Centerfield

Great start. More positive action than critique, applies as reasonable tests and goals for both parties.

Your "#1 treat Americans like adults" point for politicians leads to me a recipricol, counterbalancing one for voters. After all a real contract is binding on both parties, written to say that if you do X, we'll do Y.

"Treat politicians like adults, and vote like adults."

If you politicians agree to treat us honestly, explaining hard choices and floating creative solutions, we won't be so quick to demonize you for it. In fact, we'll work as a consistent force to counteract distorted critiques from rival politicians, the media, and special interest groups.

Isn't the dysfunctional way our electorate treats politicians, a huge part of why our government is so dysfunctional? A contract should be written to call for changes in voter attitudes and habits as well.

How can politicians have reasonable solutions, when voters have unreasonable demands and no understanding of the hard choices involved? Give us free health care and cut taxes!

A congressman can create a bill with a nice platitude as a title, such as the "Save our kids and fight crime act". Then fill the bill up with massive pork and terrible counter-productive governing ideas. When a politician votes against it, rivals demonize them for opposing the "Save our kids and fight crime act". My opponent hates kids and loves crime! Then the partisans and special interest groups magnify the distortion. It would take 10 times as many campaign dollars to explain the sensible stand, as it would to make the opportunistic smear.

Posted by: Susan at October 27, 2005 02:18 PM

Nice list - reminded me of various municipalities that are loathe to provide detailed information about their budgets - Oakland had to be forced to list everything this year.

Here's something that rarely gets talked about but I think it needs saying and all are welcome to contribute to the list.

Obligations of "we the people"...

Be willing to pay for the government you want and need. Don't bitch about not enough police and then refuse to pay more taxes to cover the costs. Don't fob off 8 trillion dollars to your children - so pay your debts.

This is your time on earth and in the good ol' USA. Enjoy it, embrace it, be part of it. Realize that whatever you do, you had better leave it a better America for the next generation.
So try not to mess it up more than it already is. Pick up your trash; walk more, drive less; avoid affluenza. Vote like a European.

Pay attention to what's going on in your community, your state, the country and the world. You are not an island. Work to understand what's going on. No, you don't have to be a policy wonk, just be aware.

Find three charities whose work you like. Give them each 25 bucks a year. If you can afford more than give more, but as a minimum try to make things a little better for others.
-Spend a day cleaning up, fixing up or helping up something or someone in your community.

You contributed millions in dollars and other aid to disaster victims at home and around the world.
Good work. Keep it up. Don't forget to be prepared for disaster yourself.

Posted by: Marcus at October 27, 2005 02:35 PM

BK,

It's a nice post as far as it goes. I certainly agree that it would be nice if politicians were willing to tell us (and we were willing to hear) unpleasant truths. But as a political platform, this pretty much lacks substance. It seems to assume that all the Democrats need to do is promise to be reasonable and rational. But I think parties need some ideological substance; they have to stand for a view of what society should be. The Republicans have a very distinctive vision, whether they live up to it or not and I think the Democrats need to as well. It's well and good to say we need an open and responisive politics, but to what purpose? Politics is more than JUST process.

IMO (admittedly more liberal than many here), the Democrats have to present an alternative to the Republicans. Not a complete mirror image, but a alternative to the way the GOP looks at the use of government.

First, the Democrats should advocate a RESPONSIBLE use of government to address social and economic problems that are not necessarily amenable to purely market solutions. (And I know we disagree on what those are.) That doesn't mean spending money we don't have (and, certainly not promising stuff that is unrealistic. And it doesn't necessarily mean big government programs. But there are areas such as health care that I think government can usefully address.

Second, the Democrats should advocate a view of America's place in the world. My own preference would be to emphasize the necessity of leading the international system instead of fighting it. We should acknowledge the threat that militant Islamic terrorism poses to the United States. But we should also recognize the limitations of military action in addressing the problem. And recognizing that there are limits to American power.

I don't have a problem at all with what Brian proposes. I would love to see a realistic assessment of our problems, an understanding of the limitations that we face in dealing with the problems, and so forth. But I think there has to be substance.

These are just thoughts off the top of my head and I don't pretend they are very well developed.

