Now, in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, we are seeing both parties scramble to out-do each other and reform ethics rules in the House and Senate. The biggest problem is the access of lobbyists to lawmakers, and the perks they toss around for getting favorable legislation passed. Early indications show that this will have little or no effect as the proposals don’t really cut off access, they merely attach new rules, like the Republicans demanding campaign contributions in addition to the other perks they already receive and the Democrats saying that they have the ability to “just say no.” Make no mistake, both parties are skirting the real issues and simply trying to look good in the eyes of voters in an election year. Reform measures are pointless so long as those entrusted to follow them are only concerned about getting and keeping their seats of power.

Still, reforms are vital to the future health of our nation and efforts to make needed reforms should not be taken so lightly. Instead of vilifying each other in the press while quietly seeking ways to make the fewest changes necessary, politicians need to step up and show some real integrity. Among the most vital areas ripe for reform are the rules that govern how business is done in the halls of government.

Specifically at issue are the matters of adding amendments to bills and the fact that most lawmakers don’t even know what it is they are actually voting on.

First things first. If you’ve ever read an actual bill that is headed to the floor for a vote, the first thing to stand out is the extraordinary length and legalese that makes legislation nearly impossible to digest. A primary reason for this is the policy that allows legislators to delegate the actual writing of bill language to their staff, which in turn team up with whomever is advocating for the bill in the first place. Believe it or not, the act of crafting actual legislation is the prime reason we have representatives. This task, above all else, is their primary job. But in our world of influence buying and constant campaigning, our elected officials turn over the task of writing legislation to their unelected aids, many of whom are more than happy to add a little here and add a little there depending on what their own goals and interests may be. Sometimes this is a conscious effort to subvert the original intentions of a bills sponsor (supposedly the legislator themselves, but often a corporate or special interest hack). Other times it is not. In either case, what comes out is something far more complex than is needed and often too long and confusing for the legislator to understand, even though they may think the bill is what they originally asked for. What could easily be a couple of paragraphs turns into a 40-page document, leaving elected lawmakers to shake their heads and hope for the best. This problem is especially rampant in appropriations bills and a major reason why so much pork is thrown into our budgets.

To rectify this problem, and to ensure that bills that make it to the committee’s or to the floor are what they were intended to be, we must pressure the Congress to adopt rules banning this practice. Any legislation to come up for consideration should be written by an elected official, and be limited in scope to address a specific, concise issue. It’s fine to use staff members to conduct research and flesh out grammatical errors, but actual legislation should come from the hands of the elected people and not their staffs.

Secondly, due to the nature of bills being so incredibly complex, most lawmakers do not actually take the time to read the bills they are offering before they submit them for consideration. This has the unfortunate consequence of lawmakers voting for something without really knowing what they are voting for. For this reason, we need to insist that Congress adopt rules that make it mandatory for all legislators to read and understand the contents of any bill they present or intend to vote on. An immediate effect of such a rule would be that bills would be much less complicated and even ordinary people would be able to understand what laws are being made. It would mean an end to the nuanced interpretations of specious segments of legislation, especially if lawmakers were held accountable for their votes by a public who could understand what the verbiage of the bill was. It would make eliminate the whole “flip-flopping” issue as an excuse for voting for bad legislation.

Another much needed reform is the process that allows for unrelated amendments to be added to bills in the effort to gain passage. Too often, laws are made not because they can stand the test of necessity or common sense, but because legislators engage in a kind of back scratching affair. Politicians who are trying to get less than necessary legislation on the books are able to trade votes by tacking on things they want to another piece of legislation. Such actions do not serve the best interest of the tax paying public in any way. If indeed a bill is valuable enough and necessary enough to be passed into federal law, it should have the ability to stand on its own merit. If it can’t do that, the chances are that it is not a good bill for the country, even thought it may be good for a particular district, or more likely, for a particular political benefactor. Congress must be pressured to end the act of allowing unrelated amendments to bills in exchange for support during the vote.

Of course, opponents of these ideas will say that I am naive. They will say that the only way to get things done in Washington is through the very kind of horse-trading schemes that have been going on for decades. I reject that line of argument though as little more than an admission that most of what they do is not really necessary for the average American citizen or is so convoluted that any one with common sense would reject it outright. We do not elect politicians to play games with our money and our lives, yet the current way of doing things does just that. Real leadership is about identifying real problems and solving those problems in the most efficient, most fair, and most reasonable way possible without complicating the matter so much that the solution can never be realized in the real world.

