|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 26, 2012 18:10:48 GMT -5
All and especially Mike Huttman, I have cut and pasted the above formatted grievances into a Word .doc document. The 99 declaration link still shows the original unformatted ones. Email me at kelley805@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy. Thanks Mike Kelley
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 27, 2012 11:29:45 GMT -5
Excellent job fellas. Thank you for all your hard work.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 27, 2012 16:52:08 GMT -5
(Moved from the greivance forum) 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 jondenn on Jun 27, 2012 20:41:08 GMT -5
Will there even be a quorum of the Steering Committee present?
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 27, 2012 21:02:56 GMT -5
Who said the steering committee had to have a quorum? Personally I hope they all come. The more the merrier. I do not want to be the only one at Independence Mall on July 4. I might get confused with an Occupier.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 28, 2012 19:55:49 GMT -5
All Updated earlier agenda to allow: 1. motion to allow additional Grievances 2. motion to allow immediate vote on all Grievances It still finishes in 2 days with signing Wednesday morning. Thanks Mike Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 28, 2012 20:09:31 GMT -5
it also allows motion to eliminate by % or count.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 28, 2012 20:52:13 GMT -5
Are we debating the grievances in order of least dissent to most dissent?
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 29, 2012 0:16:26 GMT -5
Jon
The subcommittee can do whatever order it wants because my proposed agenda only includes limited debaters and debate times.
Keep those great questions coming.
Mike K
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 29, 2012 8:07:41 GMT -5
Mike K,
I like your latest agenda. Thank you for taking the initiative on this!
As long as we get to vote on which voting method to use, then I am a happy camper. I am happy with either X% consensus voting for which grievances make the final list (I hear 90% tossed around on this) or through the elimination rounds.
********************
The stipulation with the elimination rounds approach is that we would have to take an immediate vote BEFORE we start working on the first round to figure out how many grievances to put on the final petition. We need to know upfront how many grievances to have so that we can see how many rounds will take place.
Ex: Say we approve adding 5 more grievances to the possible grievances list, bringing our total to 71 proposed grievances. If we decide that we want 20 grievances in the final doc, then the rounds would be:
Round 1: Top 32 Round 2: Top 16 Round 3: Top 8 from the 55 remaining proposed grievances Round 4: Top 4 from the Top 8 of the remaining proposed grievances
If we decide to only include 10 in the final document:
Round 1: Top 32 Round 2: Top 16 Round 3: Top 8 Round 4: Top 8 from the 63 remaining proposed grievances Round 5: Top 4 from the Top 8 of the remaining proposed grievances Round 6: Top 2 from the Top 4 of the remaining proposed grievances
So the more grievances we want on the final doc, the less rounds we would go through to get our final list. I assume that using this system the round where we pick the top 8 from grievances that were previously eliminated would be the "toughest" round, while the early rounds would pass relatively quickly.
********************
On the X% consensus approach, do we want to put the grievances up with no debate if they reach the consensus on the initial with NO debate, or do we want to debate every grievance, no matter what the consensus is? If we debate on every grievance then we will need to setup time limits, but if we just auto-kill/promote each grievance based on thresholds of consensus, then we will finish faster but also run the risk of alienating somebody.
Ex: Say we decide that every proposed grievance that gets an initial vote of 95% consensus makes it onto the final list, and if a grievance gets less than 10% consensus then it automatically is eliminated with no debate.
vs.
For each grievance, would anyone like to speak about the merits/issues with this proposed grievance? Give everyone a set time for comments (at least 3 minutes per speaker.) Then take the vote once all speakers are finished.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 29, 2012 9:29:30 GMT -5
There are essentially three classes of grievances (although "titles" might be more accurate). 1. Those singular noncomplex ideas with vast supermajority support with the public, sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment if required. There should be proof of these through national polling (80+%?) and/or commonsense argument, and poll 90% in the room. Remember, we represent the 99%, and we don't know what the demographics are of "who will be in the room". If we all just vote our partisanship point of view the 99D will mostly be a roll of the dice. That's not why I signed up. 2. Those on the cusp of majority and supermajority. These can be items that don't need a constitutional amendment. But as I've written before, every one added to the RoG risks throwing another supporter of the 99 Coalition off the island. ie: Buddy Roemer was for Term Limits, Rocky Anderson against. How many terrific Rockys are we willing to lose over Term Limits? (btw, personally I'm for them, but I wouldn't leave the room if TL was not on the RoG. I would leave the room if the terribly complex Corporate Personhood, those exact words, were. But I'm sure we agree with many of its component parts.) 3. Items that don't poll majority, which while they may be brilliant, are not for today's 99%, but with all out individual advocacy could be in the future. Personally, I think it a mistake for "us" the 99D to together promote these items, as it dilutes the messages on the #1s and #2s. I think it is an AWFUL idea to choose the number of grievances in advance. It is a GREAT idea to have dialogue and deliberation on all the #1s and #2s, in that order. Allowing enough time (not much may be needed on the #1s, more on the #2s) to get at all sides of an issue, even if we need to put one or more off until the next day (or sleep on it) to finish up. Example: Every delegate needs to read Salon's (that liberal bastion) article The Hard Truths about Citizen's United www.salon.com/2012/01/21/the_hard_truth_of_citizens_united/ before we debate it. This is REALLY complex stuff. There probably is a consensus that can be reached, but it's probably a compromise. And, I still believe that the "packages" should compete to be the final RoG. The "consensus package" or roughly the #1s above. The "strategic near consensus packages" #1s with certain #2s that make sense through compromises and fulcrums and strategically smaller bases. And the "omnibus package" that might result from the SC process. Again these are complex issues, and the point should be to keep the largest coalition we can that is reflective of the 99 we are supposed to be representing. Jon
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 29, 2012 10:04:34 GMT -5
I don't think we need to have a number of final grievances set in stone. If we, say, vote to put 20 grievances into the final document, and then realize that we are at over 85% consensus on 25 items, I don't see any reason why we can't vote to expand the list to include those other grievances.
