|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 1:33:05 GMT -5
Two processes have been offered. One proposed by the Steering Committee, though it is unclear whose proposal it is, and it has not been clearly articulated to the delegates so this may not be 100% accurate, but the basic proposal as I understand it is: MPSC Proposal 1. Vote on the number of grievances to include 2. Vote on a pre-determined list of 100 grievances using a point system. Each delegate gets 25 points to allocate to the grievances as they see fit. 3. Each delegate speaks for 2 minutes 4. Same set of 100 grievances voted on again. 5. Top X grievances taken for petition, floor opened up for amendments, which are voted up or down. 6. Drafting committee formed to finalize language 7. Final Vote The second proposal was made by several delegates independently of one another. It basically goes like this: Delegate Proposal 1. Establish a threshold grievances must meet in order to be included: (i.e. 90%) and possibly a threshold for debate as well. 2. Baseline vote on basic non-repetitive grievances by category. 3. Moderated debate on each grievance starting with most supported. Three advocates for and against each grievance in a reflective panel discuss for approximately 15 minutes before opening up the floor for non-repetitive questions. 4. Second vote on each grievance happens after that grievance is debated 5. Floor is opened for amendments. 6. Drafting committee selected to finalize language 7. Floor is opened for amendments to specific language. 8. Final Vote There is a comparison chart of the two proposals here including pros and cons of each proposal. docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApTLOEx_hDsidDVVZjhndFdQYXJCLTlPZmhCa214OXcPlease vote on which procedure you would like to use, and please feel free to suggest improvements to either proposal.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 18, 2012 6:05:41 GMT -5
These are the two paths that diverge in Philly.
Is this today's 99 or is it a 99 at some point in a possible future? Is this a progressive movement, or representative democracy for the country?
The MPSC proposal has questioner bias, liberal bias, and confirmation bias. Many of the grievances are already highly complex packages unto themselves. Because the SC controls the voting machines they control the context. And since they control the email list they also control the communication. This was supposed to be a delegate run event.
The Delegate proposal has a bias towards least complexity, reflective bias, and debate and dialogue bias.
The attendees that show up at the CC2 could be mostly moderates or mostly progressives or mostly anarchists. We've already kicked nearly all the conservative reformers off the island by the stunning neo-liberal bias of the marketing. The country, roughly speaking, is 1/3 each conservative, independent, and liberal. The only way for a biased group to claim they speak for the country is to hear all sides of an argument and to reflect on what they have heard (at least sleep on it) and then vote on what they think is best for the whole country.
If we break down the items into well-known or kinda-known or surmised consensus items first, we will get a huge amount of work done very quickly. But if we start out with highly charged items with well known dissent we will quickly become as dysfunctional as the the real Congress.
Isn't it up to us to model HOW things could get done in this country? Let's not fall into the media's trap of making everything dramatic and controversial. Governance is actually rather boring, especially if you do all the things you agree upon first, instead of holding them back as bargaining chips in a future negotiation.
WAY more important than the % of agreement we have in the room amongst ourselves is how does it poll? How will it poll as a package? Since the election has no credibility whatsoever other than self selection, the Redress of Grievance has no chance of success in a court of law other than as a publicity stunt. It CAN however win in the court of public opinion. So if we craft a package that will poll in the 80 percentile or even with a 9 handle, this could be the greatest development in democracy since the suffragette movement. If the 99Declaration polls 49%, why did we put ourselves through all this time and expense? Is this direct democracy of a movement or reflective democracy for a nation?
You decide.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 18, 2012 10:22:08 GMT -5
I proposed in another thread that we should take a Yes/No vote immediately after we get started on all grievances to get a Top 32 or 64 right away, and then after periods of debate reduce the number of grievances to 32, then 16 in a series of "rounds." Basically a process of elimination instead of a process of nomination like the MPSC proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Speaking on Jun 18, 2012 12:45:22 GMT -5
There's a more basic question than that though, which is
Are we going to A) limit ourselves to a certain number, or B) establish a threshold that grievances need to surpass in order to be included?
I am simply asking people to state a preference for one or the other, not lay out some missive. If you have a better idea, by all means. But that shouldn't prevent you from expressing a preference for A or B.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 18, 2012 14:18:37 GMT -5
B
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 18, 2012 15:00:01 GMT -5
A, although either works for me.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 18, 2012 15:40:02 GMT -5
I like B. Also, we should keep in mind that if we set the bar too high during this session and fail, we lose momentum. Let's resolve, and get done what we can, and move forward with that as best that we can. We have to stay focused as well when debating. We can piss and moan at each other for hours, but always remember who the real target of all our grievances are, people who will not be in the room (ie., Govt Officials, etc). There should be some mechanism to keep the dialogue focused on the topic at hand!
