A New Year of Democracy in Action

Thanks for our blog, Dick and all who put in so many hours of work, to get it up and running, cheers from Aussie Land, it is the best

Kangaroo Brisbane Australia

sheesssssss Im no.1 that is a first!!!!!!!

Kangaroo Brisbane Australia

Fe and Andrew:

Great podcast!

And DCP--I donated because I know we'll make a difference. Thanks for your work.

Thanks, Dick, and everyone who make this blog an oasis of sanity in the sea of propaganda, misinformation and hatred. I look forward to getting to know you all better. Happy New Year, one and all.

The Best and Worst of 2004 are spot on. It was like hearing my own thoughts coming out of another mouth! :) Keep up the great work. Here's a link to a Washington Post article analyzing the republican election strategy (starting right after the election in 2000). Nothing we don't already know, but interesting to see the chronology in print.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35062-2004Dec29_3.html

I, too, donated, as a share in a great rental space. Maybe that's just a New York opportunity.

KB invited me here late November so I thought I'd check it out.

Having just read the welcome at http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2004/11/index.html
please excuse me for being less than enthusiastic about this project. It seems to be another political exercise that has no real goals short of taking our nation back from the Right. Like Dean's DFA, it wraps itself in the mantel of democracy yet fails to even ask the basic question what IS democracy?

Do you have an outline of democratic principles you'll used to critique the current political system and laws? Given that our federal system is both undemocratic and anti-democratic... are you calling for Constitutional reforms? If so what do you propose? Are you working towards a true multi-party system where citizens can vote their conscience without supporting a spoiler? Do you believe citizens deserve representation for their political views? Should all votes be weighed equally?

Or are you just working towards getting the Democratic Party back in power... a party that stands in the way of true Progressive political reforms?

Ultrax,

Thank you for stopping by and giving us a critique, although we are a site still in development with unlimited potential. What you are suggesting is a political dialogue of philosophies, which is sometimes helpful, and we are more than given to on occasion. I speak only for myself when I say I am looking for good, representative governace that supports and creates opportunity built on the ideals we've always had. Just they've been a little suppressed and stifled lately. In fact, we're in crisis. I am not looking for any elitist, self-love talk of how great to be a progressive. I am looking for tools to bridge the gaps, and not create more.

We all really want media and election reform, or anything else is moot. We'd appreciate all the constructive input from as many different points of view as possible. Please continue to give us a look.

ulTRAX,
No we are not working to get the Democratic Party back in power, but a few good candidates for 2005-6 would probably catch our attention.

As for the democratic principles we are hoping to remind people about; many of them are found in the works of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and the rest of the founding fathers. Others have been discussed by writers such as Howard Zinn, and similar types.

But the key notion you seem to have missed is that democracy is something we do here, not just preach about. In that sense it is an activity, not an ideology.

And when we say we teach democracy, what we mean is that we model it, reflect upon it, write about it, and apply it.

Feel free to join in the process--

ulTRAX,

Like it or not, the Founding Fathers and Framers gave us a Republic, not an outright Democracy. Changes in the Constitution since then have made that Republic more democratic, but have not trashed the Framers original design - as it should be. In the aftermath of an election where 70% of Bush voters went to the polls believing that Saddam was behind 9/11, and gay bashing proved a winning political tool, I'd be afraid of any system where any "majority" has too much more power than they have today.

In my opinion, we need media reform, educational reform, and a reawakening of the American mind, not a bunch of fringe new parties, or dramatic changes to the United States Constitution. The system is not the problem. The American people are the problem.

Thank you, Karen, I need a better handle on succinct.

ulTRAX,

I'm not sure what alternative you see to the Democratic Party. The greens? The socialists? The communists? Realistically, the Democratic Party is the only vehicle for change in America today.

Naturally, the party now is undergoing a period of introspection in the wake of the election. At the same time, a lot of people who are not satisfied with the party are becoming more involved to change it.

Your comment that the party "has no real goals short of taking our nation back from the Right" leaves me confused, because that seems like a pre-eminent goal to me. How else would you begin to change the damaging, dangerous, and disastrous policies effected by those now in power?

As for an "outline of democratic principles" to guide DCP, you might try starting with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Upholding and defending them seems to be a full-time job these days, but one the participants here regard as well worth the effort.

If you have concerns about DCP, Perhaps you should stick around and share and discuss your views further. We are in the process of looking ahead and deciding where we are going, and constructive input is always welcome. I'm probably not the only one who is curious about your views.

Posted by: ulTRAX at January 1, 2005 09:26 PM

The tone of your questions indicates that you believe that you yourself have all the answers, and we do not.
Please share.

While we're waiting for your progressive wisdom from on high, the rest of us will be busy getting to know our neighbors, learning new ways to organize, working to address the biased media problem, and lobbying for election reform.

I have said this before, I'll say it again: many American "progressives" don't understand how change really happens. They are ignorant. It is the direction the country is moving in that is so important. Gradual change, one issue at a time, one step at a time, is the way to make changes AND have the people in favor of these changes. Without a majority in agreement on each step, there will be continuous tension, which is what we have here in America.

It is easier to move next door than it is to move to China. If we want to change people's minds, we have to do it with baby steps. As Linda said so eloquently on a previous thread, we have to be willing to compromise. I don't hear any compromise in your tone, Ultrax.

Posted by: ulTRAX at January 1, 2005 09:26 PM

Good question about the Democratic Party. In fact, I am so disgusted with the likes of DLC and other organizations within the party that I am leaving the party and voting as an independent in future elections.

But the best thinkers don't merely ask questions; they offer possible solutions. Unfortunately, we are not seeing any from you, as bright as your questions are. In my case, like it or not, the solution is to remain allied with the Democrats, even as I go independent, because the only viable alternative - Republicanism - drives me nuts. The best I can hope for is for the Democrats to return to their roots and perhaps co-opt some of the Greens' ideas. I'll do anything to help make that happen.

Repost from bottom of last thread.

This could be a very good thing.....it is causing some of the "christians" to take a second look at what they put on the throne. And they are objecting and threatening and grasping for the
power they thought they were getting in The Deal.

They were lied to and helped sentence this country and world to horrors only evil men commit. They should be mad to think that they were used, and played.

I agree, there has been glee over perceived power among the religious right since Nov. 2nd. Some of them won't touch wine (Heaven forbid, oh my!) but are drunk on power. I personally have written letters confronting some top "christian" leaders about that glee and drunkeness and boasting. I tried to educate them with some hard facts and contrasts. I was met with defensiveness at first, but as it comes time to pay the piper, also comes the dawn.

I know some who hard headedly pushed Bush that are disillusioned right now.

It will be interesting to see if Bush and his puppetmasters yield to the threats. We are about to see exactly how much power the religious right actually has.

Take this opportunity to be a voice! Sitting passively around being angry at them does Nothing. I suggest that everyone write Dobson and Robertson, and recruit people to do the same.
Write!!! Call!!! Email!!! Sound the alarm!!! Scathing attacks will not open their eyes, but stressing your own "moral values" will. Give illustrated examples of real moral values vs. the truth of what this administration is ACTUALLY DOING. Tell them about your own values they can relate to. Tell them the many ways the Democratic party is the fabric of the flag. (Thanks Indy.) Don't argue with them and point out their faults! Help take the scales off their eyes! Don't focus on differences, show them similarities of purpose, ideals, and protective dreams of freedom and true security.

Do you see how effective Rove has really been in dividing this country? Unity begins with common ideals and values. As long as the left has issue with the religious right and resents
it's power, the more power they will probably be given! It has been a very effective tool so far in dividing and conquering.

As long as the left and right are divided over a couple of issues, the more power this regime has. While this country is arguing over abortion, America is being hijacked.

Rise above it and embrace similarities. When people are attacked, they will be defensive and hold all the more to their position. I really believe this strategy of division has been studied out and planned in stealth.

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that anyone who is spending billions invading a country and building a huge underground oil pipeline, (heard this from a person who knows firsthand and shall remain anonymous),
yet is cheap when it comes to alleviating true human suffering in the face of a monumental disaster doesn't share many human "moral values".

Of any nation or religion.

I think we are in deep, folks.

RISE ABOVE IT. If we stop and quit now, we ARE failures!

(And I'm not saying to appease the religious right, I'm saying to APPEAL to them, to their value system by sharing your value system.) I hope for unity in this country if we all focus on similarities of purpose.

Andree, just want to respond to your post from the previous thread about the world's perceptions.

You have to remember that France has one of the best educational systems in the world. It has great medical care (#2 this year, wasn't it?) transportation, labor laws, and many social institutions that support the efforts of ordinary people. As a result, there are fewer people in France who are uninformed than is the case in most of the world.

Anyone who reads liberal online news or regularly reads liberal newspapers would be informed; alas, this does not include the majority of the planet. We who spend time at blogs and reading online articles from progressive websites tend to think that everyone else knows all that we do. Actually, we're a very small group.

Also, people from Canada are subject to MSNBC, CNN and now FAUX just as it airs in the US. While the Canadian news is quite good, it is not "entertainment news" like the American cable news stations are. So for some TV watching Canadians, views about America are shaped almost entirely by these US stations. Think Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, to name a few. Yes, those are America's ambassadors to the English speaking world, thanks to Murdoch and Disney and GM. And Canada is a cold country, a lot of average people watch TV!

Quebec is an exception - people there are more interested in politics, more informed in general, and less exposed to American right-wing propaganda, at least in my experience. They watch more news from France than from the US.

And think about all the places in the world where all they know is what the local Mullah is telling them - no TV, no internet... just a MacDonald's and an oil well and the words of the Mullah.

ulTRAX,

Welcome.
Your comments certainly are thought provoking. Either way, I don't feel that a goal of taking our country back from the Right is such a small aspiration. By emphasizing truth in media, and verifiable elections our country will begin the process of obtaining the ideals and aspirations of all freedom loving people. The right wing may say they want a fair media and fair elections, but their actions betray them.

The wonderful thing about this project is the fact that it embodies democracy itself. I will not rehash some of the earlier comments.

But, I can tell you from my own experiences that people who never would have thought of engaging in discussions about the concerns you express have enthusiastically indicated to me their interest in pursuing projects which will demonstrate the ideals of democracy. These people are not guided by a single issue. It is the all encompassing nature of democratic ideals which motivates them. It is in that sense that political party affiliation becomes meaningless.

I am curious as to what you mean when you ask: "Should all votes be weighed equally?"

Dick and all,

How magnificent to see the DCP evolving into the forum that you envisioned. The future is now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/weekinreview/02nago.html?ex=1105246800&en=4b6d54874ce9d34d&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

Adam Nagourney, NYT, famous all campaign long for the inside story to undermine, and never illuminating, discussing how divided the Dem opinion in the aftermath. This time, Kerry as gawky with nothing to say, and never popular. This is the kind of self-promoting and myth perpetuating I can't abide, and don't know whether to let go, at last, or write a letter. He has constantly abused his position and promotion to the NYT this year, from local cub reporter, with untrue and unhelpful stories.

Dick and Karen,

What a wonderful gift you have given us for the New Year. You two and your team are tireless in your resolve to help us work within this system and preserve all that is good and commendable with our Democracy.

I cannot thank you enough for all of your efforts and the efforts of those working with you to help us create and preserve the sense of community that we developed during the campaign. We are an awesome group and I am glad to be associated with this group of inspirational bloggers.

Happy New Year everyone!

Happy Back, KiK!

For you, I wish lots of Kbeefcake in the new year! (And hope you don't get busted by THK, as amusing as that would be to the rest of us, lol).

And, apart from the levity, we appreciate also your serious contributions here. So, don't worry about your rep--we love you in all your schizophrenic glory!

Wishing everyone at DCP a Happy, Healthy & Prosperous New Year!

Hope 2005 - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=181

I can't get the podcast to load, probably because of dial-up? Living way out in the wooded mountains has it's disadvantages....

The best thing about this New Year is how the DCP is shaping up. Thanks, Dick, Karen et all. I hope there is a monthly withdrawal plan for donations....

Just back from an adventure on Amtrak & enjoying a good read on this good-looking blog!!

ulTRAX:

Thank you for coming to this blog and asking questions. Besides asking questions, I think it would be good if you would offer some suggestions of what you, personally would find helpful on this site, and what you think might be helpful to add for the political community that we nurture here.

Simply put, we teach democracy. We work with people to help them take their thoughts and opinions and translate them into political action. Years ago, this process was largely assisted by civics classes in high schools. No more. The only civics classes you see in my neighborhood these days are taught to immigrants studying for citizenship.

I could say that is a sad fact, but it would still be fact, no? The only way to change this process is to give people the tools they need to transform their voice into action.

I am curious, though, can you tell us about what your democracy cell looks like? Do you belong to a group or work on your own? Is there anything we can do to help you grow your group or your individual interest? What do you think is the key to unlocking voter action?

Again, thanks for stopping by and I look forward to hearing from you.

fellow bloggers and new arrivals,

happy new year plus one day. this evolution of the site is outstanding. many thanks to the dedicated staff who bring it all to life.

the comments on this thread are very eye opening, and i would like to add to them. something occured to me during the election. there is never going to be another presidential race, where blogs, web sites, chat rooms and on-line forums are a novelty. like it or not, in four years, main stream media news will have to pay much more attention to this world we communicate in.

human beings are creatures of habit. we resist change. we dislike learning new things, preferring to be the old dog, free to ignore the new tricks. we want things to be both simple and easy. democracy is neither simple nor easy.

teaching democracy. i say that and i am dumbfounded. i have to teach democracy? me, all by myself out there in the big world? if i had to imagine a task i am totally unsuited for, teaching democracy would be high on that list. but it HAS TO BE DONE.

okay, so i need my teaching tools. i'm going to be a teacher. i am going to approach lazy, uninformed, uninvolved, uninterested americans to remind them that they have a responsibilty to uphold the democracy of this country. i recognize that i have as much to learn as i have to teach. this site is going to be both my study guide and the teaching tool that i take with me.

i've thought long and hard about things. one thing i learned during the election is that fear makes people do the most foolish things, and that fear tactics work on people in the most insidious ways. that has to change. a fearful america will not succeed in attaining the goals of civil rights, equal justice, environmental concerns, educating our children, or healthcare reforms. fear breeds mistrust and ill will. we see that in action now, and it cannot go on unchecked.

any kind of action, change or reform is going to require courage. what needs to be done is not for the faint hearted. i don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, it's my opinion that there are large numbers of courageous people looking for a place to add their voices. we cannot wait for them to find us, we must go and find them. communities of progressive thinkers are waiting for a place to stand, a banner to stand under. we are not campaigning now for one person, we are campagning for the very soul of our country.

where we are now is not MY america. i am free to say that. i want it to stay that way. i am a patriot and no one is going to accuse me of being less than that. my voice is planted firmly here on this site, and i hear all of you loud and clear. i'm taking your voices on the road, and i'm going to reach as many people as i can. i'm going to teach democracy. i'm the old dog who is going to learn every new trick there is.

reform. never again a vote not counted. never again, an american prevented from speaking with their vote. never again, media bias. never again, lies and smears portrayed as truth. it should never have come to this. there should never have been a need for this kind of reform at all. we deserve better. we can demand better. we will have better.

teach democracy? preserve the constitution? live up to the bill of rights? you damn well better believe it. DCP, thanks for being my home port.

Write your congressman! Write your own religious leaders! Write non religious leaders! The religious vote
is not the majority, but it was enough to make a difference. We have to work on many fronts.
We cannot afford to be passive. Pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off, and get to work.

I think it would help if the Democratic party would pick a strong leader as it's representative now. Not THE candidate, but a strong spokesman.

MARJORIE WROTE: "What you are suggesting is a political dialogue of philosophies, which is sometimes helpful, and we are more than given to on occasion."

