|
Post by jondenn on Jun 19, 2012 17:45:42 GMT -5
Hey John, Here's my point. If the CC2 had sprung from the Tea Party, and the first grievance was Ban Claims of Global Warming, how many liberals would sign up to run as delegates? That's how End Corporate Personhood sounds to conservatives. Hence only the more die hard moderate reformers are still in the room (me), and some of the most talented conservative reformers have blown us off, because they know the CC2 won't listen to them. Alex Easton Brown who now is supposed to open the event has not signed the "whole 99 is welcome" letter and his posts bashing moderates and conservatives (lots of people read these posts) are no longer available on the original forum because it had technical difficulties and is no longer available.
My question still stands, is this a progressive/liberal movement or reflective democracy for the whole 99? The whole 99 can agree on a stunning amount of items. But we need to carefully watch for trigger words, craft context, and compromise here and there for the 2012 RoG. We can all get what we need, but probably not everything we want. Why are we content on losing alone, when we could so easily win together? The media tries to keep us apart by manufacturing conflict and drama. Governance is actually quite boring we just have to give each other a good listening to, find common ground, and decide to stay in community with one another.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 21, 2012 9:13:42 GMT -5
jondenn, That is a good point and I agree that the final list of grievances needs to be something that a vast majority of Americans can agree with. I really want to see us produce a document that can go viral and be shared among everyone because of how agreeable it will be.
I think that the process of eliminating grievances that do not have enough agreement, either through threshold votes or elimination rounds or some other method will lead us to this list. Like you said, I wouldn't agree to add the grievance about Global Warming because I'm siding with Science on that particular issue. We're not going to agree with everything, but if we can get the 10 or so biggest issues agreed to on the declaration then I think we'll be a good position to unite people all across the political spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by athribiristan on Jun 21, 2012 10:30:34 GMT -5
What I don't see in either of these models is discussion. I suggest we form a discussion group for each issue. A candidate can join the group and participate in a discussion about his favorite issue for say two hours. They would then move to a second group for the second round, or stay put in the same group if they really want to champion a cause.
This will promote discussion about the issues that are truly important to the candidates. It precludes the need for several votes. We simply fit in as many rounds of discussion as we can. Issues that generate no discussion are dropped from the final vote. At the end of all discussion rounds we vote on the remaining issues.
The candidates' choice of which and how many groups to participate in will naturally reflect their preferences for which and how many grievances to include in the final document.
A format would need to be established for the discussion groups. Perhaps short round robin, one on one conversations and then just let people mingle.
Give the delegates a broad structure and allow them to organically determine the final parameters of the petition.
Shane Kenyon Texas
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 21, 2012 18:33:04 GMT -5
Hi Shane,
Thanks for the input, definitely some good ideas here. I think what you're missing though is that moderated debate with questions from the floor is actually a form of discussion. The idea here is that ALL the delegates should hear ALL the points for and against each grievance/solution/specific phrasing that is in contention, and ask pointed questions if they have them. This way everyone is getting the same information, and is as informed as possible.
The problem I see with your proposal is that it would be easy to miss important information. Say you have an expert immigration reform that gave a really compelling argument and have a good solution on the first round of discussion, but only 10 people were listening. Then say that person really wanted to discuss education or healthcare or whatever, and at the end of the day only led a discussion on immigration once or twice, so most of the delegates did not get to hear his arguments.
One way I might be on board with what you're proposing, and would help eliminate the issues I just pointed out, is if it was combined with the reflective debate model. Start with a round of discussion by forming a number of discussion groups based on the grievances that gained the most support in the first round of voting. Give people ample time to discuss, and even float around to several groups. Then have each discussion group choose a panel to give a short presentation (10 minutes maybe) on what was discussed, where consensus was reached, what the arguments for and against inclusion are, etc. Then open it up to the floor for questions/comments from the delegates before voting on that particular grievance.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 22, 2012 4:05:17 GMT -5
This is Mike Kelley, Delegate for CA District 24. First I want to thank all the organizers for their time and efforts.
Like several others I think we should vote for more than the Agenda. I would like to vote on Chair/President/Facilitator though I like the title Chair. Someone like Jimmy Stewart comes to mind.
I can see having a Sergeant-at-Arms aka Mediator that keeps the peace and evicts any rule breakers. Someone like Hoss Cartwright of Bonanza.
Normally the Chair is the tie-breaker.