Posted by: Marc at October 27, 2005 03:00 PM

OK, Marc, thanks for ignoring my caveat. :-)

Seriously though, I couldn't agree more with the notion that a centrist contract will eventually need specifics to gain any traction.

That's why I call this brainstorming. In critical thinking, brainstorming is an initial phase where you gather whatever insights are available, and come up with ideas which may be hare-brained. Criticial evaluation is deferrred while you focus on gathering input.

So for example, on the admittedly vague idea of treating us like adults, we need more development to come up with ideas for the sorts of things that would foster this, make it safer for politicians. Susan is totally on point that the first promise people making this request should be required to make is "and we'll try to act like adults."

(the following is just as vague an idea, but) The notion of politicians treating the electorate as adults and the electorate responding responsibly feels like it needs to be related to all Americans working harder to take the time to understand inter-related issues in greater depth. In other words, have the patience to communicate with other Americans to try to understand and define the problem space, instead of rushing to the prescriptive solution.

For example, on social security and other reforms related to the graying population, there's a very fundamental level at which we need to understand the mechanics of balancing the tax dollars collected with the retirement-age funding promises the government is making. But most politicians are afraid to talk about it bluntly in these first terms, because so many Americans have made it clear that they'd prefer not to look at it that nakedly because they are afraid of what will be found out. It's ignorant and childish of some working-age Americans to simply believe that they deserve the exact same deal that current retirees have been getting, even if they are likely to live longer without working longer, and that the government should just come up with the dough one way or the other and not bother people. Like Tully loves to point out, Clint Eastwood is right. Deserve has got nothing to do with it.

Posted by: bk at October 27, 2005 03:24 PM

Brian,

You're right, I did miss that. I'm sorry; it's what you get when you read in a hurry.

I think you are absolutely right that people have to understand that they can't have their cake and eat it too. You can't have cleaner air and cheap gasoline. So, you are absolutely right. But I wouldn't hold my breath for a politician willing to talk like that because I don't think most people want to listen.

I wasn't really criticizing you for the lack of specifics per se. As you could tell, I was pretty short on specifics. My point was that your points represented what I would call "process" rather than "substance." My point was that parties exist primarily to represent a particular vision of society (ideologies). People vote for Democrats or Republicans, not because they admire the process, but because they agree with the substantive principles. I was trying to get across my belief that, while process is important (and, to some extent at least, although not totally, non-ideological and nonpartisan), a contract with America has to reflect the Democrats' substantive views of American society.

I AM NOT arguing, however, that Democrats should pander to their constituencies by making promises they can't keep or that are harmful to the commonweal. They should, as you and others indicate, expect people to be adult enough to accept limits.

Posted by: Marc at October 27, 2005 03:55 PM

As a more specific plank, how about a requirement that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid be actuarially sound as determined by some appointed official governmental actuary? Not "pay-as-you-go", but with sound reserves sufficient to meet the projected obligations of the trust funds over time. My own state of Louisiana used to pay its state employee retirement system (which state employees get in lieu of social security, for which we are not eligible) just more or less out of current collections. Then we passed a constitutional amendment requiring us to squirrel away real money. As a result, we have a much more stable and secure retirement fund, and the legislature only has to appropriate the annual contributions for each current employee. COLAs, etc., are not political footballs given out of current tax revenues, but are only made when the fund produces sufficient revenue to pay for them (with anticipated COLAs built into the estimates used to measure actuarial soundness).

Posted by: PatHMV at October 27, 2005 04:00 PM

"Give us the government we can afford. All choices about what the government does must be informed by the people's ability and willingness to finance these choices."
&
"Be willing to pay for the government you want and need. Don't bitch about not enough police and then refuse to pay more taxes to cover the costs. Don't fob off 8 trillion dollars to your children - so pay your debts."

While this sounds great, there are times when you have to use credit. Our economy usually runs in cycles, some years are better than others. You also have emergencies that crop up, while you may have money for a rainy day, it may not cover the amount of 'rain' that you have to face that year.

Then there is also the question of 'want and need'. There are very different ideas of what a government should provide to it's citizens. How do you reconcile these ideas? Who gets the government that they 'want and need'? You will NEVER be able to please 270 million people.

