Index

Yet today – after 200 plus years of running this republic, framed on these electoral realities – we still lack a definition of what a meaningful election should be; nor have we even attempted to apply any kind of standard to our only means of public control.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that despite the attention paid to the subject of political relations and the elections that must express them, the remedies offered have been faulty, redundant, paternalistic and failed; with one very notable exception.

Yes, the correction has been made and the tools exist, if we will consider our problems more holistically.

If we do, it will become clear that access born of proximity and unquestionable power can end our historic political-civic relations based on fixed hierarchies of “leadership”, with its limited transparency and poor record, and be supplanted with a model of public partnership based on our established constitutional principles and foundational traditions.

This can be accomplished by the capable people leveraging three core pillars; assets and actions available for immediate and powerful use.

• Our existing voting system; beginning with our very unique system of open ballot access, nominations and primary elections; a process that despite being poorly understood, carries decisive power that is fully owned by the people.
• The Network; an unprecedented environment specifically purposed and designed to leverage that power into proximity and electoral competition.
• A new form of collaborative media that emerges from this fusion; tethering knowledge to direct and powerful action in the public sphere that will provide the people the means to manage their public business as fully free, self-governing citizens.
  • 
    In order to best understand this; how and why it will work, a brief walk through history shows us how we arrived at our current circumstances and provides important context and proof that makes it clear.

We make much of polarization today but the politics of the framers time, and beyond, were quite polarized and vitriolic.

The men who came together at the Constitutional convention in 1787 came from disparate colonies of what was then a loose, far-flung association of states that sometimes operated with great difficulty under the articles of Confederation. They could hardly be classified as unified but questions of trade, management of the war debt, monetary policy, and relations both foreign and domestic, all made their contributions to the convening of this body. It was clear that in order for the promise of the revolution to be fulfilled – and the ambitions of the founders realized – a cogent nation must emerge from these distinct and occasionally polarized territories.

However, it would be the grounded search for – and the seizing of – agreement and settlement that would be decisive; not demands for an impossible unity.

Concerns regarding partisanship and political parties are also generally accepted as integral to these deliberations. The problems of mischievous faction — and the corruption it was sure to bring – as well as balancing power to ensure the rights of populations “whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole” are reflected throughout the framework of the Constitution; including the Electoral College a very carefully crafted answer to the problem.

This framework thought the problem through mostly as a matter of balancing competing interests. This balance depended upon three things primarily:

• The filtering and derivative effects of delegating public decision-making to elected representatives. This would help cool the will of an untempered majority; and dilute the authority of any firebrands who might inflame them
• The optimal sizing of the constituency. Leaning towards a greater scale, the goal would be to both make the representative not too distant from or, interestingly, too dependent on their electors
• Use the great scale of the proposed republic to make it very difficult for any one faction to remain unified enough to gain a toehold.

A difficult act to balance to say the least and, although success of this model can certainly be claimed, the tensions endure. Considered from another point of view, an overarching goal to control factions could be interpreted as an effort to create some sort of defacto unity or, as some have argued, an incoherent and ineffective structure likely to benefit

those most organized; which many would argue is exactly what we see today.

In any event the framers well understood that even within related groups, differences of mind, body, and experience – being part of the human dynamic- would be present and difficult to manage and this was true of the very group and experience they were part of.

This can be seen most everywhere; a good example being our major religions. There, a core tenet is acceptance by all members, yet differences feed a tendency towards faction that can create many sects within the overall group. In the United States alone it is thought that there are some 1,500 Christian denominations and perhaps as many as 39,000 worldwide. The tiny population of Jews still managed to divide themselves into seven separate sects. Islam has something on the order of 45. No doubt many of these schisms were born of relatively earthly matters.

The fledgling republic had no more immunity to such tendencies than in these cases and quickly the lines of polarization and faction began to blur– embodied in the differences between the antifederalists, skeptical of the constitution, and the federalists who pushed hard for its ratification.

Once the new system was adopted these polarizing differences manifested factional expressions (in the sense of politics and political parties) in the persons of Thomas Jefferson, anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republicans), and Alexander Hamilton, Federalist; two men of extreme polarity.