Reforming congressional ethics is important, but we already have a lot of good rules for that on the books. Rather, it is the class of politicians we need to change to restore ethical behavior to the halls of government. Reforming campaign financing is valuable too, and the people of this great country can manage a large bulk of that themselves by giving their political donations not to the party coffers or special interest groups, but directly to the candidates committees themselves. The laws forbidding corporate donations are there, they just need to be policed and enforced. (See also some suggestions for campaign reform in Fixing the Vote I & II) But the way that Congress does its business is where real reform is needed if we are ever to break out of the corrupt system we are locked into today. The imbalance of the two party
system can be reduced by reforming the very way that laws are written, read, and passed and that is where real leaders should be forcing changes. Until we get Congress to change the rules of engagement, all other reforms will have little effect on the actual business taking place in the name of American citizens and we will continue to languish under bad law, wasteful spending, and legislative abuse of power.

If you believe the polls and the opinion editorials and the general grumbling of the people on the street, you might infer that Americans are growing increasingly unhappy with the quality of service they are receiving from their government, a government that is supposedly elected to respond to their concerns as a whole, and not just a government that works for the interests of the select or noisiest few. We complain about leniency for violent criminals and revolving prison doors. We decry the complexity and snail’s pace of the legal system, both criminal and civil. We constantly tirade at the state of our educational system, our medical system, or our retirement system. We shake our heads in disgust at the corruption uncovered almost daily among the political leadership in our cities and states and national levels of government. But when the jury summons arrives in the mailbox, our first thought is finding a way to get excused. When our children fail to pass skills tests or need remedial classes to get into community colleges, we find a teacher or program to blame instead of stepping in to help our kids learn. And when our politicians are out of touch or just plain stupid, we re-elect them based on a party affiliation instead of looking for a viable alternative. Even when they are indicted for corruption, we look to their contemporaries to fill their shoes, letting the shady deals pick up as if nothing had ever changed. In increasing numbers, we aren’t even voting at all. Quid pro quo. You get what you give. If we’re as unhappy as we proclaim to be, if we’re as dissatisfied and disgusted as we profess to be, why aren’t we giving more so that we can get a better product?

Part of the problem is the growing feeling among average people that the whole political process is too corrupt to change and that nothing we could do or say will make a difference. This feeling of hopelessness is neither accurate nor acceptable if we are to revive true self-government and restore democratic values to our political system. The fact is that at least 40% and upwards of 80% of eligible voters do not participate in local, state, or federal elections. In Fixing The Vote, Parts One and Two, I explored the reasons for this dilemma and offered some viable solutions to help turn this trend around. But an even bigger part of the solution lies in changing our own attitudes and deciding to get back in the game. Hopelessness is not accurate because if all of those unheard voices would let themselves be heard, then hope could transcend into reality through the election of real people-oriented representatives instead of the paid for politicians we have now. Hopelessness is not acceptable because to abandon the process is to give it to the corrupt corporations and their political hacks, in effect handing them the key to our public assets and turning our backs as they plunder the safe. If change is what you want, then you must let it be known. Find a candidate you can support and get the silent majority to actually turn out and back your choice instead of settling for the party’s anointed golden child of the season or forgoing the vote altogether.

Do you want a representative who spends his or her time cuddling up to big money donors instead of working on the public problems? Do you want to continue to pay taxes to support an over-bloated bureaucracy that fumbles the future integrity of our educational, medical, and retirement systems? Do you want a politician who would give away your public lands and funds so that they can be exploited by billion dollar corporations or shut down entirely by special interest demands? If your answer is “Hell No!” then you must give more than lip service. You must get more involved. You must vote. Otherwise, you might just as well keep your gripes to yourself.

It may seem simplistic to continually return to the importance of voting and its ability to create reform, but as with many things in life, simple is the way to go. And truth be told, while the act of voting is among the most important tools we have for reform, it is also the least imposing form of action imaginable. It takes mere minutes (especially if you get an absentee ballot sent to you) in many cases, and in places where the lines to the polls are longer, demand for and volunteer to staff more polling centers. As registration increases with a renewed realization of the empowerment that voting can bring, election officials will be forced to open more polling centers. If they follow the model set by Starbucks (a shop on every corner, because waiting more than a few minutes is too long to wait), voting could be as easy as drive-thru service. If you want people you can trust in office, you’ve got to put them there. Quid pro quo.

