She’s not in my district, but just wanted to point out with this morning’s diary, Darcy Burner has pulled at my heart strings by talking about civic engagement twice in a month.
Pretty sweet.
Category: civics (Page 4 of 6)
I just decided to follow November Fifth over at Daily Kos. Follow me following them here.
The participatory democracy argument in favor of caucuses is disingenuous at worst and misguided at best. Last night when we were debating whether to support a primary election or caucus system for next year’s choosing of presidential delegates, two people argued the participatory democracy side of the caucuses.
This isn’t a direct quote, but it gets pretty close to what one of the guys was talking about:
It takes more of a commitment to come to a caucus, very little commitment to vote in a primary. We want to encourage commitment, not just drop in participation.
And
The caucus system is where people are coming together, and talking, it’s a real plus. It shows that the people in the state of Washington are really interested in creating relationships with people in their communities.
I agree with the sentiment of both of those arguments, caucuses are awesome in that they are participatory. People come together and chat, which is much more what democracy should be about than just indicating your preference in private.
That said, the Washington State Democratic Party does nothing else beyond the caucuses to encourage participatory democracy. Actually, its even worse. Before last night’s vote state party chairman Dwight Pelz gave a talk to the 22nd LD meeting (which every quarter happens right before the TCD meeting). He spelled out the ground game plan for 2008, which centered around a lot of people coming to the caucuses.
When all those folks are sitting on their hands while the precinct results are being tabulated, we PCOs are supposed to chat them up to see who we can get interested in volunteering with the party until election day. “We can use them for the next six months,” was something he said towards the end of his talk.
The caucuses aren’t about coming together and knowing your neighbors, if they were we would be doing them more often. They’re about recruiting ground troops for the fall of 2008.
What was implied to me was that after November of 2008, we don’t really care what happens to those folks. Some of them may stay on and stay engaged, but we’re not really worried about that.
The precinct caucuses should be the end result of a civic engagement campaign, not the beginning of a faux engagement campaign. People should come to the caucuses because the party is relevant and important to them in their community, not because we’re blackmailing them to come because its their only opportunity to vote in the Democratic primary.
“Putting citizens at the center of the 2008 election.”
Its named after the day after election day, and its something we all (especially those up us who pimp one particular candidate) should take a long, close look at. The November Fifth Coalition is a growing group of civic organizations that are trying to change the debate leading up to the 2008 election. And, not change the debate in “lets talk about this particular issue that I found really interesting,” but actually changing how we debate.
Last night we watched “Man of the Year,” which wasn’t the movie I assumed it would be. I should have watched the extra features, because all of the trailers that I saw were pretty horrible at portraying the actual plot arch of the movie. Anyway, there was a point in the movie when the Robin William’s character was ranting during a Presidential debate, seemingly trying to point out that what the debate was trying to portray had no relevance to who the election was for, the voters.
One of the more salient points the November 5 Coalition is making is for candidates and campaigns to open up the debate. More actual talk, fewer fake town halls, for example.
So far, they have a manifesto up, but they’re going to start posting white papers on actual positions. Especially exciting for me is that the guy I’m for (see right), Bill Richardson, is on the board of one of the coalition members.
I’ve not really been a big fan of protest lately, walking in the streets to prove a point. But, the coverage of the high school walkout in Seattle yesterday made me think differently. Protest can be good, and for some reason, really good if you’re in high school.
High school students have no other choice than to be in school, so walking out of class is the supreme level of civil disobedience. Its a world of difference from middle aged protesters taking on the Iraq War on the weekend or college aged kids doing May Day.
For the rest of us, protest should be weighed more heavily against other types of engagement, like voting, participating in public life and running for office. Have I mentioned that if you protested either the Port of Olympia or Tacoma recently, you should run for port commission? Lots of openings!
I especially liked the response to unnamed critics in the PI’s article:
Students also fired back at cynics who suggest they’re just lazy kids looking for a day off from school. Those who skipped school Wednesday could have opted to go shopping downtown or simply could have gone home instead of attending the rally, Salas said.
The fact they showed up “is very demonstrative that these kids care,” she said. “Adults need to see we’re willing to get detention for the day and get yelled at by our parents to do this.”
This is the same world that hundreds of thousands of high school aged and younger keep American Idol afloat, and we’re worried about high school students actually paying attention and reacting to the world around them.
Its also nice to see a little bit of online organization (here and myspace), even if it did get only 300 protesters from a district with tens of thousands of students. I would like to know more about how online or non-traditional organizing tools were used, just because I’m curious.
I’m going to hand everybody in America a shovel and we’re going to start digging our way out.
What I will do is ask millions of Americans, including you, to join me in taking action and taking responsibility, not waiting around for someone else to do it, but actually doing it ourselves, from the ground up.