Hamilton, with his belief in a powerful central government, thought that the war debts of the several states should be repaid by the new federal government. He also advocated for aggressive action regarding internal improvements and the creation of a central bank to assist in managing that and as well the nation’s overall monetary and economic affairs.

This was in great contrast to the sensibilities of Jefferson who worried about the unwarranted accumulation of centralized power. In his “debate” with Hamilton, he denounced the bankers and stock jobbers who, with their speculation and greed to own the supply of money, would surely trigger a loss of the liberty that was so recently and hard won.

So, even amongst the core group who agreed on the desirability of a national government, there would be no unity but, there would be faction; demonstrating that passions so innate to human behavior and endeavor be it church, state, family or friend are not going to be so easily tamed or balanced. (Despite the agreement, the settlement, the two men ultimately came to of consolidating the war debts and the creating the central bank in exchange for locating the Capitol on Southern territory)

However, whatever the angst and anguish – then and now – studies of evolutionary biology do indicate a substantial benefit in such “groupish” behavior. Perhaps this inclination for polarization or faction might be more useful and not quite so negative a trait as the framers thought; or we think. As pain in the body signals important information

that something is amiss; so too does the threat – or perception – of faction signal where and how we must focus attention.

With the benefit of hindsight we can see that perhaps opportunities were lost by attempting to stamp out what could not be stamped out at the expense of other approaches. And here a pivotal consideration emerges that drives both the problems and opportunities of the American system to the present moment:

• Is the delicate balancing of power in a democratic-republic – with a popular electoral system at its core – through quantitative and derivative measures the only or best answer
• Might not have more attention been paid to the differences between principled polarization and faction of a more selfish or dangerous nature
• Might not more attention have been paid to that electoral system and the people’s ability to both ensure balance and express wisdom deliberatively through it

Although that would not and could not have been the mindset of the framers given their background and era, the question would take center stage; and stay there.

With the passing of just a few more years – in what came to be called the “Age of Jackson” – and taking its cue from the founding generations divides – faction would manifest its modern character in the form of the two-party system in an ever more expanding, and raucous, electoral environment.

basically considered the heirs to the Federalists, and the Democrats, the successors to Jefferson’s anti-Federalist Democratic Republicans.

Under the sway of Jackson’s fearsome personality there was also a strengthening in the power of the executive branch and many lines of polarization – still with us today – were drawn.

Though occasional third-party challenges and movements were seen – expressed particularly in presidential elections – the major two-party approach continued to solidify and has remained at the heart of the American political system.

concentrated urban areas where the political machines and its bosses would seek out and demand loyal supporters who would serve the interests of the party.

Those interests began with winning the elections that determined public policy. Of course attached to the power to enact policy is patronage – and the power to distribute it – which unfortunately is quite encouraging of corruption. Jobs, lucrative contracts, career opportunities– who got them and what was gained in the exchange all hung in the balance as the parties and its machines won and lost elections in their struggle to influence the public and gain supremacy.

However, all that was at stake in this ‘spoils system’, as it was known, hinged on the central power these machines and its bosses wielded; the power to control access to the ballot. With this control, they alone would determine who would stand for — and thus likely hold — elected office. This would ensure that the allegiance of the constitutional agents running, and being elected, was owed first – perhaps solely – to the party and people responsible for nominating them; not the citizens who voted for them.

It was there; right there, that the merging of faction to corruption in this system was assured.

As unexpected and extraordinary powers devolved to remote people and processes, beyond the reach or understanding of the public, the game would be for spoils and power and not considered deliberation of principled differences.

Given the nature of this power-structure what would be delivered would be exactly what the machine demanded.

With no question as to who a whom their allegiance was owed, a quid pro quo relationship was unavoidable and much more than “an appearance of corruption” was the norm.

Though it could be argued that the human dynamic makes these outcomes inevitable, and that there were important accomplishments this system could claim, its downside was substantial. The prizes of graft; the lucrative contracts, the no work jobs, the pensions, the skims – these were no doubt the least of it.

