feels good. Polls indicate that more Hoosiers will be voting in this primary than in any other. As a consequence, state and local contests will benefit as well.

It is a sense of enfranchisement that makes for an involved citizenry. This year's renewed excitement in the democratic process speaks volumes for a revision of the primary system. Allowing for a less protracted and more equitable primary season would cost less money and engage more people. It might even reduce acrimony by requiring candidates to focus primarily on political, social and economic concerns and not on negative personal recriminations. Such an electoral process should allow for all states to feel equally empowered in each party's selection of its presidential nominee. The question on all of our minds is: Will the candidates still be attentive to Indiana's concerns tomorrow?

But perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from this year's political enthusiasm is the belief that our voices do matter, that individual citizens can make a difference, that democracy works best when we take seriously our responsibility to effect change, help to shape and influence the quality of our communities.

In the end, the substance and tone of a campaign are determined by our involvement and our indifference, by what we are willing to tolerate or what we are not, by our questions and our expectations. The quality of a campaign is shaped not only by what the candidates bring to the table, but what the electorate demands. In the end, good government isn't just about the decisions of leaders, but about an involved citizenry that holds officials accountable.

We are told that we are to think globally and to act locally. Even as we advocate for governmental action on global warming, let us be attentive to our own habits of wasteful consumerism and exploitation of natural resources. Even as we lobby for fair and just immigration legislation, let us treat our neighbors and the strangers in our midst with dignity and respect. Even as we call for health-care reform, let us promote healthy behaviors and wellness. Even as we require social and educational policies that are attentive to the most vulnerable among us, let us join in partnership with others who seek to raise the quality of life for all our neighborhoods.

In a participatory democracy government and communities, organizations and individuals work hand in hand. Private interest cannot be indifferent to the public good.

The key expectation for the new administration is for a sea of change, for sweeping waves of new directions. But real renewal is not only about making waves but about creating ripples. Each of us has a contribution to make. When one person throws a single pebble into a serene lake, it makes ripples that extend in all directions, far beyond the point of entry. As we move from May to November, may our new sense of enfranchisement in the democratic process move us to make both waves and ripples.

Sasso is senior rabbi at Congregation Beth-El Zedeck in Indianapolis.

OBAMA vs. NADER: OUR EDITORS GO POINT-COUNTERPOINT

Now that Ralph Nader has entered the '08 race for the U.S. presidency, many activists and advocates of direct democracy find themselves uncertain of which candidate to support at this time. The two chief editors of this blog have been having a running debate for many weeks about which candidate is the best choice for the end goal of participatory democracy and direct democracy for the U.S.A. After 'EDITOR A' sent an email to her friends and family expressing her excitement that Nader was considering candidacy, 'EDITOR B' responded by advocating for Obama. We encourage readers of this debate to contribute by emailing us their own points of view on the subject, especially if they differ from those expressed here, and we will publish them on the page we have created for the debate. (see link below) - Editor


THE DEBATE:

EDITOR B: I had to vote for Obama today because I do not want Hillary to get the democratic nomination. If she wins it may be the death ratlle for the USA just as it would be if Romney or McCain wins. Plus, she is ahead in NY, the state where I vote.

Also I think that Obama for all the 'change' hoopla does have the power to motivate young people and is getting them involved in politics and giving them hope once more. Have you watched any of his rallies? Something ever so slightly revolutionary is happening and he is at the center of it, by chance or calculation I don't know. Whether he will be able to deliver the change he is promising is another matter, but I am willing to give him a shot.

I understand your frustration though, and I think the democratic party itself is a corrupt fiasco. Why I would support Obama is not because of the party, but because of what we have already seen a little of: the increased political activism and participation by the people that he could bring about if he wins. People are yearning to fix this country before it's too late and if Obama by the simple act of winning sets the gears in motion and the people begin to rise up it might be hard for the powers that be to stop that momentum.