I have to disagree that setting action firmly in a coherent philosophy or set of principles is only "sometimes helpful". It should be the central issue any group such as this must deal with. If there's no true respect for democratic principles, then the word democracy merely becomes a feel-good word used for window dressing.

CYRANO WROTE: "Like it or not, the Founding Fathers and Framers gave us a Republic, not an outright Democracy. "

There is no requirement that a republic be ANTI-democratic. This is the red herring that never dies. If someone actually believes that a well functioning democracy... or a democratic republic is central to morally legitimate government, then they would soon come to realize that many inherently principles were compromised away at the Constitutional Convention. The Framers were very adept at protecting the interests of those who attended. Others were left out in the cold. Previous generations have had the moral courage to put principle first before blind Founder worship. It's sad to see this generation lack such moral backbone.

CYRANO WROTE: "Changes in the Constitution since then have made that Republic more democratic, but have not trashed the Framers original design - as it should be."

Why is a respect for the wishes of the dead more important than a search for morally legitimate government by the living? As for those changes... all these amendments did was tweak a fundamentally flawed system. They have not dealt with the fundamental anti-democratic features of the Constitution... the EC, the Senate, and the amendment process.

CYRANO WROTE: "In the aftermath of an election where 70% of Bush voters went to the polls believing that Saddam was behind 9/11, and gay bashing proved a winning political tool, I'd be afraid of any system where any "majority" has too much more power than they have today."

I happen to believe in checks and balances.... and friction in government. But those checks should never be giving the minority the ability to govern. In 2000 the entire course of American and world history was changed... and who is responsible? Some unaccountable star chamber called the EC?

In my opinion, we need media reform, educational reform, and a reawakening of the American mind, not a bunch of fringe new parties, or dramatic changes to the United States Constitution. The system is not the problem. The American people are the problem.

KAREN WROTE: "No we are not working to get the Democratic Party back in power, but a few good candidates for 2005-6 would probably catch our attention."

This is where I part company with groups like this. Like Dean's DFA... all they ultimately are doing are building up the infrastructure of a dysfunctional 2-party system. What I believe should be the goal is to look for candidates that are seeking true fundamental democratic reforms. I started a thread on the topic at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

KAREN WROTE: "But the key notion you seem to have missed is that democracy is something we do here, not just preach about. In that sense it is an activity, not an ideology.
And when we say we teach democracy, what we mean is that we model it, reflect upon it, write about it, and apply it."

And this is the crux of the issue I raise. Unless activity is based in ideology or principle, then any claim to be teaching or modeling democracy is empty. At best a few choice elements will be selectively picked without ever thinking about the larger principle of what constitutes morally legitimate government. Without that larger philosophical framework, it's easy to keep falling back into the pervasive trap of a dysfunctional 2 party system... and 50 years from now, nothing has changed.

ONCALL WROTE: "I am curious as to what you mean when you ask: "Should all votes be weighed equally?"

Simply that each citizen's vote has no more weight than any other's. Our federalist system contains many vote weighing schemes such as the EC and the Senate. If a Wyoming citizen votes for president, their vote weighs 3.5x that of a citizen in California. In 2000 a citizen in Bush's Florida lead weighed 1000x that of a citizens in Gore national lead in deciding the outcome. In the Senate... 15% of the population now get 50% of the seats. Soon that will be 10%.
Here's a discussion from a USSC decision called Reynolds v Sims which outlaws such vote weighing schemes on all OTHER levels of government except the federal level:

"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Of course, the effect of state legislative districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State. Two, five, or 10 of them must vote before the effect of their voting is equivalent to that of their favored neighbor. Weighting the votes of citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen to reside, hardly seems justifiable. One must be ever aware that the Constitution forbids "sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination."

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

BOB EVENS WROTE: "I'm not sure what alternative you see to the Democratic Party. The greens? The socialists? The communists? Realistically, the Democratic Party is the only vehicle for change in America today."

I'd mostly agree. But I'd also warn that working within the Democratic Party is inherently corrupting. The dynamics of our dysfunctional political system are both pervasive and insidious. Progressives who work within the Party constantly compromise away their values because to go the third party route means voting one's conscience and perpetually being denied representation. Worst, a divided majority can give the election to a united minority. If this is EVER going to change... then Progressives have to have a strategy to leverage their influence to support candidates that support some common sense democratic reforms on the local/state level... reforms such as proportional representation, run-off voting etc.

BOB EVENS WROTE: "Your comment that the party "has no real goals short of taking our nation back from the Right" leaves me confused, because that seems like a pre-eminent goal to me. How else would you begin to change the damaging, dangerous, and disastrous policies effected by those now in power?"

The Democrats are now not just a minority party but working within a framework created by the Right. Defeating the Right is certainly a concern. But there is a greater framework that anyone who truly values democratic principles has to be concerned about: that our political system is anti-democratic and is failing to produce morally legitimate government. Such observations are currently outside the realm of permissible thought. We're not bought up to question whether our system produces morally legitimate government. We're bought up to believe these matters were resolved 230 years ago and no further thinking needs to be done. Yet if you approach the issue from the vantage of democratic principles as opposed to Founder worship, then the flaws and dysfunctionality in our system are painfully obvious.

BOB EVENS WROTE: As for an "outline of democratic principles" to guide DCP, you might try starting with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Upholding and defending them seems to be a full-time job these days, but one the participants here regard as well worth the effort."

As election 2000 demonstrated the Constitution is hardly democratic as you claim... it's ANTI-democratic. This is a central contradiction most mired in our dysfunctional system refuse to face. Yet it's painfully obvious to those who believe in democratic principles.

I love this part:

We are the small mammals, nimble, quick to learn, ready to take advantage of openings, in a world of lumbering organizations that react slowly, if at all, to the rapidly changing conditions of our globalizing planet.

& my friend wrote:

There WILL BE a real crack, a big crack that will
create an opportunity for us to ride in on the ensuing tsunami...and wash this filth from our country -- in one fell swoop.

UtTRAX raises some interesting points.
There is a rightwing effort to convert one large "blue" west coast judicial district into three, favoring more conservative judges.

States like Wyoming and South Dakota get same proportion of electors for their 2 Senators as more populous states like New York, weighting them too heavily.

We seem to have lost or badly diluted our "checks and balances" now with one party dominating.
Reverend Dobson in Colorado Springs advocates "doing the Daeschle" with the Democratic Senators not in "safe seats" who are up for re-election in 2006.

On a slightly different but ominous note, Reuters & AP followed Al-Jazeera in reporting that a permanent prison is being established on Guantanamo to house detainees "for life" for whom no charges have been brought.

It's not just the balance of power in the US that is shifting in response to Bush. China is buying a big share in Russian Yukos oil stock. Kerry wanted to form alliances. Now alliances are being formed but they aren't the ones he had in mind! They're anti-Bush alliances!

Nature does eventually get its way and its not hard to think of the crimes against nature that have been perpetrated.

Senator Feinstein will propose an amendment to change the electoral system:

"The Electoral College is an anachronism, and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," Feinstein said in a statement. "During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states.''

Despite some popular appeal, the proposal faces a difficult road to passage. It takes a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by 38 states for a constitutional amendment to become law.

Feinstein's staff pointed out Wednesday that 25 years ago, the Senate voted 51-48 for a proposal to abolish the Electoral College, a majority but still far short of the two-thirds required. About 10 years before that, the House voted 338-70 for abolishment, but the Senate didn't act that year.

Feinstein, who has the support of Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, as a co-sponsor, said the Electoral College, which awards each state and the District of Columbia a minimum of three votes, is unfair to states such as California because it takes far more popular votes to win even one of California's 55 electoral votes than, for instance, to win one of the three in a sparsely populated state such as North Dakota.

Agree with it or not, this is one hard-working little site & popular in Portland where I just was & here in Seattle:

http://www.redefeatbush.com/

DiAnne Wrote: "Senator Feinstein will propose an amendment to change the electoral system:"

Amending the Constitution is not just difficult because of the legal hurdles... currently states with a mere 4.5% of the population can, in theory, block any amendment... but because of the ideological hurdles. We've been bought up to validate a flawed system, not critique it. I think any direct attempt to make the Constitution more democratic needs to start in the states. There has to be a debate in which citizens can be exposed to true democratic principles... and where they can openly discuss the flaws of single district plurality elections. It's this system that gave birth to the 2 party system and prevents third parties from ever developing.

Here's a great article on why voting systems are important: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/why_are_voting_systems_important.htm

On a slightly different but ominous note, Reuters & AP followed Al-Jazeera in reporting that a permanent prison is being established on Guantanamo to house detainees "for life" for whom no charges have been brought.

Posted by: DiAnne at January 2, 2005 11:54 AM

DiAnne

This story was also in the WP last night and MSNBC. Bob Evans emailed it to me last night.

Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 2, 2005; Page A01

Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41475-2005Jan1.html

CORRECTION: In my response to CYRANO this appeared on the bottom: "In my opinion, we need media reform, educational reform, and a reawakening of the American mind, not a bunch of fringe new parties, or dramatic changes to the United States Constitution. The system is not the problem. The American people are the problem."

That was something CYRANO wrote but though sloppy editing, it appears as if I did.

Throughout the darkest times in our collective history, mankind has withstood the perils and challenges of life upon this fragile world; natural disasters...disease...plaque...starvation...the living hell of war...the iron fist and oppressive beliefs of tyrants, fascists, dictators and false prophets...our history is filled with the rumblings and mad ramblings of the absurd...and the resounding beat of the strength of our convictions...the courage, fortitude, dexterity, adaptability, determination and ingenuity of our species to overcome and improve upon our human existence.

We who have feasted upon the fruits of labor of 10,000 generations will not abandon Democracy to rot in the fields of deception, ignorance, oppression nor upon the burning sands of the Middle East...we shall fight for the right to be seen and felt and heard¦and not for our rights alone...we shall stand for the for the rights of those paralyzed by fear, twisted by the promise of demented and cruel ideologies or blinded by faith in the name of a merciless God...to stand up for the natural rights of all of mankind.

We will not be still...we shall not be silenced...we will not go quietly.

We need no new creed or conscience or label to define ourselves for we have been who we are since the dawn of time...blessed with the wisdom of the ages if we would only have the eyes to see it without falling into the traps and pitfalls of attempts to segregate ourselves in the name of out witting our opponents...for what is segregation but the divisive tool of those who wish to conquer?

Those who would call themselves Progressives...what do you progress towards? Or Democrats or Republicans or Greens or Libertarians or Independents...a slow and meaningless death secluded to the lines of some obscure text within the annals of a revisionist history?
In labeling ourselves with such constrictive language do we not do the work of the demagogue and the dictator?

We need no pop-culture marketing campaign or catch phrase soliloquy to define ourselves, for our creation...our self-determination has already been written...our freedoms and our rights called out in the wisdom of The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution...in the Doctrines and Principles of our Nation that provide for the Natural Rights of ALL of mankind...not just those who proudly bear the brand of Americans.

We are the government and the governed...this our government of the people, for the people and by the people...a Democratic Republic.

We are the oppressors and the oppressed...the liberators and the tormented...as long as we continue to argue, bicker and fight amongst ourselves over the hierarchy of labels...over who is more enlightened or open minded...over who's champion is bravest and best suited to lead our People and indeed the World from the brink of this catastrophic abysmal self-aggrandized destruction we are no better than them...and they are no different from us...we are our own worst enemies.

Shakespeare once posed the question in these the immortal words which when taken in the context of our current situation hold profound meaning:

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"

This unconscionable battle we now face is not about our egos or identity...or who can scream the loudest at our perceived opponents and the injustice so prevalent in our world today...it is about the struggle for our existence as a people and indeed our transcendence beyond our very nature...it is the struggle within each and every precious one of us.

"What a piece of work is Man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculties! In form and moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?"

Let us not suffer at the sarcastic wit of Shakespeare's pen, but revel in the brilliance of his taunting lesson...we have all of the weapons and tools we have ever needed or desired at our command...we think, therefore we are...and what we are, for better or for worse, is Americans...let us work together to renew, not reinvent...to preserve and protect that which has been so foolishly discarded...our Heritage...Equality, Justice, Liberty and Freedom for all within a truly United States of America.

Our greatest adversity is in making the choice to be what we are all born to be...in having the courage to stand united and free as Americans.

(humming)

I have of late
But wherefore I know not
Lost all my mirth
This goodly frame
The earth
Seems to me a sterile promontory
This most excellent canopy
The air-- look you!
This brave o'erhanging firmament
This majestical roof
Fretted with golden fire
Why it appears no other thing to me
Than a foul and pestilent congregation
Of vapors

ulTRAX,

Again your comments are thought provoking. I can't speak for everybody else on this site, but reading your replies to various posts point out to me that you clearly don't have a good grasp of this site's goals and functions.

You say to Karen: This is where I part company with groups like this. Like Dean's DFA... all they ultimately are doing are building up the infrastructure of a dysfunctional 2-party system. What I believe should be the goal is to look for candidates that are seeking true fundamental democratic reforms. I started a thread on the topic at DU:

My response is that this project has made it quite clear that it is not affililiated with any political party or candidate. As I mentioned in yesterday's response, we seek to inform about democratic principles, and therefore party affiliation is a moot point.

As of now, we are living in the reality of a two party system. Ignoring that reality will put democracy at risk. If there should be other people (not necessarily politicians) running for office who are not members of either the Democratic or Republican Parties and they develop a substantial following, the two party system will evolve. It has done so in the past. We do not have a parliamentary form of government, and I believe it is unlikely that we will see the complete elimination of a two party system.

Futhermore you write in your reply to Karen:And this is the crux of the issue I raise. Unless activity is based in ideology or principle, then any claim to be teaching or modeling democracy is empty.

Posting on blogs and starting threads is one thing. Actually getting out there and attempting to connect with people is another. I encourage you, if you already haven't done so, to engage others outside of the blogosphere. It is a wonderful experience. Most of the people I have talked with are excited to meet and discuss ways to actively inform our neighbors about the changes we need to make. We are just getting started.

One of this site's main objectives is to encourage and help people with similar goals to develop strategies to effectively engage our communities in activities which will highlight issues that are based on the ideology of democratic principles. It seems to me that you glossed over Karen's main point. Our last election demonstrated that the ideology of democracy is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the people who support the Right wing agenda don't believe that they are any less democratic. Likewise you can't possibly see yourself as any more democratic than anybody else. This begs the question: Do you believe that the best form of government is a benign dictatorship? The crux ,as you say, but as I see it, is one of democratic principles.

You have many comments about Cyrano's post: I would like to say that I can't disagree with some of them, but you do contradict yourself in several parts of your reply.

You absolutely took Marjorie's reply out of context.

As regards to the case you cited in your response to my question, I think it is worth noting that I am not a lawyer. I appreciate the supreme court citation and attempted to read the site that you posted. Your point is well taken. Thank-you.

Posted by: ulTRAX at January 2, 2005 11:06 AM

"This is where I part company with groups like this. Like Dean's DFA... all they ultimately are doing are building up the infrastructure of a dysfunctional 2-party system. What I believe should be the goal is to look for candidates that are seeking true fundamental democratic reforms. I started a thread on the topic at DU:"

We have never said here that we are building up infrastructure of a two-party system. That is your assumption. But no where do we say anything about supporting the system as it is. Good candidates would include reform-minded people with thoughtful and effective ideas. No matter what party.

"Unless activity is based in ideology or principle, then any claim to be teaching or modeling democracy is empty. At best a few choice elements will be selectively picked without ever thinking about the larger principle of what constitutes morally legitimate government. Without that larger philosophical framework, it's easy to keep falling back into the pervasive trap of a dysfunctional 2 party system... and 50 years from now, nothing has changed."

