This is the second of a 2-part series about America’s system of voting. In the first part of this story, Joe Voter had returned to PeopleCount. He realized that even with a large fraction of voters participating, it didn’t truly tell what the average American preferred. But mainly it was letting him easily connect with his representative so she could truly represent him.

What does his representative say?

He sees there are some recent reports and clicks on his representative’s. Two weeks ago, she said she supports Instant Runoff voting, but a couple of the other voting methods look good, too. So she signed on as a cosponsor on a bill to use Instant Runoff for the next two elections and to put a question on every ballot asking if we should stick with this method, go back to Winner-take-all or try another one.

That seems good to Joe. He gives her an A. Then he reads the report that came out two days later from a challenger. The challenger wants to add another section to the bill that says the government will support a website that says what the result of each race is, and what it would have been for each of the different voting methods. That sounds even better. Joe gives him an A and changes the incumbent’s grade to a B.

A new choice

Joe then looks at the new question. It came out just two days ago. It asks if Joe likes the compromise, plus if he wants the government to show results for each race using the different voting methods, or if the government should just make the data publicly available so others can show the results. Joe prefers small government, so he votes for the second option. Only about 1% of people have voted on it, so the results doesn’t mean much yet. He’s finished for now.

Returning to the site

Two weeks later, he returns to the site.  About a quarter of voters have answered the question about the voting system compromise and about 92% of them support it.

He returns to the site every week or two for 5-20 minutes and answers questions on another issue or two. Once he spent 30 minutes and read several articles about changing drug laws and about banning the check-box on job applications asking if someone was ever convicted of a crime.

The ban-the-box question seemed interesting. Banning it seemed bad- he’d certainly want to be able to avoid hiring an ex-con if he advertised a job-opening. He clicked on More Information and read a short article asking: Do we really believe in forgiveness? If someone has served time for an offense, should we give them a chance at an honest life? Should we give them a fair chance at a job? What if the person now has 20 years of an admirable life since they left prison? He read another article about rehabilitating ex-cons. Studies showed that ex-cons were much more likely to live honestly if they had jobs. Another speculated that if we banned the checkbox, employers would want some assurances about ex-cons and services would spring up to support them avoiding crime and even provide report-cards for them. Plus, employers could about prior convictions during the interview. He ended up supporting the ban.

Can we have a better system of voting?

About two months later on his commute home, he heard on the radio that Congress was considering a bill about changing our system of voting. The reporter had noted that the parties were against it, but the people wanted it. And the members of Congress that were staying loyal to their parties were getting very poor grades on PeopleCount. If they voted against it, challengers were planning to use those votes to help unseat them in the next election.

When Joe got home, he turned on his tablet and returned to the issue about voting systems. He read his incumbent’s report and it said a bill had come out of committee and would go to the floor soon. It was basically the bill he liked, with the election results being available to the public via a web data service. VoteSmart.org had promised they’d publish the comparisons between the results using different systems of voting, plus they’d work with the government to develop standards. Three news organizations and two polling companies had stepped up, too. He gave some more A’s.

And he smiled. America was finally listening to people instead of just the parties and the wealthy. American politics were finally on the right track.

If you want an announcement when the right track becomes available, please add your email address to our announcement list.

What would it take to get a better voting method so voters could express their preference a for third party? Currently, it could only happen by a major party getting behind it, and that’ll never happen. Or at least something as big as the Tea Party would have to support it. But imagine we had PeopleCount…

(If you’re new to PeopleCount, it’s a proposed website, under development, to support accountability to citizens. Citizens will communicate with our members of Congress, and each other, about what we want, and tell them what they should report to us about. Members of Congress will report monthly. Citizens will grade their reports and see their cumulative grades.)

Imagine Joe Voter uses PeopleCount.org

Imagine a guy, Joe Voter, goes online to PeopleCount.org. He sees about 10 categories of issues- political reform, environment, health care, and more.

He clicks on Political Reform and a list expands.

He looks over the list and chooses Voting Systems.

It brings him to a general question about Voting Methods- Does he like our first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all method? He checks “No.”

Below the question and its answers is a checkbox- he can check it to receive monthly reports from their representative, and from challengers. He’s interested in this because he’d like third party candidates to have a chance. So he checks it. There are already some old reports from representatives there, but he skips them.

