"Voters Evolt! - Promoting a Peaceful Political Evolution"

Occupy Lubbock

Voters Evolt! interviewed several participants of Occupy Lubbock on January 12, 2012. Lubbock, Texas is one of the most conservative cities in the country; however, sensible and articulate voices of peaceful protest can still be heard, even on a bitterly cold and windy day.

A Voters' Rights Amendment as a Focus for Dissent

Revised February 5, 2012

Unification of the Tea Party and Occupy movements for a common goal - a Voters' Rights Amendment - will re-establish the United States as a democratic republic and will restore control of its government to the voters. The sort of cooperation we will suggest here is possible only to the extent that there is not more opinion-manufacturing or co-optation by political parties or private interests.

Although the corporate and wealthy elite is doing everything in its power - primarily through its mouthpiece, the mainstream media - to convince Occupiers and Tea Partiers that each is an enemy of the other, it is becoming increasingly clear that the two groups have much in common.

Not only do both groups march under the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, they both very strongly believe that corporations should not enjoy the constitutional rights of individuals, regardless of what the US Supreme Court may have ruled. Moreover, both groups believe that their government ignores their most critical concerns, including jobs, personal freedom, and the health, nutrition and well-being of their families, as their elected representatives feed at the trough slopped by the corporate and wealthy elite.

The time is ripe for an open consideration of unity between the two groups. The extensive media coverage amounting to the propaganda-style coverage and pandering of the Tea Party's far smaller demonstrations has given way to acknowledgment of the Occupy movement in the face of police brutality and that movement's staying power.

Support for the Tea Party is lagging with the nonaligned public, as it is increasingly evident that the populist movement has been and is being manipulated by Republican operatives. At the same time, the Occupiers are fighting off attempts by establishment progressives to co-opt their movement.

It is essential that both groups identify their common interests and take collective actions to unify their efforts, instead of attacking each other over other issues about which they may have an honest difference of opinion. Uniting with the increasingly large block of independent voters, Tea Partiers and Occupiers will organize a more effective defense of both of their basic principles, rather than those offered by either the Republican or Democratic party, both of which subvert the rights and interests of workers and small-business owners in favor of wealthy donors and corporate supporters.

The most basic issue that Occupiers and Tea Partiers may perhaps readily agree upon is a Voters' Rights Amendment to the Constitution that ensures that the future of the United States is decided by its voters rather than by the corporate and wealthy elite, which currently manipulates and controls the voters' representatives.

The Voters' Rights Amendment provides that only natural persons are protected by the Constitution, establishes a national paid voters' holiday and calls for a national paper ballot, which includes a national policy referendum on critical policy questions and an alternative write-in vote.

The Voters� Rights Amendment

Section 1

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate�s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
Section 4

Prior to the end of the calendar year preceding a presidential election, Congress shall adopt a joint resolution setting forth the 12 most critical policy questions that should be addressed by the next President and Congress.

Failure of Congress to adopt a joint resolution prior to the end of the calendar year shall result in the disqualification of all sitting members of Congress to be eligible for reelection.

Section 5

Federal elections conducted every second year for Senators and Representatives shall be held on a national voter�s holiday, with full pay for all voters who cast a ballot.

Federal elections shall be conducted on uniform, hand-countable paper ballots and, for the presidential election, ballots shall include the 12 most critical policy questions identified by Congress, each to be answered yes or no by voters.

Paper ballots shall provide space for voters to handwrite in their choice for all elective federal offices, if they choose, and all such votes shall be counted.

Section 6

In balancing the public benefit of maximum voter participation with the prevention of voting fraud, Congress and the States shall not impose any restriction on voting by citizens except for the most compelling reasons.

The intentional suppression of voting in national elections is hereby prohibited and, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law, any person convicted of the intentional suppression of voting shall be ineligible for federal office for a period of five years.

The first three sections of the Voters' Rights Amendment are as proposed by MoveToAmend.org.

The drawing of The Hydra is by Helen Werner Cox, who was trained as a classical painter at Boston University. She is a retired nationally-certified library media teacher, who has made extensive use of art in her literacy programs.

Chart Credit - Democratic Underground

William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist. His articles are posted at WilliamJohnCox.com

Print

Recommend

Voterism: A Government for The New Millennium

August 31, 2011

Are you tired of trying to figure out if there�s any real difference between Republican and Democratic politicians, and whether there�s a difference between liberals and progressives, libertarians and anarchists, independents and moderates, or tea partiers and neoconservatives?

Are you fed up with being forced to chose between the lesser of two evils, and are you afraid to cast a vote of conscience because the worser of two evils might get elected?

If you�ve answered yes to any of these questions, perhaps you might want to consider aligning yourself with others who share your concerns and whose political views extend across the spectrum.

The one thing we all have in common is that we are voters and we are sick and tired of our government being controlled by corporations and special interests groups who could care less about our happiness, our health, our families, our jobs, or our futures.

What would you call a political philosophy that focuses on the rights and interests of all voters? What terms would you use and how would they be defined?