Of course we are discussing the larger principles here. Of course we are not selecting "choice elements". I have no idea where your assumptions are coming from--but you need to listen a little more to what is happening here before you decide we have not considered everything you bring up.

You cannot condemn a project you have not participated in--so stick around and really get involved in the discussions that turn into ACTIONS.

NEWSWEEK EXCLUSIVE: Kerry on Post-Election

The January 10 issue of Newsweek (on newstands tomorrow, January 3) will feature an exclusive interview with John Kerry.

In a press release regarding the interview Newsweek says that Kerry called a Newsweek reporter to his Boston home to discuss Newsweek's election issue, which featured an article about Kerry that he felt was "unduly harsh and gossipy about him, his staff and his wife."

No doubt, Kerry supporters felt that the same way about that post election article. And now, as one of those "intensely loyal" supporters, mentioned below, one has to wonder about the timing of this Newsweek article and why it was not released weeks ago?

"I'm not going to lick my wounds or hide under a rock or disappear. I'm going to learn. I've had disappointments and I've learned to cope. I've lost friends, a marriage: I've lost things in life."

Kerry talks with Newsweek about the campaign, why he lost and what's ahead for him. He did not wish to be directly quoted touting himself, however; he did not wish to appear defensive or boastful. When asked why he lost the election, Kerry points to history and, in a somewhat inferential, roundabout way, to his own failure to connect to voters -- a failure that kept him from erasing the Bush campaign's portrait of him as a flip-flopper, reports Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas. Kerry said that he was proud of his campaign, that he had nearly defeated a popular incumbent who had enjoyed a three-year head start on organizing and fund-raising. Sitting presidents are never defeated in wartime, he insisted (true, though two, LBJ and Harry Truman, chose not to run for another term during Vietnam and Korea).

While he quarreled with descriptions of his speaking style as "soporific," Kerry tacitly acknowledged that he failed to connect with enough voters on a personal level. Jose Ferreira, Kerry's nephew, told his uncle, "Some people are saying that your candidacy was driven by ABB [Anything But Bush]." Kerry replied: "Do you think so?" Ferreira said that once people got to know Kerry, they were intensely loyal. "Those are the people I let down," Kerry said, falling silent. In conversation with Newsweek, Kerry seemed particularly interested in trying to find a way to speak to ordinary voters that didn't sound too grandiose or "political." Though Kerry did not directly criticize his friend Bob Shrum, it's clear he did not feel well served by his message makers and speechwriters.

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/newsweek-exclusive-kerry-on-post.html

Spinnaker:

It's not as though Bush as pure motives. It's certainly not the mark of a "compassionate conservative" let alone a true Christian to offer aid as a bargaining chip rather than to help those in need. There are always strings attached. It is not the first time this group has used tragedy to sell their agenda (think 9/11, think Florida hurricanes, think tsunami).

(http://www.guardian.co.uk)

``The carnage is of a scale that defies comprehension,'' President Bush, giving his weekly radio address, said of the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunamis that have killed more than 123,000 people.

``The task they face is difficult,'' said Bush, who issued a proclamation calling for U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff this week in honor of the dead.

Bush's decision to increase the aid came amid mounting criticism that the United States was slow to respond and that he was slow to publicly express his condolences.

``Clearly, our first step forward was not sufficient,'' said P.J. Crowley, a retired colonel who served as a Pentagon spokesman in both Republican and Democratic administrations and was a White House national security aide in the Clinton administration. ``This is an event of literally epic proportions and for the White House to take 72 hours before the president was visible on this, I think was a mistake.''

Crowley said the disaster offers the administration a chance to improve U.S. relations with the Islamic world, where anti-American sentiment has been on the rise since the Iraq war. Indonesia, one of the countries hardest hit by the tsunamis, has the world's largest Muslim population.

``Indonesia is one of those countries where al-Qaeda has been active,'' Crowley said. ``It is in our long-term interest to develop an even stronger relationship with Indonesia and other countries in the region. We should look at this within the prism of the war on terror, and if we fail to respond effectively, it will be an opportunity lost.''

David L. Phillips, vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a private world affairs group, said that a successful U.S. aid effort could take the edge off of anti-American sentiment in the region.

``The president of Indonesia said to the president very early on after Sept. 11 that she was going to work with him, but American popularity in Indonesia has plummeted,'' Phillips said. ``If we're seen as being generous and playing a role in helping Indonesia deal with this, it buys some political space, some political cushion for the president of Indonesia to help Bush with the war on terror.''

Pamela
Thanks for the scoop. I am so tired of looking at the current issue of Time with Bush's mug, although I don't mind looking at Obama on Newsweek. In fact, when i took my car in for an oil change I found Obama's book for free in the book exchange there! (Nice to have a book exchange when you get your oil change)

Re Kerry
I would like to tell him that on one side of the spectrum are those who vote away their own right to organize their labor, to sue when harmed and son on. On the other are those who want to speak truth to power but appear to have ADD when it comes time to figure out "how."

Kerry needs to think back to the late '60s & early '70s. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" applies to a whole bunch of folks. He also will remember very well the "America love it or leave it" crowd & "America right or wrong."

Then he would probably just have this sick sense of deja vu that we baby boomers are prone to once in awhile.

"WASHINGTON -- The American people are about to get a taste of what they voted for -- the most conservative domestic policies in modern times."

snip

"If Bush succeeds in perpetuating a legacy of pre-emptive war and right-wing domestic policies, the United States will never be the same again."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/206064_thomas02.html

Nice to see debate on this site.
One thing we need is to not thrown the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to critique and to not become defensive. I know it can sound arrogant when someone new comes on & takes a look around, throws out alot of stuff. I have a friend who does this to me all the time & I let it roll off but also try to see if there are any leaks we can fix.

I did read the article UlTRAX suggested and I like this part:

"In fact, political analysts have now begun to draw connections between our current voting system and number of persistent problems with American elections. Traditionally we have placed the blame for many of our elections problems -- poor turnout, dull campaigns, alienated voters, etc. -- on individual politicians or particular parties. But the source of many of our election problems may go much deeper. These may be systemic problems--located in the very system we use to vote for and elect candidates to office."

That relates pretty directly to alot of stuff Kerry is having to be a lightning rod for - after spending quite a few years, decades really, in public service.

I do agree that the problem is bigger than Kerry or the Democratic party or even the US government but it's also alot smaller - it comes down to each and every one of us & our lifestyle.

I will elaborate at a later time.

Amy
That article was so depressing I emailed it to myself intead of my cell. I think I'm withdrawing.

One more hit and run before I leave again, but felt good to return to a lively site.

I only to wish to say that we are here to discuss, just not forever. My first instincts to ulTrax's beginning comments were, oh no, not more endless redefining of progressive in the abstract. Let's make democracy work again, for people.

Marjorie and DiAnne,

I too am action-oriented and have spent enough time in academic institutions to be less interested in defining and naming categories than I am in one-on-one and small group discussions that lead to action and change. If I come across as defensive and impatient at times, I ask indulgence for having spent over a year in such discussions.

We know who the enemies of progress are:

The big for=profit media
The corporate right-wingers
The "pro-lifers" who want to destroy a woman's agency over her own body
The war profiteers
The polluters
The right-wing legislators
Kenneth Blackwell and Katherine Harris
Karl Rove
etc.

It has nothing to do with a two-party system or who runs the DNC, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with defining the finer points of ideology, in my opinion.

It has to do with getting off our asses and making this country work again. For the real people.

Then he would probably just have this sick sense of deja vu that we baby boomers are prone to once in awhile.

Posted by: DiAnne at January 2, 2005 01:46 PM

DiAnne

I think that sick sense of deja vu is what got JK to run for president in the first place.

"I happen to believe in checks and balances.... and friction in government. But those checks should never be giving the minority the ability to govern. In 2000 the entire course of American and world history was changed... and who is responsible? Some unaccountable star chamber called the EC?"

I can make arguments both ways with regard to the Electoral College. It's not one of my favorite provisions, that's for sure. I would have no problem, for instance, with a state's votes being awarded on a proportional basis. But as I assume that you understand, the reason the electoral college still exists has to do with encouraging "greater democracy" along geographic lines rather than less. Why would any Presidential candidate ever visit a small state if winning big in the larger states could guarantee you the Presidency? That's the logic as to why smaller states still fight for the retention of the "star chamber".

The reality is that the Founding Fathers distrusted "the people". And in a country in which intellectualism and cultural achievement has been downgraded decade after decade, and large percentages of the both the right and the left appear to have trouble

ONCALL WROTE: "You say to Karen: This is where I part company with groups like this. Like Dean's DFA... all they ultimately are doing are building up the infrastructure of a dysfunctional 2-party system. What I believe should be the goal is to look for candidates that are seeking true fundamental democratic reforms. I started a thread on the topic at DU:
My response is that this project has made it quite clear that it is not affililiated with any political party or candidate. As I mentioned in yesterday's response, we seek to inform about democratic principles, and therefore party affiliation is a moot point."

I think the issue here is I see the two party system... really an accident of how our voting system was set up in the context of federalism, as both hostile to democratic principles, inherently corrupting ideologically, and resistant to reform.

Unless there is some larger strategy to dismantle this system, it will be here for another 230 years. Groups dedicated to promoting progressive candidates alone will NOT make the US a more democratic nation. There has to be a grander strategy to truly reform our system... and I believe we need to be thinking 50 years ahead. Without that, your candidates may win some elections, but what are they really accomplishing if they are not laying the foundation for a democratic America? Next election cycle they may lose.

ONCALL WROTE: "As of now, we are living in the reality of a two party system. Ignoring that reality will put democracy at risk. If there should be other people (not necessarily politicians) running for office who are not members of either the Democratic or Republican Parties and they develop a substantial following, the two party system will evolve. It has done so in the past. We do not have a parliamentary form of government, and I believe it is unlikely that we will see the complete elimination of a two party system."

The issue is not what sort of government we inherited from the dead. It's what sort of government we want for our children. We all have a choice. Do we make Founder worship or democratic principles our priority? If it's the latter... then we have no alternative but to start thinking about a systematic strategy to bring democratic reforms to our nation. What I see is such a failure to value democracy that's so extensive that few are even thinking about what it means. It's mostly used as a feel-good word.

ONCALL WROTE: "Futhermore you write in your reply to Karen: And this is the crux of the issue I raise. Unless activity is based in ideology or principle, then any claim to be teaching or modeling democracy is empty. Posting on blogs and starting threads is one thing. Actually getting out there and attempting to connect with people is another. I encourage you, if you already haven't done so, to engage others outside of the blogosphere."

What makes you think NOT I'm engaged? I belong to one of local variants of DFA... and the local MoveOn group. I find members of both groups lacking much of commitment to democracy. Neither has any plans to work towards real democratic reforms.

But I again have to emphasize... that action based in, or education about, "democracy" is an intellectually bankrupt exercise if it glosses over the fact that the core democratic principles have not even been articulated. It becomes an exercise in political hypocrisy if those principles are articulated then ignored in favor of short term political expediency. Put another way... either you believe in democracy enough to articulate its principles and work to implement it... or you don't. Put that way, advocating for these ideas on-line makes a lot of sense.

ONCALL WROTE: "It seems to me that you glossed over Karen's main point. Our last election demonstrated that the ideology of democracy is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the people who support the Right wing agenda don't believe that they are any less democratic. Likewise you can't possibly see yourself as any more democratic than anybody else. This begs the question: Do you believe that the best form of government is a benign dictatorship? The crux ,as you say, but as I see it, is one of democratic principles."

I have no idea what you're getting at. I believe that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. I see our nation failing on several key areas. First it permits minority rule. Second the current voting system is unable to accurately measure the popular will. Third, our system deprives many citizens of the basic right to vote their conscience and still be represented in government. Since those are bedrock concepts for me, I'm sure the Right's claims to believe in democracy are pretty hallow in comparison.

ONCALL WROTE: "You have many comments about Cyrano's post: I would like to say that I can't disagree with some of them, but you do contradict yourself in several parts of your reply."

You'll have to do better than make a claim.

ONCALL WROTE: "You absolutely took Marjorie's reply out of context."

Again, more info would be helpful.

ONCALL WROTE: "As regards to the case you cited in your response to my question, I think it is worth noting that I am not a lawyer. I appreciate the supreme court citation and attempted to read the site that you posted. Your point is well taken. Thank-you."

The moral argument the USSC is making in Reynolds v Sims is pretty easy to follow. Glad you liked it. Yet it also calls into question the moral legitimacy of our federal system which IS based on such vote weighing schemes. The simple fact is the Right will never advocate democratic reforms for our federal government. So if the Left is mired in the dysfunctionality of our political system then those democratic reforms will never come.

Damn, just lost my whole post!! I'll start again:

Trax, I like your second set of comments much better. Thank you for sticking around, I'm sure we'll all learn from you if you continue. And perhaps you are not too elitist to consider that you might learn something from us as well.

I mostly agree with everything you said - the lack of true democracy here (I've lived outside the country much of my life) the problem of kow-towing to dead mens' wishes instead of fashioning institutions that respond to the needs of today, the corruption of the two party system.... I agree with you about all of it.

I disagree with a few of your interpretations of the posts of others, but it's not worth the time discussing it now (unless you want to meet for coffee sometime in 2009.)

My view of DU and dailykos is that they and sites like them serve three purposes: blaming everyone but ourselves and our own personal heroes for the problems (waste of time); whining and complaining ad nauseum (waste of time); engaging in endless academic discussions that lead to little or no action and perpetuate the "intellectual elite" label (not a waste of time, but counterproductive for the most part.)

This site is different: the focus here seems to be to encourage and teach positive ACTIONS that will help us to reach the first step to the ideals you hold - dismantling the deadly stranglehold that the social and economic fascists have on this country at present. We need first and foremost to change minds in our local communities, in order to drum up support for transparent elections and media reform. Once we have these things, a public discourse on the issues you raise will be possible. But until then, we will continue to be the intellectual elite minority talking to eachother.

It's a question of pragmatics, not principles. You are free to spend many hours debating principles, hero worshiping and blaming the Democrats over on DU or dailykos; I hope that you continue to visit us, however.

I've already learned something from you. Thanks.
(My first post was much better.)

(continued from above...hit the post button rather than preview)

The reality is that the Founding Fathers distrusted "the people". And in a country in which intellectualism and cultural achievement has been downgraded decade after decade, and large percentages of the both the right and the left appear to have trouble coming to grips with facts - like who was really behind 9/11, years after Bin Laden proudly took credit for it - I can't say that I disagree with them.

ulTRAX wrote:
"Why is a respect for the wishes of the dead more important than a search for morally legitimate government by the living? As for those changes... all these amendments did was tweak a fundamentally flawed system. They have not dealt with the fundamental anti-democratic features of the Constitution... the EC, the Senate, and the amendment process. "

I've already explained the Electoral College to you. As for the rest of your comment, the Founders specifically wanted the Senate to be deliberative, and to serve as a counter to the more volatile people's House. And they wanted changing the Constitution to be a difficult process. Why? Because they understood human nature a lot better than you do. They didn't want the latest political fad to be capable of overtaking common sense, and changing the essential nature of the Republic every few years. And when you consider how the corporate controlled media is now capable of manipulating public opinion, I'd say that our times demonstrate how sound the Founders thinking really was.

TRAX, I just read you post to oncall.

"Yet it also calls into question the moral legitimacy of our federal system which IS based on such vote weighing schemes. The simple fact is the Right will never advocate democratic reforms for our federal government. So if the Left is mired in the dysfunctionality of our political system then those democratic reforms will never come."

