As promised near the end of last month, VOID officially announced today the opening of its new VOID Community web site for VOID supporters and members. Our Community site will provide our supporters and members with a place to engage and interact with each other. The announcement was made on the The Rhino Show on BlogTalk Radio today where I was interviewed for a half hour about the VOID organization.
A newsletter will be emailed to VOID supporters and members tomorrow morning with details about the Community web site and its availability to them. It is anticipated that the Community web site will begin to reverse the structure of the VOID organization from a top down PAC to a bottom up voter coordination and interaction organization.
]]>Douglas Watts, host of The Rhino show on BlogTalk Radio, invited VOID's president, David Remer, to a half hour interview this afternoon. It went very well by all accounts. Douglas Watts was a very supportive and enthusiastic host. Folks can listen to the interview here.
]]> We wish to express a heartfelt thank you to Douglas Watts, host of the Rhino Show, for his support and this interview and publicity exposure.Below are some of the notes made by David Remer in preparation for the half hour interview, most of which were included in the interview.
About Vote Out Incumbents Democracy
1. Purpose: The VOTE: The primary purpose of the vote has always been to remove incumbents from office. Without the people's vote, Politicians, and anyone in power, will keep themselves in power. Therefore, the vote's primary and original purpose is to remove those in power, from power, without having to fight a civil or revolutionary war to do it, when voters are not happy with the actions of their government. (Iran example)
2. Mission: Our mission is to force Congress to represent the American people and our nation's future for our children, instead of the wealthy special interests and corporate lobbyists. The only way to do that, is by the voters re-asserting their power to fire those in Congress, whose tenure leaves voters disapproving of Congress' results. Voting out incumbents is the way to reestablish democracy of, by, and for the people. Hence the name, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy or, VOID, for short.
3. Strategy. Our strategy is simple. Explain our mission, which sells itself. We are now embarking on creating VOID organizations in each state and metropolitan area to rally dissatisfied voters to take that brave step to vote for a challenger, instead of a Congressperson seeking reelection.
4. Objective. VOID's objective is to bring about a federal election in which 50% or more of both Democratic and Republican incumbents, seeking reelection, lose to challengers. With this objective reached, the remaining incumbents as well as the newly elected challengers will get the unmistakable message, they have a new boss - the voters. Their old boss, the special interest lobbyists no longer hold the keys to their reelection.
5. Rationale and success. Only when voters hold their own politicians responsible on election day for their disapproval of Congress, will Congress begin to change the way it does things.
6. Success will be marked by our Congress investing our nation's resources in a better future, instead of squandering our resources on a future none of us want to live in. Success will be marked by a fiscal responsibility that leaves our grandchildren more, not less, of what they will work to earn.
Success will be marked by our nation remaining the most powerful leader in the world; acting, strong, confident, and with good purposes. Not by acting fearful, scared, and defensively toward those who envy our great potential.
Success will be marked by politicians demanding the best of each other, as a result of their giving the best of themselves, because the voters will accept nothing less.
Term Limits Example:
VOID doesn't take a stand on term limits for one very elementary reason. The incumbents in congress would have to pass the term limits legislation, and they, as a majority, do not wish to do that. That would be cutting their own political and self interested throats.
Therefore, the only path to term limits is through sheer anti-incumbent voter force. If voters want term limits, they must first vote out the incumbents who refuse to pass term limits, as well as their own incumbents who are ineffective in bringing them to pass.
Reforms
Reforms won't happen with incumbents being reelected for doing the same things they have always done. They do things we don't approve of, and we reelect them at a rate of 90% or more per election. Where is their incentive or motive to change the way they do things? They cater to the wealthy corporate and individual lobbyists and donors, because the voters reelect 90% of them when they do.
Voters will continue to be disappointed with Congress and hold a low approval of them as long as they reelect the same representatives over and over again. If however, more and more millions of voters vote for a challenger instead, one from their own party in the primary election, or one from another party in the general election, a critical mass will be reached wherein the reelection rate will drop from 90+ percent to 60% or 50%. I guarantee the remaining incumbents and the new freshman coming in will have a complete change of mind as to who is controlling their reelection bid. Not the lobbyists and wealthy campaign donors anymore. The voters, the regular working people on the street, will become the people they need to please.
Voters who want:
Voter Education
We voters have to graduate from civics 101 to civics 401. We must acknowledge that our vote is powerless, if it can't remove powerful people from powerful offices. The core of the idea of democracy is that power shall rest with the people, NOT with those in government. If the power of a nation rests in a king, a dictator, or an inner-Congress like that in China which cannot be voted out, there is no democracy there, even if sham elections are held as in Iran recently. Only when the people exercise the power to remove those in power, when they don't like the direction their government is heading, does real democracy live and thrive. Everything else is just for show.
Less than 1 in 5 Americans approve of Congress' performance. 80% of voters who disapprove of Congress' performance, can't remove those incumbents responsible for Congress' actions. If 4 out 5 voters disapprove of Congress and can't remove more than 10% of them in any given election, then there is no real democracy in action here.
American voters want to believe their representatives. But, frankly, the last person anyone should listen to about who to vote for in an election, is their own incumbent running for reelection. One would have a better chance of getting the truth about a shiny lemon car from a used car salesman.
The Supreme Court ruled last year, I think it was, that politicians cannot be held legally responsible for lying to their constituents. That pretty much says it all about whether voters should be listening to their representatives at election time. They are after all, trying to sell you and me on paying their cushy salary for another 2 or 6 years. Just like the used car salesman is trying to sell you and I on paying their salary by buying shiny lemon on the lot.
Click here to listen to the Rhino Show interview.
]]>I received an email from a supporter asking why they couldn't find an endorsement for term limits on our Vote Out Incumbents Democracy web site. Great question. Below are excerpts of our email reply.
Therefore, the only path to term limits is through sheer brute anti-incumbent voter force. If voters want term limits, they must first vote out the incumbents who refuse to pass term limits.
