|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 27, 2012 16:14:17 GMT -5
One more thing...I am fine with adding grievances, but I don't know how the SC will feel. The way I understood it, you had to submit any such grievances only after dealing with the originals and even then the new ones must pass a 90% approval before they are even considered. It is worth a try, though. KJ
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 27, 2012 16:34:06 GMT -5
KJ
The updated downloadable petition looks great. Your English teacher would be proud.
Everyone, I am sensing that others want to add grievances at the CC 2.0 that is why I added a chance in subcommittee/category-group to modify the final grievance before returning to the general CC 2.0. Here is the agenda text:
Tuesday July 3, 2012
9:00 AM • For each remaining N grievance in order of importance, o Category Chair reads grievance. o Category Chair takes nominations for changes. o Category members vote to approve change verbally yeah or nay.
But I still would rather get the grievances up to Friday midnight 6/29. So we can think about them beforehand.
Several members expressed a willingness to stay up until midnight, so I could expand the agenda with a goal of stopping at 10 PM instead of 9 PM. This allows for overflow.
Any comments? Mike Kelley
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 27, 2012 16:51:00 GMT -5
All, I copied the last reply into the proper forum under the agenda. So let's update and reply there where it is easier to find. Thanks Mike
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 27, 2012 20:55:49 GMT -5
All Here is an attempt to convert grievance solutions into Constitutional Amendments which is the second goal of the CC 2.0. Please read and comment on the attachment. Here this will keep things light: Tom is having a nice lunch with his wife at a Chinese restaurant. At the end of the meal, they receive the traditional fortune cookies for two. Tom opens his cookie and reads the fortune. He realizes it is very similar to two or three other fortune cookies he has had recently. When the waiter comes by again, Tom asks, “If you receive the same fortune multiple times, does that mean it is more likely to come true?” The waiter responds, “No, you eat lot of cookie.” Ah so - have a good evening. Mike Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by votefair on Jun 28, 2012 1:35:21 GMT -5
I strongly support this separation between grievances and proposed solutions. It allows delegates to agree on the grievances, yet disagree about which proposed solution is likely to be most effective. This wording is much, much better than the previous "official" version. I realize that new solutions are not being added officially, yet I want to draw attention to the omission of the solution recommended by election-method experts from around the world, as expressed in the officially signed document named the "Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates" that is posted at: www.bansinglemarkballots.orgTo take advantage of what is explained in the election-method Declaration, I suggest that the 99 Declaration delegates vote on including the following wording as a "possible" solution to the grievance named "The people's control of elections has been replaced with money control of elections": * " Ban single-mark ballots from Congressional elections, and replace them with ballots that collect more preference information, and count those better ballots in ways that correctly identify which candidate is actually most popular, so that money cannot be used to take advantage of the vulnerabilities of single-mark ballots." A full explanation of this proposal is at the 99 Declaration site at: www.the99declaration.org/votefair/ban_single_mark_ballots_from_congressional_electionsNote that the Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates contains the following words that express the link between unfair ballots and the excessive influence of money in election results: * " We are confident that adopting any of our recommended methods will reduce the gap between what voters want and politicians do. Government will become more accountable because voters will have more influence, and campaign contributions will have less influence." Those of us who are election-method experts are experts at understanding the mathematics of voting/election methods, but we tend not to be "politically" active, so please combine our understanding of election methods with your political activism. To repeat an earlier offer, if this proposal is included in the 99 Declaration, I am willing to defend it in a Congressional hearing. Thanks! Richard Fobes, author of "The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox" and "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections"
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 28, 2012 10:24:59 GMT -5
On the issue of additional grievances, I think we should create a separate document listing all of the proposed additions to the list of grievances. We can then decide as a group @ the CC whether we will add some, all, or none of these grievances onto the list of proposed grievances. That's not a decision that I want to make lightly. votefair, I have seen your posts elsewhere as well. I assume your suggestion for these solutions is to add them as possible solutions for grievance ID 21 / G-1 (The people's control of elections has been replaced with money control of elections.) Or did you want this placed elsewhere? Mike K, I took a quick look through your Amendments document, and I'm not quite sure about the replacement of the word Grievance with Amendment in many of these cases. A few of these grievances' proposed solutions could be worded into Constitutional amendments, but I highly doubt that we're going to propose 65 new amendments to the Constitution! I figure most of these proposed solutions can be executed through federal laws, with a major exception being the proposed solution to get money out of politics (a Constitutional amendment defining that free speech applies to physical human beings only, or something similar.) I think any talk of solutions is premature at this point. Our focus leading up to next week should be on the grievances, and figuring out how we are going to come up with a final list of these that will resonate with the 99%. The solutions can be discussed AFTER we determine what we want to find solutions for in the first place
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 28, 2012 12:04:03 GMT -5
Mike K, I have a room with dunnathan right now, unless those plans fall through. Still, I appreciate the offer.