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 18, 2012 16:44:32 GMT -5
Procedural Step 1: Vote on a President - COMMENT: I don't think a Chairperson is needed nor is it appropriate at the convention because we are not a Board or a Committee, we are an Assembly or a Body of delegates. I suggest having three key people to guide the convention through the processes:
a) A nonpartisan or neutral Facilitator. Facilitation is a management skill, and it is critical to have someone who has no stake in the outcome.
b) A nonpartisan or neutral Mediator. While facilitators do most of their work "at the table", when the parties are face-to-face with dead-locked issues, a mediator steps in to moderate the discussions and reach an outcome of ‘mutual gains’.
c) A nonpartisan or neutral Arbiter: Final decision maker to break deadlocked issues upon failure to mediate successfully. Some times the disagreeing parities only disagree on a small part of the overall issue after mediation is concluded.
Also, I offer a mixture on two initial steps in A and B above for consideration and refinement:
1) Vote on the number of grievances to include in the final petition with a maximum of 1/2 of the 100 or say 50.
2) Vote on the above pre-determined list of a maximum of 50 grievances using the following voting criteria or attributes (only 1 vote per delegate on only one of the 4 attributes):
i) Nationally Urgent and Nationally Important ii) Nationally Urgent But Not Nationally Important iv) Not Nationally Urgent And Not Nationally Important iii) Nationally Important But Not Nationally Urgent
The grievances that score the highest under each of the 4 voting attribute categories become the Baseline grievances.
3) Continue with other remaining steps as decided mutual agreement between the delegates and the SC/Board.
These are just some initial thoughts on the voting steps/procedures at the convention which are probably for naught since the final DECISIONS have already be made by the SC.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 17:32:50 GMT -5
Var, I don't understand the difference between Nationally urgent and nationally important, or how one could be urgent but not important. Can you elaborate?
I would be fine with setting up various levels of support for each grievance on the baseline vote, which might go something like this:
1. Should definitely be included in some form 2. Should be debated for possible inclusion 3. Should not be included 4. May actually cause overall document to lose support (or maybe I would not ratify the final document if this was included)
The main problem I see is this is more complicated than a straight up or down on each grievance.
As far as voting on a number of grievances vs. a threshold, the threshold is preferable to me because the voting on a number of grievances to include before we get a sense of support on each individual grievance means we might find near consensus on 3 items, or on 20, but have already locked ourselves in to including 10. The threshold however let's us establish a mark each grievance must reach, for example 90%. This means every grievance that reaches 90% would be included in some form, whether that means we have 3 grievances or 20, so we don't run into the problem of leaving grievances out that have 90% consensus, or including grievances that only get say 70% support.
The Steering Committee has made no final decisions on the process though, they've just made the decision that this is the process they want, and do not seem particularly interested in input from the delegates.
|
|
|
Post by Donna Hamel on Jun 18, 2012 20:34:23 GMT -5
I think we are going about this the wrong way. I think we need to set up a constitutional structure, the way it was originally done. Do we wish to see the constitution itself reformed to meet today's needs more fully? What is the relationship between states rights and federal power?
I know this is a thorny question that the current powers that be are having trouble with...we even had a civil war over it. How do we see the role of the government at all? This is a fundamental question that should be considered before any of tinkering we wish to do int the laws of the land.
Thanks for hearing me.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 23:03:42 GMT -5
Donna,
Please elaborate what you mean by a constitutional structure. I am not at all sure what you mean, and we really need to hammer out specific details regarding how the process in Philadelphia will be carried out. So please either suggest improvements to one of the current proposals, or propose a process that is different than what is already on the table that you think would be better.
Thanks,
Frank
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 19, 2012 14:29:54 GMT -5
jondenn says: "The attendees that show up at the CC2 could be mostly moderates or mostly progressives or mostly anarchists. We've already kicked nearly all the conservative reformers off the island by the stunning neo-liberal bias of the marketing."
This does not make sense to me. Any person could have run as a delegate.
Assuming the agenda announced by the steering committee is accepted, I would welcome their suggestions as to what would be most effective and helpful for delegates, who use these pages, to do from now until the start of the congress.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 15:53:34 GMT -5
John,
Mr. Denn is making an educated guess here based on the type of people attracted to this sort of thing, and the small bit of advertising that was done, which was on CurrentTV...a station that is definitely left leaning. The 99D sprung from the same well as Occupy, and you don't see too many right-wingers buddying up there, so I wouldnt expect it here either.
But it would seem we're not voting on the agenda until we get to Philly, and right now their proposed agenda does not seem to be polling too well against the alternatives proposed by a number of different delegates.
As for what you can do, my personal advice would be participate in the discussion of grievances, and familiarize yourself as much as possible with the various subjects we will be discussing. We're also trying to get more organized on our outreach to other groups and the media, and it would probably be good if we compiled research on work that's been done by other groups on the issues we are attempting to address. There is a TON to do really. so any help would be appreciated. We'll try to post more on organizing and accomplishing these things soon. In the mean time feel free to pm me.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 19, 2012 15:57:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 16:43:16 GMT -5
|
|