Therefore, VOID doesn't try to put the cart before the horse. First must come the growth of the anti-incumbent grass roots movement: the VOID movement. When that movement is large enough to remove 35, 40, or 50% of incumbents in a single election, then, and only then, will the new Congress persons and the remaining incumbents realize they are next to get booted if they don't vote for the reforms the anti-incumbent voters are demanding. ...And if voters who want:
if the majority of all these join you and I and others in voting out incumbents until their demands become law, then it will happen; up to half of all incumbents will get the boot in a single election and scare the other half into representing the demands of the anti-incumbent voters in order to not get the boot themselves in their next reelection bid.
- serious containment of lobbyist money influence
- those who want campaign finance reform with teeth
- those who want a balanced budget amendment
- those who want an Article V convention convened per the states' demand
- those who want a one bill, one appropriation, end to earmarks and pork barrel spending
But, it is up to folks like you and I to explain this logic and strategy to other voters who hold a very low opinion and approval rating of Congress. We must explain to them that even if they like their own representative, their representative is ineffective in bringing about the changes voters want. And the only way those changes can be brought about is by a large and growing anti-incumbent grass roots voter base in nearly every state in the union.
VOID does not take public policy positions on issues. We have one single focused purpose, to help voters understand that voting to reelect their incumbents is not the path to the reforms and change they seek. Reforms and change demanded by the people can only come about on the heels of an anti-incumbent groundswell that threatens the tenure of incumbents, and cuts the umbilical between incumbents and lobbyists and wealthy campaign donors, individual and corporate. The voters have something far more powerful than money to effect change in our government, if they will only accept and use that power of the anti-incumbent vote, as you have vowed to do.
Term limitation is a controversial issue like abortion or immigration. VOID is not a political party, and therefore takes no position on public policy issues. If VOID were to take a position on such public policy issues, it would lose potential supporters of the anti-incumbent mission and strategy toward reforms. It is essential that VOID remain focused on its objective, mission, and strategy, which is to assist voters in exercising the true power of their vote during times of high disapproval of government direction and conduct. The term limits issue divides voters. It would therefore diminish the strength of the VOID membership and support if VOID took an official position on it, one way or the other.The most powerful role VOID can take regarding any controversial issue, like term limits, is to continue to inform voters who are not satisfied with the results of Congress, that their vote, combined with the power of other voters voting for challengers, is the only path to removing the incumbents who stand in the way of the reforms the voters want to see take place.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions. We appreciate every opportunity to explain the VOID concept, mission, and strategy to American voters.
Sincerely,
--David Remer
Vote Out Incumbents Democracy
Liberals have been screaming the Big E word, asking what good is money if your kids will die of toxins and pollution, and become bankrupt at the hands of the foreign oil monopolies? Yes, liberals say, it will cost and additional $111 per average family per year over time, but, the greenhouse gases will be curtailed, the air will become more breathable and everyone will breathe easier.
As with all such partisan debates which result in policy, time will tell who was predominantly right and wrong. We may never know on this debate however, as the Senate, deeper in the pockets of the corporate world for their reelection campaign funding than House members, is poised to defeat this bill. Democrats don't appear to have sufficient votes at this moment to pass it in the Senate. Senators in oil, coal, and natural gas producing and refining states, pretty much have the corporate lynching ropes around their necks, regardless of which side of the aisle they vote from.
My retort to those claiming it will cost money is: What higher priorities do you have for spending federal dollars than clean air, energy independence, and finally working with many of the rest of the world's nations on cutting greenhouse emissions from our production and transportation activities? To those who yell there is no proof of global warming I ask: Where's your proof of the God you say you believe in? There is vastly more scientific evidence of global climate change as a result of human activity than there is for the existence of God. A little reason like this however, doesn't stop the naysayers to this bill from screaming the sky is falling.
To the proponents of this bill who say it will be all good, I say: Be careful what you legislate. A measure this sweeping in scope and cost of the decades to come can all too easily become so compromised in the reconciliation committee between the House and Senate versions, as to keep the costs and water down the benefits, ultimately leading more negative consequences than if the bill hadn't been passed at all.
If the American people want this bill to both pass and succeed in its objectives, they must in the millions lean heavy on their Senator's phones, emails, and local district offices demanding that the bill not be compromised one iota in its objectives and timeline for achievements, and absolutely no exceptions are to be permitted to the industries lobbying against the House version. If the American people sit back now, and allow the energy lobbyists to work their will on the Senators, the American people will pay the price and receive little if any of the benefits they hope for.
The bill has already been seriously compromised in getting it passed through the House. As NPR writes:
At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel.
Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.
An administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade -- money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut -- was largely jettisoned due to opposition from energy companies and their allies in the House. The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others.
Conservatives and Liberals alike should be joining to insure that this bill, if it is to pass, is passed in a form as to maximize its objectives. Those include the eventual lowering of energy costs for all Americans. This is an investment bill.
Done right, our children will reap the benefits of a healthier more sustainable global environment, lower energy costs and higher savings, and independence from foreign monopolies and oligopolies like OPEC. Not to mention cutting U.S. dollars funding terrorist organizations from OPEC nations. Americans are have a long tradition in investing and this should be a piece of cake. But, I assure you, many with some corporate profits to lose down the road, will try to turn this into mud pie instead, before all is said and done.
To be done right, voters will have to take back Congress from the corporate lobbyists and jettison their own biases toward supporting the reelection of incumbents who bankrupt the nation in the name of bringing home the bacon to local constituents. Until there is a massive anti-incumbent movement afoot over the course of successive elections, the corporate lobbyists will control the Congress, not the American people. The idea of the House of Representatives being the people's House, disappeared from reality a very long time ago. The people, the voters, must take it back if this nation is to have a future which hasn't been compromised into decline and oblivion.
]]>Work is underway to provide a VOID Community web page where VOID supporters can chat with each other, write up their own essays, form groups by location, and generally share information, tips, gripes, news, or anything else relating to the VOID organization concept, message, and mission.
Supporters will be emailed upon its completion and receive an invitation to meet, visit, and interact with other VOID supporters.