I don't see why the last sentence above follows the first two. Democrats have been in power before in this country; changes have been made - environmental protections, votes for women and African Americans, etc. These were progressive changes made within the present system. Your claim that it is impossible to make the changes within the present system is simply historically incorrect. However, we need to dismantle the corporate right wing hold on the process in order to reform our institutions in the ways you suggest. We need to change the minds of about 10% of the population in order to get progressive changes into the agenda. It would be a long process, true, but, from what I can gleen from your posts, you feel that the only solution is outright revolution?

I'd be onside with that for sure if I thought it had a chance in hell of working. But from watching Bush and Rove, what works in this country is stealth and wealth, not revolution. A revolution would be quashed in a nanosecond.

"It has nothing to do with a two-party system or who runs the DNC, in my opinion." Wise Karen

Amen.

CYRANO WROTE: "I can make arguments both ways with regard to the Electoral College. It's not one of my favorite provisions, that's for sure. I would have no problem, for instance, with a state's votes being awarded on a proportional basis."

There is no way to reform the EC. At its core it's an anti-democratic vote weighing scheme. If the small states have legitimate interests to protect, there are other ways to do so without giving some citizens more power and privilege at the expense of others risking minority government. There's the Bill of Right's approach.

CYRANO WROTE: "But as I assume that you understand, the reason the electoral college still exists has to do with encouraging "greater democracy" along geographic lines rather than less. Why would any Presidential candidate ever visit a small state if winning big in the larger states could guarantee you the Presidency? That's the logic as to why smaller states still fight for the retention of the "star chamber".

Yes, after the Constitutional Convention we were sold a bill of goods. The reality is that the Constitution was written under the duress of a failing nation and was barely ratified. But 230 years later we're all brought up to believe the Constitution was a work of genius. I'd maintain only the best parts are and the EC is not on the list.

Even today there's always going to be some rationale to justify the status quo. No one could fall for those flimsy rationales if they had a deep respect for democratic principles of civic equality. As for your example, I live in safe Kerry state who the hell ever came here? The candidates spent the vast majority of their time in a few swing states. Perhaps candidates WOULD actually spend more time in other states if we had a popular vote. Why? Simply because they could not count on winner-take all EC wins in safe states. They'd have to put together a truly national strategy where every vote counted. But I also have to add that I see no reason for ANY citizens to be given extra power just because of their choice of state residence. What's the moral justification for SOME citizens to be given such rights and not other minorities? Why not racial minorities? Women? Gays? The Poor? Obviously to do so would further destroy the idea of civic equality where all votes weigh the same.

CYRANO WROTE: "The reality is that the Founding Fathers distrusted "the people". And in a country in which intellectualism and cultural achievement has been downgraded decade after decade, and large percentages of the both the right and the left appear to have trouble"

And as we've seen, the Framers trust in intrinsically beneficent patriarchs class is also misplaced. I certainly believe in checks and balances to slow down the temperamental flare ups of passion. But self-government without the ability to learn from mistakes is pointless.

Marjorie,

I agree completely. One of my father's favorite sayings when I was growing up was, "S@@t or get off the pot." We could argue forever, but now is the time for meaningul action. We could argue the finer points or those points which others feel are the cornerstone of our movement, but it will be people who are actively involved in community based cells which will help us obtain our goals.

I believe that these discussions about meaning of democracy, and where our country has gone astray, etc. are best left for a chat room. I felt compelled to reply as there will be more and more peole visiting the site, and a single blogger's post could unfortunately can be misconstrued as the main thrust of the site.

"What's the moral justification for SOME citizens to be given such rights and not other minorities? "

Why? Because all governing involves some degree of compromise. During the transitional phase from Articles of Confederation to Constitution, the rights of individuals were seen as being best safeguarded through the protection of the continued autonomy of their State. Even today, we cannot agree on essential matters of personal liberty from one state to another - like gun ownership.

"There is no way to reform the EC. "

In your opinion, you forgot to add.

CYRANO WROTE: "I've already explained the Electoral College to you. As for the rest of your comment, the Founders specifically wanted the Senate to be deliberative, and to serve as a counter to the more volatile people's House. And they wanted changing the Constitution to be a difficult process. Why? Because they understood human nature a lot better than you do. They didn't want the latest political fad to be capable of overtaking common sense, and changing the essential nature of the Republic every few years. And when you consider how the corporate controlled media is now capable of manipulating public opinion, I'd say that our times demonstrate how sound the Founders thinking really was."

I, too, was brought up to validate not question the reasons behind why the Framers wrote the Constitution as it is. But your explanation makes no difference to my argument which is coming at the Constitution from the vantage point of democratic values not historical apologetics. Most of the Framers did NOT like the idea of the Senate. They went along because they were all under duress of a failing nation and the small states held out for state suffrage. Under the circumstances, the Constitution was probably the best they could do, but it certainly was not handed down on a slab. So all the post Convention rationale about why the Senate is as it is just is irrelevant. What you're also avoiding are all the inherently desirable ideas that were compromised away in the Constitution.

As I said elsewhere, I like the idea of checks and balances and ways to slow down popular passion. But it does NOT require an anti-democratic government to accomplish this.

As for the media... I think we have to get back to matters of psychology or perhaps epistemology. Can the media manipulate, or do individual allow themselves to be manipulated? I believe in the latter. That most go though life on auto-pilot mired in self-justifying ideologies and leave themselves open to manipulation. I think the way to inoculate the public is to get the debate back to core issues so they can see their contradiction. You may be interested in this idea: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460
If not at least you'll see where I'm coming from.

My New Years Resolution:

Get to know every liberal/progressive person in my neighboring county (my precinct is actually mostly in the neighboring county...) and convince them to aim to change one right wing mind each week.

First step: I'm meeting with the district captain in the county where I actually live to discuss setting up cells in each precinct in my own district. (Confused yet?)

Second step: I'm going to carry voter registration forms in my car at all times. I've realized that the progressive young people who didn't register and vote are the ones working in the grocery stores and on the logging trucks and at the gas stations. They fill it out, I'll wait for them, then mail it in for them. Oh, and they'll all register absentee, with their parents' address. No unknowns. My friend and I are going to take one afternoon a week and set up a "Liberal/Progressive" stand outside a grocery store to register votes.

Third step: Have neighbors over. My district doesn't even run Democrats, let alone independents, it's that Republican. But we're out here, and I'm going to get us all together for a start. 2006 will be here sooner than we think. We'll need volunteers, and every vote! And we're going to use Lakoff and others to change minds.

Fourth step: My friend and I are going to have a "weekly theme" and have handouts on that theme to give to everyone we meet who is open to reading. We will focus on election reform and media reform. We will hand out articles, documents, statistical analyses, etc.

Onwards and upwards! I remember when John XXIII was the pope. He presided over the most dramatic progressive changes in the Catholic church in history. His motto?

"See everything. Overlook a great deal. Improve a little."

That's how he got everything done. Too bad the present pope is so conservative. Too bad the rogue, anti-EC bishops are trying to go backwards today. But immaterial. What we know is that John XXIII's system works.

Happy New Year, everyone!!

"But 230 years later we're all brought up to believe the Constitution was a work of genius."

Yes, we are. And yes, it was, especially considering its vintage. And I'm not against changing provisions of it when warranted. But I am against the idea that greater "democracy" in itself is a magical solution to all of our problems. Based on this election, I'd say that many voters' low level of understanding is at the core of the problem, as is corporate control of the flow of information - which may be partly responsible for voters lack of accurate information (but not entirely - since if the networks thought that they could make more money presenting Fred Friendly-ish seminars on the Constitution rather than Paris Hilton and Donald Trump, they would). You say that we mindlessly worship the Constitution, but I say that we mindlessly worship the electorate.

"That most go though life on auto-pilot mired in self-justifying ideologies and leave themselves open to manipulation." Untrax

Well, that kind of elitist thinking is never going to win anyone over. I'm sure you consider yourself to not be one of the "most" you speak of.

I no longer go to DU on principle, so can't read your linked post. Sorry.

AMY WROTE: "I don't see why the last sentence above follows the first two. Democrats have been in power before in this country; changes have been made - environmental protections, votes for women and African Americans, etc. These were progressive changes made within the present system. Your claim that it is impossible to make the changes within the present system is simply historically incorrect."

I am saying that the amendments made to the Constitution have NOT made it more democratic. All they have done is grant rights to those the Framers wanted to disenfranchise. The EC, Senate and amendment process have not been reformed. This would be painfully obvious to anyone who valued democratic ideals.

AMY WROTE: "However, we need to dismantle the corporate right wing hold on the process in order to reform our institutions in the ways you suggest. We need to change the minds of about 10% of the population in order to get progressive changes into the agenda. It would be a long process, true, but, from what I can gleen from your posts, you feel that the only solution is outright revolution?"

Since the Right will never propose democratic reforms they have to come from America's "left"... the Democrats. But the two party system has made America's left dysfunctional at best, intellectually and morally bankrupt at worst. And no... I have never called for or suggested a revolution in anything but ideology. Here's some thoughts on a 50 year plan to bring democracy to the US: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860

"I am saying that the amendments made to the Constitution have NOT made it more democratic. All they have done is grant rights to those the Framers wanted to disenfranchise. The EC, Senate and amendment process have not been reformed. This would be painfully obvious to anyone who valued democratic ideals."

Well now, here you're getting into personally attacking me with that last sentence, so this will be my last post to you.

But I would argue that reforming the EC and the Senate and the amendment process have not been as important in years past as they are today. Other issues have taken precedence, rightly so in my view, and therefore there has been no concerted effort to make the changes you seek, no movement like the suffrage movement or the civil rights movement.

So while no changes have yet been made, no concerted effort to make them has yet been mounted, either. It does not follow that it is impossible, and on this point you will have to concede that your logic is weak. The fact that it has not happened does not make it impossible.

Posted by: Amy at January 2, 2005 03:26 PM

It's easier said than done when I can't even convert my father, who despite having been screwed over by Bush still claims that Bush is the man who will help him.

It's the same man who claims that BOTH Koreas are communists and deserve to be nuked and replaced by a pro-Bush puppet regime (like Iraq).

It's the same man who claims that the Democrats are the party of nigger welfare moms who have tons of children out of wedlock, collect payments on those, and drive in Cadillacs.

You know what? If it weren't for Ronnie Reagan, his hatemonger ass would still be in Korea, being slowly cooked by those "communists" who are actually the democratizing force in South Korea.

I say when we get back our power, we first BAN further immigration from Korea. All the good Koreans stay home. All the bad ones come to America. And no matter how much we suck up to them, they will keep voting Republican. So why bother even bending over backwards? So ban them before they gather power and become the Cubans of the West Coast.

"That most go though life on auto-pilot mired in self-justifying ideologies and leave themselves open to manipulation." Untrax

AMY WROTE: "Well, that kind of elitist thinking is never going to win anyone over. I'm sure you consider yourself to not be one of the "most" you speak of."

First of all, the name's ulTRAX.

Are you suggesting it's "elitist" to recognize that there's something wrong with ideologies/belief systems that are self-justifying instead of being self-correcting. Are you suggesting it's "elitist" to see American politics in this light? I think your accusation is designed to shed more heat than light.

As for myself, I'm well aware that I don't have all the answers which is why I proposed the Think Tank project at CGCS and DU not that you'd follow a link if I provided one. I was looking forward to some new perspectives that might bring out some of my own intellectual contradictions. I remain painfully aware that despite my preoccupation with democratic principles, the Senate escaped my notice until I read a MoJo article called 75 Stars back in 98. I remain embarrassed about that lapse to this day.

AMY WROTE: I no longer go to DU on principle, so can't read your linked post. Sorry.

That's not my problem. I've provided a link. If you chose not to follow it, why not just right out and say you don't really want to partake in this discussion.

Hey Skinny. long time no see.
Not sure what Korea has to do with me...? ARe you responding to my new years resolution that I'm going to try to convince people to change some minds?

Perhaps your father is a lost cause (like my mother) and you can work on someone else. Just a few comments to a neighbor can plant a seed. As oncall and sparrow say, talking to the guy at the gas station and the woman at the corner store can make a difference. Plant seeds.

Hope you have a Happy New Year! What happened to Allie? ;-)

ulTRAX: "What's the moral justification for SOME citizens to be given such rights and not other minorities? "

CYRANO WROTE: "Why? Because all governing involves some degree of compromise. During the transitional phase from Articles of Confederation to Constitution, the rights of individuals were seen as being best safeguarded through the protection of the continued autonomy of their State. Even today, we cannot agree on essential matters of personal liberty from one state to another - like gun ownership.

As I said earlier, the Framers did the best they could do under the circumstances. Federations are at times necessary but those creating one should always be mindful of a key question... will the federation over time bring about a more united nation or perpetuate the original problems? The Constitution, unfortunately, set the primitive politics of 1787 in cement and we're all bought up to understand never critique the arangement.

ulTRAX: "There is no way to reform the EC. "

CYRANO: In your opinion, you forgot to add.

It can be refashioned... but if the fundamental concept is anti-democratic, then it can not be reformed to make it democratic. No matter what states do to reapportion their EC votes, it will remain an anti-democratic vote weighing scheme. The ONLY way to insure the votes of all citizens weighs the same is to move to a popular vote.

UlTRAX
Thanks for the Democratic Underground link.
I have a friend who lives on DU but she has by now been banned. LOL

Seriously, that was good to read.

Amy, hi!

I'm still Ally on the chat. For the sake of consistency I use my old nick on the blog.

I just flowed into a different train of thought. I used my Korean father as an example of someone I should try to change according to your call for change - but is beyond hope. Then I went on and on.

As a matter of fact, the entire Korean community in Los Angeles is beyond hope. Call it a generalization, but it's true - especially when I have their homeland (that hopelessly "communist" city of Seoul) as a comparison. In fact, a Korean in America is expected to belong to a neocon church, vote Republican, and do serious gay bashing (ever wonder why LA is not the gay mecca that SF is?) if he/she wants to get married, network, or do anything, period.

I will try to talk to other people in the meantime. I do live in a hopelessly Republican district as well, but there are some level-headed moderates out here, I hope. My Chinese mother is one of these moderates, and I did convince her to vote for Kerry even though she is an Arnold Schwarzenegger Republican. Tiny start, but a start nevertheless.

"The ONLY way to insure the votes of all citizens weighs the same is to move to a popular vote. "

For the record, I am not married to the EC. I am just articulating the rationale as to why some people want to retain it. I do think that it must either be reformed or eliminated - and that a proportional distribution of a states' electoral votes would lead to a more democratic result. Would it be perfect? I prefer to aim for greater excellence rather than perfection.

The Senate, on the other hand, is an indispensible institution. God help us if nothing but this Supreme Court stood between the popular will of Tom Delay's and George Bush's America.

ulTRAX,

You've had some interesting discussion with cyrano, oncall, karen, marjorie, amy and others.

You began this discussion with the observation that DCP "fails to even ask the basic question what IS democracy?"

You asked, "Do you have an outline of democratic principles you'll used to critique the current political system and laws?" You also referred to "true Progressive political reforms."

If you get the feeling that you're spinning your wheels here, it may be because you've misinterpreted our purpose. This is not a Constitutional Convention. Our purpose is not to go back to basics and re-invent our political system. As the name, "Democracy Cell Project," implies, this community is oriented toward action, or what we can do now to effect meaningful change within the current political system. Not that there won't be discussion of ideas for political reform, but our ambitions are more immediate--and less grand--than a 50-year plan.

Furthermore, your notions about what constitutes "true Progressive political reforms" are not universally shared, even here.

To weigh in here, "democracy cells" is even a fairly open concept, at this point. People are interested in media reform & voting reform but there is not one single position or platform, at least not yet. & people here seem to come from urban areas, rural areas, heavily Dem areas like I live in & areas where they may be fairly isolated in their beliefs. Some do not buy into labels (like Indy), some would call themselves liberal, or progressive, or moderate or Democrat or Independent or whatever - depending on the day. It's not like it's a problem so let's don't make it be. It's also fluid & changing & evolving, without some of the constraints of being linked to a campaign or candidate or even an election year.

