Steve Glickman, president and founder of the Democratic Empowerment Party, is a would-be reformer of democracy and defender of the underdog like you’ve never seen. Hegelian in approach, he wants to balance economic power and political power through a provocative approach he calls vote sizing. Simple in concept but profound in repercussion, the idea is to give larger votes to people at the lower end of the economic ladder. I interviewed this reluctant leader by phone from his apartment in Vancouver, BC.

~~~~~

PB: You’ve come up with a radical idea for reforming democracy by weighting votes. How long have you been working on this?

Steve: Over 20 years. I developed it as a philosophy student in university. I realized that there are two major forces in society — money and power. Most of us believe in the separation of church and state. Well, I believe just as strongly that wealth and power should be separate. Because when they overlap, we get corruption. So the way to separate wealth and power is to increase the power of the powerless by increasing the size of their vote.

PB: The principle of one-person-one-vote is sacred to most Americans. What moved you to tinker with it?

Steve: I really didn’t want to. I avoided it for years because there are a lot funner things to do than trying to root out corruption and change fundamental democratic principles. But I took a trip to Indonesia a few years ago, and I witnessed first hand the awful effects of powerless poverty. As I talked with so many desperate people who had no power to change their situation, I realized that they had a lot of wisdom but no way to realize their ideas. It broke my heart. So I decided I to summon up my courage and become a full time advocate for vote sizing.
PB: I don’t know when I’ve heard of such a radical idea for changing a fundamental principle. Why so drastic?

Steve: Is it drastic? I’m not an anarchist, corporatist, socialist, communist, fascist, or fundamentalist and I’m not for one world government. I just want to work within government to move it toward more democracy.

PB: More democracy? But isn’t vote sizing unfair?

Steve: Is it fair for some people to have all the money and all the power, while the rest of us have neither? Is it fair for children to be born into poverty with limited or no opportunity to ever get out of it? I know some people point to examples of poor people working themselves out of poverty. And yes, the system always allows a few to escape. But the current system will never allow the majority of poor and working class people to achieve a decent standard of living. It’s rigged to prevent that from happening. And the middle class is always teetering on the edge, just one major health emergency away from powerless poverty. Most of us are so preoccupied with making ends meet that we have no energy or time to focus on the corruption that oozes back and forth between government and industry. That’s what’s unfair!

PB: You are so passionate about this. Why?

Steve: I’m pretty much terrified of the path we are on. I don’t know why more people aren’t as scared as I am. A few counterfeit leaders and insulated puppet-masters cannot continue to dominate the rest of us and the environment this way much longer. There will be disastrous consequences – it’s already happening. There’s one man in Africa who is as scared as I am of this situation. And he’s even more courageous than I am. Julius found my website four years ago and is working to establish a branch of the party in Cameroon. He doesn’t have a degree or subscription to the Wall Street Journal, but he is very smart, brave and authentic. He assists local university students in writing their papers on subjects of history, philosophy, African and English literature.

I don’t think it’s fair that he has to save up his money to go to the internet caf? just to email me, that is, if the power is on. I have so much respect for this man. He literally risks his life when he gets on the radio or in the newspaper promoting democratic reform. Some of his friends and neighbors tell him he is wasting his time and that rich people will kill him if he continues, but he says he isn’t doing this for himself but for future generations. I’m passionate about increasing his power because I want him and billions of people like him to have a chance to live a decent life.

PB: But why do you want to punish the wealthy? It’s not their fault that others are poor, is it?