Here are a few ideas:

Voterism is the political belief that a legitimate government must be composed of and created by the voters who elect it, and that the primary purpose of such a government is to care for the needs, aspirations and interests of those who elect it.

A votocracy is a government organized to sustain the environment in which its voters live, maintain the economy in which they earn a living, and defend the rights of every individual to be secure in his or her person and property.

A voteristic government continually evolves by encouraging the informed opinion and participation of all potential voters in referenda to develop political policy, not law, and by the election of representatives who are an extension of the voters and who are committed to the effectuation of the policies established by the voters.

A voter centric government is one that is founded upon the belief that a free society depends upon the handwritten selection of representatives by voters who use hand-counted paper ballots and who celebrate all national elections with a paid voting holiday.

A voteric is a nation whose government is organized according to voteristic principles. It is one in which voting is a sacrament of the national political religion.

A voterian believes that a voteristic government can only impose minimal legal restrain on the liberties of each voter in her or his pursuit of happiness.

A voterist believes that a votocracy created and controlled by individual voters is the most favorable form of government.

Voterism is not a political party, rather it is a way for independently-minded and concerned voters of every political persuasion to think for themselves.

As our rapidly-changing world spins into a new millennium, and the older forms of governments are using new forms of technology to become more repressive of and less responsive to their electors, isn�t it time for all of us to consider a modification in how we organize for the common good?

Image Credit: sacbee.com and storiesofusa.com

Print

Recommend

Netroots Nation Talks About Voters Evolt!

Voters Evolt! promotes a Peaceful Political Evolution consisting of a national voting holiday and uniform paper ballot which asks questions on a National Policy Referendum and provides for a Write-in Vote for President.

Interviews regarding the Evolt were conducted at the Netroots Nation Conference held in June 2011 in Minneapolis.

Among other political leaders, comments were obtained from five Congressmen, one U.S. Senator and three state representatives.

Here�s what they had to say about a National Policy Referendum and a write-in vote for president.

Here's what John Nichols of The Nation had to say:

A Dream National Ballot for 2012

June 13, 2011

�Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, seminaries and in colleges; let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, enforced in courts of justice. In short, let it become the political religion of the nation.� ~ Abraham Lincoln

American voters are preparing to vote next year to elect a president to preside over their government for the next four years. Will they return President Obama to office, or are they disappointed enough in his performance to elect a President Romney, Palin, Pawley, Paul, Bachman, Cain or Perry? What will the next president do about the environment, the economy, education, jobs and health care? Will he or she end the failed Wars on Terrorism and Drugs?

In spite of all of their lofty promises, mealy-mouthed answers, and misleading advertisements, American voters really have no clue about what any of the candidates will actually do if and when they get into office.

With $3 billion wasted on the Help America Vote Act and the unreliable electronic machines it has purchased, voters continue to worry about whether they will even be allowed to vote next November, much less if their votes will ever be accurately counted.

Your voting power under the current system has been reduced to electoral slavery, and you are seriously deluded if you think you have any real control over your government.

Can you even dream about a National Ballot that will establish your authority, one in which you, rather than politicians, create the policy guidelines for your government and you, rather than hacked computers, decide whom you want to implement your policy?

Imagine there is a paid holiday set aside for the presidential election and that every citizen is encouraged to register and to reverently observe the most sacred sacrament of the nation�s political religion.

Think about walking into your neighborhood polling place and being handed a sheet of heavy paper with 12 policy questions for you to thoughtfully answer, yes or no, and a list of party candidates for you to consider before you carefully write in the name of your personal choice for president and vice president.

Sleep well with sweet anticipation during the week or two it will take to patiently hand count the millions of paper ballots before the clear voice of American voters is heard to echo around the world with the resounding message that democracy is alive and well in the land of the free.

Feel the power flowing into your hands and sense the clarity of your mind!

Close your eyes and picture the paper ballot you would like to see handed to every voter on November 6, 2012:

Given the chance, how would you vote?

What questions would you like to see on the ballot?

What are you waiting for? Voting is a both a right and a duty � use it or lose it!

Print

Recommend

An Introduction to Voters Evolt

The Problem

Irrespective of the party in power, the U.S. government primarily responds to the demands of large corporations and well-funded special interest groups, rather than the concerns of ordinary voters - the workers and small business owners of America.

Every four years the two main political parties construct "platforms" as publicity gimmicks to get their candidates elected.

After the election, both parties ignore their platform "policies" and begin to take care of themselves and their financial supporters, rather than to do what they promised to do for the rest of us.

Access by individuals to their elected officials is the foundation of a democratic republic. However, the election of our representatives is now more dependent upon the massive expenditures of campaign contributions from their corporate sponsors, their wealthy friends, and well-funded, special interest groups rather than upon a meaningful vote by an informed electorate.

No matter how deeply we ordinary citizens dig into our pockets, we cannot financially compete with these powerful forces.

No matter how well we organize, we cannot match the influence of lobbyists and political insiders.

No matter how often we march and protest, they will always beat us through the side door into the corridors of power.