The delegates need to vote for the number of grievances to submit. I like 10. If you group the similar grievances together you will see about 23 unique groups.
Voting for a percentage of grievances to keep is admirable but based on what I know about the voting machine we can only specify 1 thru 5. Voting for a number is simpler.
My biggest fear is the most popular grievances are so common that they will cancel each other out and will not appear in the top X.
That is why I want to group the grievances together and have subcommittees to draft a final merged version of the similar grievances. Like I said above there will be about 23 groups. The subcommittees can meet in parallel for 24 hours (noon Monday until noon Tuesday).
All delegates can read the final versions Tuesday afternoon and vote for the final X.
Wednesday morning we sign the final document.
Let me know what you think of the subcommittee idea. I was hoping some of the state groups would have done this already.
Thanks in advance for your short, to the point responses.
Mike Kelley
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 25, 2012 21:40:47 GMT -5
To vconsults and everyone else
I believe that the grievances should be geared toward changing the constitution and amendments as such rather than ideas that can be legislated. Legislation will follow once we regain our democracy. So let's focus on what can only be done via constitutional amendments.
Thanks Mike
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 26, 2012 11:27:29 GMT -5
frankleespeaking,
A belated response to your comments of Jun 18, 2012, 5:32pm on my Jun 18, 2012, 4:44pm post (Debate and Voting Process)
You inquired: “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?”
Key points:
1. It’s suggested that delegates focus on grievances that have national impacts for the entire 99% at large meaning that we should not let our personal reflections or opinions or favoritism on a particular grievance cloud our voting decision. It’s ‘For the People’.
2. Governance is essentially the process of making decisions and implementing decisions, and we the delegates are tasked with making various decisions on a baseline list of 100 draft-level grievances. What process or key drivers will or should the individual delegate use to decide if she/he should vote on a particular grievance in the affirmative or not?
Think Nationally.
Think Priority.
3. URGENT: I think of this word as something that is time sensitive and requires immediate attention, action, follow up.
4. IMPORTANT: I think of this word as something that has great significance or consequence which affects the end result of something. 5. Accordingly, the matrix of four priority levels as I have listed.
6. By way of example, grievance number 67 is listed below. How would the delegates vote on this from a national priority perspective?
“67. No member of the military shall own or hold any stock or share in any corporation or other entity that the official specifically regulates while in service and shall last five years after the term of military service ends.”
The majority vote may be: Nationally Important But Not Nationally Urgent
Just some thoughts on my end.
I am also okay with a “straight up or down on each grievance” as you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 26, 2012 17:28:39 GMT -5
frankleespeaking - I have an agenda based on all of your comments except the percentages.
vconsults - your ratings are admirable but we could spend one whole day rating the grievances we do not have time. we barely have time to read, accept/reject each grievance. that is why I proposed one group/subcommittee at the convention for each grievance category so we can work on wording and ratings in parallel.
Anybody want a copy of my draft agenda? Email kelley805@yahoo.com
Mike Kelley ca district 24 delegate
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 26, 2012 19:48:00 GMT -5
Great discussion.
To add to "vconsults" ideas, let's not forget utilitarian values; which grievances can have the most (macro) affect? There are some grievances that permeate the core of what is rotting in our democracy, and money in politics is one of them. Should we call it Corporate Personhood, I don't know, but we (liberals, moderates, conservatives) can probably agree that money in all it's varied forms is diluting the power of our democracy.
Democracy is a system where all citizens participate in what their government should be. One may argue that we have never had that in the United States, but it surely is an ideal to aim to achieve. What we can see though, is that certain citizens never or rarely participate for many reason, and contrastly, a different segment of citizens manipulate their participation through monopolized power and money influence.
Perhaps the very nature of elections should be so affordable for any citizen, even a homeless guy from down the street, to equally run for public office. If we take out the profit motive in elected government, than our elected officials wouldn't be spending their entire legislative sessions trying to raise more money for their next election, and might just take their role as public servant more serious, with a sense of morals and ethics that better fit our framers intentions.
That's why I always come back to the importance of campaign finance reform, ending the lobbyist revolving door, having clean, open, and fair elections for both candidates and voters, and holding in high decorum the sanctity of "the right to vote" so all citizens realize their important place in our democracy.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 26, 2012 21:02:31 GMT -5
Amen Kelly. Everything comes down to incentive.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 27, 2012 6:07:09 GMT -5
Great work, Mike.