Steve: I don’t want to punish anyone. That’s like saying that giving the vote to women or freed slaves was done to punish men or plantation owners. I want the wealthy to keep their money and participate in a healthy capitalist economy. But to be fair, they shouldn’t also have the power. If they need power, they can choose that – but they’ll have to reduce their income to get a weighted vote. Personally, I’d be ok with a smaller vote because I’d prefer to have a large income. If that means giving up some political power to those who need it for the greater good, fine.

PB: A lot of poor people already don’t vote. Why should they get more of a vote?

Steve: Many are disillusioned because the current system doesn’t work. Did you know that a hundred years ago, people arguing against giving women the vote said that women didn’t want to vote, weren’t smart enough to vote, and that such a nasty business should be left to men? Critics of vote sizing say the same thing about people who are poorer and working class — that they aren’t as qualified to vote. That was also the argument against giving freed slaves the vote and the premise behind the poll tax.

But many women and blacks worked tirelessly and even died securing the right to vote. America has a history of having low expectations of women and people of color. We want to improve the situation of people who are struggling, but it always seems that some expert has the answer. I say poor, working and middle class people know better than anyone else what is going to improve their situation. Let’s give them a chance to prove it. So what if they don’t have a formal education? There is a lot of wisdom in poor communities. I believe if we raise expectations with a weighted vote, the result will be empowerment, responsibility and progress. But I don’t obsess about what they will vote for. I have enough faith in people that I think they deserve a chance to figure it out for themselves. That’s democracy at work.

PB: The last two presidential elections, some people believe, were stolen. How would vote sizing address that problem?

Steve: Vote sizing would use paper ballots with printed bar codes and offline scanners to insure autonomy, accuracy and a paper trail. But election fraud, like electronic voting, is only one tool that tyrants use to disenfranchise us; there’s also gerrymandering, payola, a dumb-downed debate, shadowy appointments, foreign meddling, and more.

Also, tyranny is only one of corruption’s four sides – the other three being brutality, patronage and greed – so there’s a lot we need to fix. Vote sizing is not a magic pill to make all our problems go away; it’s a democratic reform so we the people can elect sensible, honest leaders who care about all of our fates, and not just corporate and super-wealthy interests. That’s why I don’t trust so-called experts who say they have all the answers. It’s not them but we the people who know how to keep corruption at bay.

PB: Do you really think this could ever come to pass?

Steve: It’s a challenge because it’s outside the box of what people consider democratic. But think about this: before 1920, was the US a democracy? Most people would say yes, even though half the population couldn’t vote for the president or congress. So democracies can always be more democratic. We should remember that women’s suffrage came after a century of struggle. Before women’s suffrage, no one except the visionaries could see its inevitability. I see vote sizing as the next reform that brings even more fairness, so it’s inevitable. But it still will take time and encounter plenty of resistance. I would just challenge people to set aside the sanctity of one-person-one-vote for a day and see what is possible.

PB: Would you have to change the constitution to put this in place?

Steve: The US constitution would have to be changed for federal elections and charters for local elections. But you can use vote sizing anywhere people vote for anything. We have a business model that would give janitors and secretaries weighted votes to elect the CEO. We also propose weighting votes inversely to students’ grades in schools when it’s time to decide the curriculum. Like in politics or business, vote sized learning encourages cooperation rather than competition, which could really help our schools.

PB: How can people get involved?

Steve: I’m so glad you asked because vote sizing is really about the voices of the people, and not so much mine. There’s plenty of ways people can get involved at http://www.VoteSizing.org. They can brainstorm ideas and engage in dialogue online. They can become a member of the Democratic Empowerment Party. They can start their own local chapter. We need lots of courageous people who have faith in each other to step up and join the effort. Leadership positions are available.