The last thing I want to see if us squabble over HOW we come up with the consensus, as long as what's on the final list reflects the overwhelming majority of consensus from the group. We want the items on this list that EVERY American can latch onto, will want to share with their friends on Facebook, will get passionate about, will rile them up to write letters to Congressmen or get off their asses and vote, etc.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 29, 2012 15:16:35 GMT -5
Jon, I agree this is complex stuff, and Corporate personhood is very touchy when it gets to the ranks of real non-profits, but I do agree with Senator Sanders approach of "corporations are not people" and disagree with their exemptions for non-profits. The entire idea of lobbying is corrupt, even the lobbys that seek to do actual good and not just win a contract, and sure, there might be a few legitimate non-profits that get thrown out with the bath water, but that's just the nature of the beast. I struggle with that "exemption" part, especially knowing what I know about non-profits, most of which make a killing, and basically avoid taxes because they say they are "non-profit", and then end up buying real property with real money. There needs to be a distinction between assembly and redress of grievances, and simple lobbying; oh I got it, it's money. Money separates those two ideals, and the level of money really shines light on the point. That's why we need to get money out of politics.
It's sort of like the WalMart / Target phenomenon. Having worked for Target for a decade as a store manager, I found it amazing how folks would vilify WalMart for their corporate practices (rightfully so, because they really are what's destroying our sustainable economy), but Target does the same damn things, though they always skirt the negative attention because they have a way better Marketing department that knows how to hide their dirty laundry better.
This is the same thing with Corporate Personhood. Sure, I feel that it is a bit too complex for what we are trying to do, but at some point in this country, we need to solidify the value of the individual again, and give them an honest opportunity at participating in our representative democracy a bit more, instead of the systemic "pay to play" politics that corrupts both our leaders and the huge advocacy groups that seek a monopolization of law makers time and votes.
Also, bottom line, shouldn't a Corporation (for profit especially) want the market to decide if their product or service is good enough, instead of the social welfare state to which most of them conduct their business. This was what pissed off the original tea party and occupiers alike; Wall Street failed, and yet was bailed out (rightfully so), and then turned around and vilified the federal government for bailing them out, blaming regulations (blah blah) and continued down a path (and still do) conducting their business in the very same manner as before, which will of course lead to an even bigger crash than the one we felt in 2007, that affected real people and real jobs and real income, and people are still recovering from, and still losing their job from.
And I know that the jobs disappeared and won't be coming back. And I know that the wealth created was mostly in name only, and never really existed. But at some point, we're talking about real people with no real voice. I think that is the aim of folks like Senator Sanders, because something has to fundamentally change in the above mentioned equation, or we'll really feel the pain next time around (as of course Europe is starting to feel already).
Do I want the end to all corporate personhood, absolutely! Do I think it is the right approach to what we are trying to do, absolutely not. It's, like you said, too complex, and I don't think our current set of leaders have the will power to fundamentally change what needs to happen, and a watered down approach will of course hurt the ones that seek to do honest good, and solidify the ones who keep the money flowing into political coffers.
A better approach is to allow all money to be donated (as much as possible) into an independent agency that doles out the money evenly to all candidates, as long as those candidates can meet a minimum level of support. That way anyone (including corporations) can give as much free speech as they want (because you know they care so much about our democracy), but in a sense, they'll be evening the playing field at the same time.
As always, good conversation.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 29, 2012 16:34:55 GMT -5
Hey Kelly, I'm just trying to break Corporate Personhood into its smallest parts, to seek consensus between conservatives, liberals and independents. It will be hard enough to convince many conservatives to "Ban Corporate Political Expenditures to or for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties." BUT because there is a shareholder's rights issue and some libertarian issues of a corporation spending my money for a candidate I don't like, we can probably win this one.
What conservatives don't like is, say one day some senator decides he doesn't like my product, and decides to throw a ton of new legislation that will almost put me out of business. Beyond popular belief the government does do a bunch of really stupid stuff. Now, since I can no longer lobby with money because of the above restriction, how do I protect myself? I can't sue the government. But I can advertise on that issue. We have to leave the private sector some way of protecting themselves from an overreaching government. This is another reason why we can't get to Pac money (on issues) this time around, but we can get full transparency.
Also, I don't think there is any proof that End Corporate Personhood polls even a majority. This is one reason why. And we know MSM will not report on it. Again, this is not the 19 or 29 or 49 Declaration. The poll that is frequently quoted says 83% of Americans want money to have a lesser influence in politics (it doesn't say how).
Next, on the publicly funded elections, as a moderate I'm actually okay with it, BUT I want them lavishly funded, even if we just print money for each election. I want to see a bit too much of every candidate, I want to see them screw up and get or not get themselves out of it. I want to see their character under pressure. And, conservatives and libertarians don't want the government just confiscating the media's inventory. I get that, I don't like it when anyone takes my stuff, either. But I think there are a number of ways to publicly fund elections that would poll very strongly.
Cheers, Jon
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 30, 2012 2:25:53 GMT -5
Mike Huttman
Thanks for the compliments regarding my latest agenda. But I thought it only gave one round for the subcommittees and one for the CC 2.0.
Mike K
PS The SC Agenda is morphing more towards something similar to mine.
|
|