Ralph Nader might be able to do the same thing that Obama has the potential to do if he could win, but of course he can't win. We don't have a viable third party in this country, plain and simple. It is a small select group of people who would unite behind Nader. It's a hard pill to swallow, but what everyone says is undeniably true - every vote for Nader would be one less vote for Obama (if he's the democratic nominee.) It's true what Nader says, obviously we need more parties in this country if we are going to move forward... but we have to move forward step by step because there is no chance otherwise.

Let me try to explain where I am coming from on this because I know it's a contentious issue and a hard one to decide on. Normally I would be one of those for Nader, but I believe that only a mass popular movement is capable of bringing about revolution in this country and reversing the damage that has been done. I think that it is going to require a diverse coalition of people far broader than just those that would support Nader and that it needs someone who can actually win office under the current conditions. The next president should be a leader who opens the door just wide enough within a locked system to allow people power to take over, just as Chavez did in VZLA. The revolution has to come from within the system to break the chains, and then a transformation toward a new system can begin. Once that new system is in place, there will be space within it for a green party to grow and prosper.

All that said, if Obama wins the nomination and is ahead by miles in NY over the republican candidate, I may vote for Nader as a symbolic gesture. I may do the same if Hillary wins the nomination, but out of disgust. If Hillary wins, or god forbid Romney or Mc Cain you can forget about change and say hello to cynicism and apathy again pretty quick.

EDITOR A: I appreciate your thoughts, especially what you said about Obama opening up channels for participation. Almost everyone I’ve been debating with in my vote zone (with the exception of the socialists) is going for Obama because of his great rhetoric and charismatic character. I have my own thoughts on this issue. Instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils" as many liberals argue to be the best option in our current two-party system, I will vote for the underdog who will never win, because he more accurately represents my views. While I would prefer to represent my own views in a participatory democracy, I acknowledge that now I am pressured to vote for someone who is backed by corporate donors, Wall Street, and other powers that will continue to manipulate candidates upon arrival at the White House.

From what I have gathered, no candidate in the Democratic Party is actually going to make more than a symbolic change in this country. It is true that the US needs representation of African American and Female perspectives; however I don't think that the current candidates even manage to accurately represent politically the demographics they exemplify physically. Hillary is anti-feminist because she will adhere to the patriarchal system created and perpetuated by our nation’s presidential predecessors. Obama, despite being endorsed by some of my favorite people and organizations, is much more charisma and eloquence than he is real policy change.

I appreciate your views on him and applaud those who are getting involved in politics for the first time by supporting his campaign. I also understand the need to appeal to certain corporate backing in order to stand a chance in the campaign process. However, this very acquiescence to the corrupt system shows that Obama does not have the effort nor the grassroots backing (e.g. green parties, socialists, anti-war activists) to actually defeat the worthless system already in place. Achieving real change, in the sense of demonstrating the freedom to vote for the candidate who more accurately represents my views will come when we have more than two options. There is no reason for me to vote for a candidate that I don't believe in, and I won't. In order to personally promote a multi-party system which I believe is more advantageous to representing diversity in this country I will organize and vote for a third party candidate.

EDITOR B: I see your side totally. I know it's a choice between voting for the candidate that most closely matches your beliefs, or voting strategically for someone who might not necessarily espouse everything that you're for yourself, but might unwittingly be the only chance of unleashing enough people power on the scale necessary to radically alter this locked system in the time we have left before it is too late to stop this runaway capitalist imperialist train. It's a strategic choice, and there's no easy answer.....

To continue reading this debate and to add your own comments, CLICK HERE

OBAMA'S 2006 'GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT' ACT: A MEASURE OF e-DEMOCRACY BECOMES REALITY

Senator Barack Obama back in 2006 co-authored with Senator Tom Coburn legislation mandating the creation of a centralized website that would contain a complete database of government spending, freely accessable by the general public. The act, titled the 'Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,' received bipartisan support in congress and strong diverse grassroots support from bloggers and activists, and was signed into law by president Bush.