]]>Representative Mike Sheridan is a whole different story. He is a politician; he pursues politics as a career, not as a calling. As a career politician, he's answerable to the supporters that ensure he has the funds to run, the support to campaign, and the means to get re-elected. Organizations and political parties do this not because they believe in candidates - they drop anyone who cannot play the game well enough for their purposes. They provide this kind of support because they know this support gives them access to the powers of elected officials. Which is not to say Mike Sheridan's supporters are bad people - before (and during) his position as Representative on the Wisconsin State Assembly, Mike Sheridan was president of the UAW in our area. There are a lot of good people in the UAW, and the UAW has done a lot of good things for our community, but the UAW is an organized, political organization with purposes and goals that do not always align with the best interests of the community Sheridan is elected to represent. This creates a conflict of interests that Sheridan has failed to acknowledge. If he has to choose between the best interests of the UAW or the best interests of the community, it is his responsibility as an elected representative to choose the best interests of the community. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of his political career to side with the UAW - and so he does. This is what differentiates a politician from a representative.
I call this point of differentiation the service mentality. As an elected representative, a candidate can serve their country just as a soldier or government employee does. Like soldiers or government employees, a candidate's capacity for service is dependent on the reasons and motivations the position is sought. A politician who seeks a seat on the Senate because he or she longs for the power and prestige doesn't perform the acts of service performed by a representative who seeks a seat on the Senate because he or she believes that doing so will improve the lives of his or her constituents.
A representative has three primary responsibilities in service of his or her constituents. First, the representative must know and understand what constituents need and want. Knowing and understanding are two different things; knowing is about hearing what people are saying and understanding is about interpreting the results they're looking for. If a representative hears people say they support a specific bill that's promised to do one thing, but the representative knows that the bill will accomplish something else, then the representative has the responsibility to advocate changes in the bill so that it can accomplish what people expect. If those changes do not occur, the representative has the responsibility to publicly object to the bill on these grounds, and refrain from giving the bill his or her support. Second, the representative must advocate policies that benefit his or her constituents. I'm not talking about pork here; that's the realm of the career politicians. I'm talking about legislation that facilitates the long-term success of the communities they represent. Third, the representative must advocate improvements that may be unpopular, but are needed. Representatives are elected to solve problems. Lobbyists and public relations firms are hired to advocate for policies that benefit special interests. The representative must face up to these individuals and organizations in order to actively solve problems. It's not fun, it's not popular, but the results are worthwhile. It are these results that improve lives; making the hard choices, taking the chances, and doing so not to be re-elected but to serve in the capacity the representative was elected to hold in the first place.
Throughout all of this is the assumption that the representative is effectively communicating with constituents, and this is where I believe many service-oriented representatives go wrong. Communication is not propaganda, it's not about tooting your own horn; communicating is about informing the public, so that voters can make informed decisions. Communication must go both ways in order to be effective. If a representative does not receive input from constituents, he or she cannot possibly know what they need or want. If a representative does not disseminate information to constituents, then voters cannot possibly know why the constituent is making the choices he or she makes. Poor communication is where many representatives lose the battle for re-election - they mistakenly believe that because they're in service of their constituents, their constituents know it. If you have such a representative, seek out the things they're doing right, and tell people about it. Word of mouth from people who know and care goes a long way.
The benefits of a service-oriented representative are numerous. Essentially, they provide us with better, more democratic government. When we elect service-oriented candidates, we have true representatives doing their best to look out for our communities. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, but that does mean they strive to do their best for their constituents at every opportunity. Service-oriented representatives are not without their downsides, however. Politics in this country are driven by give-and-take alliances - this is the nature of pork. If you don't play their game, it's more difficult to get support for legislation you propose or support. Thus, while the proposed legislation is better for constituents, it's not as likely to be adopted. A truly service-oriented candidate is likely to be side-lined by his or her fellow "representatives" once in office, making such a candidate less effective, though more genuine.
Politics-as-usual is driven by career politicians. These are candidates who play the game and play it well. They seek power, prestige, and the myriad benefits contemporary American politics offers to those elected. They may be elected by voters, but their loyalties lie with those who give them the funds for their campaigns and their fellow politicians who support their efforts to buy off voters with pork spending. These are the candidates that dominate our national political environment. Americans are not satisfied with the results of their choices, but they continue to make the same choices over and over again. As long as these politicians hold the reins, the few service-oriented representatives that get elected will continue to be side-lined.
]]>What profits are at stake? 14.2 million per year salaries for the top 7 private health insurer executives to begin with. Some claim health insurance profits have risen nearly a 1000 percent over the last decade. That's probably overstated, but, even 700% in 10 years speaks to gouging. Here is a list of health care profit increases since 2005. One fact is known, health insurance premiums have risen 5 times faster than wages in the last 5 years. And that has consumers railing. They are literally going broke due to constantly rising health insurance premiums.
The National Coalition on Health Care cites:
A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.
Even employer paid health insurance rates are hitting employees in the pocket book, since wage increases which would have been passed on to employee's have been spent instead on the dramatic increases in health insurance premiums paid by employers.
Everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, agree that something has to be done ASAP to halt the rising cost of health insurance. It is bankrupting the government, the States, and 10's of millions of Americans. The debate is over how.
The single most effective cut in health care insurance premiums would be to cut insurer's profits out of the loop. No other step could would result in greater cost savings in as short a time, as this one step. This is why the Obama administration is pushing for government sponsored health insurance with no profits being skimmed off the top of every health care transaction.
Doctors, nurses, hospitals and clinics would not see any change in their incomes, but everyone's health insurance premiums would stop rising as fast as they have been these last 5 years. Consumers groups hail the measure. Investor's are scared to death of it.
The reason investors fear government sponsored health insurance is not primarily the loss of profits by health insurance companies. In the short term, those would not change dramatically. What they fear is the model. Non-profit health insurance would be so successful in reducing the inflation of health care premiums, that they are certain such success would lead to a slippery slope wherein the next step would be non-profit health care deliverers.
In other words, not for profit hospitals, clinics, emergency rooms; in fact, a national slide toward an entirely not for profit health care industry, in which the boards of directors of non-profit hospitals and clinics are not paid at all, or at most, a 10th of what for profit boards are paid. And executives would see compensation packages pressured downward as competition between non-profit health care deliverers promoted the most health care delivery per dollar as part of their advertising and reputation.