"Vote like a European."

??? What is this supposed to mean????

I've been to Europe and had a great time there... but I'm an American and I prefer it here, which is why I stay here. If I wanted to be European I would move there.

"Work to understand what's going on. No, you don't have to be a policy wonk, just be aware."

Who's understanding is the right one? My reality may be completely different than yours, which may be different than somebody else's.

"Find three charities whose work you like. Give them each 25 bucks a year. If you can afford more than give more, but as a minimum try to make things a little better for others."

Was three just an arbitrary number? If I give to the church every week, and they in turn provide ministries to the community and provide donations to different charities, would this count?

"Don't forget to be prepared for disaster yourself."

I don't think that you meant this in the same way but this is a major one with me, people really need to take responsiblility for themselves and the decisions that they make or don't make.

"Responsible people know that living in the real world means making difficult choices, and responsible leaders should have the guts to tell Americans when hard choices are required, describe what you think those choices are, and listen to our feedback."

You all do understand that there are about 270 million people in the US, right? So, which people do they listen to? Right, the ones that would 'vote for them' which leads us right back to where we are now!

"Give us the government we deserve, whatever that is. Start getting more real and detailed feedback from the people. The government should, in a bi-partisan way, start doing the sorts of market research and customer feedback that private companies do. Occasional voting is not enough."

This is the problem, we don't all want the same things out of government. We would end up votiing for the person that most closely represented our idea of what government should be... which is what we do now. How would this change? You have a way of giving feedback to your government, you can write letters, e-mails, call them, etc.

"Towns should have the responsibility and resources to do what they do better and more efficiently than states and the feds. States should have the responsibility and resources to do what they do better and more efficiently than towns and the feds. The federal government should have the responsibility and resources to do what it does better and more efficiently than towns and the feds."

We started out this way, but the Federal Government just keeps growing and growing. Why, because we don't agree on what the government's role is supposed to be. So when one side is in power, they vote in what they think it should be, when the other side gets in power they do the same thing. In the meantime the government turns into the blob, and everytime something else gets voted in it just gets bigger and bigger.

"When we pay taxes, we should have some idea about what that money might be used for."

Have you seen the 'budget'?

"The vast majority of private individuals with a high school diploma that they deserve should be able to understand their taxes and do them in a few hours."

Our current tax system needs to be completly overhauled! I really would prefer to pay a national sales tax if all withholding taxes were abolished. Just think, if the tax was based on consumption, then the Kerry's would actually pay their fair share to instead of 12% because the money was invested in Tax Free Bonds.... especially since the rest of us can't afford to put our money in 'bonds' that take 30 years to mature at such a low interest rate.

I'm just really sick of the constant 'smearing' that goes on now. The lies, half truths, and misleading is disgusting. Just be an adult and say what you believe instead of the 'partisan' crap that we have now.

Posted by: deb at October 27, 2005 04:03 PM

Pat,

I like that one.

Marc, if it's not clear, I'm not proposinf this list for the democratic party. I'm proposing it as a starting point for centrists.

You may well be right about how the demcratic and republican parties need to function. But whatever cintract I'd propose to put forth for centrists, I'd be entirely untroubled if it should happen to foster Americans' ability and desire to reject either or both parties as insufficient to their needs.

Whatever the merits of party politics, Americans are free to entertain the notion that perhaps some of their demerits are due to each partiy's reliance on their established market share. Suppose each party, instead of having a rough third or more that they could count on come hell or high water, had only a 4th or a 5th or a 6th, and the rest of the people could go either way. Maybe then, we'd see some @sses and elbows up on capitol hill.

Posted by: bk at October 27, 2005 04:10 PM

That's the problem...they don't have to conduct market research, they've already purchased their market share and the goal is to simply retain that share through continued delivery.

There are some great ideas espoused here, although I'll just let the "Vote like a European" comment pass right by. I'll never figure out why there are Americans who are afraid to be Americans. Why do we have to emulate Europe? Didn't we pretty much blaze our own trail? It's okay to look around for best practices, but let's retain our uniqueness. I'm going to vote like myself, but thanks for the suggestion.