Barack Obama is the only remaining presidential candidate who has signed an oath (see second article below) stating that, if elected, he would ensure that the act is implemented to it's fullest extent. But many readers may be surprised to learn that the website mandated by the new act is up already up and running to a large extent.

The site, http://www.usaspending.gov/, was launched in late 2007 and now provides an easily accessable and user friendly multiple criteria search engine that allows citizens to discover where their trillions in tax revenue is being allocated, and for what purpose. One can even see details of every individual transaction to government contractors, including defense contractors such as KBR, Halliburton, etc. It also provides an easy means of comparing the overall budgets of the individual departments, education vs. defence, homeland security vs. social security, etc.

This amazing resource is intended not only to increase transparency, but also to increase the people's access to, and participation in the policy and budgeting decisions that are currently exclusively down to powerful lobbyists and their elected representative's own whim and fancy. Obviously, this is but one small step on the path to true participatory budgeting and democracy, but it is a crucial first step. The public must first have access to the knowledge of where money is currently being allocated in order to effectively and actively advocate for budgeting changes that will reflect the true will of the people. Hopefully this foot in the door will help lead to a participatory budgeting process sometime in the future, which will allow the people to input into the budgeting process directly.

This initiative of Senator Obama's is but one facet of his platform on ethics, transparency, and accountability, and many of his proposals, if implemented, will provide a measure of direct democracy to the people of the United States on a scale unprecedented at the federal level. Many of his proposals will utilize the internet both to increase citizen participation in government, and to 'shine the light' on Washington's behind closed doors shady deals and bring the process out into the public arena. To learn more about Obama's proposals in this area click HERE to see his platform on his official page, and see our previous posts on the subject HERE, and HERE.

The fact that this one particular element of his e-democracy platform has already become a reality in the form of http://www.usaspending.gov/, is tangible proof that Obama's intentions in this regard are genuine, and that the measures he is proposing are feasible and attainable. It is also interesting to note that Obama has also demonstrated his sincerity on an individual level regarding the subject of transparent finances. He is the only candidate that has posted six years of his personal tax returns on his website. You can view or download them HERE.

While Obama's proposals are a far cry from the true direct democracy that we seek, what is truly cause for hope among direct democracy advocates is the widening mobilization and political engagement of the masses that Obama's campaign has awakened. This, coupled with the foot in the door to Washington that his proposals offer in terms of transparency and active citizen participation, could signal the beginnings of a new balance of power, with the balance being provided by a new player in Washington: the people.

For that is where the true inspiration of Barack Obama's campaign lies: with the people, and not with Obama himself. Obama may serve to provide the catalyst, but it is the people who must provide the necessary pressure that will slowly lead us to direct democracy. As such, it will be crucial to maintain and increase the mobilization of the masses and their participation in politics long after Obama's victory in the election, if that victory comes. On that day, it will be up to the masses not to proclaim "YES, WE DID IT!," but instead to begin the struggle to prove the validity of the Obama campaign mantra: "YES WE CAN!"

The first of the following two articles dates from the passage of Obama's Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and the second relates to a subsequent oath to uphold the act circulated by the Reason Foundation to all the presidential candidates. - Editor



Senate Passes Coburn-Obama Bill to Create Internet Database of Federal Spending

Friday, September 8, 2006
Obama Contact: Tommy Vietor or Robert Gibbs, 202-228-5511
Coburn Contact: John Hart, 202-228-5357
Date: September 8, 2006

Source: http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c/

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.

"By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this database will help make us better legislators, reporters better journalists, and voters more active citizens," Obama said. "It's both unusual and encouraging to see interest groups and bloggers on the left and the right come together to achieve results. This powerful grassroots alliance shows that at the end of the day, Americans want to see Congress work together to get something done and not continue to engage in the partisan gridlock that so often brings Capitol Hill to a grinding halt."