Incumbents however, are going to make out like bandits on this issue. Republican incumbents are raking in money for their reelection campaigns from the for-profit corporate special interests of all kinds, not just health insurers, who fear this proposed non-profit model. Liberal Democrat incumbents of course, are benefiting from consumer advocate lobbyists promising potentially unprecedented get out the vote campaigns in favor of Democrats. Some conservative Democrats are benefiting from both sides of this issue, consumer advocate lobbyist's favor, and corporate lobbyists seeking to sway their vote on the reform bill.
Regardless of which side of this issue a voter stands on, the battle is being fought by lobbyists on Capital Hill, and Congressional incumbents seeking reelection are the monkey's in the middle. Usually, in circumstances like these, the American people wind up with something so compromised as to be of less benefit in the long run that doing nothing at all. When a problem goes unaddressed, the pressure builds to take dramatic action. Time will tell if the pressure on the health care cost issue has built up sufficiently to generate a real beneficial change for the nation and its health care industry future.
Conservatives are right in saying there is a slippery slope here as organizations like the Alliance for Advancing Non-Profit Health Care already exist and are lobbying Congress. Liberals are also right in saying that the shortest most effective route to lower health care costs is non-profit health care where shareholder and investor profits and fees are removed from the entire cost cycle of health care.
However, we here at VOID are also right in knowing that a majority of Congressional incumbents will be putting their reelection priorities far out ahead of consumers and patients when it comes to voting on a bill to reform America's unaffordable health care system. We rightly know that the only path to forcing Congress to put the nation and people first in their legislation is demonstrating to them with our growing number of votes that we won't re-elect anyone whose priority list puts themselves first.
You can read the full story at the Washington Times (a conservative news paper). There is only one way our representatives in Congress can be divorced from their wealthy K-Street Lobbyist contributors, and that is by the force of a growing anti-incumbent movement amongst voters, capable of unseating ever larger percentages of those seeking reelection. Only then will they be free to re-marry the American people, and represent and defend the people's expectations for a Congress whose job they can approve of in the polls.
You can make this happen. Talk up anti-incumbent voting. Explain it to your friends and family. Proudly display one of our Vote Out Incumbents car window or bumper stickers. Or, become a contributing member of VOID helping us cover the cost to reach ever more Americans with the anti-incumbent logic and rationale (window sticker is included membership package).
Speech is free. Communication is very expensive. Help us pay the communication costs to reach more voters. Become a member and walk proudly for government reform that means something for us all.
]]>There is however, an apparent and enormous difference between Iran and the U.S. voting problem. In Iran, outright voting fraud, bribery, and blackmail are touted as the reason for Ahmadinejad's reelection. In America, incumbents routinely win reelection in a more sophisticated, systemic, and largely legal manner. America has institutionalized incumbency, regardless of public sentiment toward Congress, in some very clever ways.
First and foremost is known as "bringing home the bacon". If a U.S. representative can lay claim to bringing federal tax dollars back to their district, American voters are impressed by this and will tend to reelect them. This, despite the American voter's disgust with pork barrel spending, and earmarks in legislation with no relevant connection to the bill being passed. Republican and Democrat incumbents alike make this theme central to their reelection campaigns, because American voters respond positively to it. Doesn't speak well of American voters.
Equal in importance to bringing home the bacon, is financial advantage. Wikipedia cites:
One of the main reasons incumbents seem to have such a complete advantage over challengers is because of their significantly better financed campaigns. In the 1990s the typical incumbent in a contested election had somewhere between 83 to 93 percent of what was spent by all the candidates in the district, and these incumbents typically captured about 64 to 67 percent of the vote." (Henderson, Harry. 2004. Campaign and Election Reform. New York, NY.: Facts on File.)
Then there is the time honored American tradition of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering occurs when the Congress and states divide up their congressional voting districts into highly contorted geometric shapes on a map, for the clear purpose of insuring the incumbent's voting district shape encompasses a clear majority of voters who vote historically for the incumbent's Party, and even the incumbent them self. Effective and warranted reforms in the gerrymandering system have so far, been like getting CEO's to voluntarily take compensation package cuts.
In typical American fashion, several differing approaches have been touted to remedy the situation that prevents voters from perceiving more choice on election day. These differing approaches serve to divide the electorate on the issue, and prevent them from mandating true reform. Is it any wonder, these approaches are all commended by some elected representatives in accordance with their reelection needs.
Term Limits. Never to be approved by a majority of Congress of their own volition, term limits requires a majority of Congress to pass such legislation. Holding out for the day that a majority of Congress will vote for their own term limits is like holding one's breath for a mega-lottery win. It's possible, but, so unlikely as to insure death as the nearly guaranteed outcome.
The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act. This humorous piece of nonsense had one design, to make the public think the Congress was seeking reform, while actually reforming nothing at the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is money as speech. And virtually no incumbent in Congress is going to earnestly sanction a Constitutional amendment outlawing money as freedom of speech.
The very core of the democratic election process is one person one vote. That core principle is entirely nullified and voided when money is given free speech entitlement and permitted the power to sway votes and legislation in Congress. He/She who has the most bucks controls the most votes. This is all too often demonstrated in American elections and in the relationship between K-Street (lobbyists) and The Hill (Congress persons).
Lastly, on the list of divide and conquer faux reforms to address incumbency advantage over public approval is what is known as the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. This item doesn't come up very often, but is often bandied about by some State representatives and reform minded groups. This was one of the first amendments to be proposed to our Constitution but failed ratification by 3 votes, and continues to fail State ratification to this day.
In essence, it would require significantly more Representatives in the House per number of persons represented. Anywhere from 600 to 6000 Representatives would be called for in the House, if this Amendment were ratified, depending on how the math algorithm were adjusted and interpreted. From the Wikipedia link above:
According to the Supreme Court's 1939 ruling in Coleman v. Miller, because there is no deadline for its ratification, Article the First is technically still pending before state lawmakers. Today, with 50 states in the Union, the legislatures of 27 more states, for a total of 38, would have to ratify the Amendment in order for it to become part of the federal Constitution. Based on the current U.S. population and the traditions governing the size of the House of Representatives, it is unlikely, however, that the legislatures of any additional states will approve it.