Increasing the vote is the first big step, and also the easiest, at least it should be. Beyond that, levels of involvement become more time consuming, but also more important as they relate to oversight and holding elected officials accountable for their actions on our behalf. We must be willing to join local citizen panels and school associations and public information committees. We must be willing to support honest attempts at reform as vociferously as we now bemoan the idiocy that passes for judicious public stewardship. We must eliminate government excess and corruption to retain our freedoms while reforming government efficiency to sustain our future. We must stop being silent.

With the active participants of democracy already in the fray, and getting nowhere but deeper in the morass of corruption and stagnancy, the ability of this country to move to a viable Common Sense position has been reduced. It has been stealthily subverted by the corporate interests and destructive forces of distorted religious ideologies and selfish attitudes of elected officials and fringe, self-serving positions of far right and far left special interest groups. You get what you give, and when you give less and less, someone else will try to fill that gap. In American politics, average citizens have been letting someone else dictate what they should think or support because they won’t speak for themselves. Are you one of those people? If you are, the future of change really rests in your hands.

Democracy is a system of government where the majority decides the rules for the whole, where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The beauty of it is, though, that the whole has a say in what those needs are, or at least, they are supposed to. And while the majority may end up with more of their interpretations becoming the law of the land, elected officials have an extra burden of duty to make sure that the rules they make on our behalf are as fair and just as possible. They are supposed to remember that they are making rules that affect everyone, themselves included. Unfortunately, our democracy is becoming a parody of itself, a sad caricature of what “people power” really is. For not only do we have widespread abdication by the people of their responsibility, we have turned the elected representative system into little more than a pre-selected popularity contest, run by the corporate and special interest groups with the money to play this absurdly expensive game. The two devolving facets of our democracy feed upon each other, each becoming more twisted away from the original intent of democratic government. When government moves away from the will of the people towards the will of the few, as ours increasingly does, it is no longer a democracy in the accepted form of the word. It is instead an oligarchy, or one that is ruled by the few, and depending on the integrity of those few, just a hop and a skip away from being an autocracy. Oligarchies and autocracies operate on the assumption that all men are not created equal, and that those in charge possess superior qualities to those that are not in charge. It is the antipathy of “people power,” but it is becoming a more and more accurate picture of our government today. We the people deserve a measure of responsibility for the state of our political affairs, but in a bigger way, those who become elected officials own the lion’s share of the shame, for they are the ones who make the rules and they are the ones who break the rules. Politicians of all stripes have turned our noble experiment in self-government into a façade, abusing the trust placed in them to line their own pockets at the expense of society as a whole.

Stewardship is the concept of managing another person’s property, finances, or affairs, and the role of a politician is to act as a good steward on behalf of the general public. Honest stewardship implies that the interests of others are put ahead of your own, simply because the things you are supposed to be looking over do not belong to you. This concept of stewardship seems to be completely gone in the halls of power today. Instead, special interests, the political parties, and corporate conglomerates have staged a coup that has usurped the rightful property (either physically or intellectually) of the people of this country as a whole. When politicians pass laws that exempt corporations from environmental responsibility, they are abandoning their role as stewards of the public lands, lands that will exist long after we are dead and that will be needed by future generations for their own sustainability. When politicians make rules that funnel public tax dollars into the offshore corporate accounts of multi-national corporations instead of into the infrastructure and well being of those who pay the taxes, they are abandoning their role as stewards of the public finances. And when politicians choose to frame their political debates in ways that deceive or mislead the public, they are forgetting their role as stewards of the public trust. As citizens, we deserve better than this. We deserve a political class that goes beyond the rhetoric of divisiveness. We deserve honest stewardship from our public officials. And it is up to us, the common people, to make sure that we get it.

So what can we do to change the way things are being run right now? The first step involves massive reforms in our voting and political funding mechanisms, as outlined in the previous two essays. Only by removing the lure of easy money and increasing the participation of everyday citizens can we begin to move towards redefining what a politician should be. But once we achieve those reforms, there are still many steps to take to return American politics to the American people.