I, for one, am glad to see new input, just as I enjoyed it during the election year on the candidates' sites.

DiAnne,

We will leave all third party discussion to you, and your skills learned from Nader fan interventions in Seattle. You're good, and alot more patient than I certainly am.

ulTRAX: "But 230 years later we're all brought up to believe the Constitution was a work of genius."

CYRANO WROTE: Yes, we are. And yes, it was, especially considering its vintage. And I'm not against changing provisions of it when warranted. But I am against the idea that greater "democracy" in itself is a magical solution to all of our problems."

I have no idea what YOU mean by the term "greater democracy". And I also have no claims that democratic reforms will be a "magical solution to all of our problems". All democracy can cure are the problems related to the moral legitimacy of government and issues such as the following:
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.
* Maximizing citizen participation by guaranteeing the above.

Just what choices will be made by a more democratic nation... I think they are likely to be more in line with the advanced industrial democracies. This blog format doesn't really lend itself to introducing a new topic such as why America is so retrograde compared to the other advanced democracies.

CYRANO WROTE: "Based on this election, I'd say that many voters' low level of understanding is at the core of the problem, as is corporate control of the flow of information - which may be partly responsible for voters lack of accurate information (but not entirely - since if the networks thought that they could make more money presenting Fred Friendly-ish seminars on the Constitution rather than Paris Hilton and Donald Trump, they would). You say that we mindlessly worship the Constitution, but I say that we mindlessly worship the electorate."

Would it not be preferable to eliminate mindless worship generally?

I've addressed the topic of the media in another post. I'm opposed to media consolidation. But you're ignoring each citizen's responsibility to not allow themselves to be manipulated. Yes this is made more difficult if most citizens are on auto-pilot... and by that I mean mired in self-justifying belief systems. But if that's the problem, then the solution is to inoculate them. I believe that starts by returning to core values and building a coherent paradigm from the bottom up. We need some vision for where we want to take this nation in the next 50 years.

ulTRAX: "The ONLY way to insure the votes of all citizens weighs the same is to move to a popular vote. "

CYRANO WROTE: "For the record, I am not married to the EC. I am just articulating the rationale as to why some people want to retain it. I do think that it must either be reformed or eliminated - and that a proportional distribution of a states' electoral votes would lead to a more democratic result. Would it be perfect? I prefer to aim for greater excellence rather than perfection."

As long as there's an EC.. then you can have 100% voting age participation, 100% vote count accuracy, 100% public financing... and the election loser can still be imposed upon the nation. If this is your idea of "greater excellence", then your original standards must be pretty dismal. You say you're not wedded to the EC. So if the rationale you have given doesn't hold up... and the reforms you propose can not guarantee an election winner will actually win in the EC... what do you propose?

CYRANO WORTE: "The Senate, on the other hand, is an indispensable institution. God help us if nothing but this Supreme Court stood between the popular will of Tom Delay's and George Bush's America."

I agree there should be a second chamber... but there's NO need for this check on a president or the House to be anti-democratic. Why do both chambers have to be based on geography? It's because the politics of 1787 prevented any other arrangement. Well this is 230 years later. If we can't NOW begin to rethink what we want for government... when will we?

I'd much prefer an ideological check on the House and leave regional representation to them. I'd like the Senate to become a national Parliament based on party elections. If the Greens or Libertarians each get 10% of the national vote they'd each get 10% of the seats. These citizens who now perpetually endure taxation without representation FINALLY would be represented in the national government. Such proportional representation is the only way to break the hold of the 2-party system move to a true multi-party system. Since I am one of those citizens who pays taxes yet is denied representation, I resent the Democratic Party for standing in the way of such progressive reform.

cyrano, skinnylawyer, & ultrax

I will agree that electoral reform would be a positive thing. The 2 party system we have is too rigid and unresponsive. But the problem is not as much the electoral college as it is in the winner take all rule. Indeed, if the weighting of EC votes were eliminated and apportioned sole on the basis of state population, but winner take all were retained, there would still be a 2 party system. Where as if the weights were retained but winner-take-all were changed to proportional representation in the EC, third parties would have much more power in the EC, especially in close elections.

Somewhere recently I saw a reference that Barbara Boxer would be introducing a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC. That would be great, but the hurdle of getting an amendment through both chambers of congress, an amendment that would weakens the 2 party system that is currently dominated by one party, seems extremely remote. Congress is made up almost entirely of members of the two parties, so its not likely such an amendment would get very far. At best, the Democratic Party members would support it, but that hardly gets us to 2/3 or 3/4 ratification.

So where does that leave us?

The other route is via a constitutional convention, which can be called by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Again the same problem exists as the two parties dominate these legislatures. But the initiative process could force many states to join the call. So there is a little more hope that a call for a convention would be successful, but still we are talking about a process lasting decade or more.

I don't think most of us are willing to wait that long while progressive issues remain sidelined and the far right continues in power.

To win against the far right, we need the support of all of the center and left. Democrats and progressive third parties should look for ways to unite in forging a new approach to the presidential election. With a change in the electoral system and a constitutional amendment both very unlikely, what can be done. Third parties are not yet willing to work within the democratic party structure. If there is not a level of trust and agreement as to the conduct of the campaign sufficient to warrant forming the coalition within the democratic tent, then work an arrangement to overcome winner take all. Let the 3rd parties join in the general election. That gets more federal election money in the hands of the progressive parties. But negotiate for throwing support to the leading progressive candidate, make promises to third party participation in the cabinet, and throw support to a single candidate so as to beat the winner take all system.

We are stuck with our system of electing presidents for the near future. To win, center and left must somehow work out the arrangment for forming a coalition and throwing support to one candidate before the election date. There are advantages to not forcing that coalition formation within the Democratic Party structure -- not the least of which is increasing targeted appeal by multiple parties to voter groups, and giving the republicans a fit over several opponents. But the center-left must understand that winning in the climate of the individual winner-take-all state contests requires there be only one center-left candidate on election day (or month).

Posted by: DiAnne at January 2, 2005 05:16 PM

DiAnne, I must respectfully disagree with you that LABELS and LANGUAGE are indeed a problem. How many times during the last election was our language twisted and perverted into something less than desirable all for a sound bite or blatant lie?

Infinately.

And as you are fond of saying, my friend, you are a citizen of the world, as am I, as are we all...we are the children of all Nations, but to bring about the change we all so desire within our society, we must find a uniting theme that cannot be usurped and bent to define the belief system of a single party.

We are Americans...let us be proud of that once again. Let us share the pride in our past, responsibility for our present and make real the dream of our infinate future.

Strong and simple language that binds us all is what will define and direct our actions...the Truth of our collective message is what will reach those who differ in ideology or faith...and in honoring the wisdom of the past...in knowing history...our history...our world's history and in educating others in the profound meaning of The Constitution and the principles and doctrines upon which our Nation was founded we will move forward.

There are those that propose we change the "mistakes" of the Founding Fathers...to them I would say the oversights have been corrected, in the Amendments to The Constitution and within the Bill of Rights and yet, if there is room for improvement without detriment to the core PRINCIPLES contained within, then let us rally a spririted debate, but never think ourselves elightened or intelligent enough to permanently defile that which we barely understand...that has been the folly of mankind from hallowed antiquity.

Tag...you're it! =p

ulTRAX: "I am saying that the amendments made to the Constitution have NOT made it more democratic. All they have done is grant rights to those the Framers wanted to disenfranchise. The EC, Senate and amendment process have not been reformed. This would be painfully obvious to anyone who valued democratic ideals."

AMY WROTE: Well now, here you're getting into personally attacking me with that last sentence, so this will be my last post to you.

Of course YOU weren't making any personal attacks butchering my name or calling me an elitist, right? Despite your claims, my comment wasn't a personal attack. If someone truly believes in a value or idea... then it's outwardly observable in their words/actions. Think the person who's determined to get a job. They'll triple check their resume. They'll prepare to get to the interview early, they'll have their references available. If someone claims to believe in democratic ideals then they will go out of their way to identify them... they will look to see how they can be implanted... and identify the obstacles that are in the way. They'll plan to overcome the obstacles. Compare that to someone who wraps themselves in a term because they believe it confers some moral legitimacy but don't really care much more. I believe we all have a hierarchy of values. We can deduce another's by the choices they make.

AMY: But I would argue that reforming the EC and the Senate and the amendment process have not been as important in years past as they are today. Other issues have taken precedence, rightly so in my view, and therefore there has been no concerted effort to make the changes you seek, no movement like the suffrage movement or the civil rights movement.

And I'd argue that reforming the Senate and the EC are still fringe issues. Why? Because when it comes to our hierarchy of values... most value historical apologetics over democratic ideals. Democratic ideals are NOT valued in this nation.... and even the Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy itself.

AMY: So while no changes have yet been made, no concerted effort to make them has yet been mounted, either. It does not follow that it is impossible, and on this point you will have to concede that your logic is weak. The fact that it has not happened does not make it impossible.

I have not said anything is impossible except to pretend the EC can be made democratic. What I have said is that our Constitution is essentially reform-proof. I think it's going to take at least 50 years to get rid of the EC... and there's a lot of ground work that has to be laid down first. You'd know that if you bothered to follow the links I've provided to my posts on these issues at DU. But you refuse. So, ya, I see no point continuing our discussion.

Marjorie

I'm pretty pleased with the debate as its going!

Re. factions in the Dem party -

We do have an interesting situation developing in my state, however! If moderate Dem Chris Gregoire is governor largely because she stayed & fought & liberal/progressive Dems from around the country helped her, then they will now feel she owes a debt to them. She is seen differently locally v nationally now.

Re third parties -

I don't have a problem with them, or 4th or 5th parties. I have a problem with the fact that we are not practically living in a one-party state with totalitarian/authoritarian tendencies! I think around election time there will be the usual unification around what is to some the ideal candidate & to some "the lesser of two evils." I think it's been that way in this country ever since i can remember!

Indy -

I don't advocate for labels. I just felt that people who come to this site might be those who like to label themselves, those who don't like to label themselves & that the labels would not all be one type, such as "progressive" or "liberal" or "independent" or what have you. Hence some of the debate v the "preaching to the converted" that is seen on some sites.

I believe "think globally, act locally" so that's why I emphasize alliances with those from other countries. Even if nations don't do it, there is nothing stopping us as individuals. We do not have to pay attention to our xenophobic conditionining at all!

& I also have no problem with saying that I am not patriotic, unless I am able to define for myself what that means. It is too easily distorted and perverted into Nationalism, which is what I think we have been seeing in this country. Many are rallying around something quite different than what they think!!

I think it's going to take at least 50 years to get rid of the EC - UlTRAC

Agreed.

BOB-IN-CO WROTE: "Somewhere recently I saw a reference that Barbara Boxer would be introducing a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC. That would be great, but the hurdle of getting an amendment through both chambers of congress, an amendment that would weakens the 2 party system that is currently dominated by one party, seems extremely remote. Congress is made up almost entirely of members of the two parties, so its not likely such an amendment would get very far. At best, the Democratic Party members would support it, but that hardly gets us to 2/3 or 3/4 ratification."

The path to democratic reform will have to be fought on many fronts.... ideological and legal. One interim step might be to seek an amendment to make passing amendments less difficult. Currently states with as little as 4.5% of the population have the power to stop all amendments. This figure is sure to shrink. This is ridiculous. The Framers didn't provide any safety net for demographic trends. I'd like to see the ratification process based upon a percentage of the US population... not states. I also would like to get state legislatures out of the picture by having a popular ratification vote included in federal elections. But I also want to protect against a rush to pass an amendment so maybe it might take 66% of voters... or maybe 50% of ALL voting age citizens to pass... and even then over 2 voting cycles.

BOB-IN-CO WROTE: "The other route is via a constitutional convention, which can be called by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Again the same problem exists as the two parties dominate these legislatures. But the initiative process could force many states to join the call. So there is a little more hope that a call for a convention would be successful, but still we are talking about a process lasting decade or more."

I shudder at the thought. We saw how those invited to the original convention protected the interests of those who attended and left others out in the cold. Now we have powerful political parties and corporations that will seek to protect their interests. I'd like to see a lot more work done to insure the delegates are not packed with special interests and the public was inoculated against special interest appeals before this route was taken.

BOB-IN-CO WROTE: "To win against the far right, we need the support of all of the center and left. Democrats and progressive third parties should look for ways to unite in forging a new approach to the presidential election. With a change in the electoral system and a constitutional amendment both very unlikely, what can be done. Third parties are not yet willing to work within the democratic party structure."

And with good reason. I think that last time I voted for a major party presidential candidate was McGovern in 72. I worked to get Kerry elected but I held my nose voting for him. I believe the path to a true multi-party system on the federal level has to start with democratic reforms at the state level. Third parties have to find a way to work with the Dems yet not be corrupted by them. I believe support should be for candidates that are willing to support democratic reforms that will break the back of the 2 party system not strengthen it.

BOB-IN-CO WROTE: If there is not a level of trust and agreement as to the conduct of the campaign sufficient to warrant forming the coalition within the democratic tent, then work an arrangement to overcome winner take all. Let the 3rd parties join in the general election. That gets more federal election money in the hands of the progressive parties. But negotiate for throwing support to the leading progressive candidate, make promises to third party participation in the cabinet, and throw support to a single candidate so as to beat the winner take all system."

I believe there's a range of democratic reforms Progressives can insist Democrats support to get their endorsement.. reform such as outlawing all forms of Gerrymandering, proportional representation, and provision for run-off voting. In my home state we have two chambers... both based on set geographical districts. I'd like to see the State Senate be based upon proportional representation. It would open up the process to third parties. It would allow the infrastructure and talent of those parties to develop. I'm less sure what to do with the House. It's difficult to provide regional representation except with single district voting where a winner takes all. Of course districts can be merged.... and IRV can be employed... but representatives get further removed from the districts that elect them.

Nice to see Dem / 3rd party dialogue & have to remember the contribution of 3rd party candidates in getting the Ohio recount (even though it appears to have been a farce because they basically recounted the same stuff w/o dealing with the underlying problems - probably impossible by that point).

ulTRAX -
Kerry was lst Dem you voted for since McGovern? Glad you did it! Kerry was the lst Dem I worked hard for since Eugene McCarthy & McGovern. I think we came close.

I am lifelong Dem but I still think the whole system is pretty rotten & that transcends both parties. In that sense, I agree with alot of 3rd party positions.

I had alot of Kucinich friends here in Seattle but didn't want a repeat of Nader 2000 so we had a group called One Voice for Change, later Progressives United for Change, to unify progressive voters around Kerry in Seattle. Dean was huge here & those peple worked with us later, Clark & Edwards people. We did get over 80% Dem in this county, as a result.

Now our moderate Dem governor is going to have to try to work with the whole state & that means the much more conservative east & the progressive west. Nice article today in Seattle Times about this, with the guy from the BackBone Campaign of Vashon Island. I'd like to see this happen all over the country.

Liberals Hope Gregoire Will Help Repay Support

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002138165_gregoire02m.html

DiAnne Wrote: "ulTRAX - Kerry was lst Dem you voted for since McGovern? Glad you did it! Kerry was the lst Dem I worked hard for since Eugene McCarthy & McGovern. I think we came close."