~~~~~

Don’t be surprised if a South American chapter of the Democratic Empowerment Party is announced soon. Glickman plans a trip to Cartagena, Colombia for the month of February 2008 to recruit people who will promote vote sizing in South America. He’ll be taping his adventure to document the early development of the DEP’s Colombian branch.
About the Author: kayaking

“It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good,” exclaimed John Heywood in 1546.? Perhaps today’s news suggests the veracity and tenacity of this antique proverb.? ?Ill winds seem to be blowing rather ferociously these days.? The storms that affect so many and so much, the financial markets that plunge so deeply, the evidence of consequences of ethical and moral and legal and political and financial choices seem to be battering the world’s psyche.?
?
Head in the sand types will look the other way, hope for a simplistic solution and imagine themselves as acting out of some kind of? so called and suspect religious motivation.? Rationality seems to be at the bottom of our list of behaviors.?
?
Maybe, just maybe, we think?some new American Idol personality will make it alright.? Maybe, if we revert to type and act out school yard behavior, we will end up okay.? Maybe, if we just believe the worst?of the best and settle for the best of the worst we will survive.? Somehow, I don’t think so.??
?
Those on the Texas coast who chose not to evacuate are good people.? They just used bad judgment.? So are we as we face?the plethora of politics and its attendant confusions.? We too aren’t bad people, we just can’t seem to make very good choices.? The last eight years, which is about the amount of time it takes to earn a PhD, surely should have taught us something.??
?
Yet, blindly, we are?like lemmings heading for the cliffs.??
?
The news this morning doesn’t tell the whole story.? For there is, in the breast of all, a beating heart that yearns for REASON.? There is inside the whole of us, a conscience, a spirit, a deep seated desire to find the best and be the best.? So, tempted by the sin of cynicism, let us ward off that debilitating choice by looking to the good.? Let us find?the good which?can buttress us from?”ill winds blowing.”?

mom rox

The American constitution ratified in 1789 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is one of the most successful constitutions in the world since it has remained almost unchanged to this day while at the same time remaining a major source of authority in the United States . However there has been some serious criticism of it over the years. This article will outline and address the main criticisms made to the American constitution by its critics [1].

The strongest criticism made to the American Constitution is that it is an undemocratic constitution. Critics point to the fact that the Federalist movement was explicitly anti-democratic at the time of the drafting and ratification of the American constitution. The Federalists were initially not an official party in the early days of the republic but later on became one of the main two parties in the initial years of American independence. The Federalists believed that absolute democracy leads to the abuse of power and tyranny. Critics argue the constitution places a lot of limits on democracy like the indirect election of the president, undemocratic election of senators (later fixed by the 17th amendment) and many checks and balances on the powers of the different branches of government. They point out that the founding fathers of the constitution believed in the principles of a “Republican Government” which in reality is a sort of elite democracy. Although the critics are correct with regards to the worries of the founding fathers in establishing absolute democracy they tend to confuse the actual text of the constitution which should be the main area of concentration with the interpretations of it in the early days of the republic. Incorrect interpretations of the constitution are a completely separate matter and should be addressed in a different context. The actual text of the constitution places no major limit on elections and democracy [2].

The founding fathers like many other scholars in the world at the time believed that giving absolute democracy to the people will lead into chaos and eventually to tyranny. However their concern did not result in an undemocratic constitution. The fact that they placed many checks and balances on different branches of the government, such as how the President can veto legislation from Congress, does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic. In fact, proponents argue that this approach is in tune with the real spirit of democracy in which a portion of the population cannot force its will on the entire population. Also with regards to the indirect election of the President it should be pointed out that at the early days of the republic, States enjoyed a lot of independence and power. This was natural since they had just been united and looked with suspicion and rivalry at other states. The indirect election of the president was a way to keep the power in the states and at the same time make sure that no single state took control of the country.

Another major criticism made to the American Constitution is that it places too many restrictions on the government. Critics point out that compared to the constitution of other countries, ‘technically’ much more restrictions are place on the American government by the constitution especially with regards to the executive branch. As an example critics point to the fact that the president needs permission for major decisions like declaring war and the signing of major treaties. As pointed our earlier, state rights were a main point of concern at the time and these restrictions were mainly placed by the founding fathers in order to preserve the power and rights of the states and thus prevent the Federal government by overrunning the power of the states. Also looking from another perspective this can be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage in the sense that the president cannot act alone and even though elected he or she still needs the approval of the people through their representative in congress for major decisions.

Critics also point to the fact that the constitution does not have clear boundaries between the power and authority of the main institutions and also regarding the power of the state and federal government. They argue that this has led to many confusions and also confrontation regarding the authority of institutions like the congress and the executive branch and also with regards to the power of the states and the federal government. Some scholars and analysts however see this as a one of the key reasons the constitution has been successful over the years. They believe that the very survival of the constitution has been due to the substantial room it has left for interpretation.