Posted by: AR at October 27, 2005 04:27 PM

This one's along the lines of Susan's platitude bill. I would like a promise not to be subjected to political slight-of-hand by way of diversion. Drumming up a debate on flag burning or a weapons ban when more important things remain unresolved is the kind of thing that drives me nuts.

Posted by: WHQ at October 27, 2005 04:29 PM

Put me on record as not wanting the government we deserve. I fear we already have that. I want the government we pay for.

Posted by: Tully at October 27, 2005 04:45 PM

I'm with Tully on that one... We're the ones who voted for this crop of politicans, like it or not. What's the line?

I have met the enemy, and it is us...

Posted by: PatHMV at October 27, 2005 05:01 PM

How's about

(1)A commitment to principled compromise on moral issues. On abortion, they can trust us to enact moderate restrictions but not go overboard. On gay marriage, they can trust us not to shove anything down their throats. (I think people are warming to it, but I think an overly aggressive stance could backfire. Rather than hand over votes to politicians who would adamantly oppose such advances, it may be wiser to say that we would pass such laws only with significant popular support [say 60%]. It may be ethically distateful to some but this tact may actually yield greater fruit for gay rights faster.) I think there is a conservative lean to this country and may be wise to be just slightly left (or right) of center on moral issues.

The public could trust that we would aim to reflect the broad moral consensus of the middle rather than attempt some ambitious moral program whereby, say, abortion was banned outright or that gay marriage (not even civil unions) was immediately in force everywhere in the nation regardless of public opposition.

(2) We would promise to implement practical solutions and base our policy choices on evidence not ideology. Whatever works best, is best. We would pledge not to waste money on programs that do not work and to carefully monitor all new programs for effectiveness.

(3) We would promise to enact clean government. We would not cater to special interests, corporate or otherwise. In return, the public would promise to donate and volunteer for campaigns. [The only reason politicians cater to special interests is because they provide money and volunteers. This is why I think we need a vibrant CENTRIST interest group. If we give them money and volunteers, they will "pander" to us. Although campaign finance reform is crucial, I don't think it is sufficient to keep government clean.]

(4)I think Marc is mostly right. However, I don't think we need an ideology per se other than principled compromise, practical solutions, and clean government. That's more of a methodology though. We do, however, need a vision. How about a commitment to:
(1)strong foreign policy (to reflect the hawkish lean of America). People have to trust that we will do what it takes to keep America secure.
(2)clean environment (but one that doesn't unduly harm the economy)
(3)affordable healthcare
(4)strong educational system.

Obviously, this is where the details are needed. But I think, above all, the public needs to trust us to place practical results over ideology. That we will use whatever combination of market and governmental approaches necessary. I generally agree with most Democratic goals though I don't trust their means. For instance, I feel we desparately need to improve our educational system. And it seems reasonable that we both need to pay our teachers more (to attract better teachers) AND we need to be able fire bad teachers. However, the Republicans don't want to spend the money and the Democrats oppose accountability. They're in the pocket of the NEA. Being a semi-recent graduate of a decently funded public high school, I can attest to the poor, or at best, uneven teacher quality at American public high schools. It also might be reasonable to federalize education funding so we don't have such uneven school quality.

It seems to me that a lot of Democratic programs treat poverty and inequality after-the-fact. Maybe we could divert some of the entitlement funds to programs that deal with these problems at their source. Rather than paying to incarcerate a child for life, why don't we improve neighborhoods and education so that child will contribute to the economy rather than be a burden upon it?

See also, a recent post at the Mighty Middle proposes a "contract" of sorts. It's geared to revitalizing the Democratic party but it's chock full of good ideas.

Posted by: Adam at October 27, 2005 06:23 PM

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." ---Walt Kelly, (Pogo), Earth Day Poster 1970

Good ol' Walt!

"The Cherokees is escaped from Fort Mudge!
To Arms! To Arms!
Three Arms! Four Arms!
Besides, forearmed is forewarned.
Four worned what? Because it it's four worned out old guns I ain't gonna play."