Revolt or Evolt?

Since we have been abandoned by our government and our political parties, we must collectively focus upon a peaceful method to modify our government to one which more attentively considers the needs and concerns of all voters, whether Republican, Democrat, Reform, Libertarian, Green, Independent, or other.

An intolerant, non-responsive and repressive government cannot endure. Our choice is whether political change results from a violent revolution or a peaceful evolution, from a revolt or an evolt.

If we voters are smart enough to earn a living, if we can figure out how to pay our taxes, and if we have courage enough to fight the wars started by our representatives, we are also competent to collectively establish basic policy to guide our government.

A Peaceful Political Evolution

We, the voters of every party, must evolt against politics as usual and join in a nonviolent evolution to transform our government.

We must demand a national paper ballot for president that presents the 12 most important national policy questions that concern us and which forces the candidates to answer those questions before we vote for them.

All paid political advertising should be prohibited during the week before the election, and everyone should enjoy a paid holiday to celebrate the most sacred sacrament of our national political religion -- voting.

Voters should go to their neighborhood polling place and thoughtfully answer the policy questions presented on the ballot.

Then, every one of us should carefully write in the name of the person we choose to implement our policy, whether or not that person's name is printed on the ballot as a party candidate.

It could take a week or two to slowly and carefully hand count (or recount) the ballots. So what!

We will evolve a new system of government that will better serve to provide freedom, justice and prosperity to all who share this fragile planet.

We will decide who is in charge of our government and we will chart the direction of its future.

It is our government and our nation. It does not belong to corporations, unions or any other special interests.

We must act now to protect our lives, our liberty, our families and our government.

We are The Voters! We WILL NOT be ignored!

Print

Recommend

William J. Cox v. Jimmy Carter, et al

On July 9, 1979, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of all citizens alleging that the government no longer represented the interests of ordinary voters. As a remedy, the Court was asked to order the other two branches of government to hold a national policy referendum on the most critical questions facing the nation every four years when its president was elected.

The Court declined to hear the petition, but the Los Angeles Times commented that the case was one of the ten more interesting cases the Court declined to hear that year.

The issues presented by the petition are even more critical today. Pertinent parts of the petition follow.

It Is Necessary and Urgent That This Matter Be Reviewed

If it were true that a course of action was being undertaken by elected representatives which would ultimately be destructive of the continuance of effective common government, would not there be a co-existent threat to the lives and fortunes of each of its citizens?

If a citizen were to recognize what she or he perceived as such a threat, what redress would that person have?

Inherent in a republican form of government is access by individuals to their elected officials. However, if one were to believe regularly published reports that Congress is in the grips of special interests groups, and if one were to realistically perceive that letters by an ordinary citizen to one�s elected representatives either goes unanswered or provoke a machine-signed form letter response, then can it still be said that ordinary citizens are represented in government?

Another alternative, clearly abhorrent to the continuation of peaceful government, would be for a citizen to declare his or her independence, and to undertake violently to subvert the action of government.

In the Declaration of Independence, it was made clear that individuals have a right to declare their independence of a government which is no longer willing to address itself to the fundamental rights of its citizenry.

In a free and peaceful society, is not the only remaining viable remedy a petition to compel a vote?

The right of the people to vote for elected representatives is contained in the Constitution as amended by Articles XV, XVII, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI. In addition, every citizen of the United States has a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. (U.S. Constitution, First Amendment)

Confirmation of the right to petition in the Bill of Rights indicates that its effect provides more than a right to simply vote for elected representatives. Otherwise, its presence there would be without effect, a principle contrary to rules of constitutional interpretation.

If a petition were to be brought to compel action by the executive and legislative branches of government, where else could the petition be brought but in the Supreme Court of the United States?

All power not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government or reserved to the States, resides with the people. (U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment)

Since there can be no right without a remedy, is it not true that the one power retained by each citizen in a democratic system is the vote? Therefore, if a decision had to be made, affecting the future of all people, would they not have the right to demand a vote on the issue? If such a vote was advisory only, would not the process be consistent, rather than inconsistent, with the Constitution?

Should this Court decide that the continued existence of the Nation, as originally conceived, was dependent upon a national expression of its governed people, would it not have a duty to compel the Senate and the President to hold a national policy referendum?

Would not such action be essential in order to peaceably explore the will of the people necessary to ensure their survival and that of their common government?

Conclusion

At no time in the history of the United States has it been so threatened as it is today. In a shrinking technological world, in which wide oceans and friendly neighbors no longer offer protection against a precise first strike nuclear attack against our defensive weapons; one in which the United States has become increasingly dependent for its survival upon petroleum energy from unstable nations rapidly coming under the influence of totalitarian domination; and one in which the United States is viewed with disdain by many, as a country without internal conviction or external strength, is it not time to allow the people a voice in the future of their nation and in the quality of life preserved for their children?

Internally, is it not true that the election of representatives is now more dependent upon massive expenditures of contributions from special interests groups than upon a vote by an informed electorate?