Getting More Information

Then there are some more questions, asking him what voting method he’d prefer. He looks at the question on Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). He’s heard of that. At the bottom of each question is a link to “More information”. He clicks it. He’s put on a new page with 3 lists, one with articles supporting IRV, one with balanced information, and a couple of articles opposing it. He clicks on the Wikipedia article. IRV looked interesting, but the article quickly became complex. But he sees the note that it seemed to lessen negative campaigning. That felt encouraging, so he voted to support it.

The next question asks about the Approval voting method. He wonders, “What’s that?” He clicks on its “More information” link to an article at the Center for Election Science. It quickly gets complicated. Then he looked at the article on Wikipedia and read it for a minute. It seemed pretty simple. He then goes back to PeopleCount and votes to support it.

After about ten minutes, he’s done. He hits a button at the bottom and the page refreshes and shows him what people in his district and the country think about it. There seems to be a lot of support for a better voting method. He’s done for now.

How many Americans want a better voting method?

A month later, he heard something on the radio about Congress considering a new voting system. He returns to PeopleCount and quickly finds the issue. It says that a new question about voting systems has appeared.  He looks over the graphs. Almost 70% of people who voted on this question, about 30 million Americans, support Instant Runoff Elections. But lots of people indicated they’re not sure. Many like some of the other methods. But 80% of people say our current system doesn’t work very well.

Does this represent America?

He’s not sure if this represents all of America. After all, there are about 220 million people eligible to vote in America. if 100 million are on the site, that’s less than half. He does some research- 20 million PeopleCount participants are either too young to vote or aren’t yet registered. On the other hand, only about 150 million Americans are registered voters, so over half of voters are participating…

But then he realizes that voting on PeopleCount is pretty easy. If people care about the issue, they can easily voice their preference. And the site doesn’t pretend to represent people. It’s really just making their voices heard and letting their representatives keep them informed. It’s really about accountability, and it seems to be working.

This is continued in the next article…

There are issues that Americans want that Congress refuses to consider.

>> A more representative party
A previous article mentioned that 58% of Americans would like a new party. But the two major parties keep a lock on state legislatures and Congress by not talking about, much less supporting, a new kind of voting that would let Americans express their approval for more than one candidate. In surveys where instant runoff voting has been adopted, voters have expressed a preference for them by 70-89%.

>> Term limits
A recent poll found that 75% of Americans want term limits for Congress. Some think term limits are too limiting. But compromises are possible.

>> Common sense gun restrictions
Close the gun-show loophole (90% – 93%). Don’t let people on the no-fly list buy guns (76%), or people on the terrorist watch list (86%). Prevent mentally unstable people from buying guns (89%).

>> Ending corruption in Congress. 80-97% favored various anti-corruption measures in this MSNBC poll. And 90-97% favored them in the represent.us poll. And 78% want Citizens United to be overturned.

>> Mandate Congress be in session for a minimum number of days each year. While most Americans will work 240 days this year, in recent years, Congress worked about 150.

>> Abolish the Electoral College, 60-69%.

>> Congress should adopt an agenda (60%): create jobs, fix social security and medicare, balance the budget, make America energy secure.

Other changes that might be popular

>> Limiting members of Congress pay to a fixed multiple of the minimum wage, or a fixed multiple of the average federal salary.

>> Ending Congressional pensions. Let them deduct part of their salary to be deposited to a 401k.

>> Budget on time and balanced. Withhold Congressional pay for every day the budget is late. Withhold 20% of their pay if the budget isn’t balanced.

>> Congress should have at least 60% of approval by Americans. If they miss that figure, the amount they miss it by should be withheld from their salaries.

Congress Isn’t Accountable To Us

I’ve written before about how surveys have significant problems in polling. Still, the polls suggest large majorities of Americans want these things. So why doesn’t Congress represent us like they’re supposed to? Because they don’t work for us. They’re not accountable to us.

Read the definition of political accountability. Or look at real examples of accountability.

Our elected officials are often accountable to other politicians. To super PACs and lobbyists. To their campaign donors. Technically our votes matter to them near elections. But we aren’t able to influence which issues are important to them. Their other allegiances that are valued over our support.

PeopleCount will help. Voters will decide on which issues representatives are accountable and how they’re rated. Please add your email address to our announcement list.

I’m on several liberal and conservative mailing lists. I received an email today asking for a donation to help stop the TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Should we trust secret trade agreements crafted mostly by industries?

Should we stop it, support it, or let Obama and the other countries handle it?

The TTIP is part of the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I’m astonished at it’s length and complexity, as well as its secrecy. Supposedly its length might be justified if it needed to specify all the different kinds of non-tariff trade barriers that are disallowed, but if so, the agreement should have been shortened and all those disallowed barriers should have been put in an addendum.