The first, most obvious step to take should be in combating political corruption with more stringent penalties for those politicians who violate the laws related to political funding and gift taking. Whether or not we can ultimately reform those laws is practically irrelevant to making this reform a top priority. As things stand today, politicians and their financial donors already know the loopholes around the financing laws and they seem to have few, if any, qualms about circumventing both the spirit and the letter of the laws. The only way to eradicate this insidious behavior is to increase the penalties for such actions. Any politician found guilty of accepting unlawful donations, gifts, or payments of any kind should be immediately removed from office and barred from ever running for elective office again. Furthermore, such individuals should be sentenced to prison for a term equal to the amount of time they have been “on the take.” In addition to punishing the politicians, those who grease their palms should also be punished by having their personal assets frozen and their businesses taken away from them and placed into a public receivership. Only the enactment of such harsh penalties will make politicians and their patrons think twice before trying to corrupt the system for their own benefit and gain.

Secondly, we must reform the way business is done in our local, state, and federal legislative bodies. Two ways to dramatically change the status quo would be the “Read The Bills Act” (promoted by Downsize DC) as well as a ban on multi-faceted legislation. Taken together, these reforms would eliminate the ability of politicians to fill quality legislation with give-away spending measures or special interest legal maneuvers as well as requiring every politician to have a thorough knowledge of what they are voting on. As things stand today, most legislation gets saddled with any number of special interest add-on amendments, thrown in by elected officials in return for their support on the measure. Such add-ons rarely serve the public interest and instead are meant to reward the political donors. In addition, because so few legislators actually take the time to read and understand the full provisions of the things they vote on, many of these add-ons get passed as law without any real accountability in place. If legislation is so necessary as to be added to a particular bill, why must it be added in the dark of night, at the end of the packet, at the last possible minute? The obvious answer is that this kind of tit-for-tat legislating is endemic in the corrupt attitudes of our political leaders and we must put an end to it.

Third, we need to remove many of the “perks” associated with being an elected official. Compensation, in the form of salary, health care, and retirement pay, not to mention all the blank checks given for “administrative functions” should be seriously curtailed to reflect that which the average citizen could expect to receive from a similar type of job. If the Congress had to depend on the same kind of health and retirement system that the rest of us have to live with, you can be sure that they would be quick to make some real reforms in those areas too. Forget about the cries of those who say that good politicians need to be coaxed into office with these kinds of perks. Public office is about public service, not about personal wealth or special benefits. It is not a place to get rich, fat, and cared for on the public dime. We hear so much about welfare reform and the evils of being on the public dole from the very same people who themselves exist on the public funds and are always eager to soak up more.

Finally, we must refuse to accept distorted versions of the true acts of government. There is too much secrecy in our legislative bodies, often done in the name of the public good. It would seem, however, that anything that needs to be kept hidden behind closed doors probably isn’t something that is being done in the public’s best interests. Don’t confuse this call for real open government as a desire to have delicate military secrets shared with our enemies. There are some acts that do need to be kept under wraps, at least until they are borne out through action. But public policy, the deliberations of elected officials regarding public funds or social programs, and restrictions of liberty should not be kept under lock and key. Such subterfuge only reinforces the impression of corruption, and in all probability, it is corruption that keeps the doors closed.

For political change to occur, we need to change the way average people interact with the system. But to get people enthusiastic about their political leaders, we first need to have leaders we can respect, leaders we can trust, and leaders who truly want to serve the public.

A primary cause for voter apathy is the fact that most political candidates do not represent the average citizen. It is hard to get enthusiastic about electing as your representative to the lawmaking halls of society someone with whom you have no common connection or point of view. The average citizen is not born in a wealthy family. They are not universally educated at the most expensive universities. They do not have six figure incomes, luxury boats, or domestic servants. Now take a look at the average politician at the federal and state levels of government. Most are millionaires, from well off families, living a life more luxurious than their countrymen. For people in this position, it becomes difficult to imagine, let alone empathize with, the life of ordinary people. But the costs associated with running an election, even a relatively small local contest, is beyond the means of most citizens who would likely take a shot at being involved if only they could afford the price of admission. What we end up with is the usual slate of candidates, well connected to the established political machines and corporate donors, offering little real choice for voters who crave change. For those left in the game (for that’s what it has truly become) the commencing battle becomes less one of ideas than one of wallets. The only winners are the corporations themselves, giving money for access and getting it back threefold or more when their candidate gets in. They play the odds and support both sides, so they’re always guaranteed a victory. And while it may be technically illegal under today’s laws for corporations to donate to a candidate directly, the spirit of the campaign finance laws are always circumnavigated by the crafty legal teams hired by the corporations and wealthy individuals who think that their great wealth gives them the right to rule the world.