Has not the vote in political contests become so valueless as to create disenfranchisement through apathy for most Americans?

Among candid speaking people, it is now necessary, for the first time, to assess the possibility of reduction in freedom in order to ensure our national survival.

In a world in which the frequency of internal terrorist attacks has become so commonplace as to regularly cause the collapse of governments, is it realistic to believe that the United States will long remain unscathed?

Upon the advent of internal upheaval, how long will the Bill of Rights survive the need of government to maintain order? An exiled prominent soviet dissident, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, advised in a commencement address to Harvard graduates in 1978 that Americans must be ready to surrender freedoms in order to counter Russian power.

Do we want our children to live in the absence of freedom? Do we want to? Must we?

The Constitution expressly provides a right of citizens to petition their government for redress. If individuals are denied a right of redress, is not the alternative a resort to violence?

In a free society, is it not the duty of a concerned person of conscience to avoid the use of force, even if he believes that his existence under ineffectual government is being threatened?

Does it not become the duty of such an individual to petition his government to allow him to exercise his vote along with all other citizens in a national policy referendum in order to effectuate a peaceful reformation?

Is it true that we are at a point in history where critical decisions are being made which shall forever decide the future of our Country?

Is it not a time of peril for all those citizens upon whom the Government is dependent for its legitimacy?

Has it not been a duty of each of us since the moment of the existence of Mankind to provide a better world for our children than that which we inherited from those who conceived us? If this be true, and if a citizen finds as a matter of conscience, that his government is no longer responsive to his needs, is it not his duty to his children and grandchildren to issue the most forceful petition possible, short of the threat of violence?

Does not the Supreme Court have an equivalent duty to at least review such a petition, to weight the threat, and to consider alternatives?

U.S. Supreme Court - Case No. 79-31
Print

Recommend

A Peaceful Political Evolution

"�That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, � That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,� organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~ The Declaration of Independence

How many more lies must we listen to and how many more political scandals must we endure before we become sick enough to demand effective changes in our government? Have we suffered enough to force us through a political "evolution� to safeguard our freedoms in this country and to avoid committing war crimes against others?

In Washington�s Crossing, an excellent history of the near failure of the American Revolution in the winter of 1776, David Hackett Fischer concluded that it was not Washington�s leadership or the victories at Trenton and Princeton that saved the revolution following his resounding defeat in New York City. Rather, the victories resulted from the revival of spirit that arose among the ordinary people in the Delaware Valley as they began to read Thomas Paine�s American Crisis.

According to Fischer, "This great revival grew from defeat, not from victory. The awakening was a response to a disaster. Doctor Benjamin Rush, who had a major role in the event, believed that this was the way a free public would always work, and the American republic in particular. He thought it was a national habit of the American people (maybe all free people) not to deal with a difficult problem until it was nearly impossible."

All of us, liberals and conservatives, are going to be increasingly harmed by the failures of our government and those we�ve allegedly elected to run it. We must anticipate there are more lies on their lips waiting to be told, even more ugly secrets waiting to be uncovered and even worse scandals yet to unfold.

The good news is that the American people are among the best, the bravest, and the brightest our human civilization has ever produced. America is the Promised Land � it is an amalgamation of all races and all cultures on Earth. Americans will survive and, ultimately, we will achieve a government that better cares for us and is less threatening to the rest of the world. The bad news is that we will have to go through hell to get there. So, how do we brave the flames?

A National Policy Referendum

Perhaps the most basic problem with our government today is that, irrespective of the party in power, it primarily responds to the demands of large corporations and moneyed special interest groups, rather than respecting the hopes and aspirations of ordinary workers and small businesses.

Every four years the two main political parties construct "platforms" to serve as publicity gimmicks to get their candidate elected. After the election, both parties generally ignore the policies they set forth in their platforms and begin to take care of themselves and their financial supporters, rather than to do what they said they were going to do for the rest of us. The process is supposed to result in policies that reflect the interests of the voters, but it is a scandal at best. At worst, it is a continuing political disaster.

Access by individuals to their elected officials is the foundation of a republican form of government. However, the election of our representatives is now more dependent upon massive expenditures of campaign contributions from their corporate sponsors, their wealthy friends, and well-funded, single-issue, special interest groups rather than upon a meaningful vote by an informed electorate.

Special interest groups spent billions of dollars every year just to lobby the federal government. While there are allegedly some limits on campaign contributions, there are no restraints on institutional schmoozing. The Tom De Lay - Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, arrest of Bush�s procurement official, illegal contributions by Freddie Mac, and Congressman Cunningham�s bribery conviction represent just the tip of the iceberg.

No matter how deeply we ordinary citizens dig into our pockets, we cannot financially compete with the powerful special interests. No matter how well we organize, we cannot match the influence of the financial and political insiders. No matter how often we march and picket, they will always beat us through the side door into the corridors of power.

