DEMOCRACY IS EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE WORD NOWADAYS, even that of George W. Bush, who claims to bring it to Iraq by means of an occupying army, preaches it to more democratic nations than ours, and does his best to prevent it at home. But the democracy we've got here is already a very limited version of the idea. I've started mulling it over again because we're in an even year, and every adult citizen in the U.S. is supposed to duck into a polling place this November to cast a ballot. For many, voting is the one true rite of democracy, never mind who you get to vote for, or whether your vote gets counted.
Quite a lot of us would like to be represented by someone who would work for universal health care, adequately radical environmental measures, the stripping away of most corporate privileges, and a massive repeal of our crippling defense budget and foreign adventures—which is to say that our hopes and views are not likely to ever be represented in this representative democracy. More often, voters are grateful that their representative isn't wildly enthusiastic about executing minors or clearcutting the entire West.
Voting is itself a limited and maybe even stunted form of public participation. It matters: the women's suffrage movement and the heroic, bloody struggle of the civil rights era (in part for the right to vote) were critical to developing a more just society. And voting sometimes even shifts things for the better. But much of the pressure for change today comes from outside a system that is itself inadequately democratic.
Democracy literally means the rule (or kratos) of the crowd (or demos, from which we also derive demagogue, since demos had a faint taint of "mob" to the Greeks). But it seldom means that the rule is by all the people, the whole demos. Most voting systems give the victory to whoever wins the bare majority or the plurality, which means that 49.9 percent of the people can get exactly what they most dread. This seems to be in part why half the American public is bitter at any one time (though Republicans have managed to remain strangely resentful, underdogs in their own eyes, during the several years of the Bush regime).
After all, you can't really argue that a super-slim majority of votes means that much. In 2004, Bush got 60,693,281 votes, 1 percent more than half the votes cast (overlooking all the electoral anomalies in Ohio and elsewhere). The U.S. Census reports that 42.5 percent of the U.S. population voted in that election, meaning that Bush was actually the choice of slightly more than a fifth of the people. You could argue that he represents the choice of a bare majority of the electorate who voted, but you can't make the case that he was chosen by the demos.
As it turns out, the new millennium ushered in many razor-slim majorities and dubious outcomes in presidential and parliamentary elections around the world, and similar microscopic margins keep cropping up. Germany, Italy, and Mexico have all had recent elections for national leaders stalemated by nearly even results (though in Mexico's case, there seems to have been considerable fraud). It's as though in an era of unsatisfying choices, the electorate refuses to choose. Perhaps electoral democracy is crumbling before our eyes.
Honestly, I don't know how democratic a system is even possible on the scale of 300 million. I can imagine minimizing the septic influence of money, which might lead to an electorate more interested in exercising their franchise. But how on the scale of the nation-state do you find common ground rather than majority rule? Literally find it through open, participatory discussions so that you reach a synthesis, rather than end up with one or another predetermined result, and one or another side ends up estranged? How, on a national scale, could we have a participatory debate that requires people to test the case for war or discrimination in marriage rights in public discourse?
Real democracy, not representative or misrepresentative democracy, is much more possible on the smaller scale of a functioning community. And maybe only possible on that scale.
These days, the word community is attached to almost anything—the online community, the gay community, the environmental community—but in reality a community is a group of people who can actually function as a group in conversation, support, and decision making, and only a true community can be truly democratic. Democratic in allowing the conversations that might actually change somebody's mind about a war or an economy, democratic in coming to terms with the differences that exist within individuals and communities in everyday life. Here I might claim that I am an anarchist, except that word is almost as deeply sunk in the semantic tar pits as democracy and community, so please distinguish those who believe in life without rulers from those fomenting chaos or advocating violence. (If only there were anarchy—collective self-rule—in Iraq!)
Direct democracy is another term for it: the desire for the purest, truest form of rule by all and over none. Direct democracy has often been achieved at the scale of the worker's co-op and collective. Much modern political organizing outside the system works by consensus process, the practical means toward the end of direct democracy: decisions are made by all, with all concerns taken into consideration—an unwieldy process but one that obliges full participation and eradicates hierarchies. On a larger scale, groups can send a spokesperson to speak for them at a spokescouncil, and consensus-based decisions have often been made by and for many thousands on this scale. This was the self-governmental means of the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, the ones defeated by fascism in 1939. Countless tribal and traditional societies have also embodied some form of collective decision making and universal participation, before and outside the limits of the nineteenth-century word anarchy. But like bodies, this form of self-government might have a maximum size beyond which it collapses.
A better word for our time might be the Argentinian horizontalidad—horizontality or perhaps horizontalism. It means a system in which all are equal participants, and it flowered as the official political order of that country foundered five years ago. Argentina, as you probably already know, was supposed to be the poster child for neoliberalism, until its neoliberal policies caused the national economy to collapse, the government to fall, and a new era of poverty—and popular insurgency—to arise. People took to the streets, the middle-class in unprecedented solidarity with the poor, and they eventually voted in a reasonably left-wing president, Nestor Kirchner. But electoral democracy isn't the best expression of Argentina's transformation; the neighborhood councils running soup kitchens and making collective decisions are, and so are the worker-run co-ops that reopened and still operate factories shuttered by the collapse. These glimpses of direct democracy, of horizontalism, of truly cooperative self-government are visible in many parts of the world, part of a new era in democratization that may leave the electoral democracies and maybe even the nation-states behind.
I'll go vote on November 7, in my polling station in the Pentecostal church or the laundromat, say hi to the elderly church ladies who run it, and cast a ballot. Meeting a lot of the neighbors and hanging out with the old people thumbing through the ballot books for our names and addresses has always felt more democratic than having to pick among the choices on the ballot. So I'll be looking beyond the names and boxes, toward the experiments that could raise all our expectations, standards, hopes, and level of influence to new heights.