I agree that we need to work on solutions as well. I'm just disagreeing on when to do so. I know we're still going to be doing this after next week's events, where we will finalize the list of grievances. For all we know, based on what agenda we use and how many people show up, we may be done with the list of grievances early. I can see us getting to work on solutions as early as next Wednesday afternoon if things go smoothly. By all means, lets get a solutions document ready if there is time to do so.
I'm with you on the fear of losing significance. I'm more concerned with our outreach/exposure issues than being targeted by the 1%. When we get more exposure from the list of grievances going viral, THEN we will see the 1% start to resist us.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 28, 2012 12:49:10 GMT -5
Mike H Both versions of the agenda have us signing Wed morning on July 4th and marching Wed afternoon. So we only have 2 long days to get solutions in place. That is why i proposed category groups aka subcommittees to work in parallel in the latest agenda. I will review the agenda to see if it allows adding last minute grievances. Hoozah. Mike K
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 28, 2012 13:57:11 GMT -5
I had a slightly different idea for the voting, depending on how we decide to whittle down the full list into the final list of grievances. I was thinking that we go through each grievance one by one, and for each grievance:
Have an immediate up-or-down vote. Did the grievance receive 90% consensus? If yes, congratulations, that grievance is on the final list!
If no, how many people would like to speak for/against inclusion of this grievance? Have discussion/debate, and then after a set amount of time (3+ minutes per speaker depending on how many want to speak, and how long we agree to allot for debates on grievances) we put the grievance up to another vote? 90% consensus?
If yes, added. If no, nope. Moving on to the next grievance.
***********
If we end up with voting "rounds" (what I'm suggesting) then grievance debate goes like this:
(after the initial round of voting)
For each grievance, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this grievance's inclusion? Everyone will have a chance to defend/promote a grievance that they feel should make it into the next round. After public debate (again after a set time that the delegates decide) we vote on the next round of cuts and repeat until we reach the agreed-upon number of final grievances.
I'll try to get an proposed agenda up with these ideas today, but its getting busy over here... This might have to be a wait until Monday kind of proposal.
I don't know which option we are going to pick. I'm 99% certain that we're NOT going to stick with the "2 minutes per person" approach that was initially proposed. As long as the most knowledgeable people on these issues get ample time to make good cases for/against, then we will be in good shape to figure out this final list.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 28, 2012 18:37:29 GMT -5
All After some criticisms for replacing Grievances with Amendments, I merged the Grievances, Solutions and Amendments into one document so you can see all three. This is so we can think about implementation. As a result, some grievances naturally become amendments, others require legislation. Remember the second goal of the Redress is the following: (ii) demand that the states call an Article V Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution so that the grievances ratified on July 4, 2012 are remedied. If we think along those lines, it will be easier to reduce the number of grievances even though all are great ideas from a pool of caring, dedicated Americans. Thanks Mike K Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 28, 2012 19:04:34 GMT -5
After I had re-written/edited the declaration/petition in a more proper form, I realized that ruffbear had been posting a totally different declaration/petition here somewhere. Do we have a method to get one or the other approved or is that to be decided later? I am not sure if ruffbear is going to be at our CC 2.0 since he invited us all outside to his speech to the NatGen. Anyway, I was just wondering if we were going to officially choose which of the documents we were using as the frame (beginning and end) to the final document which would have the "Whereas's and grievances" listed in the middle or at least that is the way I envisioned it? The doc I edited is attached. I will leave home tomorrow on my trek to Philly, but will try to check in. See Ya'll soon! KJ Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 28, 2012 20:11:43 GMT -5
My proposed agenda on the Dawn's Question about the Chair and Agenda thread allows approval of 1 of 5 petition formats.
mike
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 28, 2012 22:44:29 GMT -5
Days ago Maureen said:
"I would also suggest that you follow the following format:
1 - State the grievance (complaint) and perhaps an example of how it harms Americans.
2 - State proposed redress solutions.
I suggest this because I noted a couple of items where the 'grievance' was a list of proposed solutions with no actual 'grievance' (complaint) listed, nor any explanation of how the current status is harming Americans.
We need both. Solution ideas are great, but you have to state the problem first."
I certainly agree. But when someone proposes an agenda for our congress, should they not have a time to select grievances and a later block of time to select suitable solutions? Picking a finite number of grievances means a smaller number of solutions to consider. A simple up down vote could be taken on the possible solutions for any given complaint.
I think the problem may not arise at all because the agenda proposed by the steering committee did not allow for any delegates to explain a position - only a vote to accept or reject the steering committee's agenda in favor of another. In other words - a blind vote. Does anyone think this to be a legitimate concern?
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 29, 2012 0:08:26 GMT -5
John
Welcome. One version left off the word grievance. You need to look at the latest that starts with 99D.
Also I loaded a new agenda in the Dawn's Question about the Chair and Agenda thread
See you next week. MIke K
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 29, 2012 0:10:43 GMT -5
KJLowry
The latest agenda posted in the Dawn's Question about the Chair and Agenda thread includes many votes including which petition format to use.
Mike K
|
|