Posted by: Tully at October 27, 2005 06:36 PM

One adjustment. People may feel that my proposal on gay marriage is real blow-with-the-wind and not at all a principled compromise. Perhaps the "centrist party" or whoever's advancing the contract could be openly in support of gay marriage but just promise not to IMPLEMENT it until a certain level of popular support was reached. We could also promise to support other gay-friendly legislation such as anti-hate and anti-discrimination legislation.

People like to cite Brown v. Board of Education as an example where "forcing the issue" worked well. Putting aside the fact that every instance is different and that that may have been an exception, my community was one of the first where intergration was attempted. The population revolted, and, in the end, we actually were one of the last districts in the country to be integrated--I believe more than a decade after the first attempt. So perhaps the example of Brown v. Board is not as clear cut as it is often made out to be.

Posted by: Adam at October 27, 2005 07:15 PM

deb,

Voter turnout in America Ranges from 30%-65%.
In the election in California that defined marriage, 25% of the eleigible voters cast yes votes. When Bill Clinton won in a landslide in 1996, only about 25% of the American voting population picked him, the rest either stayed home or voted for the other candidates.
Voter participation in the US basically sucks.
Here's the difference between US and European voters. Most of the European voters actually show up to vote.
Scroll down this web page to the bottom and you'll see what I mean. I will note that the data is a little older than I would like it to be but it still makes my point. Italy has seen some significant drop-off in voter participation but I think the Vatican had a hand in some of that.

As for the government we deserve, well Tully is right, we got it. (Needless to say, I didn't vote for it). I try to vote for better government whenever I can. I broke party lines to vote re-elect Bill Jones to the Sec. Of State job that he had done so well. Dang the term limits. I would have voted for him again.

Posted by: Marcus at October 27, 2005 09:54 PM

In much of Europe, voting is compulsory. That's hardly a valid basis for comparison. Cuba has 100% turnout every election. As did Saddam's Iraq. Not a model for us.

Clinton didn't win in a "landslide" in '96 by any definition I'm aware of. He had a comfortable margin over Dole, but failed to get 50% of total votes cast. Now, this election and this election were indisputably "landslides." As was this one.

Posted by: Tully at October 27, 2005 10:35 PM

Be willing to pay for the government you want

Sounds great but remember the government someone earing $200,000 or more wants is different than the government someone who earns $20,000 wants. And unfortunately the guy earning over $200,000 may not want to pay for the government wanted by the one earning $20,000.

So willing to pay is a tough principle.

Having said that, a simple straightforward Centrist Contract with America would get a lot of attention. Someone should actively pursue this. Any politicos out there willing to "run with the ball"?

Posted by: c3 at October 27, 2005 10:35 PM

Marcus, I think what bugs most of us about your primping the Europeans is the implication that they are somehow inherently different and superior to us.

Americans always turn out at higher rates than otherwise when the outcome is in doubt and/or the issues are especially motivating. My gut tells me that if the US electorate were currently divided into 3 or 4 distinct political groups, none of whom constituted a majority by themselves, more people would show up to vote. And then there's Tully's point that your average European turnout data includes nations with compulsory voting rules. That MUST skew the data, and you should acknowledge that.

Now maybe there's a better way of phrasing your point, which I believe is more charitably that we should try to be more involved in determing the nature of our government. I know one thing for sure. The centrist contract is not going to ask Americans to act more European. I can't think of a more insulting and disastrous way to ask people to care about government and get out and vote more and to participate in civic life.

Posted by: bk at October 28, 2005 09:59 AM

I pretty much agree with his point, too, I just wanted some "informed consent" on the foreign turnout angle. A forced vote is not a free vote. And no election where the winner comes in without a simple majority of votes cast is a "landslide" without a much more substantial margin. If the margin between the winner and the runner-up is smaller than the total of also-ran votes, it's not a landslide. Our last landslide presidential elections were in '84, '72, and '64.

Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2005 10:08 AM

Nice to see someone got to the "landslide" comment before I could. We can always count on Tully with the historical data.

I don't think anyone faults Bill Clinton his win (either one of them), let's just not loosely throw around a term that describes a very infrequent event in American Presidential politics.

Posted by: AR at October 28, 2005 10:51 AM

Clinton had a comfortable margin in '92 as well, it just wasn't any landslide. Soured GOP voters can always blame Ross Perot (and with good cause) but Perot couldn't have done nearly so well without some major discontent among the populists.