No... the first Dem for president since McGovern. I can't remember if I voted Dukakis. I used to contract with the state and was pretty upset with his creative accounting of state finances as the "Massachusetts Miracle" fell apart in 88. I used to vote for Kerry when he ran for state positions then when he ran for Senator. I once saw him as a person of integrity during his anti-war days. But I stopped voting for him when he supported NAFTA. Then I also don't vote for Kennedy because of Chappaquiddick. If either were in trouble as senator I would, but as long as they have safe seats I'm free to vote my conscience.

ulTRAX -
Well you must be from Massachusetts & that's a fairly progressive state, like Washington, so we have the luxury of being more idealistic than pragmatic sometimes. I personally like Kerry & Kennedy alot but didn't expect to agree on all positions right on down the line.

This was a wierd election. By working with his website (as a volunteer) as well as locally w/Dems and others I was able to see how people in some parts of the country are between a rock & a hard place. The whole concept of "safe seats" mostly belongs to Republicans in some districts.

That's the horrific part right now. I don't go through much of a day before I see some sort of serious comparison with fascism! Are people being dramatic or are we really in its "velvet glove" already?

DiAnne Wrote: Well you must be from Massachusetts & that's a fairly progressive state, like Washington, so we have the luxury of being more idealistic than pragmatic sometimes. I personally like Kerry & Kennedy alot but didn't expect to agree on all positions right on down the line.

I'd hate to lose either just because they are better than GOPers... but as a Progressive, and by that I mean left of the Dems but pretty mainstream in the broader context of western industrial democracies, I see the Dems here in the US as obstacles to the reforms I want to see. They have succumbed to the corrupting dynamics of our 2 party system and placed that as a higher priority than working for reforms to break out of this trap.

DiAnne Wrote: This was a wierd election. By working with his website (as a volunteer) as well as locally w/Dems and others I was able to see how people in some parts of the country are between a rock & a hard place. The whole concept of "safe seats" mostly belongs to Republicans in some districts.

The GOP doesn't have any monopoly in Gerrymandering to create safe seats or to deprive the other side of due representation. In the early 90s the Dems in Texas rigged the districts to give themselves 70% of the seats in Congress when they were only getting about 50% of the votes.

DiAnne Wrote: "That's the horrific part right now. I don't go through much of a day before I see some sort of serious comparison with fascism! Are people being dramatic or are we really in its "velvet glove" already?"

After 911 it's easy to see how the US might go fascist. The population is not well enough inoculated against the fear and flag tactics used by the neo-cons. This is another reason why I believe it's crucial to revisit and have a constant dialog about core concepts such as democracy itself.

As I wrote in another posts, I believe we all have a hierarchy of values.... which is not to say we are aware of what it is. Those firmly grounded in their core beliefs about the People's role in democracy are more immune to being manipulated than those who have a blind faith in the words of the President or the flag wavers. Yet the Democratic Party, itself, is too mired in the dynamics of the 2 party system to even bother about core beliefs. They are quite happy having the blind belief of Democratic voters.

I know what you are saying - but this doesn't tell how to overthrow the Republicans. Reforming the Democrats will overthrow the Republicans? My son argues the opposite. It's confusing.

I understand what is wrong with the parties & political system. What I can't fathom is the blindness of so many people in this country. Is it our educational system? Is is out comfort level materially?

I have pretty much given up on working domestically other than pitching in where I can. My hope lies with all the people of the world against Bush.

Sad.

DiAnne Wrote: "I understand what is wrong with the parties & political system. What I can't fathom is the blindness of so many people in this country. Is it our educational system? Is is out comfort level materially?

I think you're on the verge of answering your own question... it's the ideology that's the problem... the problem is in everyone's heads. I think all our problems are ideological... ya, bad laws exist but they can overturned if there's public pressure.

When I say ideology I mean essentially belief systems that instead of self-correcting when new information comes in, they self-justify and block threatening information. This is usually a feature we associate with religion... but I'd argue it's pretty much the norm in most areas of human existence. We are awash with self-justifying belief systems from our personal psychological defense mechanisms to political and social dogmas such as patriotism, nationalism. We are raised to places the Founders on a pedestal and it's become a secular religion. As such it sends all sorts of implicit messages such as we must only understand why the Framers devised the Constitution as it is... and we should never question its faults. We're raised to believe that we are in a 2-party system but never encouraged to think about reforming it... probably because it conflicts with what the Founders intended.

Since I see this battleground as in each individual, we have to encourage change on that level. We have to encourage individuals to identify and confront their own contradictions.... call it values clarification or political psychoanalysis. For example... just look at the problems here where people who think they are defenders of democracy against the evil Right are themselves resistant to the idea of actually defining what the hell they think democracy is. On some level they instinctively know the process will conflict with their other beliefs.

One idea I have to counter this was in this proposal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2873568 I proposed it also at commongroundcommonsense but the mainstream Democrats found it too threatening and immediately tried to sabotage it.

"Since I see this battleground as in each individual, we have to encourage change on that level. We have to encourage individuals to identify and confront their own contradictions.... call it values clarification or political psychoanalysis. "

Not that I disagree with your sentiments here, since I advocate the same thing all the time, if in a completely different context, but...do you really think these issues rise to a level where they might ever justify the tremendous effort required to see these changes happen? I don't. If I'm going to ask people to identify their internal contradictions, it's going to be in service of a revolution in human consciousness and awareness, a revolution that will fundamentally alter our relationship to every other American, every other human being, not to mention the natural world. In a country supposedly dedicated to "the pursuit of happiness", we sure have a lot of people taking prozac, self-medicating with legal and illegal substances, or tuning out reality by tuning into an escapist conception of God.

CYRANO WROTE: "Not that I disagree with your sentiments here, since I advocate the same thing all the time, if in a completely different context, but...do you really think these issues rise to a level where they might ever justify the tremendous effort required to see these changes happen? I don't."

Do we have any choice? Obviously the Right has no such reservations about thinking big... and it's paying off.

I'm not sure you appreciate the dynamics here. Here's my honest, no holds barred opinion.

In the face of a paradigm shift rightward... unless the "Left" begins to have its own clear vision based in a coherent paradigm... it will be relegating itself to obstructionism and tweaking the Right's agenda rather than working towards its own vision. I think it's obvious that's already happening. Those who advocate a further move to the Right will only accelerate the collapse of the Left because they are not maintaining or building a constituency for Progressive principles. The Dems have reduced themselves to a collection of constituency groups and pass it off their positions as principle. Ya, there's the vague slogans about how the Democrats stand for democracy and equality blah blah... but as we've seen here... no one seems to care enough about these concepts to fully flesh them out. In this monster thread... has anyone tried to flesh out the concept of democracy besides myself? Isnt that curious given how many people claim to be putting democracy into action? Such terms have been reduced to window dressing. They allow Dems to feel good about themselves without having to threaten any sacred cows. It echoes what I see as the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party... a Party so lost in gaming a dysfunctional 2 party system that it actually makes that a higher priority that working towards Progressive change. In fact the Dems seem to spend as much time obstructing Progressive change as they do obstructing the Right.

I'm supposed to defend the two party system, right? The only way I can do that is to rail against the one party system. That's sad.

Good discussion here. I can't see that anyone fundamentally disagrees with you UlTRAX. I see it as the ongoing battle between idealism & pragmatism & it's been going on forever.

Something is going to come to a head if this isn't resolved eventually, and it may not be pretty.

Democrats and progressives are now up against the same wall.

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."

Abraham Lincoln

DiAnne Wrote: "Good discussion here. I can't see that anyone fundamentally disagrees with you UlTRAX. I see it as the ongoing battle between idealism & pragmatism & it's been going on forever."

Just goes to show how varied our perceptions can be. I didn't think anyone here really agreed with me. As for the battle between idealism and pragmatism... I think this is false dichotomy. If the imperatives of dysfunctional political system are so insidious that it forces decent people water down or betray their convictions... why is opposing that system "idealism"? Is it not the only real pragmatic choice?

It all depends on where you start your analysis.

UlTRAX
I don't know that I think either approach is going to work, unfortunately.

Call me a cynic.

I have always been to the left of the Democratic party & but have also stuck with the party all this time.

I think our foreign policy is deeply flawed for at least the last 50 years so I think much more than the party would have to be reformed. I wouuldn't even know where to start & what I'm talking about will probably not be something that can ever be done by the people of the US, at least not alone.

My hope wavers but I'm just used to this.

Opinion?
Evaluation?

http://www.fairvote.org/

Here is an article where Howard Dean is saying some of the things I keep seeing on the internet about where the Democratic party needs to go.

http://www.alternet.org/story/20878/

I'm just reporting. If I knew what would work, others would too & we wouldn't be in this mess (or not as bad). Some good ideas here though.

He also says Kerry campaign didn't use ideas from the grassroots. That is & isn't true. He also says his campaign did. That is & isn't true. I say this from having "been there" during the primaries & having done alot of research on both campaigns.

There is no way Kerry or Dean or even I can speak without bias about what we have been through so we all have to step back & be very objective now.

DiAnne--I totally agree with you. One of the problems is that as the revisionist rhetoric continues to unfold, in the service of advancing a particular candidate's career, very little learning has taken place. I say this about ALL the candidates, even the successful ones.

The media ia no help here--they have an agenda too. But I am glad to be able to come here, with people with whom I spent the past year learning, and have an honest discussion.

WE can learn from what we experienced. We can apply that learning here and on the ground. And WE can speak truth to power. We had better!

Advancing one's career, yes, as the Dean movement and Howard have been doing for some time, as well as others. Especially with moving towards his role at the DNC. The eating one's own over the IWR vote was a good example of never learning.

John Kerry announces he's learning, and what a wonderful trait for a president that would have made.

DiAnne worte: "Opinion?
Evaluation? http://www.fairvote.org/"

Generally one of the better sites that discuss voting systems. In light of all the common sense options to improve our voting system, isn't it odd that most people don't even think about how dysfunctional our system is? Where are our political leaders? Where's the goddamn Democratic Party? They are AWOL on democracy. The spend all their time trying to game our dysfunctional 2 party system instead of trying to reform it.

ulTRAX
Agreed - still need step x step for how to do it & win, get rid of the sickos. Be aware that I have read your long piece on DU. It was good.

ultrax:

You know nothing about Texas politics. To equate what was legitimately drawn districts overseen by a fedarl court to what Tom DeLay did with Texas Redistricting is repulsive. Why did Texas Democrats win a majority of Congressional seats in the 1990s. It was simple. We had superior candidates who got out and met with conservative constituents and served their interests as well. I am personal friends with several ex Texas Congressmen and worked on their campaigns; ken Bentsen and Chris Bell. They were great candidates and ran superior campaigns that connected with voters. Republicans hijacked our districts with Districts that ran from the Valley to Houston. I know this because I attented and spoke at numerous Redistricting hearings. It was a farce that violates every civil rights ruling in the 20th century. That is the difference that you ignore in your comments. Unless you are from Texas you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in regards to Texas Redistricting.

If you want to promote your Naderites pablum that they are all the same, take it elsewhere.

IRA WROTE: "You know nothing about Texas politics. To equate what was legitimately drawn districts overseen by a federal court to what Tom DeLay did with Texas Redistricting is repulsive."

I'm only quoting figures, as I remember them, from the book How Democratic Is The American Constitution by Robert Dalh. As I recall he was rather vague referring only to the early 90's so I am assuming we're talking about the redistricting after the 1990 Census... and the 92 and 94 congressional elections.

IRA WROTE: "Why did Texas Democrats win a majority of Congressional seats in the 1990s. It was simple. We had superior candidates who got out and met with conservative constituents and served their interests as well."

The quality of the candidates is NOT the issue... in fact you are AVOIDING the issue which is Gerrymandering. Here's your options if you want a retraction. You can to present the official Texas vote counts for the 92 and 94 elections showing the percentage of the statewide Democratic congressional vote matches the percentage of congressional seats the Dems won... OR that I misquoted Dalh. Your move Sport.

IRA WROTE: "Republicans hijacked our districts with Districts that ran from the Valley to Houston."

Was I defending what the GOP did? I'm opposed to Gerrymandering regardless of which Party does it. I can only hope you are too. We'll see.

IRA WROTE: "If you want to promote your Naderites pablum that they are all the same, take it elsewhere"

As of this date I am still a Democrat. I worked hard to get Kerry elected in 2004. Much of my criticism of the Dems is because I believe the Party is intellectually and morally bankrupt. One would see such moral bankruptcy in, say, defending one party's gerrymandering yet condemning another's.

IRA WROTE: "To equate what was legitimately drawn districts overseen by a fedarl court to what Tom DeLay did with Texas Redistricting is repulsive. Why did Texas Democrats win a majority of Congressional seats in the 1990s. It was simple. We had superior candidates who got out and met with conservative constituents and served their interests as well."

I can't find the original Dahl quote so I did a spread sheet off of the 92 election results at
http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/489292a.pdf

My first run shows some 2.8 million votes for Democratic Congressional candidates and the GOP got 2.7 million. But the breakdown shows that Dems took about 70% of the congressional districts.

How can this be because of "superior candidates" when Dems only got a bit over 50% of the vote? Is this your idea of the moral superiority of the Democrats over Tom Delay? If so you have no credibility.

I should not have to ask for an apology.

Final Numbers of 1992 Texas Congressional vote:

Party Votes Seats Won
DEM 2806044 (50.2%) 21 (70%)
GOP 2685970 (48%) 9 (30%)
OTHER 97157 (1.7%)

TOTAL 5589171

Let me repost with hopes the columns will be more clear:

Final Numbers of 1992 Texas Congressional vote:

Party----Votes-----------Seats Won
DEM-----2806044 (50.2%)--- 21 (70%)
GOP-----2685970 (48%)------ 9 (30%)
OTHER-----97157 (1.7%)

Since I assume Ira to be a person of principle, I can only believe that after calling Tom Delay's redistricting plan "It was a farce that violates every civil rights ruling in the 20th century." he'll also now publically condemn the Democrats for doing the exact same thing just 14 years ago.

Again ultrex you know 0 about Texas politics and less than o about Texas Redistricting. Texas has Redistricted every ten years based on CENSUS figures, not voting patterns. That was the testimony by Richard Murray and numerous EXPERTS about redistricting from the Brookings Institute to the Cato Institute. Delay will soon be under indictment for funneling CORPORATE contributions, which is illegal under the Texas Penal Code to get Republicans elected to our state legislature with the evil intent of Redistricting after two years rather than the traditional 10 years every other state does. Population patterns show that Hispanics who traditionally vote 65-70% for Democrats were the fastest growing ethnic group in this state. Districts are intended to maximize ethnic and population patterns, not voting patterns as you and Tom Delay seem to agree on. The Valley is over 400 miles from Houston.

I challenge you to submit any other district in the country that is sptraed out like that. The candidates Republicans ran in Senate District 7 for the Republicans were the sorriest candidates I have ever seen in 30 years of politics. I live in a predominently Republican Precinct that has according to our District Clerk voted 70% for Bush and 60% for Chris Bell and Ken Bentsen ,both Dems. Bush's home county voted 75% for Bush and 60% for their Dem Congressman. So please don't come here and preach to me about Redistricting. Did I also mention that the 5th Circuit Federal Court Reviewed, Oversaw, and Approved the 1990 Redistricting Plan in Texas. In effect it was designed by the 5th Circuit b/c we then had a very Democratic State Legislature that the Republicans did not trust. In 2003 Kyle Janek and Bill Ratliff the legislature pushing Redistricting testified that he was not worried about the federal courts, b/c he knew the Supreme Court would take a pass on Texas Redistricting.