The secrecy is the disturbing part. If they want to make the proceedings secret, that could be tolerable. But public advocacy groups should be included in the negotiations. They need to contribute before the final agreement is made.

Will the TTIP make a Single-Payer Health system impossible?

This article says the TTIP would make a Single-Payer Health system impossible in the US. It would protect Health Insurance’s market and their profits. Perhaps opening medicare to subscribers might work around this possibility. But it depends on the actual wording, which might be secret.

What else might the TTIP prevent?

What if we decide to shrink our military? Do we have to pay all the companies that service bases and provide data and other services?

What if a city decides to provide low-cost, high-bandwidth internet because the monopolies in various areas charge so much? Will they be sued for years of lost profits?

And what about the small tax on stock transactions proposed by Bernie, and I believe adopted by Hillary? Will that cost the many day-traders their livelihood, or part of their profits? Will they be able to sue?

What about California’s high-speed rail project? Can projects like this be charged with eating into airline profits?

What about stopping climate change?

What if the US puts a tax on carbon to encourage renewables and phase out fossil fuel use? Will this give oil and coal companies the right to sue for damages? And maybe that’s why Obama wants to rush this through. Maybe these corporations will accept action on climate change if they can sue for lost profits. It’s hard to understand why Obama is so resolute on this seemingly unjust and potentially inhumane law. If action on climate control is his real goal, that could explain it.

Clearly, I’m no expert on the TPP or the TTIP. But having been developed in secret combined with the “fast-track” schedule (voting on it without a chance for amendments) guarantees that public advocates and other experts won’t get a chance to contribute necessary changes.

As a citizen of what’s supposed to be a country of, by and for the people, shouldn’t you have a say?  If you want one sooner, add your email address to our announcement list.

How would a truly democratic, accountable country declare war? War is a huge decision, usually made by people with concerns vastly different than most citizens have. How would we declare war if government were accountable to the people?

What would a truly democratic America look like?

First, let’s imagine we were a truly democratic country. We’d still have a representative democracy, where we elect members of Congress. Imagine, though, that the people guided congress. Picture this: we all vote on major issues in order to inform our representatives, plus to communicate with ourselves. Knowing what we want, we’d expect results.

Each of us would check off the issues we want reports on, and our representatives would be able to report to us. Our representatives, knowing what we want, would work together to deliver it. They’d be free from pressure to adhere to a party or to a philosophy or to donors. They’d be free to work with us, the people, to do what’s best for us and the country.

How would a people declare war?

Idiots in charge can declare war for a specific goal, like “stopping Saddam Hussein.” But for us common people, we want a realistic goal plus a solid plan. We want to know from our military experts how long it’ll take and the cost, plus how confident they are.

While some of us would take our leaders at their word, others of us would raise these questions and doubt. This is called, “the wisdom of the crowd.” There were many doubts before we declared war on Iraq. But because we don’t have a real democracy, critics were silenced or ignored and Bush and his nation-builders forged ahead. They made full use of the sin of pride to ignore doubts that came from Middle East experts and military experts.

We’d wage war much more responsibly than government

Plus, we’re the people, so we know we are the ones who’ll have to pay for the cost of war. We’d levy taxes for it up-front.

Plus, we would have either started a draft or increased pay or benefits to entice more people to join the army. We wouldn’t have sent the national guard- Bush and his team did that because they feared a draft would make the war too unpopular. Perhaps we would have sent them at first, if our armed forces weren’t sufficient. But they’re not meant to be our standing army for long-term wars. Bush and his team refused to start a draft because it would make the war less “popular.” And they didn’t even equip the soldiers they sent over there. The American people would have equipped them and started a draft.

And I’m sure we’d want a plan for the peace, afterwards. If we destroy a country, what’ll it cost to clean it up afterwards? There’s no way the American people would have agreed to disband the Iraqi army. Many people were knowledgable enough about Iraq to foresee that would result in endless conflict.

This is our country- we should have a say

This is supposed to be our country. We should have a say. I’m not advocating getting rid of Congress or having the public vote on bills. I’m just saying we should have a say so we can know what we want, and so our representatives can actually do their jobs representing us.

Please add your email to our announcement list and we’ll invite you to our beta.

Should we lower sentences for some sexual offenses? They’re widespread in America and we’re not solving the problem.