Actually, Rebecca Solnit is represented in her city district by an Iranian-Jewish Green Party member with whom she is reasonably satisfied, and she did work on behalf of Green mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez a few years ago, who almost won.
Camejo wants place in polls, files fair-practices complaint By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
Green gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo just can't get any respect.
He filed a Fair Political Practices Commission complaint this week over his exclusion from a recent poll, which he calls discriminatory. And he's holding a Sacramento news conference today about his struggle for a podium at this fall's League of Women Voters gubernatorial debates.
Camejo, 66, of Folsom, whose background is in "socially responsible" investment advising, ran for governor on the Green ticket in 2002, earning 5.3 percent of the vote, and again in 2003's recall election, finishing fourth in a field of 135 with 2.8 percent. He also was the 2004 vice-presidential running mate of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
His platform includes enacting statewide living wage laws and defending workers' rights, providing universal health care, ending the death penalty and abolishing the three-strikes sentencing law; and increasing education funding, but reducing testing emphasis.
His FPPC complaint notes the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University conducted a June 26-30 poll asking, "If the election were held today, would you vote for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican, or State Treasurer Phil Angelides, the Democrat?"
Camejo's complaint says this is "a clear promotion of two partisan candidates" discriminating against four others: himself, American Independent Edward Noonan, Libertarian Art Olivier, and Peace & Freedom candidate Janice Jordan.
The SPRI, though at a public university, is a self-supporting nonprofit. Director Philip Trounstine, formerly communications director to then-Gov. Gray Davis, said Camejo's complaint is unfounded. "We are a nonpartisan research institute," he said. "We do scientific survey research. We asked people who they would vote for if the race for governor were between Schwarzenegger and Angelides.
And we reported the results. Mr. Camejo is seeking publicity for his campaign. Nothing more."
Today, Camejo releases his June 29 letter to League of Women Voters of California Education Fund chairwoman Roberta Davis, asking that she change a debate-participation criterion that a candidate "demonstrate significant voter interest and support."
"The League of Women Voters should have but one criterion for who is included in the debates: Who do the people want included in the debates? Period. Not who the people think will win the election, or who they may vote for in the election after hearing the debates, or who has the backing of the wealthy expressed in their funding," he wrote.
Asking voters who should take part in debates would show "massive support for my candidacy" which otherwise might not be evident, Camejo claimed, citing reports of his strong showing in a 2003 debate.
"Why is it that such a large number wanted me in the debates and said that I won the debates, but a much smaller percentage actually voted for me or even in polls said they intend to vote for me?" he asked rhetorically. "(L)et me suggest that everyone knows the answer to this question: WE DO NOT HAVE FREE AND OPEN ELECTIONS."
People too often vote for someone they believe can win, not the candidate with whom they agree most, Camejo wrote, renewing his calls for instant-runoff voting and proportional representation.
Peter Camejo accuses League of Women Voters of violating its own ‘non-partisan’ code if he is not invited to gubernatorial debates
-from Camejo for CA Governor, 2006 http://www.votecamejo.com/
SACRAMENTO – The League of Women Voters would violate its own “non-partisan” code by excluding from statewide debates all candidates for governor other than Democrat Phil Angelides and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, gubernatorial candidate Peter Miguel Camejo alleged at a major news conference Friday at the League of Women Voters state office here.
On Wednesday, the Camejo campaign filed a Fair Political Practices Commission complaint alleging a poll by San Jose State University was, in fact, a “clear promotion of two partisan candidates” and violated campaign laws because the poll discriminated against four other ballot-qualified candidates who were not included in the polling.
Read the full text of Peter's news release: http://www.votecamejo.com/files/20060714LWV.pdf
Tell the League of Women Voters to include Peter Camejo in the Gubernatorial Debates!
The League of Women Voters will decide very soon who will be included in the general election gubernatorial debates. We need your help in assuring that Peter is included in those debates! Peter has published an open letter to the League of Women Voters which we ask that you use in contacting your local LWV chapter. Please do it today!: http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/aboutlwvc/lllookup.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Greens on the North Coast of Cali:
4.98% Mendocino County, 2nd highest in state http://petra-k.cagreens.org/mendocino/
5.74% Humboldt County, Highest registration in Cali http://www.humboldtgreens.org/ http://www.humboldt.edu/~greens/
This is the Content of my
weekly e-mail to the
President and my Members
I have just sent the
following message to
President Obama, and I
think the Congress should
heed this also!Mr.
Administration is very
much to be comm...
Spirituality is, of
course, different from
religion. This is
in part why we changed
our description to that
of being an
rather than an interfaith
interfaith hints at
religion, meaning we are
a church of all...
Excuses don't really
excuse anyone from
anything other than to
g4t out of learning,
advancing and reaching
goals, as in having an
excuse to miss
class. You miss
it. That's what I'm
talking about.Some people
use excuses for
Sleeping on the right bed
can make a world of
difference to your
comfort levels and
quality of sleep. If your
bed is old and your sleep
is being affected, the
best way to achieve
optimum comfort for
peaceful sleep is to look
at new beds. But how do
The average American home
is approximately 2,600
square feet, and it is
common for owners to end
up paying as much as
$200,000 in interest
larger homes require an
increased amount of
electricity and gas, and
this makes them an en...
This is a sponsored post
We all want to save
money, and many of us
also want to reduce our
carbon footprint to do
our part in building a
more sustainable world.
One potent method for
meeting both of those
goals is through
eliminating any home
almost that time of year
again, when the little
ones break up from
school, often in a flurry
of excitement in the
count down to Christmas.
However, this can leave
you with the daunting
task of keeping them this
way and with lim...