Michael Tomasky himself on Barack Obama:
He is in many respects a civic republican—a believer in civic virtue, and in the possibility of good outcomes negotiated in good faith. These concepts are consonant with liberalism in many respects, but since the rise in the 1960s of a more aggressive rights-based liberalism, which sometimes places particular claims for social justice ahead of a larger universal good, the two versions have existed in some tension.
The rhetoric of civic republicanism seems to be there, but I’m wondering what kind of policies will be different. The words are the easiest things, but actually handing shovels out, actually getting people to take responsibility is the hard thing.
Edwards’ and Obama’s issue page doesn’t have any special focus on bringing citizens into the process or empowering them to make a change, or even service. Clinton doesn’t have any issue section that I could find.
So, what would be a civic republican issue for 2008?
I’ve always been impressed with the way that England seems to be way ahead of the curve in terms of applying the power of the web to the way government deliberates. Blogging of course has had a big impact on politics here, but more on the side of campaigning, not governing. There is a huge difference.
Look at the local e-democracy national project, how Britons can petition their prime minister, and now a speech by a conservative politician on Open Source Politics. I love his three pillars:
The first of these pillars is about equality – equality of information – or what Eric Schmidt, Chief Executive of Google, called “the democratisation of access to information” when he spoke to our Party Conference.
…
The second pillar of a new political settlement will be founded on new social networks.
…
The final pillar of this new political settlement is open source.
Last week I went to hear my friend Professor Jeff Sachs deliver the first Reith Lecture. He talked about open source politics.
Open source politics means rejecting the old monolithic top-down approach to decision-making.
It means throwing open the doors and listening to new ideas and new contributors.
It means harnessing the power of mass collaboration.
We’re going forward in Thurston County with a discussion on open membership for our county Democratic organization. Right now, only PCOs have a vote at all in our organization, this idea would open it up to anyone who either works or pays enough.
Things seem to be going well, and I’ve been doing some research into what other local Democratic organizations do. In addition to three county organizations that have open membership, I’ve also come up with 16 legislative district organizations that do.
During the county central committee meeting on Monday we introduced the bylaw change that would allow participation by “paid members” in local Democratic affairs. Right now, the only people who vote on what our local party does are PCOs, who are elected or appointed.
This change, that would allow pretty much anyone who is interested into the process, is important to me because it recognizes how things have changed in the past 100 years. Neighborhood political organizations are reflected in the PCO idea (only one representative for a geographic area). But, we don’t live in an era of neighborhood connections, we live in an era of much more flexible social connections.
Anyway, there is some confusion about what roles PCOs are afforded under state law. Some think that PCOs are the only ones allowed to vote in our affairs, but that isn’t actually true. There are very specific roles for PCOs:
What Roles are Provided for Precinct Committee Officers by statute?
- Electing a chair and vice chair of opposite sexes during a county party reorganization (29A.80.030)
- Electing a state committeeman and state committeewoman to the state central committee. (RCW 29A.80.020)
- Electing a chair of a legislative district chair (RCW 29A.80.061)
- Fill a vacancy on a major party ticket (RCW 29A.28.011)
- Nominating qualified polling place workers (RCW 29A.44.430)
Beyond the above, votes on who to endorse, our budget, resolutions, etc…, our affairs can be open to all comers.
You’d be surprised by how many county Democratic organizations don’t post their bylaws on the internet. Though here are some examples of Washington county organizations that don’t follow the strict PCO-only rule.
Section 1: Open Membership
The Central Committee shall be open to all who support the party and wish to be known as Democrats. All members shall enjoy equal rights, protections and opportunities in all proceedings. Discrimination on the basis of sex, race, age (except where state or federal law precludes participation), religion, sexual orientation, economic status or ethnic origin is prohibited in the conduct of Central Committee business.
Section 2: Membership
The membership of the Central Committee shall consist of:
- Precinct committee officers (hereinafter referred to as PCOs), elected or appointed, who are duly certified by the County Auditor in accordance with RCW 29A.80.040.
- General members, who are registered voters, residents of Whatcom County and have paid their membership dues to the Central Committee.
- Associate members, who are not registered to vote in Whatcom County but have paid their membership dues to the Central Committee.
Clallam County has a Democratic Club, a parallel organization that meets separately from the county central committee, which might be something to consider if this membership idea fails. Or even if it doesn’t, I don’t know.
The Grays Harbor County Democrats mix the Club idea with membership. Central Committee meetings are limited to what is actually outlined in law, and everything else is at the club level:
3.2 All citizens who wish to declare themselves Democrats are eligible, upon payment of a $5.00 annual dues, to be members of the Grays Harbor Democratic Club. Democratic Club members will be eligible to vote on all matters not restricted by law at the next GHCDCC meeting following the meeting at which their yearly fee was received.
3.3 The right to vote in all matters not specifically restricted by state law to Democratic precinct committee persons is granted to Democratic elected officials and members of the Grays Harbor Democratic Club with legal voting residence in Grays Harbor County.
Emmett O'Connell
@emmettoconnell@olympiatime.com
1,758 posts
20 followers