These scholars believe that being vague on controversial issues was the reason the constitution was ratified in the first place at a time when difference of opinion was very strong among the founding fathers. They point out that the reason a document drafted over two hundred years ago is still in use today is the fact that it has been drafted in a way that can be interpreted differently based on the time period and the circumstances otherwise it would have become gradually obsolete. To prevent misinterpretation and drastic changes in the path of the country the Supreme Court was given the exclusive task of interpreting the constitution.

In conclusion the US constitution remains one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. At the time of its ratification it was truly revolutionary in terms of providing equality and liberty for all its citizens. Even though there are has been some criticism to it in the past century most scholars agree that the US constitution with all its strengths and weaknesses is one of the most successful constitutions when compared to the constitution of other countries. The fact that it has remained almost unchanged to when it was ratified bears witness to its success.

Idealism is a quality to be cultivated and nurtured. It is the idealist who helps us see things as they might be. It is the nature of some to be optimistic, upbeat, and encouraging. Usually, such personalities attract attention, respect and affection. Is it because they are always giving off similar signals to others? Sorting out the id, a person’s inherited, unconscious psychological impulses, and the cyn (sin) in cynicism (believing the worst) one needs to work hard at coming to a state of openness.

While cynicism is often all the rage, particularly in an election cycle, it surely is not representative of the best within us. Idealism is! So, choosing behaviors, which seems to be the one most suited to your disposition? Sure, it’s easy to pile on and denigrate and downplay, and arouse suspicion and fear. Of course, there are those whose paranoia loves to be fed and in great quantity. Naturally, there will be some who, even if the sky is blue and the sun is bright, will insist a storm is surely on its way.

During the next several weeks we will be tested to determine what the shape and nature of our collective lives will look like. In choosing leaders, we are saying a lot about ourselves. In siding with one point of view, we are also choosing to reject the other. The choices are complex, often troubling, and influenced by innuendo and even misrepresentation. So how do we sort it all out? How do we get to the place that our idealism is confirmed by how we vote? How do we arrive at the moment when we are sure that our choice, for us, is one we can live with?

+Read, read, read! And then research what has been read. I have been found with egg on my face on several occasions when I have concluded the veracity of some information or another and sent it on as “truth.” I even checked it out on Snopes.com, only to find no reference to the particular issue….until the next day…..when my mistake was revealed.

+ Converse with others. Their point of view may be helpful in developing your own. But….

+ Avoid being a copycat or Believing everything you see, hear, read on the Internet or from Television or in Newspapers and Magazines. Remember, they have biases too.

+ Filter your own views through the prism of rational decision making, careful thought, prudent insights, unemotional and objective processing.

+ Don’t get too worked up! It will likely cost you embarrassment and loss of friendships.

+ Be prepared to listen. But, if uncomfortable in a discussion, find an appropriate way to absent yourself from the discussion.

+ Finally, pray. This year the expression of an informed electorate is extremely important and necessary. We are entering into an era unprecedented. We need to be reinforced with a systematic understanding of what the consequences could be.

And, above all else, be sure you are registered to vote and do so on or before November 4.
About the Author: wedding gifts

When voting for a presidential candidate, it’s critical to know as much as possible about that candidate. Understanding who they are and where they’ve come from will give you a better idea of where they are going … and where they hope to take the country.

The trouble is that most information about the candidates falls into one of two categories — exaggerations from their supporters, and smears from their detractors. This makes it hard to find unbiased information about the person’s past.

In the case of Barack Obama, we hope to fill this void by providing some basic facts and background information about the presidential hopeful.

Birth and Early Childhood

Barack was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961. His parents met while attending the University of Hawaii. His father was a former economist with the finance ministry in Kenya, and attended the University of Hawaii on scholarship. His mother was an anthropologist born in the United States.

Barack’s mother and father separated when he was two. She eventually remarried and took the family to Indonesia (her new husband was from that country). Barack went to school in Jakarta (the capital) until he was ten years old, at which time he moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.