Not only are we are no longer represented; we have also been stripped of Constitutional protections we once enjoyed. Thoughtful people of every political persuasion are increasingly alarmed about the reductions in freedom we have passively accepted in response to 9/11. Many of us, irrespective of party or political beliefs, now question whether the Bill of Rights will survive another terrorist attack, which is sure to come.

Since we have been abandoned by our government, we must collectively focus upon a peaceful method to modify our government to one which more attentively considers the needs and protection of all voters, whether Republican, Democrat, Reform, Libertarian, Green or Independent. An intolerant, non-responsive and repressive government cannot endure. The choice is whether political change results from a violent revolution or a peaceful evolution, from a revolt or an evolt.

One way we can regain control over our government is to require it to hold a National Policy Referendum every four years when we vote for our president. Such a referendum would not make law; rather the purpose would be to express the collective policy of the people through their answers to the major political questions that should most concern the new administration and Congress during their terms of office.

Individuals and organizations could nominate policy questions; Congress would have to debate the issues in formulating 12 current policy questions to be listed on a national ballot; and the president would have to either sign or veto the bill.

To ensure passage of the policy bill, perhaps the pay of all members of Congress and the president and all members of their senior staffs should be withheld commencing on the New Year�s Day of each presidential election year until the issues are identified. Or, maybe all national political campaign contributions to parties and candidates should be prohibited until the bill is passed and signed.

Once the questions are promulgated, presidential candidates (and other elected representatives) would be forced to take positions on a wide variety of real issues. Politics has been defined as the art of not telling the truth, and politicians quickly learn to avoid telling the truth at all cost. Because there are special interests on every side of an issue, it is impossible to please everyone, yet the politicians strive onward, lying and denying, twisting and hiding, trying to grab every vote. The best theater can be seen during the presidential debates. Trying to get a straight answer from any of the candidates is like trying to nail spit to a wall.

Most importantly, we the voters would be more likely to study and question the issues and to arrive at our own opinions, rather than to have them spoon fed to us by AM talk radio, Fox News, and the corporate-controlled op-ed pages.

Not only must we increasingly talk about the issues over the back fence or in the break room, we must also insist that the Fairness Doctrine eliminated by the Reagan-appointed Federal Communication Commission be resurrected to allow fair comment and competing points of view by ordinary voters to be aired for all to hear.

Instead of responding emotionally to brief television and radio ads, most of which are designed to evoke a negative reaction, we would be far more likely to thoughtfully consider positive information and political analysis.

A number of countries, including Canada, Sweden and Switzerland refer policy matters to their voters for binding decisions, and the European Union resulted from a referendum in the participating countries. During its 2004 presidential election, Taiwan submitted two policy questions regarding its relations with China to voters. However, no nation presently holds a non-binding policy referendum as a matter of course.

There are those who might argue that our presidential election is a referendum on the candidates� platforms; however, the winner-take-all results do not, in any way, suggest our level of support for any of the competing issues. The outcome turns far too often on which of the candidates makes the fewest mistakes or which has devised the most effective smear campaign.

A National Policy Referendum will not be a national opinion poll. The very process of articulating the political questions, the more lively debate, and our thoughtful vote will validate the results far beyond that attainable by any random sampling, no matter how scientific. We will not be expressing a snap opinion. Nor, will we be making law. We will make policy!

Our right to vote in a National Policy Referendum can be found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which expressly provides our right to petition our government for redress. Our right to peaceably assemble and to seek redress was intended as the bedrock of our free society and as a safety valve to avoid violent revolution.

In a free society, we have a duty to avoid the use of force, even if we believe our existence under ineffectual government is being seriously threatened. It is also our duty to peacefully petition our government, before we resort to violence.

If we are to effectively modify our government through a peaceful political evolution, we must be allowed to exercise our vote in a National Policy Referendum. Otherwise, what can we do?

A Peaceful Write-In Protest

As effective as a national referendum may be to establish government policy, little good will come of it unless those we elect are forced to pay attention to our interests and to actually carry out our policies. As it is, presidential candidates say one thing and do another to the extent they believe they can get away with it, and because of party politics, we keep getting stuck with having to decide upon the lesser of two evils.

Imagine if we combined a National Policy Referendum with a grass-roots rebellion in which a majority of us were to actually write in the name of the person we wanted to preside over our government. Wouldn�t we seize the power that legitimately belongs to the citizens of this country and wouldn�t we evolve a far more effective and representative government?

Can we trust the current method by which we elect our president? Are there good reasons why we should rebel against the present system?

In 2000, more than a half million voters selected Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, over George Bush, the Republican candidate. However, Bush prevailed in the Electoral College because a fraudulent election in Florida gave him that state�s 20 electoral votes, even though the candidates were only separated by a few hundred votes. Bush had an edge and the fix was in. His brother, Jeb, was governor and the Secretary of State chaired his reelection committee.