These are the reform measures politicians put forth to the public to appear reform minded. There is however, a reform measure founded by a group of citizens which has vastly more potential than any of the above. It is called Vote Out Incumbents Democracy or VOID, for short. The idea came from Jack Gargin's 1980's campaign called THRO, (Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out) which bankrupted not long after its second election involvement.
The idea is simple, and rests entirely with the American voters, NOT with the Congress. VOID advocates that voters consider voting for a challenger from their own party, or another, if they are not happy with the performance of Congress at large. VOID postulates that even if voters like their own representative, the fact that the same voters disapprove of Congress' performance, means their own representative is, at least, ineffective in bringing about the changes the voter hopes for.
And therefore, if that voter joins millions of other voters who choose to vote for a Congress whose performance they can approve of, instead of 7 or 9% of incumbents losing reelection in an election year, 30, 40, or even 50% of incumbents could lose their seats. It is only logical and rational to conclude that if 1/3 to 1/2 of incumbents in Congress lost reelection, the remaining incumbents and the new freshman coming in, would have no choice but to commit to producing the results from Congress the people expect or, face their own failed reelection bid in the very next election.
So, reforming Congress comes down to proposals that require Congress to act against incumbent's own interests or, one which the voters themselves control and enact of their own accord. The former has virtually a snowball's chance in hell. The latter, at least, is in the control of the voters. And that means voters are not helpless in the matter, unless they choose to be.
Iran's problem stems from an autocratic and authoritarian regime, against which the people struggle to free themselves through democratic elections. America's problem stems from the people failing to exercise the intended power of the vote, to remove incumbents from office.
Voting, as Iran has demonstrated, is not required to keep incumbents in office. Incumbents will take care of that all by themselves. The vote is required to remove incumbents from office. It is a true and literal shame that so many American voters are both unaware, and unwilling, to exercise that intended power of the vote to remedy their disapproval of Congress. We here at VOID are working as hard as we can to remedy that. But, you have to do your part.
Communicating with millions of American voters requires 100's of thousands of dollars. Your membership, bumper sticker purchases, and donations will help build those funds. Your carrying the VOID message to others where you live, will help VOID grow those millions of voters needed to reform Congress. Together, committed to action to make our common purpose of improving Congressional approval ratings, we really can make this happen.
]]>The answers are, Yes and No, respectively. Here's why.
]]> If the objective of voting in a democracy is to elect government which most voters can approve of, why are Americans' approval ratings for Congress historically in the dumps? Either the objective is false, or voters do not vote wisely. Since, most voters would agree with the objective of voting as stated above, we have to answer why a majority of voters do not vote wisely.What constitutes a wise vote? Voting for campaign promises, or voting for government results? Many things influence how voters vote, but the incumbency advantage (PDF) for reelection cannot be overlooked, nor the fact that the cost of campaigns have risen dramatically over the last several decades in advertising frenzies. Has voting based on campaign promises and rhetoric produced government, whose results are approved of by a majority of the public? Polling says, clearly not.
A wise vote then, would appear to be one in which the voter votes based on results of tenure in office, all other things being equal. If voters, for example, disapprove of the way Congress is handling national government, why are 90% and more of incumbents seeking reelection, voted back into office? The answer is, voters are not voting wisely.
Consider this: If the people did not have the vote, wouldn't most politicians in government remain in office indefinitely or, at least, for very long tenures in government? History demonstrates that power to govern is highly prized by those in power. They will insure they remain in power if the issue is left up to them.
This was precisely the thinking of the Founding Fathers in America, who, having witnessed the corruption and overreach of power by a King in England, whose term as King was for life, decided to create a government in which voting for those to be in power would become the standard. What voters today seem to fail to understand is, the power to vote for those in government, is in actuality, the power to remove those in power from office, by voting for a challenger instead.
Therein lies the power of the vote, and the power of the people, if they were to ever wisely choose to exercise it as a majority. The power to remove politicians from office is the real power of the vote. The politicians in America have invented all manner of law and regulations from gerrymandering to ballot qualification regulations designed for one express purpose, to help insure as far as possible, their reelection. This is as true of the two parties in control of government as individual Congress persons.
They tirelessly attempt to insure they remain in power, regardless of whether the majority of voters approve of Congress' efforts, or not. They work to appease large vocal special interest groups capable of supporting their reelection. And they have been remarkably successful at this. In the last election, the public's approval rating of Congress was at its lowest in history. An 11% approval rating, and 95% of those seeking reelection in Congress, were reelected.
If the American people want Congress to act differently, they must vote to remove a majority of those in Congress who are responsible for the way Congress has been acting. Voting for the same people in Congress is not going to change the direction of Congress' actions. If American voters suddenly voted as a majority wisely, to replace half or more of Congress' incumbents, the new politicians being voted in could not avoid the understanding that they too will not be reelected if the results of Congress do not change during their term in office. That is the wise lesson a wise voting public could impart to their representatives in Washington D.C.
So, to the question: "In a democracy, Is there such a thing as wise voting?", the answer is Yes, even when much of the voting public is ignorant of the nation's current events (PDF).
To the question: "And if there were, wouldn't a majority of voters vote accordingly?", the answer is no, not necessarily. It depends on whether voters believe their representative's campaign promises and rhetoric, fabricated for ONLY one purpose, to get reelected, or not.
If on the other hand, the majority of voters looked at the results of government and disapproved, and chose on that basis alone to vote for a challenger instead of their incumbent running for reelection, then, and only then, would a majority of voters be empowered to vote wisely, for a better government than the one they disapprove of in the polls.
I for one, do not approve of the results of Congress. I for one, will not vote for my representatives seeking reelection, regardless of party. Even if they were well intended, they were ineffective in altering the course of Congress. Instead I will vote for a challenger in the primary from my own party instead. I for one, cannot make a difference in the outcome of national elections. I, as one amongst many, choosing to vote wisely in this way, can change results of government by Congress.
I for one am encouraging all friends, family, and acquaintances to consider voting wisely from now on. How about you?