"Every American has the right to know how their government spends their money, and then to hold elected officials accountable for those decisions. I applaud my colleagues for unanimously supporting a bill that will aid the American people in that effort," Dr. Coburn said. "This bill is a small but significant step toward changing the culture in Washington. Only by fostering a culture of openness, transparency and accountability will Congress come together to address the mounting fiscal challenges that threaten our future prosperity."

"The group that deserves credit for passing this bill, however, is not Congress, but the army of bloggers and concerned citizens who told Congress that transparency is a just demand for all citizens, not a special privilege for political insiders. Their remarkable effort demonstrates that our system of government does work when the people take the reins of government and demand change," Dr. Coburn said.

More than 100 organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity and Taxpayers for Common Sense to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Greenpeace have endorsed S. 2590.

Dozens of editorials boards across the country including the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times and The Oklahoman have also endorsed S. 2590.

Forty-three Senators co-sponsored S. 2590 including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), John Cornyn (R-TX) and others.



Obama Signs Oath for 'Google Government'

Source: Reason Foundation http://www.reason.org/

News Release LOS ANGELES — Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) have signed oaths declaring that, should they win the presidency in 2008, they will issue an executive order during their first month in office instructing the entire executive branch to put into practice the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, a Google-like search tool that will allow you to see how your tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and earmarks.

All of the major presidential candidates have been invited to sign the "oath of presidential transparency" which is being promoted by a diverse coalition of 36 groups, led by Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank that has advised the last four presidential administrations.
"The next president should be committed to transparency and accountability," said Adrian Moore, vice president of research at Reason Foundation. "Redesigning the federal government so that it is more accountable to taxpayers is a nonpartisan issue. Transparency will help produce a government focused on results instead of our current system, which is plagued by secrecy, wasteful spending and pork projects."

"Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view," said Sen. Obama. "This historic law will lift the veil of secrecy in Washington and ensure that our government is transparent and accountable to the American people."

"Government transparency is essential to government accountability. Americans need to feel they can trust their government," Sen. Brownback stated.

"When government spends the people's money, it must be done with utmost possible transparency," Rep. Paul, the first to sign the oath, declared. "Signing the Oath of Presidential Transparency was a no-brainer for me."

The oath was sent to every presidential candidate who has met the Federal Election Commission's filing requirements and has "raised or spent $50,000 or more (the threshold for mandatory electronic filing) from sources or to payees other than the candidate him or herself." The oath was first distributed to every presidential candidate's headquarters on July 17, 2007. Subsequently, at least five follow-up emails or calls were made to each campaign.

Full Oath Online

The complete oath of presidential transparency is available online at http://www.reason.org/oath/.

About the Coalition

An alliance of 36 diverse groups is advocating the presidential accountability oath. The following groups are part of the coalition: American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, American Association of Small Property Owners, Americans for Tax Reform, Budget Watch Nevada, Capital Research Center, Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizen Outreach Project, Citizens Against Government Waste, Doctors for Open Government, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, FreedomWorks, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Iowa Public Policy Institute, Liberty Coalition, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Minnesota Free Market Institute, Mississippi Center for Public Policy, National Taxpayers Union, Nevada Policy Research Institute, Reason Foundation, Republican Liberty Caucus, Research Accountability Project, Rio Grande Foundation, Taxpayers League of Minnesota, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, The Harbor League, The Performance Institute, The Project on Government Oversight, The Pullins Report, The Rutherford Institute, US Bill of Rights Foundation, Velvet Revolution, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, and Washington Policy Center.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Reason. Reason Foundation does not endorse any political candidates. For more information, please visit http://www.reason.org/.

Government Contact

Presidential candidates interested in signing the oath, or organizations interested in joining the coalition, should contact Reason Foundation's Amanda Hydro at (202) 236-9193.