But whatever their nature, all the distortions of public policy first were enabled by the power to control ballot access; a power only the party machinery could wield. Naturally, as a result, our republic was substantially in the hands of this machinery and those who channeled its power. Just as the framers had feared, however unexpected or unforeseeable this expression of it may have been, faction and corruption ruled.

Nevertheless, this sorry state of affairs would allow their work to be put to the test and answer the crucial question; would it give us “that chance”?

corrupting synthesis of party and government from our democratic processes. Testing boundaries, they also fought to curb abusive business practices, force management to address the hazards that plagued the of health and working conditions of its labor, and consider matters of the environment.

In civic matters they fought to get an apathetic public more engaged by giving them more authority over government through mechanisms like the direct election of senators, ballot initiatives and referendum, and recall elections. With the women’s suffrage movement central, great change swept through America and though its nature and aims were very different, it was no less a radically transformative time than the revolutionary era.

This broad movement also saw controversial failures; most notably prohibition. It is therefore understandable that amidst this upheaval of social change and democratic experimentation – and dearth of alcohol – the importance of another reform of this period could easily get lost and its vast implications largely overlooked. This was the extraordinary accomplishment of making access to the election ballot open to all, and passing – eventually in all states – the reform of the direct primary.

This reform took the absolute power to control ballot access and party nominations from the party bosses and machines and gave it to the American voter.

As we have seen, this was the pivotal power from which all else flowed. This meant that also given to the American people with this change was the potential to reverse deeply rooted power structures within government and society; an opportunity difficult to imagine today.

It also provided conclusive proof that the “chance” the framework provided its people to establish, and when necessary, renew their republic was indeed genuine. However, keeping that republic is quite a separate task so that part of the equation would once again have to be put to the test.

As to the public- despite some early success – participation in the nominating process and turnouts in primary elections declined steadily and mostly have remained at very low levels in terms of both participation and awareness. Thus, the profound shift in power relations this reform made possible produced little fundamental change.

Interesting and unfortunate to note in all of this was that as a momentous, highly unlikely experiment of historic proportions unfolds – and fails – little public reflection on the events can be found. A society overthrows an entrenched, corrupt, powerful and essentially ancient system; hands its central power over to the public no less, sees that experiment fail; and yet hardly a peep about what happened or why can be heard?

Perhaps these few questions would have been a place to start!

• Was/is this result a failure of the reform effort to communicate the magnitude of the chance this offered?
• Was/is it a failure on the part of the American media to explain and promote the opportunity it presented?
• Was/is it a failure of the endless number of advocates – that claim to represent the public interest at the grass roots level – to consider the potential that organizing around this power offers their myriad causes?

• Was/is it that since all politics are indeed local, more “unplanned expression” manifested rules for participation that varied from state to state and thus fueled confusion; confusion that inhibited a national sense of importance or operating ethos around primary elections?

– and the chance – they are ultimately responsible for this profound failure.

Compounding the failure was that while this most powerful invention – one likely only the American system could produce – made very little lasting impact of the kind intended; it did have an immense impact of the kind unintended.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”; so said Thomas Jefferson and certainly the idea of vigilance was the intention behind this reform. The progressive reformers pushed this unprecedented, unplanned expression of democracy as the way to undercut the power of local and state political machines and with that bring into the process and parties fresh candidates, new ideas, and coherent, organized constituencies.

This, because it was understood – even if only vaguely – that only popular elections for ballot access/nominations could produce a genuine, principled, electoral landscape – as opposed to a far too little and late Election Day.

Alas, these goals were not achieved. Wherever the finger of blame for that unhappy outcome might be pointed, what clearly did happen was that the “professionals” learned to manage the new reality. That reality brought a new kind of machinery to bear; more of the boardroom than the smoke filled room.

A clever label, the Money- Media- Election Complex, captures well the idea of this modern model of political-social control that has emerged supreme. With this complex added to our list of complexes, one could say we developed a complex that has manifested the dysfunctions that today we are so familiar with; a very consolidated yet very fragmented, ineffective media, entrenched incumbency, revolving doors, endless wars, economics that beg bankruptcy, and bitter social concerns of doubtful character.