Logically, the theory presents a fairly sound explanation for an unfortunate phenomenon we witness election after election after election. When it's simply used as an explanation, I don't have a problem with the theory of rational ignorance. However, when economists, politicians, and voters use it to justify ignorance, then it becomes a big, big problem. Accepting rational ignorance as inevitable and tolerable is why we have so many unresolved issues today.
Voting, while an individual right, is not an individual pastime. Certainly, our votes are private. Yet, at the same time, are votes are pooled together with those of other voters in order to make a decision. This means that any change that is going to be enacted in American politics needs to reach a critical mass before it can have a strong, obvious effect. If you alone are informed, you cannot impact the election; but, if you help your fellow voters become informed, you can have a dramatic impact on the election. This is what political campaigning is all about.
Imagine for a moment such a campaign wasn't about a politician, a party, or even a political mindset. Imagine "Get out the vote" campaigns that focus on getting voters informed. That is what I would like to see; that is what VOID tries to do. Don't ask people who they are voting for, ask why they are voting for someone. Voters informing voters will change politics, because so much of politics today relies on voter ignorance.
As I see it, combating rational ignorance requires two things. First, reliable information needs to be cheaper - in time and effort. There are several organizations that devote themselves to this: Vote Smart, Congress.org, and Common Cause are a few of the national organizations. Second, it requires that regular people make the decision not only to be informed, but to urge their fellow citizens to become informed. Change requires more than one person, but one person can get it started.
In closing, I ask you to think about the last election you participated in: Think about who you voted for. How much did you know about that representative? What did you base your decision to vote for them on? Whether or not that candidate won the election, think about the power and responsibility that seat holds. Did you vote for a presidential candidate? Think about how much power the President wields. Did you vote for a senatorial candidate? Think about how much power a Senator wields. Think about each candidate you voted for, and how much power they would have had (or do have) if they won the election. Think about what you knew about that candidate and how you decided on that candidate. Ask yourself, how responsible was your decision? If each voter took responsibility for their own decision, their own influence, then we could see real change.
Ignorance may be rational and reasonable, but it is neither responsible nor wise. When you vote, you are acting not simply for yourself, but for everyone. Be informed. Vote responsibly.
]]>First a note about why groups are so powerful in a democratic society. Those in power to make decisions for the society, culture, and government, seek to retain their positions of power. If power wasn't important to them, they wouldn't be in that position in the first place. Hence, if a group's voice is sufficiently loud enough to threaten the removal of a person from power, that person in power will very likely find a way to yield to that group's interest and agenda.
There is an entire branch of mathematics now created to model groups seeking voice in policy. It is called network modeling. And it is taking the democratic world by storm. If having a voice in this world is important to you, you must develop an interest in network modeling. An example will prove the point.
A woman in a remote Kenyan village has a cousin who needs to get a letter off to a person in London who may help him, gratis, with his case with the Kenyan government. The cousin offers the woman his next new born calf if she can get this letter off to London.
In their village, there is no internet, no phones, no courier service, no FedEx or UPS. The woman spends the next week visiting everyone she knows in and around the village asking if they know someone who is leaving the village to a town or city in the next week or so. They all say no.
The woman returns the letter to her cousin with apologies, saying she can't find anyone who knows how to get this letter out of the village. At that moment, the woman's Aunt who lives in Nairobi, drives up to visit overnight. The Aunt agrees to drop the letter off at the FedEx store in Nairobi when she returns. The day is saved for the woman who gets the calf, the cousin who gets his letter off to the London barrister, and the Aunt who just dropped in to visit and see if there was anything she could do to help her niece. (Inspired by a TV program on networking).
Communication opens doors, creates opportunities, and makes things happen. In politics, communication between groups of people with a common interest, allowing them to organize and speak with one voice, or obstruct the goals and intentions of those in power, can alter the course of social, cultural, and governmental policy.
So, what group should you join? What are your interests for social, cultural, or governmental change? There is likely a group already in place waiting to welcome your voice and support toward effecting that change. As an individual without great wealth, your voice has no volume, and will not be heard over the din of others. Your choice is simple, become a billionaire, join a group, or, resign yourself to having no influence whatsoever over the direction of social, cultural, or governmental affairs.
A note about wealth. Wealthy persons are capable of funding group's outreach programs to recruit volunteers, supporters, voters, and membership rolls. Wealth is an incredibly potent force in the formation of groups and agendas pursued in our society and government. It is impossible to avoid stating the obvious here regarding policy voice; wealthy persons fund candidates to offices of power where the agenda of the wealthy donors will be represented and fostered in social, cultural, and governmental policy making. The non-wealthy can pool contributions to create a competitive influence against the wealthy. The non-wealthy often fail to recognize the importance of their small $5 potential contribution in this way.
Below is a sample list of web sites where one can begin their search for a group to join. Do a little homework: Find and join a group which can amplify your voice making it heard.
And of course, there is my favorite and highly recommended advocacy group, Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy.
So, what groups have you joined or support with dollars?
]]>These are merely simple definitions. Much more complicated definitions exist, and those definitions are especially important in the sciences. A truly sound theory is formed following rigorous guidelines. However, the most important element of a theory, from the point of view of an informed voter, is its changeability and the recognition that while it may be true, it is not a fact. A good theory is predictive, meaning that it can be used to accurately forecast future observations. When facts do not align with the theory, the theory is thrown out - thus, we no longer believe the world is flat. More complicated still are social theories. Theories that try to predict human behavior rely on statistics, and cannot predict the outcome of individual events. Decisions concerning political issues rely heavily on social theories and, because their predictive nature is based on statistics, political theories can be very hard to disprove. However, when data does not support a particular theory, no matter how dearly we'd like to cling to it, the informed voter should recognize that the theory should not be used to create government policy.
The issues facing voters are often much weightier than whether it will rain. Unfortunately, these issues are often a mix between complex theories and personal values. We get so caught up in what we believe that many do not stop to think about the differences between what we know (facts), what we guess (theories), and the consequences of being wrong. We often jump up to support what we believe, when a little thought just might change our minds.
