The National Initiative for Democracy

I think the people would be better served by restoring what the Founders created. They had a unique way of bringing the power to the people, one that proponents of strong centralized power hated then and are ignoring now as a solution for Iraq's problems...independent States working together voluntarily as one. Yep. Good ol' States Rights...something that has been dying since the Southern States lost the Confederacy to the Northern States. There has been a great cover up. You ask a school child...even a Southern one...why the Civil War was fought. Most likely the answer would be to end slavery. Actually, the war was fought to limit the power of the Federal government over the States. Yes, return power to the people, but do so by returning the power to the States that the Founders intended them to have. Senators should be representatives of the State, not a popularly elected "super House". Cut back the funding of the Federal government and bring back individual financial privacy by ending the immoral practice of taxing a man's labor. The closer power is located to the individual, the more power the individual has. When the power of the State and the power of the Federal government is properly balanced, the popular views of the people of one State cannot trample the rights of the people in another. The Founder's original plan was genius. At every level there were checks and balances. Legislative checks on the Executive and Judicial branches, Executive checks on Judicial and Legislative branches, Judicial checks on Executive and Legislative powers, Checks between the State and Federal government, the Electoral College provides a check between regions of people, gun ownership provides a last resort check between people and their government, etc... Lets restore power to the people by restoring the Constitution.

Take a good hard look at the language of this bill. It will simply create a new government tyranny called The Electoral Trust. I go into the problems with this proposal here:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cwenv5YZZx4 part 1

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=urGzQi0KVjk part 2

 

For a far superior alternative, that would really create a government of, by, and for the people look at this:

 

http://articleeight.blogspot.com

 

Here I have the language for an alternative to the NI4D that is far more Democratic, and really does return the power to the people. I also go into an depth analysis of the language I propose. For anyone who has suggestions to make with my proposal, or thinks I left something out that should be included, PLEASE COMMENT and let me know!

Thanks!

I believe this is definately a step in the correct direction; I would like to see 'the People' as perhaps the 3rd branch of the legislature, with veto-override consideration.

I am concerned, as a previous poster mentioned about giving the 'religious right' the power of majority rule...there still needs to be some oversight, by whom, I'm not sure; I'm not sure majority rule is correct, when it comes to taking away 'the people''s rights. I am a woman, and a Wiccan...I think that explains where I'm coming from completely.

Great idea!! I have always wondered why the american people just sit back and think i CAN'T change anything. I understand life gets tough and the way the system is now, they got us working 12 to 16 hour days just to get by. Gas prices out of control, food prices going up, our whole economic system is ready to tumble!!! But this is a chance for us to take control of these issues.. Right now in our system we have TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!! Why pay taxes when you are not properly represented?? With this we don't have to worry about this problem cause if they don't do their job "BAM" FIRED. It will also give us the oppurtunity to vote and pass issues important to average people. I have a great idea on how to spread the word for the NI. I am going to make 300 copies and put them on cars around my community, if everyone who likes the idea does the same maybe we can get the word out. I have faith we can do this!!!

To compare state and local initiatives to what is proposed by the National Initiative is misleading. Most state and local initiatives are clear cut up or down questions. They usually require some research -- but not a lot -- "should the state have the death penalty" "should the state pass a balanced budget amendment" -- more often than not, they are gut check questions. In the states that use referendums and initiatives the citizens are not the legislators on all questions of law. To compare the record of past decisions made on limited state results with the larger repercussions of the National Initiative is, as I said, misleading.

If I understand this correctly, a Board of Trustees -- one elected member from each state -- will initiate elections which will enable a simple majority (50%+) to enact, repeal and amend public policy, laws, charters, and constitutions...?

Call me a skeptic, but seriously..?

Most people's knee jerk reaction to this suggestion would be..."hell yeah!" But if a thinking person considered what this actually entailed they would really hesitate jumping on the bandwagon.

First of all, you're asking me to accept another political candidate to deal with -- the Trustee. S/he will be the sole representative of my state who will join with the others to decide what initiatives, etc. will be put on the election cycle...this is assuming that the creators of this idea realize that not ALL legislation, etc. can be put to the public for a vote -- people would have to quit their jobs just to participate.