Educational Background

Barack attended Punahou School in Hawaii and graduated in 1979. After graduation, he moved to Los Angeles to attend Occidental Collage (a small, private, coed liberal arts college). After two years at Occidental, he transferred to Columbia University in New York City and majored in political science. He graduated from Columbia in 1983 and moved to Chicago.

Civic Duty and First Exposure to Politics

In Chicago he worked at the Developing Communities Project, a church-based community improvement organization located in Chicago’s south side. Obama often cites his work with this grassroots organization as the start of his political development. It also helped to shape his current political views and work ethic.

Education Revisited and a Historic First

After several years with the DCP organization, Obama advanced his education by attending Harvard Law School. He became the editor of the Harvard Law Review and eventually became the first black president of the prestigious legal journal. He graduated from Harvard Law with honors in 1991.

The Political Path Begins

After graduating from Harvard Law School, Barack returned to Chicago and (in 1993) joined the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland. He specialized in civil rights law and neighborhood economic development. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years.

Obama was very active in political and civic affairs in Chicago, and in 1996 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. He held assignments in many committees during his first and second terms in the senate, including co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

He eventually sponsored a civil rights law that monitored racial profiling and made Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations (to prevent violations of civil rights).

In 2005, he accompanied Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ill.) on a trip to Russia. It was a mission to renew anti-proliferation efforts between multiple nations — i.e., efforts to find and secure nuclear weapons that have spread around the world.

In February 2007, Barack Obama stood before the historic capitol building in Springfield, Illinois and announced that he would run for president.

Over the years, he has been an active writer. He is the author of two best-selling books: Dreams from My Father in 1995, and The Audacity of Hope in 2006.

A Common Misconception

A Newsweek poll found that 12 percent of voters think Obama is a Muslim. Many of his detractors have latched onto this, spreading false rumors that he is a radical / extremist Muslim. In truth, he is a Christian. His father was an atheist who [in Barack's words] thought religion was “mumbo jumbo.” His mother was interested in many of the world’s religions but was an agnostic [again according to Obama].

What does it take to be successful in the political arena of the United States if you are a woman? Is it an orange pantsuit or perhaps red shoes?

It seems to me that women in politics these days must have a very large budget for clothing. At the Democratic National Convention last week, Hillary Clinton wore an orange pantsuit. There are many reasons she may have decided to wear an orange pantsuit. Whatever the reason, it did grab attention. When I did a search for “Hillary’s orange pantsuit,” I got 67,200 hits.

A lot of people are talking about her choice in clothing. So how much does that orange pantsuit cost? According to one website, Hillary gets her pantsuits at an upscale American department store headquartered in New York City (where she serves as Senator). When I went to their website, I could only find one black suit jacket (sorry, no orange) for $2440.00.

There is yet another upscale shop that Hillary could shop at. When I went online to their site, I again only found the jackets to the pantsuits and they ranged in price from $365 all the way up to $2670.00.

Not to be outdone, at the Republican National convention, Sarah Palin wore red shoes. This grabbed even more attention than Hillary’s pantsuit, at 156,000 hits when I searched “Sarah Palin’s red shoes”. According to one pundit, Sarah bought these shoes for $134.10.

Is this something most women can afford? If you can afford them, and you would love an orange pantsuit, I say, “Go for it.” Notice the word, “love.” Would a regular woman like you and me, put this pantsuit or these shoes on a credit card or take out a payday loan? This may not be the responsible use of our money. Before buying clothing like the candidates wear, I would first determine if I really “love” the red shoes (they are really cute, aren’t they?) or the orange pantsuit. Next, do I really “need” either of them? Maybe I really do love and need the red shoes to go with an outfit I have. Then, can I save up enough money for the purchase before buying the red shoes, and then should I buy them somewhere more affordable than the upscale department stores that Hillary may shop at?

I suppose if I need to get a lot of attention, maybe if I’m running for some sort of office, the purchase of this kind of clothing may be a necessity. But then again, have you even heard one thing about what Barack Obama or John McCain was wearing at those same conventions? I guess your clothing decisions and the amount you are willing to spend, and if you’re willing to go into debt or take out a payday loan to purchase them, has to be completely up to you.