Do not in your wildest dreams compare legitimate Redistricting with what Tom Delay et al. did last year. By the way a Houston Chronicle poll taken immediately after our second special session passing Redistricting stated that 68% of the state was totally against 'this odd year Redistricting. Considering that Bush won Texas by 21% points that means that close to 40% of Texas REPUBLICAN voters opposed Texas Redistricting. By the way are you for using Homeland Security Funds and the FAA to tract the planes of Texas Congressmen and approve of calls by Tom Delay to hospitals to harrass State Senator Rodney Ellis family daughter was sick and proportedly in a New Mexico hospital.By the wy Senate Ditrict 7 has voted Democratic for over 30 years, until this latest Redistricting stunt. That means it has a voting pattern which you wrongly rely on over 3 10 year redistricting sessions that has been overwhelmingly been Democratic and suddenly isn't I dknow b/c I have worked on at least 10 of this campaigns. Don't get me started b/c I am furious that you would come to this site and declare that you on an expert on Texas districts and voting patterns and population patterns.

IRA WROTE: "Texas has Redistricted every ten years based on CENSUS figures, not voting patterns."

Census figures only are used for apportionment of congressional seats and to insure districts are roughly the same size. Those are federal issues. The inclusion of voting registration and patterns in redistricting is a state issue.

IRA WROTE: "Delay will soon be under indictment for funneling CORPORATE contributions, which is illegal under the Texas Penal Code to get Republicans elected to our state legislature with the evil intent of Redistricting after two years rather than the traditional 10 years every other state does. Population patterns show that Hispanics who traditionally vote 65-70% for Democrats were the fastest growing ethnic group in this state. Districts are intended to maximize ethnic and population patterns, not voting patterns as you and Tom Delay seem to agree on. The Valley is over 400 miles from Houston."

My original comment was NOT about DeLay but about Gerrymandering by Dems in 1990 and I've proven my figures were correct. Stop trying to change the topic.

IRA WROTE: "I challenge you to submit any other district in the country that is sptraed out like that. The candidates Republicans ran in Senate District 7 for the Republicans were the sorriest candidates I have ever seen in 30 years of politics. I live in a predominantly Republican Precinct that has according to our District Clerk voted 70% for Bush and 60% for Chris Bell and Ken Bentsen ,both Dems. Bush's home county voted 75% for Bush and 60% for their Dem Congressman. So please don't come here and preach to me about Redistricting."

I'm not out to defend DeLay. The issue is whether the Dems also play dirty in Texas. BTW I don't see either of the candidates you keep mentioning even winning seats in 92.

IRA WROTE: "Did I also mention that the 5th Circuit Federal Court Reviewed, Oversaw, and Approved the 1990 Redistricting Plan in Texas. In effect it was designed by the 5th Circuit b/c we then had a very Democratic State Legislature that the Republicans did not trust."

No you didn't. But it still doesn't clear the Dems of the charge of Gerrymandering... a quite common practice used by a party in control to place the other party at a political disadvantage. Your earlier comment that the Dems ran better candidates really does NOT explain anything. I'm beginning to suspect it's the standard excuse Texas Dems use. You're trying to say that because GOP voters voted for Dems, that's why they won 70% of the seats. But the REAL issue here is that Dems won those seats with only 50% of the votes. Is that sinking in yet? Didn't think so.

IRA WROTE: "Do not in your wildest dreams compare legitimate Redistricting with what Tom Delay et al. did last year. By the way a Houston Chronicle poll taken immediately after our second special session passing Redistricting stated that 68% of the state was totally against 'this odd year Redistricting."

I'm no fan of DeLay. We all know he's as sleazy as they come. But that hardly means any side has a monopoly on virtue. You seem to want to turn the issue back to DeLay when my original comment was about 1990. If you call a party getting 70% of the seats with only 50% of the votes "legitimate redistricting" that says a lot about your commitment to democratic principles.

IRA WROTE: "Considering that Bush won Texas by 21% points that means that close to 40% of Texas REPUBLICAN voters opposed Texas Redistricting. By the way are you for using Homeland Security Funds and the FAA to tract the planes of Texas Congressmen and approve of calls by Tom Delay to hospitals to harass State Senator Rodney Ellis family daughter was sick and purportedly in a New Mexico hospital.

Who cares about Bush. THIS was my original statement responding to DiAnne who claimed the GOP seemed to have a lock on safe seats:

"The GOP doesn't have any monopoly in Gerrymandering to create safe seats or to deprive the other side of due representation. In the early 90s the Dems in Texas rigged the districts to give themselves 70% of the seats in Congress when they were only getting about 50% of the votes."

I've proven this to be true. Yet you gloss over that trying to divert attention to DeLay when my original comments had NOTHING to do with DeLay. Your inability to acknowledge that your comments were unfair are duly noted... as is your defense of Gerrymandering by the Dems.

IRA WROTE: "Don't get me started b/c I am furious that you would come to this site and declare that you on an expert on Texas districts and voting patterns and population patterns."

And did I say that? No. But what I continue to be appalled at is your contention that the Dems DESERVE 70% of the seats when there were getting a mere 50% of the votes.

Gerrymandering is the issue. It's just one method of depriving citizens of representation. I would like to believe that Democrats have some higher commitment to democracy than the Right. But Texas politics proves that's not true.

Saw a very interesting Frontline on PBS last night.

It was titled "The Jesus Factor."

Shows the process of using evangelicals to tip the political scales.

Interviews VERY influential evangelical political leaders, and gives their names, titles, and organizations.

You can also see which leaders are with Bush, and who disagree with crossing the line
between church and state. Discusses the "you either agree with us, or you are against us" mentality.

Also had a blurb of Bush saying he would appoint judges who "relate" to God in his first bid,
and of course we all know he flatly denied that was a criteria during the 2004 debates. Hmmm.
Wouldn't that be Very Handy right about now in congress?

Gets into dollars spent on faith-based groups. 1.1 billion dollars have been spent on faith-based
groups, yet Jewish and Muslim groups have not received any of that.

This probably goes without saying, but we need to keep away from arguing against or attacking
any personal religious belief (there are literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, for example, in the
United States alone, and each denomination thinks it is the only one who has the
truth and the light and the way). What they need desperately is to have their eyes opened to the dangers of crossing the line between church and state. They need to be informed until they understand how their own personal freedoms are at stake by allowing abuse of theology.

Also, they need to be reminded that George W. Bush took an oath of office that he would protect and
defend the constitution of the United States. And that he needs to live up to it. After all, as he said in this broadcast, "Individuals should be responsible and accountable for their actions." We should insist to
evangelical leaders and inter-denominational leaders that he do just that, and that THEY should hold him
accountable. IMHO, this is the biggest key of all.

The transcript is available on pbs.org. You can also WATCH the replay online, and enter the
discussion there. The tape can be ordered in either CD or VHS at: 1-800-PLAY-PBS
for $29.99. The Jesus Factor aired 1-04-05.

Mike Andrews was our Democratic Representative in the 1990s if you bothered to day any research and Bob Eckardt our Dem Rep. from 1975- till 1985. You get it moron. I live in a democratic District that has been that way for over 30 years thru 3 Redistcriting Legislative Sessions and the Republicans have decided it is theirs'.

You never answered my challenge to you to submit another Congressional District in the US streteched over 400 miles long goes thru Brownsville, Austin, San Antonio, and touches Houston. If you are fine with our Districts please explain where else in the US there is such a ridiculous District created to 'insure' the Republican of a seat.Since you are so knowledgeable about Texas politics and governance please tell me specifically the State of Texas, since its inception has Redistricted other than after a 10 year period after a national census. And why if poulation has nothing to do with Districts as you in your infinite wisdowm allege did the Texas Legislature as most every other state in the union decide to Redistrict Congressional seats only every 10 years; which coincidentally is the same length of time as in the US Constitution to have a census?

And I am sorry to inform you that Richard Murray who knows a tad bit more than you about Texas politics and Redistricting(he is a PHD at Rice in political science) that just b/c you win 65% of a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION does not just hand that party 65% of the Congressional Districts as you repeatedly insist on. But again there were experts from the Brookings and Cato Institute that testified that Congressional Districts are to be drawn according to POULATION PATTERNS NOT Presdiential Voting Trends.

And what is about the Texas voters, predominently REPUBLICAN voeters saying they are unhappy with Redistricting done by their own Republican state Legislature in a non Redistricting year,is it that you don't understand?

And you stated: "And did I say that? No. But what I continue to be appalled at is your contention that the Dems 'DESERVE' 70% of the seats when there were getting a mere 50% of the votes."

to suggest ANY PARTY DESERVES any Congressional seat is what the Republicans and apparently you believe. Only Republicans believe that THEY DESERVE any election i.e. its owed to them.We have out worked them out debated them and had better smarter more likeable candidates the Texas Republicans. If you would like to meet them feel free to let me know. So in your wisdom a Republican should win Congressional elections if Bush won the District even if they are crooks or morons b/c that is the way you see it. that is why an unknown Vietnamese Dem (Hubert Vo)candidate won here in Harris Cty against a Republcian who has been in the state legislature for 30 years and his District is at least 70% Republican.

If you can't see the difference b/w a fully debated, legally drawn(with Federal Judicial oversight) based on poulation trends and civil rights guaranteed voting rights done according to a 100 year old tradition of Redistricting every 10 years, and the corrupt, illegally drawn districts ignoring federal civil rights and Texas Legislative traditions you are a fool and shilling for the Republicans.

How about this: There is absolutely no difference b/w Al Gore and George Bush b/c they are part of the corrupt corporate part structure. (paraphrasing Ralph Nader)
And there is no difference b/w the Tom Delay and Kyle janick drawn Districts and the Rodney Ellis and Ron Coleman Districts.

We have heard your garbage before. Democrats in Texas agreed to let THE COURTS draw the districts in 1990 and again in 2003. Republicans thumbed their noses at the courts, civil rights and equal protection of constituents. Apparently you have a mindset that whatever you say is the gospel. I think we heard that same arrogance from the taliban wing of the RNC last year. Congratulations ultran, you are officially part of that wing.

Who do you trust to design districts; Tom Delay or the 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals or maybe since you are omniscent you should be put inc harge in drawing Texas Districts since you know so much about Texas politics, geography, civil rights laws, our courts and our state legislature. Did I mention that I am a native Texan, civil rights lawyer and have worked in Texas politics since 1972.

What are your credentials other than being an arrogant no it all that has probably never set foot in Texas.

Mike Andrews was our Democratic Representative in the 1990s if you bothered to do any research of Texas politics and Bob Eckardt our Dem Rep. from 1975- till 1985. You get it moron. I live in a democratic District that has been that way for over 30 years thru 3 Redistricting Legislative Sessions and the Republicans have now decided it is theirs' because for 30 years they keep losing elections with pathetic Republican candidates like Dr. Fontenot who wasted $3 million and could not even get 40% of the vote in our predominetly drawn Republican District.

You never answered my challenge to you to submit another Congressional District in the US streteched over 400 miles long, and goes thru such large cities as Brownsville, Austin, San Antonio, and touches Houston. If you are fine with our Districts please explain where else in the US there is such a ridiculously drawn District created to 'insure' the Republican of a seat.Since you are so knowledgeable about Texas politics and governance please tell me specifically when in the State of Texas, since its inception have we Redistricted other than after a 10 year period after a national census. And why if poulation has nothing to do with Districts as you in your infinite wisdowm allege did the Texas Legislature as most every other state in the union decide to Redistrict Congressional seats only every 10 years. I supposed your argument will be that that is a mere coincidentence that Redisricting was planned by our State Legislature at the same length of time as in the US Constitution to have a census? Ten Years not 2 Years.

And I am sorry to inform you that Richard Murray who knows a tad bit more than you about Texas politics and Redistricting(he is a PHD at Rice in political science) that just b/c you win 65% of a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION does not just hand that party 65% of the Congressional Districts as you repeatedly insist on. But again there were experts from the Brookings and Cato Institute that testified that Congressional Districts are to be drawn according to POULATION PATTERNS NOT Presdiential Voting Trends.

And what is about the Texas voters, predominently REPUBLICAN voeters saying they are unhappy with Redistricting done by their own Republican state Legislature in a non Redistricting year,is it that you don't understand?

And you stated: "And did I say that? No. But what I continue to be appalled at is your contention that the Dems 'DESERVE' 70% of the seats when there were getting a mere 50% of the votes."

to suggest ANY PARTY DESERVES any Congressional seat is what the Republicans and apparently you believe. Only Republicans believe that THEY DESERVE any election i.e. its owed to them.We have out worked them out debated them and had better smarter more likeable candidates the Texas Republicans. If you would like to meet them feel free to let me know. So in your wisdom a Republican should win Congressional elections if Bush won the District even if they are crooks or morons b/c that is the way you see it. that is why an unknown Vietnamese Dem (Hubert Vo)candidate won here in Harris Cty against a Republcian who has been in the state legislature for 30 years and his District is at least 70% Republican.

If you can't see the difference b/w a fully debated, legally drawn(with Federal Judicial oversight) based on poulation trends and civil rights guaranteed voting rights done according to a 100 year old tradition of Redistricting every 10 years, and the corrupt, illegally drawn districts ignoring federal civil rights and Texas Legislative traditions you are a fool and shilling for the Republicans.

How about this: There is absolutely no difference b/w Al Gore and George Bush b/c they are part of the corrupt corporate part structure. (paraphrasing Ralph Nader)
And there is no difference b/w the Tom Delay and Kyle janick drawn Districts and the Rodney Ellis and Ron Coleman Districts.

We have heard your garbage before. Democrats in Texas agreed to let THE COURTS draw the districts in 1990 and again in 2003. Republicans thumbed their noses at the courts, civil rights and equal protection of constituents. Apparently you have a mindset that whatever you say is the gospel. I think we heard that same arrogance from the taliban wing of the RNC last year. Congratulations ultran, you are officially part of that wing.

Who do you trust to design districts; Tom Delay or the 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals or maybe since you are omniscent you should be put inc harge in drawing Texas Districts since you know so much about Texas politics, geography, civil rights laws, our courts and our state legislature. Did I mention that I am a native Texan, civil rights lawyer and have worked in Texas politics since 1972.

What are your credentials other than being an arrogant no it all that has probably never set foot in Texas.

Perhaps you can send your sentiments to Tom Delay. Address them to Huntsville Texas.

I will wait til midnight for your inciteful answers.

Mike Andrews was our Democratic Representative in the 1990s if you bothered to do any research of Texas politics and Bob Eckardt our Dem Rep. from 1975- till 1985. You get it moron. I live in a democratic District that has been that way for over 30 years thru 3 Redistricting Legislative Sessions and the Republicans have now decided it is theirs' because for 30 years they keep losing elections with pathetic Republican candidates like Dr. Fontenot who wasted $3 million and could not even get 40% of the vote in our predominetly drawn Republican District.

You never answered my challenge to you to submit another Congressional District in the US streteched over 400 miles long, and goes thru such large cities as Brownsville, Austin, San Antonio, and touches Houston. If you are fine with our Districts please explain where else in the US there is such a ridiculously drawn District created to 'insure' the Republican of a seat.Since you are so knowledgeable about Texas politics and governance please tell me specifically when in the State of Texas, since its inception have we Redistricted other than after a 10 year period after a national census. And why if poulation has nothing to do with Districts as you in your infinite wisdowm allege, did the Texas Legislature as most every other state in the union, decide to Redistrict Congressional seats only every 10 years(not every 3 years when they get a majority). I supposed your argument will be that that is a mere coincidentence that Redisricting was planned by our State Legislature as the same length of time as in the US Constitution to have a census? Ten Years not 3 Years.

And I am sorry to inform you that Richard Murray who knows a tad bit more than you about Texas politics and Redistricting(he is a PHD at Rice in political science) testifed at our hearings that just b/c you win 65% of a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION does not just hand that party 65% of the Congressional Districts as you repeatedly insist on. But again there were experts from the Brookings and Cato Institute that testified that Congressional Districts are to be drawn according to POULATION PATTERNS NOT Presidential Voting Trends as you and the Republicans insist on.