And the idea of a simple majority to decide such issues as laws, charters, and constitutions? Talk about mob rule! I am very happy that the US Constitution demands a three quarter majority for amendments -- who knows what it would look like after 200+ years of political changes in the country? Amendments to the Constitution are extremely important -- they should be supported by a super majority in order to truly show a national consensus. A simple majority just shows a divided citizenship

I'm sick of the Washington scam artists too. But I'm not comfortable with the idea that this initiative is the answer. At least when Washington pisses me off. I know who's at fault. But with mob rule, I might have to put up with some crappy things and I'll have to live with the fact that every day the person who jerked me over could be anyone on the street. Talk about a divided citizenry.

What I get from this is that the framers of this initiative are basically unhappy with the Constitution. They feel that it is an elitist document explaining a quaint political system which was designed to lock the power of the government into the hands of the few. This is a corrupt way of explaining representative government. It is not our form of government that is corrupt -- it is the people in the government that are corrupt.

I'm all for new ideas on how the citizen can become more empowered but this idea of mob rule makes me nervous. I'd hate to think that I wake up one morning and find some extremist religious crackpot group mobilized a simple majority to enact some kind of crazy law that I'll have to deal with.

Yes, we have similar “Let the People Decide” movemet too, here in Czech Republic. I bet Mr. Gravel did read it already at meeting on Pribram in 1998.

I do believe that the current level of IT is high enouht to permit making nation-wide election anytime,  when needed. It is very hot here in my country right now. Bush wants to install the huge military base with the misile radar here. And over 3/4 of all people is against it. In the real democratic country, they can make the nation wide referendum about it. Instead of few corrupted politics will decide about it.

If I was the American, I'd vote for Mr. Gravel.

Many greetings from Czechia

Yes, we have similar “Let the People Decide” movemet too, here in Czech Republic. I bet Mr. Gravel did read it already at meeting on Pribram in 1998.

I do believe that the current level of IT is high enouht to permit making nation-wide election anytime,  when needed. It is very hot here in my country right now. Bush wants to install the huge military base with the misile radar here. And over 3/4 of all people is against it. In the real democratic country, they can make the nation wide referendum about it. Instead of few corrupted politics will decide about it.

If I was the American, I'd vote for Mr. Gravel.

Many greetings from Czechia

I think the first initiative I would table would be colluding between the big states to cast all electors for the winner of the national vote of all states instead of the electoral college that distortedly empowers small states, thus de facto forcing all states into a national popular vote without constitutional amendment.

Not likely to happen without national initiatives. Good idea!

I'd never heard of your National Initiative for Democracy but I am certainly for power to the people.

My observation is this : money has corrupted our political system. The Supreme Court ruled that campaign contibutions are free speech so we are going to have to pass an amendment to return our government to the hands of the people.

Please take a look at The 28th Amendment and let me know what you think. The basic ideas are "If you cannot vote for the office in question you cannot contribute to a campaign contesting an election to the office." And "No one can contribute more than a week's pay at the minimum wage to any campaign, including the candidate." There's more, but check it out.

We currently live in a country where the president publicly announces that he has conversations with a god. We live in a country of people mentally and physically controlled by the media.

Mr. Gravel says "people are qualified enough on Election Day to give their power away to political candidates who manipulate the electoral process to get elected." This means, to me, that the people never had the power in the first place. My question is this:

With power being introduced to the people, how can you prove they are qualified?

A few examples that question the peoples qualifications:

The majority of Americans are of religious faith. Religious faith can interfere with medical processes, such as stem cell research and a woman's right to choose abortion. With moral foundations based in concepts that forbid these processes, is it safe to say that people are qualified to make the right decisions?

As of 2006, 86% of U.S. adults over the age of 25 have reported that they attained a high school diploma, yet only 28% of adults over the age of 25 have attained a bachelor's degree(1). I ask again, are people qualified to make decisions?

Let me make it clear that I do not believe most politicians are qualified to be in their current positions, but I do like Mr. Gravel's intentions.

I feel that the best way to ensure that the people are qualified to possess this power would be to first put an emphasis on education. People need honest facts delivered to their lives via television, radio, and written media. The traditional sources of news and information are tainted with what the advertisers want the people to believe. The internet is an excellent first step that allows people to think for themselves and share those thoughts. The beauty of the internet is that there are almost an infinite number of channels to which people can navigate and find sources of information. Whereas television, radio, and written media is limited and feeds people information that stems from questionable sources.

Decisions have to be made by people that can prove their qualifications by means of testing that confirms the peoples understandings in the situations. It can not be a numbers game because being a majority does not make you knowledgeable group. I would like to see testing introduced that confirms qualifications.

1) http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/009749.html