It's not as if either of those elections were breath-holding white-knuckle close on election day, but when the runner-up gets over 150 electoral votes it's tough to call it a landslide.

Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2005 11:13 AM

I wrote a long cynical reply to all of this, mostly saying how we should take the media and the politicians out back and shoot them if you really want to change things, but in the spirit of the original post here is something more positive (and totally idealistic).

1.Make use of the possibilites of the internet and TV. Turn the US into a democracy. One man one vote. But before you can vote you have to pass a test that shows you are well informed on the issue. (Insert one thousand reasons this won't work here.)

2.Make use of a benevolent dictatorship. By far the best form of government ever devised. (Insert historical context and emotional reasons this is bad here.)

3.Form the Intelligent Party and vote them into control of the government. (Insert your definition of intelligent here.)

4.Live with what we've got. Try to make incremental changes that sometimes work and sometimes don't. There are better ways IMO, (anyone caught trying to "punditize" an issue should spend a night in the box). Some balance between the populace and the powers that be must be maintained. Even though it seems slightly out of kilter at the moment, the complex system of representive government we call "democracy" does a fairly decent job of this.

Posted by: Dennis at October 28, 2005 11:13 AM

I do wonder why the Nordic/Germanic non-compulsory-voting Euronations come in so high on turnout, though. That could be worth some serious analysis. Interesting.

I have no trouble at all figuring out why the ex-Soviet-bloc nations come in high.

Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2005 11:17 AM

#2--great as long as your dictator is truly wise and benevolent. A poor long-term solution, as the machinery for an utterly depraved totalitarianism awaits the first assassin or natural cause.

Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2005 11:20 AM

Tully,

Find a mechanism to cover the bad possibilities inherent in this form of government.

And #5. Wait a couple of more decades for AI. Put the computers in charge.

Posted by: Dennis at October 28, 2005 11:33 AM

Dennis, i can't thank you enough for eschewing the cynical reply. that ALWAYS takes forebearance. :-)

I really think your idea #1 (1Make use of the possibilites of the internet and TV. Turn the US into a democracy. One man one vote.) has some merit, and is worth further discussion.

I like to think about it this way. Politicians are supposed to be our servants, in a loose sense, but somehow they are more like our bosses. We should be more like their customers, and they should be trying harder and spending more time in feedback loops with individual customers. For example, what if every congressman had to cancel 6 fundraisers and spend 3 hours twice per week running a blog of his political views, reading responses, and doing some replies, all conducted in public so that all exchanges could be viewed by all interested constituents? What would happen?

Posted by: bk at October 28, 2005 02:10 PM

Dennis--your proposition, you find an avoidance mechanism. I frankly can't think of any. Once you have the grant of despotism, the mechanisms of "law" become irrelevant.

Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2005 02:46 PM

Actually bk, compulsory voting is only in Belgium, Luxemborg, Greece, a few Cantons in Switzerland and the presidential elections in Austria. In other words, the small fry, hardly an overwhelming amount. None of the other European coutries listed have compulsory voting. So at least through the 90's you had turnouts much higher than here. You had large populations of people who seemed to value the right to vote a lot more. My point was that Americans should be engaged as the Europeans were. Now if you look at the recent elections in Europe the voter turnout is dropping, in some cases to levels in the US. Could be cultural apathy on top of the typical reason some people give in the US: disgust with the negative campaigns and the feeling that their vote doesn't matter.

Regardless, our voter turnout is absolutely shameful and it's like giving politicians keys to the candy store. You see, the politicians only have to work on 25-40% of registered voters and pay attention to their needs. Imagine if they had to double that.

BTW bk, you just gave a compelling reason for public funding of elections. Why should politicians spend their time at fundraisers?
Or in corporate jets?

Tully,
okay then, 'electoral' landslide 379 to 159.
Not Nixon or Reagan 2nd term numbers of course but still a large margin- larger than the current 2-termer enjoyed.

Posted by: Marcus at October 28, 2005 06:00 PM

My $0.07:

1) No-demagoguery pledge.

