A guide to democracy in action

[digitaldiscipline]

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid asked [Eli Parser of MoveOn.org] to send on to all of you:

To the members of MoveOn: I know Congress can often seem very far away. But when you folks call, and write, and hold events that demonstrate how much you care about something we're doing, it really wakes people up. Your voices remind me and my colleagues that democracy works. I see the impact every day—you're forcing Congress to answer to the people, not the lobbyists or the White House. And I'm looking forward to fighting alongside you next year.

Comments

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

Ugh. Why is Reid engaging Moveon.org? I really wish that Congress would close that loophole. Fucking 501(c)(3) organizations are not helping our government, they're contributing strongly to destroying it.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, I do agree with you that 503(c)'s are heinous and shitty.

On the other, destroying the current government isn't exactly something I've spoken out strongly against, is it? ;-)

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

I just don't think it's going to get any better if each side reduces politics to sicing their pet (unregulated) organizations on the electorate.

But I'm just disillusioned.

I have a particular hate-on for Moron.org, actually. They did their damnedest to make sure that Bush won in 04. The idiots they had out in the field on Election day was sad. They were sending people with pink hair and noserings to knock on doors in the suburbs. They had no concept of how to talk to voters. It was... sad.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

They mean well, but, yes, they do need to improve tactics. I subscribe so that I'm marginally clued-in about when and how to get in the ear of my elected officials about Issue_X.

Frankly, the best way to improve politics, short of dispensing single servings of lead liberally and at high velocity among the current office holders, both elected and career bureaucrats, would be to abolish all political parties, so that every candidate would need to state their individual platform clearly enough to be understood, and every voter would need to pay attention in order to make their decision.

Blindly hewing to "Democrat" or "Republican" or "Conservative" or "Liberal" is lazy intellectual shorthand, and it, along with the rampant corruption in Washington, is what's undermined the political process and gotten us into the clusterfuck we have today.

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

Do you really think it's possible to separate politics from corruption?

I agree about political labeling. I'm more or less nonpartisan. I'm registered Democrat, but that's mainly, at this point, so that I can vote in local primaries. I live in D districts, and there's rarely a serious R primary.

I doubt that the type of electorate you're talking about is possible at this point. People will naturally cluster in groups, and parties evolve out of that. People don't really care about the important issues. I personally hate the abortion "debate". As I've said elsewhere, Roe is good for one thing: raising money. Every time someone opens their mouth about abortion in general and Roe in particular, it gives the fundraisers a chance to slap a quote in to a mailer and Roe, Roe, Roe their boats all the way to the bank. Liberals love Santorum. Conservatives love NARAL. They're good for raising money. And abortion keeps people from focusing on the real issues. The culture war is great for the status quo.

Wanna reform the system, here're my thoughts:
Publicly funded elections.
6 week election cycles.
IRV.
Proportional Representation.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I, otoh, feel that roe v. wade -is- important, in that it tells government to fuck off. the law stops at my skin, period.

people want a government that's easy and unobtrusive; actually being informed about issues takes work. in a very interesting book ("fair new world," by lou tafler), the solution was pre-election quizzes to allow for weighted balloting - the more cognizant the voter, the more their vote counts. i find the notion appealing.

[kungfugimp.livejournal.com]

I find that appealing as well. While in our constitution, it is an American's right to vote - I don't think that all American's know what they're voting on (if they even bother to go vote). I can even see how it made sense when only land owners had the right to vote. (not totally agreeing with it, but I do get it)

I feel that we as a human species will always have this problem we have - politics (in everything) and the struggle of trying to maintain a non-biased playing field. We would have to change alot about us. How do we get away from our nature? As much as I dispised reality TV - it does show us for what we are. We need to catagorize, group with those we feel comfortable with, group with those that will have power - it's a part of how we work.

So...if you ever do find that island I keep bringing up? Let me know. I'll add to the checklist that it should have it's own power supply.

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

How, exactly, is the government involved in this at all? Why the HELL is any branch of the government attempting to tell any doctor what procedure is or is not the right medical treatment for thier patient? The proceedure has been verified as effective and reasonably safe. That's about as far as the government should be invovlved in a medical decision.

I don't like the poll-testing option. First of all, we have a lot of evidence as to what happens when poll testing is applied. Second, the expense would be astronomical. Third, it's unconstitutional.

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

Yeah, unfortunately, I think that kungfugimp is right. We're tribal by nature, and politics is one more outlet for creating groups.

Politics is like sports. Most Americans have "my team" and "their team" and "my team" is never wrong, and "your team" is destroying the free world.

[deansavatar.livejournal.com]

I work for a non-profit and I've been looking into how my job is destroying the government - only I haven't been able to find much information, or people who share your opinion. Can you provide some reading material, or a 'quick and dirty' primer?