A victim objects to a 6-month sentence for non-consensual sex

This Washington Post article tells a story about a young white Stanford student who had non-consensual sex with a drunk woman and received a 6-month sentence, while the prosecution recommended 6 years.

The victim submitted a letter to the court:

“As this is a first offense I can see where leniency would beckon. On the other hand, as a society, we cannot forgive everyone’s first sexual assault or digital rape. It doesn’t make sense. The seriousness of rape has to be communicated clearly, we should not create a culture that suggests we learn that rape is wrong through trial and error.

 

Is a 6-month sentence enough?

This boy spends six months in jail and has a permanent criminal record. That’s serious. That’s not forgiveness. That communicates the seriousness of his crime (which wasn’t rape, although I don’t know why…) While six months might seem short, can you imagine having 180 days of incarceration because you were unable to think straight, fueled by alcohol and testosterone? That’s a huge punishment. And it’ll teach a huge lesson.

More than that, the trial went for a year, a year of hell, fretting, worrying. And a lifetime of regret. Not just regret that he threw his life away, but that he hurt someone. And apparently he still thinks his experience was that of getting drunk and making a mistake. Whatever forces were running him, he lives knowing he can’t trust himself when drunk, and that he did something horrible.

Meanwhile, the victim continues to suffer. She wrote a powerful description of her experience, and its lasting effects. He has to live having caused that. I don’t know if he admits it secretly to himself or if his brain has closed it off, hiding in denial. Both are high prices to pay for a few minutes of horrible actions.

About the Stanford student, the judge said: “A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him … I think he will not be a danger to others.” We can safely assume the boy also expressed remorse.

My points are these:

• Having a record is a severe penalty.
• Being locked up for six months is a BIG deal.
• Large penalties have much higher costs, both to society as well as to the criminal
• Large penalties cause fewer crimes to be reported so the problems continue

Half of college sports athletes coerce sex

Then I saw this article: “more than half the men who played an intramural or intercollegiate sport reported coercing a partner into sex.” But even more, consider the flip side of this, that almost none of these “coercions” are reported. Part of that is that women are afraid it was partly their fault (even though it wasn’t). Part is because they don’t want people to know what they were forced to do, they don’t want the embarrassment and humiliation. But part of it is that the penalties for this kind of behavior are so high. Women often feel responsible for not subjecting their attackers to a huge ordeal.

I suggest we lower the penalty for first-time offenses if it wasn’t rape and the circumstances suggest that the perpetrator will learn from the experience and not do it again.

Maybe the penalty should be 1-3 months in jail, a good series of classes about morality and personal responsibility and self-awareness, and a temporary record. By “temporary”, I mean after 2-4 years it no longer needs to be declared to employers, on housing applications, etc. But it’s still on the record in case another such crime occurs, to support its value as a deterrence.

I don’t know if there’s a fair penalty for these crimes. I don’t know if there’s a fair penalty for Brock’s crimes. Fair to whom? It seems like the most important thing is to eliminate these crimes, to prevent them.

Years of jail isn’t workable. A shorter sentence is.

Under current law, given the article above that says 50% of men that play IM sports coerce sex, a large fraction of the young men in our society should be put away for years. That’s clearly not a workable solution. And the current huge penalties help these crimes to continue, both by deterring victims from reporting them, and by making the trial such a big deal. He, and I’ll bet his family and lawyers, felt they had to do everything they could to avoid the huge penalty that was possible. So it took a year to go to trial. A year of hell for Brock, but an incredible year of hell for the victim.

Now imagine we adopt my suggestion. We COULD put even half of young men in jail for 1-3 months, and give them a series of classes about morality and personal responsibility and self-awareness, and a temporary record. The record would effectively disappear if they become respectful members of society. Plus, with a program like this, women could feel confident that reporting coercion or date-rape will teach a guy a lesson AND not ruin his life. And they’ll know that if he ever does it again, he’ll go away for years.

With a lesser penalty, more guys would be identified and convicted. With the chance that it wouldn’t destroy their careers, many more would accept the penalty instead of putting the victim through a trial. And with more guys convicted, it’d be a much more powerful message to men that they’ll likely not be able to get away with it.

Even better, prevention

But the most important thing is the learning. I suggest that all young men have such a series of courses. Even better than effective punishment is effective prevention. I even know the perfect course to start with.

I never coerced sex. But boy, did I want to at times. I had to handle those pressures alone, ashamed, with no idea how common it was, nor how natural. Plus I had no real tools for helping sort through it. Back in the 1970’s, we just didn’t talk about that stuff, nor was it on TV. Though now it’s on TV, they still don’t deal with it very effectively. I knew it’d be wrong, but I had no idea how damaging it’d be to a woman. Knowing that would have helped a lot.