Not only were thousands of eligible (mostly Democratic) Florida voters disenfranchised before the election, but every effort to manually recount the ballots, including thousands of rejected votes, was blocked by the Secretary of State. A phony riot was staged by Republican Party operatives flown in from out of state to intimidate local election supervisors, and five Republican-appointed members of the U.S. Supreme Court contrived a politically-motivated decision that reversed a far more reasoned opinion by Florida�s high court, which had ordered that every voter�s intention be determined as accurately as possible.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the purchasers of electronic voting systems (states and local governments) are not allowed access to any information on how voting results are recorded, nor is there any requirement that the machines provide a paper trail for recounts. All of which is a recipe for fraud.

The 2004 election differed from 2000 in that George Bush may have received a higher percentage of the popular vote; however, it is becoming increasingly clear that he should have lost in the Electoral College, except for another fraudulent election, this time in Ohio.

The Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, served as the chairman of Bush�s Ohio reelection campaign and publicly called Senator Kerry, the Democratic candidate, a "disaster" sure to reap "terrible" and "horrible" results if elected. Not only did Blackwell cause the registrations of Democratic voters to be rejected because they were on the wrong weight of paper, there were too few voting machines allocated to poor (and largely Democratic) precincts.

A "computer error" allegedly created thousands of non-existent Bush voters in Ohio, and one lawsuit claimed that official rolls in Ohio�s most populous county omitted 170,000 registered voters. It is significant that Bush carried Ohio by less than 119,000 votes in an election where more than 90,000 ballots were discarded because they failed to indicate a valid choice for president and more than 23 percent of all provisional ballots were rejected.

Interestingly, the statewide hand count of "acceptable" provisional ballots and absentee ballots (after Blackwell had already declared victory) provided Kerry with 54.46 percent of the vote. In several heavily Republican precincts, Blackwell certified election results showing more votes than registered voters, up to 124 percent more!

Our democratic republic is founded upon our ability to trust the results of our collective vote. Is there any doubt that the advent of black-box voting, systematic election fraud, and the widespread intimidation of voters dictate that we capture control of the election process before the chance is lost forever?

Each of us must find within ourselves the individual courage and initiative to perform one simple rebellious act � refuse to use the computerized voting machines or any other machine ballot.

Instead of responding like laboratory animals pushing a button in response to the stimulus of the latest ten-second television smear ad, we can each take a little longer to carefully consider the candidates presented on the ballot by the various political parties. Once we decide, we can demonstrate our literacy and our power by clearly writing in our personal choice for president of the United States, whether or not his or her name is on the ballot!

Presently, half of all voters don�t bother to go to the polls and less than one quarter actually elect the president for all of us. Imagine the immense power that would flow to the people if voting truly became universal.

If the voter turnout was to dramatically increase, and if only 15 to 25 percent of us were to write in our vote, trust that the politicians will be scrambling to ensure that all write-in votes cast for them are legally counted. We would quickly find them registering their willingness to accept every write-in vote naming them for any office of public trust.

Conclusion

If we simple voters are smart enough to earn a living and to figure out how to pay our taxes, if we have courage enough to fight the wars started by our government, we are also entitled to collectively establish basic policy to guide our government, and to personally write in the name of whomever we consider most qualified to effectuate our policies.

We, the ordinary voters of every party, must evolt against politics as usual and join in a nonviolent evolution to transform our government. We must peacefully evolve our system of government to require a national ballot for president every four years which presents the 12 most important national policy questions and which lists the candidates nominated by the major political parties.

All paid political advertising should be prohibited during the week before the election, and we should all enjoy a paid voting holiday on Friday connected with Saturday voting to celebrate the most sacred sacrament of our national political religion. No voter should ever be turned away from the polls, and every vote must be hand counted.

We should go to our polling place and thoughtfully answer the policy questions presented on the ballot. Then, we should carefully write in the name of the person we select to implement our policy.

It could take a week or two to patiently hand count (or recount) the ballots. So what! The results will be felt far beyond two weeks.

We will decide who is in charge of this country and we will chart the direction of its future.

We are The Voters!

The American genetic pool is the most robust and diverse of any society on earth, and the revolutionary spirit continues to run deep and true in the blood lines of all of us who yearn for freedom and the full fruits of our labor.

Let us unite together to show the world what we are really all about and what we can peacefully accomplish together. Let us again demonstrate a new system of government that will better serve to provide freedom, justice and prosperity to all who share this fragile planet.

Print

Recommend

Voter Empowerment - Not a New Party

The Public Record - November 24, 2010

If nothing else, the election of 2010 has taught us that a "third" political party is not the answer. Like the two existing major parties, it too would simply become another political commodity to be purchased by the corporations and wealthy elite for their own purposes, rather than serving the interests of ordinary voters. Political salvation will come when the voters of every party decide to exercise, rather than dissipate, their power.

Political parties have been around ever since the founding of the United States, indeed from the time of ancient Greece and perhaps earlier. There will always be legitimate differences of opinion about the extent and role of government, and the give and take of those differences are the foundation of democracy - at least as long as voters are informed and they are not being manipulated by insidious forces.