Here's an alternate module after elections and before committees and debate. Let's call it "agreeing to agree". Maybe it's a less formal session. Or an attempt at core principles.
I've been working on nonpartisan or tripartisan policy solutions for a year now on aGREATER.US. And the six or so grievance/solutions I put out yesterday have got to be very close to the near consensus items that will poll 90%+ nationally. As close to 99 should be the goal.
If we start the event with several "wins", items that almost no one has a grievance with, we will start building community very quickly. And we'll need that when the going gets rougher, and it will.
If we start with money isn't speech, for example we start dividing the group against itself, as opposed to uniting the group around gerrymandering.
Here's a hard truth, people will listen once to the final RoG and they will immediately stop listening and blow us off if there is any "deal breaker" in there for them.
As I've said before, as a moderate, who on about half the issues leans left, I will NOT stay in community with this if End Corporate Personhood is a grievance. It's bad strategy, tilts at windmills, and it would brand me as a radical, and I have a reputation to protect as a balanced centrist independent reformer.
Early on with the SC I suggested we start the event with a Reflective Panel for this section. Say 3 conservatives, 3 independents, and 3 progressives. About half women/men. We do one session to parse out the 9 out of 10s. In other words, the consensus items. One (or two dissents) and it gets taken up in the next rounds of debate. However, that dissent cannot be strategic, it needs to be purely I agree or not. (not, I prefer something more complex or daring on that topic) We could even run through all the items, and more from the floor. There could be an immediate raising of hands for dissent, if one or two or three, a short debate, another raising of hands, and on with the next.
Then these consensus items become the "consensus package" that would compete with "strategic near consensus" packages developed during the rest of the event.
For example, term limits poll 71 to 81% nationally. But when combined with gerrymandering and campaign finance reform the package polls 89%. That package, proposed by rebuilddemocracy.org could be something the delegates would want to put up against others for the final redress. Is the likelihood of this becoming law worth the folks we leave behind? Maybe and that's up to the delegates to decide. Example Buddy Roemer is for TL, Rocky Anderson against. They are both great reformers. See what I mean about who are we willing to throw off the island?
Bottom line, there may no longer be 3 conservative reformers left in the room. I think I've seen a couple in the old forum maybe one on the new. Stephen Erickson said he is willing to Skype in, if we get wifi.
Does anyone know if 3G phones or 4G hotspots work in the Hall? I'm bringing both.
I hope you will all agree this module would help frame the proceedings, get us off on the right track, prove it's an event for the whole 99, and be a most efficient way to the best deliverable possible in two and a half short days.
My 2 cents. Jon
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 27, 2012 10:15:02 GMT -5
Jon, if ending corporate personhood is a deal breaker for you...how about ending corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and tax breaks for already profitable corporations? kjl
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 27, 2012 11:21:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure about his answer to that, but I know we're all for ending corporate expenditures for or against individual candidates. We also need better regulations and enforcement when it comes to the difference between lobbying for issues and lobbying for candidates. Any issue ad should have NO MENTION of particular candidates. See piece on Rachel Maddow last night re: Crossroads GPS www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47971419
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jun 27, 2012 12:24:24 GMT -5
jondenn
I have several conservative friends that are in agreement that the Super PACS are bad and we should probably do away with them. Many people conservative and liberal foolishly think that all we need is campaign reform legislation. No we need to overturn Citizen's United and since the century old Montana campaign limits were rebuked by the Supreme Court, our only recourse is a Constitutional Amendment.
You states that you are in favor of building consensus and so am I.
I think we can all agree on the following: 1. Get rid of Super PACs 2 Limit campaign contributions for individuals and any groups of people including corporations to the same figure.
Now how do we do that? Do you favor the Grievance: Money Is Property Not Speech?
Is the fear that the Grievance: Corporations Are Not People is too strong or going overboard?
I missed your proposed six grievances/solutions you put out yesterday. Can you list them for me?
I want to point out that the second demand at the end of the Petition for RoG 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.
That is why I would like the CC 2.0 to move our grievances toward consensus on a block of constitutional amendments. Our forefathers did it. So can we.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 27, 2012 12:46:04 GMT -5
To me, corporations are not people is not a grievance, it's a basic statement of fact. (though would say corporations are not human beings)
To me, the grievance is more "the influence of special interest money in our elections is undermining our democracy."
|
|