Let’s use our heads, not our anger. Let’s talk about solving the societal problem, not just punishing one guy who happened to get caught, and second-guessing the judge.

Andrew Jackson is not being kicked off the $20 bill. First, we’re just being more conscientious about who we honor. Second, his image will stay on all $20 bills that it’s currently on. It’s only new bills that won’t have his image on the front.

Failed presidential candidate Ben Carson apparently referred to Andrew Jackson as being “kicked off of the $20 bill”, to make room for Harriet Tubman.

I never gave Jackson much thought. So I read a bit. Jackson was just another brutal soldier. I read about his cruelty in the War of 1812. He threw out a treaty with the Creek Indians and imposed a much harsher one.

Don’t get me wrong. He was caught up in his times and his outlook. Like everyone else, he mixed his emotions with his rationality with mixed results. No doubt he did his best as soldier, officer and president, with both good and bad experiences and outcomes.

Carson’s point was that Jackson was the last president to eliminate the national debt and that was quite a feat. But it turns out it wasn’t. The next year the same debt reappeared. The following year, his last year in office, 1837, the debt grew ten-fold.

Paying it off in 1835 wasn’t very difficult. The economy was booming and the government was selling off land. And with Jackson’s subsequent actions and failures to act, a couple of years later his administration was presiding over the Panic of 1837. Like our own worst-president-ever George Bush, Jackson’s eight years in office ended with economic catastrophe. In each of the two years that followed, the ballooned debt grew by another factor of 3.

And for the Cherokee in Georgia, things got bad. Jackson pursued a policy of buying land in the west and moving Indians there from the South, where the Cherokee lived. Jackson negotiated with some Cherokee who were not Cherokee leaders. The Cherokee thought the treaty was illegitimate, but Jackson’s successor, Van Buren, sent troops to move the Indians. This was the “Trail of Tears” on which a quarter of them perished.

What happened is complex. Of the thousands of native Americans who died, each one had a life, loved ones, memories of growing up in the south with their families and communities, experiences of the land and rivers and lakes, hopes and dreams, lessons and achievements. They were brutally removed from their homes by American soldiers who coldly watched them perish on their forced march. We should have removed Jackson’s image long ago.

Harriet Tubman, on the other hand. was a Civil War hero and a humanitarian. Later in life she fought for the right for women to vote. The article concludes: “After she died in 1913, she became an icon of American courage and freedom.”

The meaning we associate with the image of Jackson on the $20 bill is much less complex. Personally, I didn’t really care. Now that I know his history, I’m happy to have him replaced.

But he’s not being kicked off. He’s long gone. We’re just being conscientious about our role models.

PeopleCount is committed to America being conscientious about politics in general, something our current system doesn’t support. Please join us. Add your email address to our announcement list.

What are our options in the war with ISIL?

Should we formally declare war? Should we attack them ourselves or just support other countries bombing them?

I recall that part of Al Qaeda’s strategy was that Americans wouldn’t have the patience for a long, drawn-out, expensive ground war. They won huge wins by tricking Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld into attacking Iraq. They probably never even imagined that Bush would be so stupid as to dismiss the Iraqi army and police and plunge the country into civil war, costing us trillions of dollars and many more years of hassles.

ISIL is probably making the same bet, that we’re not willing to get into a ground war.

Maybe we should just give massive payments to other countries to clean up their own region. After all, American soldiers on Arab soil inflames many Arabs. Maybe we should come up with more options. If we’re willing to kill lots of innocent people, there are ways of destroying large areas. Is that an option?

Should we send in ground troops? If so, should we start the draft? Should we only use volunteers? Should we send the National Guard? Should we raise salaries and benefits till we have enough volunteers? Should we let illegal immigrants volunteer and thereby earn citizenship? Should we hire mercenaries?

By what rules should we engage in war? Should we allow torture again, or ban it?

We’re already using drones. Should we use robots? Should we use chemical or biological weapons?

Should we pay for the war by borrowing more money? Should we raise taxes to pay for the war? Should we cut other branches of government to pay for the war?

In the Iraq war, we didn’t issue all of our soldiers body armor. Shall we, this time?

These are all questions on the new War on ISIL question set. Would America be better off if the people said what they want? Or shall we do what we usually do, let the President make any decision he wants and then simply criticize it?