Initial program of my new group: Democratic Resistance: Whaddya think?

[Ken Burch]

This is derived from two resolutions I introduced, but saw defeated, at the Alaska Democratic Caucus. These are open for discussion and revision.

Electoral Reform:

1) A constitutional amendment for the abolition of the Electoral College.

2) Passage of state legislation distributing Electoral College votes by direct Proportional Representation until the Electoral College is abolished.

3) Election of the President and of state governors via Instant Runoff Voting.

4) Establishment of Proportional Representation as the new method of distributing U.S. House and State Legislative Seats, as well as state legislative seats.

5) Removal of the 435 seat size limit on the U.S. House of Representatives, so that the U.S. House of Representatives once again truly represents the American people by population.

6) Public Financing for all election campaigns.

7) A national statute banning the use of touch-screen voting machines.

Democratic Party Nomination Reform

1) A strict, party-enforced BAN on the receipt or solicitation of corporate campaign contributions to Democratic presidential candidates during the primary process;
2) A pledge from ALL Democratic presidential candidates to boycott any televised debates from which the host television networks exclude ANY Democratic presidential candidate;
3) A reduction in the threshold level for viability at the caucus level from 15% to 5%, so that Democratic candidates are enabled to present themselves to the voters of as many caucus and primary states as possible;
4) Allocation of presidential primary delegates by strict overall proportional representation, so that Democratic candidates representing the full spectrum of Democratic can be considered by Democratic voters in as many states as possible;
5) Provision of funds by the Democratic National Committee for television advertising for Democratic presidential candidates who are unable to afford it or are limited in their ability to afford it, so that all Democratic candidates, not just those with the highest level of campaign funds;
6) The purchase of audiovisual production facilities by the DNC, to be made available for free use by all Democratic presidential candidates;
7) A single NATIONAL primary and caucus date, so that the votes of all Democrats count equally in the nominating process;
or a series of no more than 4 Regional primaries;

Any feedback on this would be appreciated. I will be trying to set up a website soon and start an online discussion process to build this program and strategies for achieving its passage.

I'd also like advice on how to adjust the objectives of this new group in order to make them worthwhile to all the excluded constituency groups within this party and to those outside of it who wish to support the general electoral reform ideas I've outlined.

[mdmc]

1. i can get behind this

although I think that the party should have a reasonable cutoff for debates.

[Ken Burch]

5. Well, it might just be a question of enforcing some reasonable ground rules for debate

So that if the debate continued in a particular year, it would be conducted on a civil and non-destructive level.

The reduction in the viability threshhold for the caucuses would also permit people to enter the race for the purposes of conducting "teaching campaigns", where they could use their candidacy to speak about the issues the leading candidates aren't dealing with, or represent constituencies that aren't being represented in the name of the party leadership's fixation with seeming "mainstream". Dennis Kucinich, for example, might have been able to continue in the race as a "teaching candidate", as Edward might have in a different sense.

Our party's leadership needs to get over this fear of debate and discussion. The problem has never been debate; it has always been the harsh and arrogant suppression of debate and discussion. But debate and discussion are part of the mission this party naturally has, but tends to shy away from: providing a real voice for the powerless.

[DireStrike]

2. I think the 435 member limit is there for a fairly good reason

The reason being, we don't have the technology to build a senate chamber like the one in the new Star Wars movies. Or do you think perhaps the house of reps shouldn't necessarily be a literal chamber, but more like a body of people who vote online or something?

[Ken Burch]

4. That hasn't actually been a factor in, for example, the British House of Commons

Which has 670 members, even though the chamber itself only seats 400 or so.

And c'mon, if we can build basketball arenas that seat 20,000 or more, we can build a chamber of the U.S. House that would go up to 580 seats, (based on a ration of 1 seat for every 500,000 people).

Besides, the House size limit has repeatedly been used as a successful arguement against statehood for the District of Columbia, because, if D.C. became a state, some other state would have to lose Congressional representation to give the District the single House seat it would be entitled to.

[formercia]

7. Congress is a big fat terrorism target

the Anthrax attacks proved that. The Congress could function in their respective States and Territories. With up to date fiber optic and satellite conferencing technology, there's no reason it could not be done.

Think how much money it would save except for the lobbyists having to set up offices everywhere. It would be the end of K Street.

[Norrin Radd]

3. Reads like democracy to me. It would be cool to have one.

[LWolf]

6. I like it.

It's a good start. I'd like to add the following; see what you think, and where you think it would best fit:

I'd like some of the Democratic Party reform to be a national, ALL PARTY reform.

100% public financing of elections; no donations of any kind allowed, and no campaigning by anyone or any group outside the official campaign.

All polls banned from the campaign and election cycles.

A fairness doctrine of some sort. Guaranteed equal air/press time for all.

Hand counted paper ballots.

I understand that a national primary day puts pressure on candidates, who can't be everywhere at once. It seems like, though, that they don't need to focus on certain areas if everyone is voting/caucusing at the same time. If it is really helpful to spread things out, then I propose this:

Spread out the primaries. Perhaps even do away with caucuses, so that peoples' votes can count for their first choice. After all, wouldn't IRV essentially accomplish what a caucus does, shifting support to secondary candidates if the first doesn't get enough votes?

Mail in ballots for all, like my state does.

All votes are held, unopened and uncounted, until the last primary is closed, then counted all at the same time. This, along with the absence of polls, should guarantee that every vote has equal weight, and that no votes are influenced by polls; that all are included with an equal chance.

Lastly, take the debates out of the hands of the msm, and schedule REAL debates. Substantive questions, where every candidate gets equal talking time, and can respond to every question.

[endarkenment]

8. The initial round of small state primaries/caucuses

helps candidates with low funding levels run viable campaigns in those states. Unless there is complete public funding (based on some TBD criteria) it makes sense to retain an initial 2 or 3 small state round of primaries.

Otherwise yes of course we need complete reform of our electoral processes.

[dajoki]

9. Sounds pretty good...

I like: 7) A single NATIONAL primary and caucus date, so that the votes of all Democrats count equally in the nominating process;
or a series of no more than 4 Regional primaries;

Other than Gore, I can't remember the last time someone I supported in the primary lasted to my state's primary.