Real reform is what we need if we are going to have a shot at getting our government back from the corporate interests who dominate the halls of legislation these days. We must leveling the playing field for candidates and lower the costs of running a campaign. First, we must enact tight spending limits on all campaigns including the amount of money a candidate (or their campaign committee) can collect. This will have the effect of reducing the amount of money donated, thereby reducing the inequity of influence by donors. Limits can be based on a cost per voter formula, costs per week of campaigning, or other such assessment. Second, we much put a cap on the amount of money an individual can donate to a campaign and eliminate any kind of collective corporate, union, or PAC donation drives. This cap could be tiered for each level of government, with a lower threshold set for local elections up to a maximum of $1,000 per person in federal elections. This regulation would have the effect of removing inappropriate influence from single entities contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a campaign, in effect buying a candidate. It would also give individuals greater control over their own political dollars by eliminating de facto political contributions culled from membership dues and other collective, but not necessarily elective, mandatory costs. Third, we must limit the number of weeks that active campaign advertising can take place, both for a primary run-off and a general election. By reducing the length of campaign advertising to within a month before a primary or general election, we would not only force candidates to spread their message through actually meeting and talking with constituents, we would reduce the costs of campaigning by reducing the amount of advertising that would be purchased.

Next, we must mandate that commercial broadcasters (who currently have practically free reign of the publicly owned airwaves and broadband spectrums) provide free political advertising for all candidates in a general election and token rates for all candidates in a primary election. These businesses exist at the good will of the Congress, with a stated obligation to use their frequencies for the public good. It is arguable that television shows are somewhat to blame for the dumbing down of Americans, so merely running their regular programming, laced with commercial messages, doesn’t really satisfy the obligation. Mandating political advertising concessions would be a small price for these companies to pay for the privilege of growing rich on the publics back. In return, broadcasters could be free to charge whatever rate they could command for any private political ads, provided they are issue oriented and contain no reference to a specific candidate. Such soft-money ads are often just a front for a candidates political assassin squad, but eliminating their ability to discuss anything but a particular public issue, without mentioning a candidates name or position, would remove some of their persuasive power, at least so far as demonizing a candidate is concerned, and would make the public learn about a candidates views by talking to them instead of relying on sound bites.

Fifth, limit political party contributions to candidates, making would-be politicians focus their energy on meeting the citizens and raising money through them. Political party funds could instead be used to pay for bipartisan (or multi-partisan) election commissions who would monitor, organize, and validate election results, prepare voter informational materials and cover the hard costs of having an election. And finally, each level of government should establish a specific fund that would pay the living costs of the non-incumbent, local and state candidates during the general election campaign cycle, up to a certain amount. This would allow people who have public service in their blood the ability to make a run for office without having to lose their home or have their kids go hungry while they were on the campaign trail. We’re not talking about extravagant funds, but enough to make the bills while standing up for election.

When it comes to the candidates themselves, there are several ways we can reduce the costs associated with entering politics, and reduce the probability of improper influence peddling through political contributions. First, we should remove any regulations that allow a prospective candidate to purchase their way on to the ballot. In many areas, in order to qualify for a primary ballot, you must collect a significant number of signatures from people living in the district you wish to represent. Or you can just pay a fee, usually more than a thousand dollars for federal or state office, and several hundreds for many local races. Those with the money just pay the fee, bypassing the whole “connect with the common man” element that signature gathering fosters. But the number of signatures is usually next to impossible for a working person who can’t afford to pony up the dollars to get in the door. Level the playing field here and you’ll get more people who look like the voters. Let’s remove the “fee option” and reduce the total number of signatures required to get on a primary ballot.

