If it truly is a democracy, then let's start acting like
it's ours
by Glen Cumbarelis, Contributing columnist
It's time for wholesale change on the American political front and I have some suggestions on how to do that. Let's get right to it:
Our representatives, for the most part, have failed us because they are
not acting like representatives; that is, they do not represent most of
us, the majority, the people. They are supposed to work for us, not vice
versa as it seems today. Elected representatives should be limited to one
term. They should have real jobs and an income in the average range of all
incomes. Extremely wealthy people should be barred from politics, period.
The reason for this is obvious and logic dictates that the point is not
arguable, and if you believe or can be convinced that wealthy people are
looking exclusively after your best interests then I suggest you think again
on this point.
After serving their terms, representatives should not be eligible to serve
again. The point of this is to stem the development of long-term relationships
between representatives and special interests.
Voting must be overhauled, operating from the premise that voting is
the highest and most sacred act of a democracy and it is every citizen's
duty to participate. If you as a citizen do not participate it should be
duly noted and fellow citizens should be encouraged to find out why you
didn't participate.
Voting districts must be made much smaller, ideally tied to school districts,
so that every adult of voting age would have a voice and be engaged in the
process, meeting in the local high school auditorium on voting night. Thus,
voting itself would be done at the same time, an appointed time perhaps
in the evening and only done when all who are supposed to be there are present
and accounted for. It should be done by voice and again by a show of hands
or standing up, and each person's vote carefully logged and accounted for
in front of everyone.
Electronic voting should be banned as it is beyond the control of the
majority and is in fact controlled by a very relative few. Recent elections
have raised enough questions to make this point germane.
Sloganeering must be banned and electronic campaigning eliminated. Making
terse statements and labeling opponents is lazy, deceitful and underhanded.
Candidates' positions must be spelled out coherently and logically and publicly
posted for all to read and examine at predetermined times with many opportunities
for questions and cross-examination in a public forum. Television is an
unsound medium for political campaigning as it is out of the control of
the people and is easily manipulated - besides the fact that it is one-sided.
Television is in fact well known as the realm of psychological manipulation,
better known as marketing and advertising. Electronic media could be used
to announce meetings and appearance of candidates but no content or issues
could be discussed.
Public debate should occur at local levels in live formats instead of
on national television run by people or persons unknown to the public with
questions hand-picked by wealthy media interests. Every mainstream major
media outlet, be it print or electronic, is owned and run by wealthy individuals
who may or may not manipulate information for their own interests. The fact
is, if there is any question or unknowns whatsoever about the intent or
integrity of those controlling the information, the system has to be overhauled.
Protocols and laws must be bolstered and enforced. Any elected representative
found discussing public matters outside the realm of public meetings should
be prosecuted with severe penalties in place for violation. No more meetings
on the golf course, no three martini lunches, no lobbying outside public
meetings. The people's business should be conducted in the public domain,
no excuses. As a reporter who has covered hundreds of government meetings,
I know for a fact that far too many issues are decided well before the public
has any chance to participate. The bidding process, as another example,
must be strictly enforced and there can be no relationships between elected
officials and those making the bids. Conflicts that arise can be handled
by having alternate officials elected for that very reason. There is no
reason why we cannot establish a process for dealing with such an issue.
Attending public meetings should be made mandatory, at least at some level,
for everyone. No more opting out of the self-governing process. If you are
too busy to take an interest in your country and community then you are
in fact too busy, period. Make some time for your civic responsibilities.
If you think this is unreasonable, I'd have to argue with that logic. Also,
citizens have a responsibility to follow the issues and be engaged. Perhaps
some sort of returnable, postage-paid questionnaire can be sent out prior
to the actual vote as part of a pre-voting registration process to ensure
at least a basic understanding of the issues and their implications.
Keep religion out of politics. If that policy was good enough for the
founding fathers, who were all religious men in a time when religion was
much more dominant than today, then I think we should be able to appreciate
the logic of that position. If you feel the need to proselytize your particular
faith, then do it in church or in your community and not in the realm of
road and bridge infrastructure, budgets, education policy, etc. That is
the realm of government, which we establish to operate and govern our business
and lifestyle interests based on logic and definable terms. Religion is
everyone's right but it is not a concept definable to everyone's - the public's - satisfaction. Religion is one area not definable simply by "majority rule," for
obvious reasons.
I'm aware that most people reading this will roll their eyes in amusement while others might think it's a nice idea but will never happen and yet others will become angry for whatever reasons - I'm sure I will be labeled as something or other by those whose job it is, self-appointed or otherwise, to put labels on those they disagree with. I may even be called dangerous by those who feel most threatened by these suggestions. Ask yourself who benefits most by not changing things. In my opinion, the current system doesn't work and isn't going to work unless something is done, and I for one am offering a starting point for discussion rather than just blathering on about how bad things are. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't change the system; we are the system, we the people, and if we can't change it, then who is to do the changing?
I do not need a leader or a celebrity or a power player in politics; I need an average, reasonable and real person who represents average, reasonable and real issues that make sense for we the people of America. I'm not saying restrict capitalism - but I am saying that we can't let upper level capitalists and their entrenched professional lackeys run everything. That's what we have today and I for one don't feel very well represented.
These suggestions are just a starting point, and it occurs to me that smarter people than myself can come up with even better ideas to ensure that democracy is restored to what it is supposed to be; namely governance by and for the people in the purest sense of that concept. It also occurs to me that if suggestions to enforce democratic protocols are largely scoffed at by the majority, then perhaps we should just go ahead and redefine what it is we do have and accept that we are no longer a true democracy.