Commonality of Interests

Members of the newly minted Tea Party and disaffected Democrats have far more in common than the corporate-controlled mainstream media would have them believe:

●Both resent the loss of freedoms experienced by everyone, including electronic surveillance, airport full-body searches, and the ever-more-intrusive national security state;

●Both are suffering from unemployment and watching their jobs being shipped overseas;

●Both fear the loss of their unemployment insurance checks and the hunger of their children;

●Both lay awake at night worrying about how to obtain health care for their families;

●Both are angry about bank bailouts and are worried about how they are going to make their next mortgage or rent payment;

●Both fear corporate power and resent the role of lobbyists and special interests in their government;

●Both are aware that neither the Republican nor Democratic party really cares very much about their concerns; and they

●Both know, deep down inside, that their votes for the candidates of both parties are meaningless, and they feel powerless to do anything about it.

The MSM would also have us believe the country has been swept by a tidal wave of conservatism and that liberalism has been cast overboard; however, the overall difference between the popular votes cast for the House candidates of both parties was less than 3%. If the 2010 election had been a public opinion poll, the results would have been statistically insignificant.

The primary shift of votes from Democratic to Republican occurred among white working-class voters, who have most to lose from conservative policies. Why did they do it?

Manipulation of the Electorate

It should come as no surprise to most voters that both major political parties are ultimately controlled by the same corporate and wealthy interests; however, many of the disenchanted voters of both parties who have been swept along by the Tea Party Patriot movement would feel betrayed if they learned just how manipulated they have been.

As oil companies continue to make exorbitant profits by cutting corners on safety, both for their workers and the environment, and by raising the price of the gasoline needed for workers to get to their jobs, how many tea partying patriots are aware that their movement is being secretly underwritten by Koch Industries, one of the oil companies that is siphoning their hard-earned wages into easy profits?

Koch is the second-largest private company in America, whose annual revenues exceed a hundred billion dollars. It is also one of the top ten air polluters in the United States, which concealed the discharge of cancer-causing benzene from its refinery, which stole money from Indian tribes and which was convicted of negligence and malice in a leaky pipeline explosion that killed two teenagers.

Each of the Koch brothers has only one vote each, but by spending a few million of the billions they divert from wage earners every year, to educate, fund and organize the tea party, they have been able to "turn their private agenda into a mass movement" against the interests of those who will ultimately pay the tab. They were not alone in this endeavor.

As Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler were "flying for freedom" around the country attending Tea Party Patriot rallies during the last weeks of the 2010 campaign, Meckler complained that the rival Tea Party Express (which was funded by a GOP consulting firm) was a "fake, they're not from the grass roots. These are longtime Republican political activists with their own agenda." However, the Dassault Falcon executive jet flown by Beth and Meckler was provided by Ray Thompson, the founder and former CEO of Semitool, whose workers are being laid off to preserve profits.

Tea Party opposition to health care reform was undoubtedly a factor in the watered-down version ultimately passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. Opposition to the final bill (which primarily benefits only the health care industry) by both progressives and patriots is understandable, but it is more difficult to grasp why realistic health care reform, such as Medicare For All, was opposed by tea partiers.

Hundreds of rallies against healthcare reform, including "Kill the Bill" protests outside the Capitol where Democratic lawmakers were cursed and spat upon, were funded by the Koch brothers. However, in the corporate battle against meaningful health care reform, the Kochs did not stand alone.

Funded by giant insurance companies, including United Healthcare, Cigna and Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans provided $86.2 million last year to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to help it pay almost $150 million to lobby against health insurance reform and to mislead small business owners (and their workers) about the benefits of healthcare reform, particularly a "public insurance option."

This year, the Chamber raised and spent nearly $33 million for political advertising to elect opponents of health care reform to House seats; however, since the donations are secret, it is unknown if the campaign was once again underwritten by the insurance companies.

Not unsurprisingly, the newly-established congressional Tea Party caucus was primarily funded by corporate interests, including the health care, real estate and oil and gas industries, and the largest contributors were committees associated with AT&T, Honeywell International and the American Bankers Association.

Hiding behind the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, Karl Rove has established a "Shadow Party" to coordinate conservative political groups in channeling more than $300 million in secret corporate donations to pay for more than 60,000 television ads during the final months of the 2010 election campaign.

The final piece of the "wealth" vs. "us" puzzle can be seen in corporate efforts to extend all of the tax cuts approved early in the Bush administration. While "tea party patriots" want to balance the budget, and the Obama administration wants to extend the tax cuts for 98% of tax payers, including everyone who does not earn more than $250,000, corporations and the wealthy elite are taking an "all or none" position while lying to the voters by telling them the government wants to raise their taxes. If Congress goes along with the scheme, the very wealthy 2% will save $700 billion in taxes, which will be paid for by everyone else.

The corporate indoctrination and manipulation of American voters continue to result in their being represented, not by peers, but by wealthy representatives who could care less about the rights or interests of ordinary voters of either party. The wealth of Congressional members increased by 16% between 2008 and 2009, just as workers lost millions of jobs and the net worth of American families fell by $11 trillion dollars. The average house member is now worth $765,000 and the average senator lays claim to $2.38 million.