2) Redistricting reform, to reclaim the House and assorted state legislatures to healthy democracy.

3) No hating.

Posted by: Jon Kay at October 28, 2005 10:00 PM

Tully,
You're right of course. Dictatorship and tyranny have become almost synonomus since it goes bad every time. Still, there's a reason that business and the military use this model. It is the most efficient method of getting things done. Perhaps some sort of board of directors? Ah, well. I guess what it would take is a basic change in human nature. I won't tout it anymore. I will roll out my anarchy argument at some future point though. I've been working on it for 40 years. It's still full of holes though.

Posted by: Dennis at October 29, 2005 03:05 AM

bk,
I doubt that the one man one vote done over the internet is a solution by itself. The prime component to me is an truly INFORMED electorate. The internet can and is helping to inform. And misinform. Same as all media. That is why I put in the *test* before you are allowed to vote. Even then, what about security clearances? How informed can we get? We are all just guessing on the Bush going to war thing. Given the internet and an *informed electorate* you could have popular voting on individual bills or federal actions. We could do it similar to the way Athens used to. Call 50 thousand(--million?) or so to national service every year. Need to go to war? Individual spending bills? Put it to a vote to that year's assembly. Either replace the Congress or form a new branch of government. Get rid of, or curb the professional politicians. It has the built in plus of term limits and national service (which seems to raise both pride in and responsibility to our nation.)

This is all pie in the sky stuff. Personally, I think it is working as best as can be hoped the way it is. Political stances aside you are always going to get excesses, fiscal and ideological, in the ebb and flow of governance. I still like the Intelligent Party option the best. Not very damn likely under the present election process. I'm sure everyone has a story about the moron that got elected. I'd have to see it to believe it is better than the one here. The woman had some sort of mental illness. Literally. It's still a local joke 20 years later.

Posted by: Dennis at October 29, 2005 03:37 AM

Actually bk, compulsory voting is only in Belgium, Luxemborg, Greece, a few Cantons in Switzerland and the presidential elections in Austria. In other words, the small fry, hardly an overwhelming amount. None of the other European coutries listed have compulsory voting.

Italy is small fry? I see you left them out, after mentioning them in the original comment. And the very best turnout in a "free democracy" is Australia, European by origin, which has compulsory voting. I see your definition of "landslide" is "anything more than what W. got." Clinton didn't do as well in either election as Bush Sr. did in '88, but I sure don't call that a landslide. I'll stick to "comfortable margin" there.

So at least through the 90's you had turnouts much higher than here. You had large populations of people who seemed to value the right to vote a lot more. My point was that Americans should be engaged as the Europeans were.

My nit-pickery aside, yep. But first we need to know why they're more engaged. Or the flip side, why we're less enagaged.

I do come back to the question of why turnout is so high in the Germanic/Nordic nations, which don't have compulsory voting. I wonder if we plotted turnout against the amount of state benefits directly received by citizens from government (and determined somewhat by who's in office) if we'd find a solid correlation. Nothing like financial self-interest to get the voters showing up at the polls. But even in the compulsory-voting nations, turnout has fallen over the last 20 years. Have they reached the limits of what they can promise themselves?

Posted by: Tully at October 30, 2005 11:08 AM

Brian,

I know I am new here, and am not sure how to go about this, but I'd like to propose a small experiment regarding use of the internet to forward democracy.

I've looked around and this is one of the most polite discussion forums I've found that allows various opinions on an issue. But to me the "Centrist" label should mean that a center ground is being reached in that discussion. From what I've seen that is not the case.

I propose that an problem/issue that is likely to come to the political forefront in the next year be brought up here and:

1. Discussed for a specified amount of time with the goal of reaching a common conclusion.

2. The common conclusion must be agreed upon by the end of the specified time.

3. Unlike the present system we are trying to improve on, the final conclusion must be agreed upon by all involved in the discussion. It won't be a brute force agreement by vote (one of the big problems with the current form of partisan politics). The end result must be common to all, no matter how weak.

The end result would not be the solution (although it might be interesting), but that a group entering into such a contract could even reach a commonality through the use of the internet.

Posted by: Dennis at October 30, 2005 02:19 PM