Also, we
should prohibit all elected officials from soliciting donations prior to three months before an election. They are not supposed to be campaigning during their terms anyhow. It is hard to govern when you spend all your time begging for money. That, and the fact that their incumbency should give them an upper hand in collecting campaign funds would reduce their exposure even more to those who would try to buy influence. First time candidates could get and extra month or two to raise funds and build name recognition. At the end of an election, all campaign funds not used would go to the national campaign fund or be divided by the prominent political parties for use in the next election cycle. Presidential candidates would have somewhat larger collectible donation thresholds and longer campaign periods simply due the size of a national constituency.

The final piece of the puzzle is the administration of swift and harsh punishment for politicians or political professionals who violate the public campaign finance laws. If found guilty of gaming the system for their benefit or for another person’s benefit, they should be dealt with as treasonous individuals who would subvert our government for their own selfish gain. The rules should be clear and simple, leaving no room for misinterpretation. Any efforts to bypass the spirit of the law should also be dealt with by banishing the offender(s) from public political aspirations. Such unbending resoluteness against any corruption may be just the deterrent needed to help end the abuse and usher in Common Sense reform.

For many of us, voting as a concept is instilled early in our lives through student council elections. We experience our first campaign slogans, often just clever rhymes, and encounter our first campaign smears, often just childish retorts. We learn the concept of selecting someone to “represent” our class interests, but since as school children we really have few pressing political goals, class elections inevitably turn into individual popularity contests, with the outcome being of little consequence, except for bragging rights to the winners. While this may expose us to the fundamental mechanics of voting, it also creates an impression of what politics in the adult world will be like, and the seriousness of the whole system is lost. Perhaps this kind of political indoctrination is part and parcel to some grand scheme to keep political (and therefore, practical) power concentrated in the hands of the elite classes, perhaps it is just a reflection of what our real life politics have become. Regardless, the result is the same: large numbers of adults eschewing politics and voting because it seems pointless or unimportant in the big picture of life.

The result is predictable: elected officials are selected by a minority of eligible voters and supported by corporations and unions and special interests. As fewer voters participate in elections, politicians become less accountable to their supposed constituents and spend more and more time currying favor with their money mills, passing favorable legislation for their corporate cronies and filling non-elected positions with their sycophant fund raising hacks. The common voter, seeing the corruption sitting at the table of power, loses even more confidence in “the system” and opts out of future elections. As elected officials come from a narrower and narrower sampling of society, they tighten the rules of admission, effectively keeping out those same people who are frustrated with the way things are, leaving fewer options for real change available at the ballot box. The whole circle becomes a vicious feeding frenzy, engorging itself on its own rotten fruit.

What then can we do to change the way things are? The problems of voter apathy, voter disenfranchisement, and political funding must be taken on squarely and addressed with Common Sense solutions. Each must be reformed for the whole to be repaired and for the people of this country to reclaim for themselves real representation in the halls of government, from the smallest towns to Washington, D.C.

Ending Voter Apathy In 2004, 58.3% of eligible voters cast ballots in the national election. In most local and state elections, the percentage was even lower. While this represents an increase from the 51.3% who voted in the 2000 elections, since 1976, the year of our national bicentennial, the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots surpassed 60% only one time- in 1992, when 61.3% voted. Even if all other problems with our voting process were removed, at least 40% of voting age adults in this country do not take the time to make their voices heard. The number one reason for not voting (at nearly 21% of respondents) was because people were “too busy.” Another 20% either didn’t like the candidates they had to choose from or felt their vote would make no difference. In fact, legitimate excuses such as illness, lack of transportation, and inclement weather together only account for 18% of excuses for not voting.

Ending voter apathy clearly will be tough work, but a little creative thinking could reinvigorate the average person to hit the polls, especially if they know that by doing so, they are helping themselves. And in our ever-quickening pace of life, with its increased productivity expectations, making elections a priority has got to be given higher visibility. We should start by making election days official holidays, with half-pay for all employed voters, and free refreshments for everyone. With the exception of medical and emergency personnel, all retail, service, and manufacturing activities would grind to a halt on elections days, encouraging citizens to participate in the running of their lives and deflecting the “too busy” excuse. We can sweeten the pot even more by instituting an election lottery. Create a lottery system that guarantees at least one winner in each state a substantial financial reward for participating in elective democracy, and multiple smaller awards for state and local elections. (The money to pay these awards could be culled from tax receipts earmarked for electoral expenditures.) These two measures alone could draw back many of the so-called “disenfranchised” voters by appealing to their “me” centers. You could further induce voting by adding a “stick” to the “carrot” approach, essentially fining any eligible voter who doesn’t vote. Combined with the reward possibilities, voting would begin to look less and less problematic.