Fully matured however this machine – unlike its predecessors – is “not of faction”. No! But, by exploiting its divisive dynamics for its own benefit only, it has taken American politics and its issues of corruption, globalism and social division to the next and perhaps fatal level.

play ball.

This has served to homogenize the profile of many elected officials; for instance there is about a 50% chance that a member of our federal Congress is a millionaire. The average net worth of members in Congress is a bit more than $6 million, while the median net worth is $1 million. Further, while some 54% of Americans are considered “working class” only 2% of the members of our federal congress come from that background with percentages at the state and local just as low. Clearly, money has become a defining factor in our system.

However, with electoral advantages born of redistricting limiting competition and favoring incumbents in general elections – thus ensuring safe seats for one or the other party – we might want to ask why this is the case.

In other words, if a seat is safe, why would the money be so important?

The answer can be found in the nomination process where great disruption would be possible if the intent of the primary voting reforms had been achieved and eternal vigilance enabled.

Genuine competition for ballot access/party nominations to stand for office would ensure unregulated discourse – a medium – that is necessary to a genuine republic and self-government; which is not possible in a controlled environment where principled differences cannot contest.

Through mass media, technology, sophisticated polling techniques, political advertising, staffing and support for writing the legislative outcomes desired by the policy demanders, the tools and trade of the money-media-election complex do their work. Directing access to these tools – and the money that buys them – is the means by which the electoral sphere is disciplined and safe candidates selected; first and foremost at the ballot access level.

This is the lynchpin; the root of the control system because allegiance will always be owed to the nominator! That boss will decide who sits at the table and what is open for discussion.

How could this be changed? A civic assembly of the people – organized and understood as nominators – would shift allegiance to the people thus permitting an unregulated discourse – of the people’s design – which in turn would enable our electoral processes to become the medium they were meant to and must be.

Incumbent or aspiring elected officials, now beholden to the private policy demanders of the money-media-election complex – who now shepherd the nomination process – would shift to the public policy demanders – of/by and for the people; who could emerge, support, vote for, and directly nominate their candidates.

That was the original intent of this reform because there is and has to be a system; and a system will create particular certainties! In ours – a much decentralized and very democratic arrangement – it is certain

that allegiance will always be owed to the nominators and that wasn’t us!

Our absence ensured the old boss simply became the new one – the modern complex – and the money it dispenses is but one tool of its apparatus. It is an insufficient explanation for what truly drives our system and its dysfunctions; past or present. It is the complex’s’ overall management of electoral competition – maintaining an effective monopoly on the threat of its use – that offers a more complete understanding.

Much more than money alone, these factors essentially create “the means of exchange” for these modern-day powerbrokers.

Now the question becomes; what makes this strategy work?

But, what must be understood is that the central power that fueled those distortions derived from the most basic principle of popular elections; that was – and is – the authority to name the candidate standing for office.

The national implementation of open ballot access and the popular primary-nominating process was meant to give to the people the leverage previously enjoyed by the political powerbrokers, of all eras. But, absentee ownership cannot deliver on that leverage; wielding power is an everyday business and what this study leads to is clear.

It should now be indisputably clear that it is the intense policy demanders, of and behind the money-media-election complex, who participate in the nomination process and as result rule.

We have established however that the founding opportunity for self-government is genuine while it has also been demonstrated that in order to succeed it will be necessary for us to change.

It is also demonstrated that the change required is minimal; as will be the numbers of citizens necessary to effect it; but it must start with those of us that are ready to accept our own failures before blaming the “elites” of our control system. We have failed to analyze and understand. We have failed to demand from our sources of information and learning more and better.

Most importantly we have failed to participate effectively; individually and collectively. It is only this absence – of awareness and commitment – that has enabled the corruption of our past and the dysfunction and danger of the present.

It is a simple matter, now in the age of the Internet particularly, to overcome these difficulties and make the realization of our national concept and purpose practicable.

How this can be accomplished; what the Citizens Access Network makes possible and why, is, in its entirety, the message this website is devoted to delivering.