And what is about the Texas voters, predominently REPUBLICAN voters, saying in a Houston Chronicle poll that they are unhappy with Redistricting done by their own Republican state Legislature in a non Redistricting year,is it that you don't understand?

And you stated: "And did I say that? No. But what I continue to be appalled at is your contention that the Dems 'DESERVE' 70% of the seats when there were getting a mere 50% of the votes."

to suggest ANY PARTY DESERVES any Congressional seat is what the Republicans and apparently you believe. Only Republicans believe that THEY DESERVE any election i.e. its owed to them. We have out worked them, out debated them, out organized them with the help of the late Billie Carr and had better smarter more likeable candidates than the Texas Republicans. Apparently according to your theories of Congressional races we should just cancel them and give all seats to the party that wins that state. An interesting but incorrect understanding of our Constitution.If you would like to meet them feel free to let me know. So in your wisdom a Republican should win Congressional elections if Bush won the District even if they are crooks or morons b/c that is the way you see it. That is why an unknown Vietnamese Dem (Hubert Vo)candidate won here in Harris Cty against a Republician who has been in the state legislature for 30 years and his District is at least 70% Republican.

If you can't see the difference b/w a fully debated, legally drawn(with Federal Judicial oversight) based on poulation trends and civil rights guaranteed voting rights done according to a 100 year old tradition of Redistricting every 10 years, and the corrupt, illegally drawn districts ignoring federal civil rights and Texas Legislative traditions as done by our state crooked Republicans, you are a fool and shilling for the Republicans.

How about this: There is absolutely no difference b/w Al Gore and George Bush b/c they are part of the corrupt corporate party structure. (paraphrasing Ralph Nader)
And there is no difference b/w the Tom Delay and Kyle Janick drawn Districts and the Rodney Ellis and Ron Coleman Districts of the Democrats.

We have heard your garbage before. Democrats in Texas agreed to let THE COURTS draw the districts in 1990 and again in 2003. Republicans thumbed their noses at the courts, civil rights and equal protection of constituents in 1990 and 2003. Apparently you have a mindset that whatever you say is the gospel. I think we heard that same arrogance from the taliban wing of the RNC last year. Congratulations ultran, you are officially part of that wing.

Who do you trust to design districts; Tom Delay or the 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals or maybe since you are omniscent you should be put in charge in drawing Texas Districts since you know so much about Texas politics, geography, civil rights, laws, our courts and our state legislature. Did I mention that I am a native Texan, civil rights lawyer and have worked in Texas politics since 1972.

What are your credentials other than being an arrogant know it all that has probably never set foot in Texas.

Perhaps you can send your sentiments to Tom Delay. Address them to Huntsville Texas.

I will wait til midnight for your inciteful answers.

Mike Andrews served in the US Congress from 1983 to 1990. Bob Eckhardt from 1970 to 1982 from House District 7 of Texas as democrats. Ken Bensten won 5 elections from that same district by wide margins until he retired in 2002 and that seat was won by Chris Bell another Democrat in 2002 until Tom Delay's Redistricting plan displaced him with a Republican.
So you see ultran this has been a Democratic District long before Tom Delay decided to stop squashing bugs and dictate Texas Congressional Districts or for that matter got out of diapers.

IRA WROTE: "You never answered my challenge to you to submit another Congressional District in the US streteched over 400 miles long, and goes thru such large cities as Brownsville, Austin, San Antonio, and touches Houston. If you are fine with our Districts please explain where else in the US there is such a ridiculously drawn District created to 'insure' the Republican of a seat."

I thought I was clear that I posted on what the Dems did in 1990. Your challenge is merely another diversion AWAY from the original topic. This is my bottom line: I think BOTH are sleazy. You obviously want to focus all attention what DeLay was attempting was. Yet according to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/newthishour/stories/010604dntswredistricting.116f36e5e.html he was essentially creating a map just as unfair as what the Dems created in 1990. And speaking of challenges... you called into question my numbers yet you have done nothing but AVOID the original topic.... 1990. I'm still waiting for you to prove what I said was false. I've double checked my numbers and provided sources. You have done nothing but offer excuses and try to divert attention to DeLay. Lame.

IRA WROTE: "Since you are so knowledgeable about Texas politics and governance please tell me specifically when in the State of Texas, since its inception have we Redistricted other than after a 10 year period after a national census."

Back to DeLay? Yawn.

IRA WROTE: "And why if poulation has nothing to do with Districts as you in your infinite wisdowm allege did the Texas Legislature as most every other state in the union decide to Redistrict Congressional seats only every 10 years. I supposed your argument will be that that is a mere coincidentence that Redisricting was planned by our State Legislature at the same length of time as in the US Constitution to have a census? Ten Years not 2 Years."

You confuse Federal law that requires reapportionment and redistricting after each decennial census with state law. The Federal Court said what DeLay did was not illegal. I suspect he was just the first to think of this ploy.... and Dems in other states may resort to it soon.

IRA WROTE: "And I am sorry to inform you that Richard Murray who knows a tad bit more than you about Texas politics and Redistricting(he is a PHD at Rice in political science) that just b/c you win 65% of a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION does not just hand that party 65% of the Congressional Districts as you repeatedly insist on."

Sorry. I never said it did. I'm looking at the Texas CONGRESSIONAL vote in the early 1990s. Nothing more.

IRA WROTE: "And what is about the Texas voters, predominently REPUBLICAN voeters saying they are unhappy with Redistricting done by their own Republican state Legislature in a non Redistricting year,is it that you don't understand?"

Back to DeLay? Yawn X 2

IRA WROTE: And you stated: "And did I say that? No. But what I continue to be appalled at is your contention that the Dems 'DESERVE' 70% of the seats when there were getting a mere 50% of the votes." to suggest ANY PARTY DESERVES any Congressional seat is what the Republicans and apparently you believe. Only Republicans believe that THEY DESERVE any election i.e. its owed to them.

You have not come right out and said Dems deserve 70% of the seats with 50% of the seats.... but it's implied in your continued refusal to condemn the principle. BTW... DeLay's plan is just as unjust as the 1990 plan. It's clear he was not out to right and injustice but perpetrate a new one.

IRA WROTE: "So in your wisdom a Republican should win Congressional elections if Bush won the District even if they are crooks or morons b/c that is the way you see it. that is why an unknown Vietnamese Dem (Hubert Vo)candidate won here in Harris Cty against a Republcian who has been in the state legislature for 30 years and his District is at least 70% Republican."

I have no idea WTF you are talking about. I didn't raise the issue of the presidential vote.

IRA WROTE: "If you can't see the difference b/w a fully debated, legally drawn(with Federal Judicial oversight) based on poulation trends and civil rights guaranteed voting rights done according to a 100 year old tradition of Redistricting every 10 years, and the corrupt, illegally drawn districts ignoring federal civil rights and Texas Legislative traditions you are a fool and shilling for the Republicans."

Translation.... as long as the courts approve an unfair plan by the Dems, that's OK. But if the court approves DeLay's plan, it's what? BTW... custom or not... there apparently no law stopping DeLay from doing what he did.

IRA WROTE: "How about this: There is absolutely no difference b/w Al Gore and George Bush b/c they are part of the corrupt corporate part structure. (paraphrasing Ralph Nader) And there is no difference b/w the Tom Delay and Kyle janick drawn Districts and the Rodney Ellis and Ron Coleman Districts.

Too foolish a point to bother responding to. This discussion was about democratic principles... and within that context I raised the issue of Gerrymandering. YOU are the one that raised Nader's quote. But I will say all hypocrites are the same. Happy?

IRA WROTE: "We have heard your garbage before. Democrats in Texas agreed to let THE COURTS draw the districts in 1990 and again in 2003."

You really have to make up your mind. You have mentioned what the courts did four times but you're giving two entirely different stories:

1: To equate what was legitimately drawn districts overseen by a fedarl court to what Tom DeLay did with Texas Redistricting is repulsive.

2: "Did I also mention that the 5th Circuit Federal Court Reviewed, Oversaw, and Approved the 1990 Redistricting Plan in Texas. In effect it was designed by the 5th Circuit.........."

3: If you can't see the difference b/w a fully debated, legally drawn(with Federal Judicial oversight) based on population trends and civil rights guaranteed voting rights

4: Democrats in Texas agreed to let THE COURTS draw the districts in 1990 and again in 2003

And either way, how can you claim a bad plan "approved" or "drawn up" by the court in 1990 is legitimate yet condemn that same court for approving DeLay's equally bad plan? Gee... can it be that the courts really are not in the business of devising fair plans and it's just convenient political cover? Here's a quote from the recent court decision: "We decide only the legality of [the plan], not its wisdom....." Just asking.

IRA WROTE: "Republicans thumbed their noses at the courts, civil rights and equal protection of constituents."

Didn't the GOPers win in court?

IRA WROTE: "Apparently you have a mindset that whatever you say is the gospel. I think we heard that same arrogance from the taliban wing of the RNC last year. Congratulations ultran, you are officially part of that wing."

ROTF.... your insults only reflect the moral bankruptcy of your position that it's OK for Dems to screw the GOP but dastardly if the reverse happens.

IRA WROTE: I will wait til midnight for your inciteful answers.

Or what? You're going challenge me to a duel? Your hypocrisy and evasions are getting tiresome. I started a discussion on this topic at DU last night.... feel free to join fray there. A blog format isn't conducive to long debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1468895

No moron. The Texas Redistrictingplan of 2003 has been revisited by the US Supreme Court on equal protection groundfs.
Your ADD is a yawner.

Did the Republicans win in the courts? Its not over. They have thrown out the Colorado redistricting Plan and there is a good chance of them throwing out the Pa plan. Oh its hard to splain that to slow people.

"And either way, how can you claim a bad plan "approved" or "drawn up" by the court in 1990 is legitimate yet condemn that same court for approving DeLay's equally bad plan? Gee... can it be that the courts really are not in the business of devising fair plans and it's just convenient political cover? Here's a quote from the recent court decision: "We decide only the legality of [the plan], not its wisdom....." Just asking"

yawn. I never 'blamed the court'. I just stated that in 1990 the Texas legislature asked the 5th Circuit to draw the Districts. Pay attention.

"Or what? You're going challenge me to a duel?"
Apparently you can't take someone who has more knowldege about a subject challenging you.

IRA WROTE: "If you can't see the difference b/w a fully debated, legally drawn(with Federal Judicial oversight) based on poulation trends and civil rights guaranteed voting rights done according to a 100 year old tradition of Redistricting every 10 years, and the corrupt, illegally drawn districts ignoring federal civil rights and Texas Legislative traditions you are a fool and shilling for the Republicans."

Translation.... as long as the courts approve an unfair plan by the Dems, that's OK. But if the court approves DeLay's plan, it's what? BTW... custom or not... there apparently no law stopping DeLay from doing what he did.

Translation: That is your spin not mine. We are a nation of laws ( though Tom Delay is convinced he is the exception- he will rewrite the laws if they don't fit his objectives) We will abide by the US Supreme Ct's final decision which is set for rehearing next summer. Unlike the Republicans I wouln't expect the Dems to go back in 2006 and Redistrict if they were to take over the Texas Legislature.

This is really getting exhausting trying to explain to someone with ADD the difference b/w the way Tom Delay's warped and the 1990 Redistricting Plan. Sorry you can't see the difference that's your problem.

IRA WROTE: "So in your wisdom a Republican should win Congressional elections if Bush won the District even if they are crooks or morons b/c that is the way you see it. that is why an unknown Vietnamese Dem (Hubert Vo)candidate won here in Harris Cty against a Republcian who has been in the state legislature for 30 years and his District is at least 70% Republican."

I have no idea WTF you are talking about. I didn't raise the issue of the presidential vote.

Of course you have no idea what I am talking about. The fact that my District which leans Republican and has elected Democrats consistantly over 30 years, means nothing to you. Again the fact that you are a little slow means nothing to me.

What have you been smoking man. It is YOUR WORDS, not mine that either party is ENTITLED to 1% or 70% of the Congressional seats.
"You have not come right out and said Dems deserve 70% of the seats with 50% of the seats.... but it's implied in your continued refusal to condemn the principle. BTW... DeLay's plan is just as unjust as the 1990 plan. It's clear he was not out to right and injustice but perpetrate a new one."

I believe in democracy i.e if you have better candidates that reflect and vigorously represent their constituents they deserve to be elected and re-elected. If they are poor candidates that don't give a flip about their constituents and run poor campaigns they shouldn't be elected or re-elected merely b/c they have a D or R in front of their names. Elections have become an Entitlement according to You, Tom DeLay and George Bush. If they can't win fairly, respecting the civil rights and equal protection of voters, just snap your fingers and change the rules. Again Texas has Redistricted EVERY 10 Years for over 100 years. That was done to coincide with our Census, under the traditions of the Texas Legislature. Understand? Its getting a little boring explaining things to you.

No sir I am quoting fom Texas Vernons State Statutes and Texas legislative History which you now finally admit you know nothing about.Unfortunately the 100 year old law and tradition was not written into our state constitution. The fact that you equate the 2 Redistrictings is beyond comprehension. Sounds like you and Bug man are on the same perverted waive length.
"You confuse Federal law that requires reapportionment and redistricting after each decennial census with state law. The Federal Court said what DeLay did was not illegal. I suspect he was just the first to think of this ploy.... and Dems in other states may resort to it soon."

I truly hope the Democratic Party is not forced to stoop to the pathetic tactics which you and Tom Delay think are just fine. Hey they would like to get rid of a 200 year old filibuster rule in the US Judiciary. According to your standards if they can get away with it fine."They are all alike according to you"

Hey why don't we just cancel elections while we are at and let Bush appoint Congressmen and Senators. It hasn't been thought of yet but with logic like your's and bug man's its not too far fetched.

By the way we had a Republican troll on the Kerry site with the same blog name ulTrax
this past summer.
Coincidence? I don't think so.

As I said I'm not going to debate Texas here. So whatever you have to post on the topic, repost at DU cuz I'm not going to bother reading it.

IRA Wrote: By the way we had a Republican troll on the Kerry site with the same blog name ulTrax this past summer. Coincidence? I don't think so."

Nice try at smearing me Ira... except the name is ulTRAX. You can't defend gutter tactics without wanting to eventually try them yourself.

I'm not a fan of Kerry but I worked long and hard to get Kerry elected. The Kerry site is down but I archived all my threads. So feel free to pick ANY TOPIC you remember that I started and I'll gladly upload it for all to see. We'll see how much credibility you have. (You're not the one who just joined DU today who's in the Texas thread calling me a Freeper... are you?) ROTF!!!

Put up or shut TF up Ira.

No creep. I joined DU the first day it was up. Ask my friends Susan, Dianne and Otter founders of this site.

I have no idea what a freeper is but if it means troll, or Kerry supporter in name only I guess the shoe fits.

IRA WROTE: "No creep. I joined DU the first day it was up. Ask my friends Susan, Dianne and Otter founders of this site."
That hardly means someone can't create new users. I. On the other had always use this name for politics.
IRA: "I have no idea what a freeper is but if it means troll, or Kerry supporter in name only I guess the shoe fits."
ROTF.... you claim to have been at DU for 4 years and don't know what a freeper is? That is not a credible claim.

As for your next comment, first cowardly accusations then more cowardly evasion? I supposed it hasn't occurred to you that once you start defending sleaze on the part of others, that eventually you, too, will eventually be tempted to become sleazy. Once you go that route there will excuses why it's justified.

You made an accusation that I was a Republican troll at the Kerry forum... probably thinking you could get away with it since the forum is off line. But I've dealt with slime like your in the past and I always protect myself against their Orwellian attempts to rewrite history. Not that they ever learn. So now you're pretending that your accusation is still true even as you run from my challenge to prove it? Pathetic.

Morally, you as despicable as the worst Right wingers I've ever debated. I think our discussion is over.