Two contemporary examples can illustrate this. First, there is global warming. We know temperatures are rising; we know glaciers and the ice at the poles are receding; we know there is more carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases" in the air. We theorize these rising temperatures mark an on-going trend; we theorize that this trend is caused by man-made increases of these "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere; and, we theorize the results will be catastrophic if this trend continues. Personally, I'm skeptical of these theories. However, when considering the consequences of being wrong - the catastrophic impact to both man and planet - I do support actions that rely on these theories. I believe the potential good outweighs the potential harm of making recommended changes in how we live our lives. When it comes to global warming, this is how I personally balance what we know, what we guess, and the consequences against what I personally believe.
Next, there is economic stimulus. We know a lot less about economic stimulus than we do about global warming. Our economic policy (and that of every other nation) is driven primarily by theory. We know, based on data that has accumulated over the last year, our country is in recession. We theorize this recession continues; we theorize that economic stimulus will help us recover from this recession; we theorize that President Bush's "bailouts" provide economic stimulus; we theorize that the budget plan drafted by President Obama's administration also provides economic stimulus; and we theorize that these forms of economic stimulus can be enacted in a timely enough manner to help us recover from this recession instead of merely causing inflation (a contradictory theory). After studying what we know, what we guess, and the consequences of both in my economics classes (which happened to coincide with the national debate on these matters), I have found I cannot support economic stimulus.
Every day our lives are shaped by theories. Our government policies - indeed our government itself - are based on theories. This puts a great weight on the informed voter to stop and think about the theories underlying the issues - yet, it provides a great freedom, too. The great thing about theories is that they improve, if we're vigilant. Once upon a time, people believed the earth was flat. A lot of facts seemed to support this theory. But, the theory was not based on all the facts. Some brave people theorized the earth was round. Without their willingness to embrace a new theory, the Americas would never have been discovered, this nation would never have been born, and we wouldn't have a voice in how this nation is governed. So, be informed: ask yourself what do we know, what do we guess, what are the consequences of being wrong? Then, weigh the answers against what you believe. If we do that, then we cannot help but have better theories, better government, and a better nation.
]]>What stands between supporters of Congressional term limits and actual legislation invoking term limits on Congressional politicians? Congressional incumbents opposed to term limits.
What stands between supporters of GOOOH and electing their own grass roots candidates to the federal Congress? Answer: Congressional incumbents opposed to rivals and challengers who might unseat them. GOOOH doesn't understand that BEFORE they can elect their own candidates, they first have to convince the voters of the wisdom of voting out their incumbent representative. GOOOH leadership lacks an understanding of first principles, and the absolute necessity for a majority in democratic elections, which means tying their organization's results to a larger majority of voters voting for something bigger and sounder than just another political party.
All reform organizations have one thing in common? Their need to support and grow the Vote Out Incumbents Democracy political action committee's efforts, in order to dramatically grow the numbers of voters willing to vote for a challenger to an incumbent already in Congress. None of these other organizations can hope to make inroads into Congress, or reform, as long as the Congress remains populated with a majority of incumbents opposed to such organizations and reforms.
So why does GOOOH refuse to even list VOID on their web site? Why don't more Article V Convention supporters engage and work with VOID to help bring about their own goal? Why does the Independent Party ignore VOID as the vehicle to their own rise to rival the Duopoly Parties? I frankly can't answer that question. One would have to ask their leadership and organizers why they refuse to take the most obvious first step to make their dreams of a better federal government a reality.
We have reached out to all these organizations, one way or another in the past, with the logical and common sense proposal to organize ALL voters disgruntled with Congress for whatever reasons, to unseat incumbents. But, they all appear to fail to see how that would further their cause. Perplexing, isn't it?
It would appear they fail to comprehend the concept of leveraging. GOOOH could leverage the supporters of the Article V Convention folks, the Independent Party, and Term Limit supporters, and VOID supporters in their first and primary objective of organizing and educating voters to vote out their own incumbent representative. But, the GOOOH leadership truly fails to comprehend that getting voters to vote against their incumbent representative is the first step to electing GOOOH candidates. Why? Again, I cannot answer that question. I have made this same appeal of reason to the leader of GOOOH, but, he just doesn't comprehend it.
The folks at VOID, of which I am one, understand that retraining voters to act in opposition to their incumbent representatives, in the voter's own self-interest, is the first and foremost step to be taken. If voters wish to acquire the power to influence Congress and control their representative's agenda in the voter's interests, instead of the wealthy special interests, the corporate interests, or the Duopoly Party's interests, the voters must first demonstrate they control who gets elected.
Congress represents those who control their reelection campaigns, funds, and media campaigns. The majority of voters respond to those reelection campaigns, funds, and media campaigns as if they were the only game in town. That is what has to change before Congress will change the way it governs and uses tax payers. An anti-incumbent sentiment and strategy taken up by the voters as their best friend and defense at election time, is key to any kind of improvement in the results of Congress.
Switching from the GOP to the Democratic Party and back again is not improvement. It is exchanging one set of devastating national problems with another set. That is because the majority of Congress persons yield to their Party, their wealthy campaign contributors, and their media influential organizational contributors, in pretty much that order, before they ever get around to representing what would be in the best interest of voters and this nation, if that is possible at all.
And switching parties does not address the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that voters are not in control of the elections, or even their own vote. They vote as their Party dictates. They vote for what they read from their Incumbent's mailings to them at tax payer cost. They vote for who they most recognize. They vote for a single or small cluster of issues instead of the future of this nation as a whole. Voters are not dumb. They simply lack an appreciation for an alternative to voting for a Political Party instead of their own, their children's, and the nation's future.
VOID offers voters an alternative to voting for the status quo, perpetuating ineffective, corrupt, and self-serving incumbents at the rate of 80 to 90% each and every election. But, it takes word of mouth discussions, dollar support, media reach, and an ever widening number of organizations building their own success on the back of VOID's success. As VOID becomes more successful in creating a majority of voters whose common strength and agenda is the understanding and need to remove the status quo from Congress, especially the ineffective, corrupt, and irresponsible, our government will improve, and needed reforms will take place.