Increasing the number of voter’s casting votes is the first step towards fixing the vote. As larger numbers of people make their voices heard, it becomes increasingly difficult for politicians to claim mandates for their programs that may not exist. It becomes harder to shun accountability when more of the public is engaged in the system. But increasing the number of voters alone doesn’t guarantee a better system. Eventually, those people who always vote and never win the election lottery will need to satisfy their own “me” centers, which is where voter disenfranchisement (and early education about civic responsibility) comes in to play.

Voter Disenfranchisement The way the system works now, by the time an election day rolls around, the choice of candidates is extremely narrow. Through a system of awkward primaries that exclude all but the majority party candidates through a concerted lack of exposure by the media and the electoral commissions, voters often feel as if the only real choices available are not representative of their own political and social goals, and decline to vote at all. The effects of this practice alienate voters and exclude a potentially large body of candidates from getting a chance at all. To the political parties and their poster children, this system has guaranteed a perpetual sew-saw struggle of pathetic proportions, but the reins of power are certain to remain within their spheres of influence, so they prefer the status quo of low turn-out and limited candidate eligibility.

Again, a little imagination could offer a solution to this problem. The primary system should include an independent (or non-affiliated) election primary as well as the organized party primaries, with the top two or three non-affiliated candidates getting a place on the final ballot as well as equal exposure. These “all-comer” candidates could offer viable alternatives to the present cadre of politicians, many of whom would be needed to really get down to the business of creating change.

Disenfranchisement also addresses the problems of voter registration and convenient polling stations. While only 9.5% of non-voters listed these as reasons for abstaining, that still represents several million people who need to be casting their
votes. To erase the problems with voter registration, we should move to an automatic registration program, perhaps using biometric indicators and Social Security numbers to get every person in the voter rolls. If it were a biometric indicator, like fingerprint or retina or DNA, the information could be gathered upon birth, stored in an encrypted data base until one achieved voting age, and then registered with the appropriate state and local jurisdictions automatically at the appropriate time. Upon voting, one would simply match their bio data to that in the record, and proceed to the ballot. Through the Social Security system automatic registrations based on the address of ones job could help establish proper jurisdiction for allocating ones vote. And while the debut of computer or online voting has so far been fraught with claims (both documented and undocumented) of fraud and abuse, the problems of poll convenience could be eliminated through a digital voting system, albeit one with stringent security mechanisms, tangible voting records and receipts (necessary anyhow, for the lottery enticement), automatic count verification, and total transparency.

Political funding is the third leg of reform with regards to fixing the vote, and it deserves an essay all on its own, because it includes reforming how we fund campaigns, how we learn about our candidates, and how we verify that votes are valid. I hope you will join me again as I explore more solutions that will give government back to the citizens.

As corny as that sounds, I believe it could happen. But in today’s social and political climate, it seems more and more that we are heading in the opposite direction, creating a world that increasingly concerns itself with instant results and gratification, a world that values personal wealth rather than common good, a world that exploits the natural wealth of the planet without regard for future generations needs. As I look around today, I see people becoming more isolated within themselves and losing touch with the things that bind societies together. We are losing the ability to gather around common principles and stand together for what is right.

The progression of government through history has moved from tribal elder rule to regional warlord domination to national monarchies. Each of these systems had their pros and cons, but the thing they all had in common was subversion of individual rights to benefit either the group or the king. After thousands of years of tyranny and monarchal rule, some groups of people found the will to oppose those types of government and were successful in establishing a new form of society, what we call democracy. Now it helped that they had a brand new (to them at least) chunk of land far away from everyone else. And they had but to look at history’s last great social experiments in Rome and Greece to find a blueprint for success. But it was really their sense of establishing individual rights that culminated in their success, a success that we still enjoy today. But even though the ancient systems allowed for little in the way of personal fulfillment, they contained elements of the concept of shared duty and stewardship between the common people. In the quest for their own individual fulfillment, the founders of our democracy seem to have undervalued the need for societal fulfillment as well, and in doing so, left open the way for destruction.