OBAMA'S e-DEMOCRACY PLATFORM: INCHING TOWARDS A MORE PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

Barack Obama's platform contains many proposals for initiatives in participatory democracy geared toward more transparency in Washington and more citizen participation, many of which would utilize the internet to engage people through e-Democracy. These proposals are laid out in detail on his website primarily under the Ethics section of his platform.To visit that site click HERE. See also our previous related post on this topic HERE. The following e-Week article dating from the time Obama revealed his technology agenda highlights his proposals and the impact they could have on the advancement of particpatory democracy in this country.

- Editor

Barack Obama: Refining Tech Policy

By Roy Mark 2007-11-16

Source: e-Week http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government/Barack-Obama-Refining-Tech-Policy/

Citizen democracy, privacy and free speech in technology take the stage as Obama's IT platform takes shape.

On an issue where theres little disagreement between the candidates, Sen. Barack Obama moved Nov. 14 to differentiate himself from the Democratic pack with a detailed technology agenda.

While Obamas overall tech policy tracks with the plans from the other candidates—support for network neutrality, increased H-1B visas and jacked up spending and investment on math, science and technology—the Illinois Democrat uses his ambitious agenda to detail his broader view on citizen democracy, privacy and free speech.

Network neutrality, for instance, is more than a rate dispute between broadband and content providers, according to Obama. Without network neutrality rules or laws, he contends, the "quality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse" would be threatened.

At a campaign stop at the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif., Nov. 14, Obama said, "I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality." In his tech agenda released the same day, he added that network neutrality would "ensure that [the Internet] remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy."

With the usual obligatory nod to training more Americans for high-tech jobs, Obamas tech immigration position moves beyond his fellow candidates promising more H-1B visas. Under an Obama administration, he says, all immigrants who earn their college degrees in the United States will be given a path to citizenship.

"We should examine our ability to increase the number of permanent visas we issue to foreign skilled workers," Obama states in his agenda. "We do not want to shut our doors to innovators overseas, who have traditionally made America strong."

On the Internet issues of free speech and participatory democracy, Obama steps ahead of other Democratic contenders for the White House in promoting specific ideas and proposals.

"[Obama] believes that openness of the new media world should be seen as an opportunity as much as some see it as a threat," his policy paper states. He "does not view regulation as the answer to these concerns."

Instead of the host of laws—most ultimately rejected by the courts—introduced over the last decade by both Democrats and Republicans to protect children online, Obama said parents should be provided filtering tools, including requiring content providers to offer parental controls software that not only blocks objectionable material but also prevents children from revealing personal information.

"Private entities like Common Sense Media are pursuing a sanity not censorship approach, which can serve as a model for how to use technology to empower parents without offending the First Amendment," the paper states.

Obama also proposes the creation of "Public Media 2.0" as the next generation of public media that will "create the Sesame Street of the digital age and other video and interactive programming." He said he would support funding for moving existing public broadcasting stations online to help "renew their founding visions in the digital world."

But nowhere in his tech policy agenda is Obama more impassioned on his view of 21st century technology as he is about government and the Internet.

"Together, we could open up government and invite citizens in, while connecting all of America to 21st century broadband," Obama said at his Google campaign stop. "We could use technology to help achieve universal health care, to reach for a clean energy future and to ensure that young Americans can compete—and win—in the global economy."

In Obamas view of his potential presidency, Americans would be able to watch a live Internet feed of all government proceedings, from agency meetings to congressional hearings. He would give people an opportunity to review and comment on White House Web site for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation.

In addition, he would create a government Web site and search engine to allow users to track online federal grants, contracts, earmarks and lobbyist contacts with government officials.

Overseeing it all would be the nations first chief technology officer. The federal CTO would have the authority to ensure government agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services to solicit and receive information from citizens. The CTO would also oversee a national, interoperable wireless network for first responders.

"This policy will enable Americans to discuss and debate more actively they key issues that affect our lives and will give citizens greater autonomy to determine where the truth lies," Obamas agenda states.