More than 43� million Americans, one out of every seven, are now living in poverty, more than at any time in the last 50 years. Those without any health care coverage rose to 16.7%, or 50.7 million. Save for Latvia, the United States is tied for the worst infant mortality rate in the world. One in five American women of reproductive age is uninsured, resulting in a death rate of women giving birth in the U.S. being worse than in 40 other countries.

Is there anything that the victims of the corporations and wealthy elite can do to avoid being manipulated into fighting the battles for those who seek to enslave them?

The Empowerment of Voters

A government of the people, by the people and for the people can only be achieved if the people maximize the power of their individual vote. Even though 1% of the wealthy elite enjoys 70% of the nation's wealth, they only have one vote each! Corporations are now allowed to secretly spend untold millions to manipulate the vote, but they can't vote!

If America is to survive as a free and democratic nation, voting must become a sacrament in the national political religion. Everyone must vote, everyone must cast an informed vote, and every vote must be counted!

Here are some of the things that are needed to ensure control of the government by those who elect it:

●A National Paid Voting Holiday. The Congressional elections every two years should be one of the most important dates on the national calendar. All paid political advertising should cease at least a day before the election and everyone should receive a paid voting holiday on Friday, and the polls should remain open through Saturday, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to visit the polls. Votes should be cast with joy and voters should celebrate the election with real parties.

●Ranked-Choice Voting. All national ballots should provide the opportunity for voters to select candidates in order of their preferences for every office, irrespective of party. This would allow voters to cast their first choice for candidates of the minor parties, such as Green or Libertarian, and, if none of the candidates receive more than 50% of the vote, to count secondary choices until such time as a successful candidate emerges. Not only does the method allow voters to support candidates they believe in, without generating a "spoiler effect," it also discourages negative campaigning.

●Publicly Financed Elections. "Clean Elections" reform is currently the law in seven states and offers a workable solution for Congressional candidates to avoid relying on special interest donors. Once elected, House and Senate members can consider legislation on its merits, without worrying about pleasing or displeasing wealthy donors or corporate lobbyists.

●Eliminate Corporate Personhood. Every voter of every party should demand that every candidate for national office take a pledge to place the highest priority on a Constitutional amendment to ensure that, "Only natural persons shall be protected by this Constitution and entitled to the rights and freedoms it guarantees."

●National Policy Referendum. By voting yes or no on the 12 most critical questions facing the government every four years on the presidential ballot, voters would be able to effectively make policy, not law, on the issues that most concern them. Candidates would be forced to actually take positions on the real issues, and better informed voters would cast more meaningful ballots.

●Write-In Protest. Perhaps the only way for voters to force these reforms is to exercise their power by writing in their choices for president and vice president every four years. Granted, it would take longer to count the ballots; however, it would be a far more active demonstration of voter choice and resolve than by passively relying on corporate-controlled, computerized voting machines.

Revolution or Evolution?

Two hundred and thirty-four years ago American patriots violently established a new form of government which has, ever since, served as a model for other countries. That government has now become politically corrupt and has allowed economic chaos to risk the lives and happiness of those the government is elected to serve.

Voters now have the opportunity to nonviolently demonstrate they are in charge of their own government and that they have the ability to chart a new direction for its future.

Rather than a violent revolution, American voters have the duty and obligation to peacefully evolve a new system of government that will better serve to provide freedom, justice and prosperity to all who share this fragile planet.

William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist. His writings are collected at WilliamJohnCox.com.

Image Credit: The Green Market

Print

Recommend

Restore the power to the people: Amend the Constitution!

Online Journal - January 29, 2010

�Plata o plomo? Colombian and Mexican drug gangs ask government officials, judges and police officers which they prefer, �silver or lead,� when offering bribes and threatening violence.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same free speech rights as natural persons allows them to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections and public affairs.

Corporations, foreign and domestic, can now force politicians to choose silver or lead when supporting or opposing corporate and foreign power interests.

Any politician who places the well-being of the public over corporate demands can count on well-financed negative publicity at the next election.

Moreover, corporations will be able to directly influence the election of state judges and the confirmation of federal judges.

With the Congress, White House and Supreme Court now up for sale to the highest bidder, we, the people of the United States of America, must exercise our fading power before it is lost forever.

The 11^th and 12^th Amendments clearly establish that the Constitution exists to protect the rights and powers of the people, not corporations.

It is our Constitution! We must amend it to ensure it protects us against corporations.

The Power to the People Amendment

Section 1

Only natural persons shall be protected by this Constitution and entitled to the rights and freedoms it guarantees.

Section 2

Nothing contained in this article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press for non-person entities engaged in the gathering and reporting of fact, analysis, and opinion. In all other respects, Congress and the States shall regulate and tax non-person entities as necessary for the public good.

Section 3

This article shall become operative once it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths of the States thereof.

The drawing of the NASCAR politician is by Helen Werner Cox, who was trained as a classical painter at Boston University. She is a retired nationally-certified library media teacher, who has made extensive use of art in her literacy programs.

Print

Recommend