Democracy, in its infant form, fostered an assumption that liberty from government was equal to the notion of doing for oneself first and foremost and not worrying about what they other guy thought. Freedom, to our founders, lay not only in the choice of religion and speech, but also in the ability to be left alone. The Constitution that they had created relied not so much on the participation of all citizens as it did on the acceptance of all citizens. Once accepted, the rights conferred by it would apply to all regardless of their future participation in the shaping of their society. Therefore, one could pretty much do as he pleased with his life, provided he did not infringe upon the rights of others and he obeyed the law. This premise, that freedom was guaranteed whether you worked for it or not, is what has led us to the place we find ourselves today.

Now it took quite a while for this attitude to morph into its present form. For much of our history, citizens involved themselves in community events and needs and turned out for state and national elections (those who were eligible at any rate). But despite these minor attempts at collective action, most people were taught that being an American meant that you could be anything, do anything, and go anywhere you pleased. If someone didn’t like it, well too bad for them. This attitude has been passed down through the years, and with each succeeding generation the concept of common good has become less and less valuable. We now find ourselves in such a state that we have become so focused on our own individual happiness, our own instant successes, that we forget that our actions really do impact other things in the world. In our search for “personal growth” we surround ourselves with people who share our interests and who already agree with our opinions. In doing so, we lose sight of the fact that everyone else is also doing this, but their success and happiness may be in direct conflict with our own. Unfortunately, we don’t take the time to find common ground and move forward in ways that benefit us all. Instead, we end up segregating ourselves into small, like-minded groups and demonizing those who fall outside our own little cliques. Rather than working for some kind of common benefit, we seek only to destroy each other.

It is this kind of atmosphere that can allow tyranny to return to the realm of government. By marginalizing ourselves into competing factions, we unconsciously advocate the need for a uniting force, but it comes to us not in the guise of the Shining White Knight but instead in the costumes of little dictators. So-called leaders try to collect as many separate groups together, often by just professing to despise the same people. In this way, they gather these groups together and claim to stand for them all. Longing for some kind of leadership, we eagerly accept their claims, if only to drive our competitors down. Unfortunately, in many cases, these so-called leaders are not who they pretend to be. Many are beholden to the tyrants of today, the large corporate entities that have somehow become kings unto themselves. These “leaders” care little for commonality; their lust is power and control. They live and breathe the concept that freedom means telling people that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, at no cost to them. They revel in their offices as they watch the self-segregated masses lap it up. They create confusing legislation to further muddle the concept of democracy, ensuring that more little groups will arise that they can make promises to and control.

So how does all of this fit in with the concept of Rapid Reform? In reality, many of the ideas that I will propose will take generations to accomplish. I understand that in order for all of our problems to get fixed, we must first start by fixing the concept of freedom and to do that, we have to change the way people engage with each other. This kind of change requires concentrated educational efforts that can only take root with time. But in the interim, it is essential that people acknowledge that our society is not headed in the right direction, not for those on the left or on the right. And especially not for those in the middle. It is essential to begin the processes that will allow for the kind of education that is needed to change the behaviors of humankind. And in order to change the processes, we need to change the people who are guiding those processes along. This is the Rapid Reform that I am talking about. Sweeping social changes usually happen in one of two ways: by natural design or by social calamity. We have recently seen the horror of natural design mandating social changes. The Asian tsunami has shown us how quickly our possessions and our lives could be taken away. And we have seen also the results of social change caused by social calamity, most recently in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither of these is a first choice for change. But perhaps there is another way, a way that has been used successfully before by the founders of our democracy here in America. Much as they collectively joined hands and told their monarchal rulers where to go, so too can we the people do the same with our government today.

Therefore, if you believe that Common Sense has been abandoned by our leaders…if you believe that together we are stronger than when we are at each others throats…if you believe that the time has come to move democracy to the next level, a level where individual and societal needs are in balance, a level where public policy is created with the future in mind, a level where the people are served by the government rather than the reverse, then you are ready for Rapid Reform. We must start by replacing the existing government with one that is more responsive to the people and more representative of their goals, not the goals of their corporate sponsors or their varied special interest donors. Rapid Reform means taking a stand today to find candidates who are willing to do what is right and throwing out those who are too entrenched in the current morass to realize they are as obsolete as the warlords of yesterday. It is time for Democracy to grow up.