OBAMA WANTS MORE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN ELECTORAL PROCESS

As early as last May, Barack Obama began setting the tone for more citizen participation in the electoral process, and more transparency and openness. He wrote a letter to Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Commission requesting that copyrights be waived on all video of presidential debates immediately after they were aired so that the material could be freely distrubuted by bloggers and all of the general public in order to make the debates reach the maximum audience possible within the electorate, recognizing the importance of an educated and informed electorate to the democratic process. See also our previous post which highlights the specifics of Obama's platform and how they will bring about radical changes in governance the implementation of participatory and direct democratic systems at the federal level. (Click here) - Editor

Obama Asks Dean to Drop Restrictions on Debates

Source: Washington Post May 03, 2007

By Ed O'Keefe

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is joining with top bloggers and technology leaders in asking the Democratic National Committee to make all video of Democratic presidential debates available for free after they air.

In a letter sent to DNC chairman Howard Dean earlier today, Obama suggests debate video should be placed in the public domain, or licensed under a Creative Commons (Attribution) license. Such licenses allow authors, musicians, producers, scientists, etc. to pick and choose the copyright freedoms to apply to their work.

"As you know, the Internet has enabled an extraordinary range of citizens to participate in the political dialogue around this election. Much of that participation will take the form of citizen generated content," Obama's letter states. "We, as a Party, should do everything that we can to encourage this participation."

The senator references a letter sent to Dean and the DNC by "a bipartisan coalition of academics, bloggers and Internet activists." That letter was signed by, among others, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington, Markos Moulitsas, founder of liberal blog Daily Kos; Lowell Feld, who ran online campaign activities for Sen. Jim Webb's successful 2006 Senate campaign; and John Amato, the founder of Web site Crooks and Liars. It calls for "the DNC to ensure that all video footage from Democratic debates is able to be shared, re-used, and freely blogged about without the uploader of the video being deemed a lawbreaker."

A similar letter sent to the Republican National Committee was also signed by Newmark, Wales, Huffington, among others.

Read the letters to the RNC and DNC here.

"Barack Obama is a strong believer in using technology to make the political process, and the important debates on issues as open and accessible to the American public as possible," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. "In the spirit of openness, Obama wanted to make sure the debates are accessible to everybody."

Psaki wouldn't say if Obama would skip future DNC debates if his video distribution idea is not adopted. He's scheduled to attend a debate hosted by PBS host Tavis Smiley in late June at Howard University, an early June debate in New Hampshire co-sponsored by CNN and WMUR-TV, and six DNC sanctioned debates set to begin in July.

Here's the full text of Obama's letter to Dean:

Chairman Howard Dean

Democratic National Committee

430 S. Capitol St. S

Washington, DC 20003

(202) 863-8000

Dear Chairman Dean:

I am writing in strong support of a letter from a bipartisan coalition of academics, bloggers and Internet activists recently addressed to you and the Democratic National Committee. The letter asks that the video from any Democratic Presidential debate be available freely after the debate, by either placing the video in the public domain, or licensing it under a Creative Commons (Attribution) license.

As you know, the Internet has enabled an extraordinary range of citizens to participate in the political dialogue around this election. Much of that participation will take the form of citizen generated content. We, as a Party, should do everything that we can to encourage this participation. Not only will it keep us focused on the issues that matter most to America, it will also encourage participation by a wide range of our youth who have traditionally simply tuned out from politics.

The letter does not propose some radical change in copyright law, or an unjustified expansion in "fair use." Instead, it simply asks that any purported copyright owner of video from the debates waive that copyright.

I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates. Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible.

Your presidential campaign used the Internet to break new ground in citizen political participation. I would urge you to take the lead again by continuing to support this important medium of political speech. And I offer whatever help I can to secure the support of others as well.
Sincerely,Barack Obama

Click here to read the blog post at the Washington Post