If you are a supporter of GOOOH, the Independence Caucus, or any other organization seeking reforms in our government and improvement in our nation's future, you should sincerely consider asking your organization's leadership why they ARE NOT YET supporting VOID's efforts as their first major step to success. Vote Out Incumbents Democracy is the wedge that can open the doors of consensus to elect challengers instead of ineffective, corrupt, and self-serving incumbents. And that opens the elective door for GOOOH, Tenure Corrupts, and a number of other organizations seeking a better future and government in America.
Nelson Walker of Tenure Corrupts gets it. Mr. Walker emailed me awhile back and in his email he had this to say:
"CONGRESS, with a 9% approval rating, is still getting a 95% REELECTION RATE!!! ... My latest thoughts revolve around the fact that there are many groups like us around the country (see partial list below) , who in their own way are trying to take back the Congress. Each may have built a following, in which there may be some overlap with others. We all ought to get together.
For any reform organization to neglect support of VOID and its efforts, is to fail to take the first concrete step to making their organization's goal a reality. If reform organization leaders don't get it, perhaps their supporters need new leadership before they can hope to reform the Congress and our nation's future. Persuading voters to vote against their own incumbents and for challengers in general, due to their dissatisfaction with Congress, is the path to government reform.
VOID is the only organization with that singular objective and agenda, as its reason for existence. Which makes VOID truly non-partisan, and non-affiliated with any political party, candidate, or political agenda other than forcing greater numbers of newly elected Congressional representatives to represent the people's and nation's needs, above those of Party, special interest lobbyists, and wealthy campaign contributors; or fail to be reelected. If they fail to get reelected, the voters will control the Congress, and no one else. Politicians will understand this like they understand nothing else so clearly.
So, why again does GOOOH refuse to list VOID on their web site? Why does FOAVC leadership fail to understand that voting out incumbents must come before getting Congress to recognize the State's call for a Constitutional Convention? Why again, does the Independence Caucus not recognize VOID as the spearhead of their own movement, and advocate for VOID?
Like Congress, such reform organizations too often get led by a few with too narrow a focus. A narrow focus which attends specific reform but doesn't address a national effort and consensus to remove status quo incumbents first and foremost, is a self-defeating strategy. Reform begins with removing from Congress those opposed to reform. And that requires a majority on election day. A single issue reform organization is incapable of creating that majority. That is why America needs Vote Out Incumbents Democracy to rally around and support, in order to address directly the obstacle to reform for a better Congress and future for us all.
And the obstacle is a voter mindset which seeks to reelect incumbents because that is what incumbents have convinced them is the right thing to do. First principles requires addressing first obstacles, in order for progress to proceed.
]]>Your board of directors met twice in March. We need your help to finish our plans for the 2010 election cycle. We aim to move ever more voters to objectively evaluate their congressional representatives before pulling the lever to reelect them.
Your help and support are needed. Please review the following options and choose as many for your support as you are comfortable providing.
]]> 1) Got a friend or family member who is likely to see things as wisely as you do? Please purchase a Vote Out Incumbents window or bumper sticker for them as well. Only 3$ each and 75 cents S&H. Funds go directly into VOID's public outreach campaigns. The car window stickers raise public awareness of the growing2) Tell a friend, acquaintance, or family member about VOID. Give them our email website address (http://voidnow.org) and ask them to contact us or to purchase one of VOID's car window stickers.
Create a VOID 8.5 x 11 information sheet to post on local bulletin boards. Be sure to email us with details on where you post these so we can share them with other supporters. Let folks you hang around with know about the option to vote out their incumbent *in the primary election* (No need for voters to vote against their party - just for a challenger from the same party), then let us know how it went, so we can share your success stories with other VOID supporters.
3) Are you a VOID member? If not, please consider becoming one. Individual annual memberships begin at $15 and go directly to funding VOID outreach expenses. Plus your name and state will appear memorialized on our membership roster on our website.
4) Volunteer. Become a VOID hero: a champion of the cause for better
government results. Review and select a volunteer role from below and reply to this email to let us know who you are and which role you chose:
-- News Media email and internet contact person. We provide the text, you get the text out to media sources we provide, and you help develop. This only involves a couple hours on an occasional basis, about every 8 weeks. This person will also work with our volunteers to coordinate call-in show participation by our supporters in the months just before the election.
-- Call-In Show participants. Have you called into TV and Radio shows to give them your two cents? Do you Twitter media outlets with your political views from time to time? Why not put that experience to work for VOID by calling in with VOID's messages from time to time? Your public voice will help raise the public awareness we need to change Congress for the better.
-- Volunteer Correspondent. This person will coordinate communications and follow up with our volunteers, recording, and passing information back to the board regarding volunteer project start dates, progress reports, and completion summaries. If you work and communicate well with other people, this role would require only an 1 to 2 hours per week at most.
-- Media coverage reporters. These volunteers will monitor and search media sources for anti-incumbent stories, polls, challenger announcements for Congressional races, and other media content that may be relevant or helpful to VOID's mission or supporters. Good language skills and word processor would be helpful. This role would require between 2 and 4 hours per month. More like 4 hours per month or an hour per week, in the 3 months prior to the election.
-- State VOID coordinators. These volunteers will help put together a VOID operations center in their state. We will provide you with everything you need from job descriptions and web site to contracts. Very good people skills and either a business, legal, or college graduate background are recommended for these roles. State coordinator roles will require 4 to 8 hours per month depending on proximity to elections (increasing toward election day). A background check consent form is required.
That's it for this newsletter but for some parting comments:
Changing old habits takes effort. We all have to put forth a bit of effort if our Congress is going to improve the way it conducts its business and responds to our nation's needs, now, and in the future. Congress has proven time and again, they won't do this on their own. A large number of these incumbents need a boot in the seat of their pants on election day for the Freshman Congressman or woman to witness on their way in.
If you have ideas or brainstorms on how VOID can better organize voters dissatisfied with Congress' lack of responsibility toward the American people and our future, we really want to hear them. We are volunteers and learning just like you. Just reply with your ideas to this email.
We love you, gals and guys, for your commitment to our nation, and our children's future. Though we have not met face to face, we consider you all friends deserving of our time, respect, and attention. We very much look forward to sharing this journey and experience with you all.
Sincerely, your VOID
Stephanie Christ,
Daniel Summars,
and David Remer