Nevada Vote Direct

Today we were at the Candy Dance Country Fair in Genoa, one of the world’s most beautiful little towns in one of the world’s pleasantest valleys – a favorite place of mine. And what a splendid day it was. The sun was shining and it was warm, but not too hot. I stood on a shady corner and passed out campaign postcards to passers-by. People seemed friendly and relaxed. It was fun.

I was so amused the other day. Driving in the car, I surfed by NPR on the radio. I heard a woman talking about her campaign for Congress and it caught my attention, especially when I realized I was listening to Jill Derby, my fellow candidate in this year’s congressional election. Ms. Derby is running as the candidate of the Democratic Party.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I learned from Ms. Derby that she is running as an independent. Or perhaps she said, as an independent voice. I write only from fallible memory. And I don’t mean to imply that Ms. Derby is trying to deceive anybody about her membership in the Democratic Party. Never mind that, as the candidate of the Democratic Party, she has raised well over a million campaign dollars. As an independent candidate for Congress who is also not a member of any political party, I can bear witness to how hard it is to raise any amount of money whatever if one is not a candidate of a major party. Obviously, a truly independent candidate, or independent voice, is not a good investment. The return is uncertain.

But what amused me really quite a lot was to hear Ms. Derby say that people are fed up with the corruption of government by big-money special interests. Now, Ms. Derby has heard my little speech at several of the candidate forums that we have attended together in recent weeks. I never fail to speak of the corruption of government by big-money special interests, because that is the stated motivation for the development of Nevada Vote Direct, and the entire motivation of my campaign for Congress. I don’t recall being asked to devise sound-bites for other political campaigns. Perhaps I really ought to go professional. Anyway, I’m pleased that my message is getting through. Yes, Ms. Derby, people are fed up with it. And we are fed up with the political parties, including yours, because the political parties are the funnel through which oceans of money from special interests flow into the system. The political parties and political corruption are two sides of the same coin.

At the aforementioned candidate forums, one hears candidates of every stripe cursing and swearing before the crowd: “I will be YOUR representative. I will do YOUR will when I am elected.” Funny how in all my recent travels through our district I’ve never met a citizen who hears these vows with anything less than slightly apathetic and mild contempt. Some few feel a much keener sense of nearly violent reproach. In between, the great majority are, shall we say, philosophical.

But since both of my fellow candidates, Ms. Jill Derby and Mr. Dean Heller, seem to view their role as one of representation, in the true sense of the word – that is, to fairly and honestly reflect and represent the will of the people in our district - why not, then, withdraw in favor of my candidacy? After all, this is really something of a no-brainer. At Nevada Vote Direct I have provided technology for determining and objectively measuring exactly what the will of the people actually is – their will, that is, with respect to every actual question that comes before the Congress. Obviously, I am the candidate best equipped to do the job.

I wonder why the other candidates haven’t yet phoned to ask me to design a similar system for each of them. Hey, I’ll do it gratis, no problem.

Some of our members have complained that I am not posting regularly to the discussion pages to keep everybody up to date about the campaign. And I have been very conscious of the need to do this. I’ll try to make it habit of it now that we are in the last two months of the campaign.

It is impossible for me to gauge the level of support that I am raising at the various candidate forums that I have been attending. For example, last night I was in Fernley for such a forum. The setting was the lunchroom gymnasium of a public elementary school. (Never mind that such places give me the hives. What if reincarnation is really true and I shall have to do that again.)

Most of the time at these forums is taken up with little speeches from the candidates, and as you might guess these sparkling entertainments are after a while quite tedious. Thus, last night in Fernley, I was suddenly conscious of the remarkable nature of free citizenship in the world and in history. What we did last night doesn’t happen everywhere or everywhen.

After all, in a world where countless other distractions and commitments keep us running from curb to door day in and day out, and where indeed there are so many more enjoyable things to do with our time, isn’t it really rather extraordinary that people make the effort to attend dreary candidate forums? Of course, it was my unwelcome duty to turn this around, and ask people why we continue and persist in these practically empty exercises in a sham democracy that we might well call “demockery.”

I noted that in these forums we ask our candidates various questions on the pressing issues of the day. But when the elected official comes to vote, his decision rarely conforms to the answers he gave in the forums. The representative votes neither as the constituents want him to vote, nor as he himself would care to vote if he suited himself. Instead he votes at the demand of a few big money special interest supporters of his reelection. This fact is elementary, and we could not waste our time at candidate forums if we did not studiously ignore it, and ignore it we do. Though there is some obvious foolishness in this, there is some nobility in it as well. For at these forums the small burning light of freedom is passed to the future. It is the idea of freedom that animates these events and it’s the idea that these events help perhaps to keep alive.

But one can’t help noticing also that most of the attendees are of a certain age, as older French women like to say. Will young people start attending these forums when they reach a certain age? Some of the mainline churches are asking the same question. And symphony orchestras. There’s a new world being born out there that we may not entirely recognize.

As I was saying, I can’t gauge the support for Nevada Vote Direct that comes out of these forums. First of all, the ordinary citizens at these events number at best about 50% – that is to say, the citizens who are not candidates or their aides and families make up a small percentage of those that attend. At one such event for the Washoe County Public Employees Union, I met only one employee from the union, while everybody else whom I met was either a candidate or with the candidate. One wonders if it’s really worth it to go to these events, but one never knows who will be there. I might meet one individual whose support could make the difference between winning and losing.

Moreover, the candidates and their associates are in most cases people for whom the political system as it is dominates all thought and imagination. I have noticed that people involved in politics, or those who consider themselves most informed and wise in political matters, are the least likely to appreciate the idea of Nevada Vote Direct. For them, the status quo is reality, and there is nothing but reality. So, then, the response of most of the people at these forums probably does not provide a good measure for how the campaign is being received by the public.

But, even so, I have to say that of those people at these events with whom I actually get a chance to speak person to person, at least half have responded with the same enthusiasm that I found on the street during our petition drive.

Over the last ten days or so, we have been gathering signatures on a petition to place my name on the ballot in November. The law requires us to gather 100 signatures, but since it is probable that some of the names will not be verified as registered voters in the district, we have gathered 230 signatures.

It has been a very interesting experience for me personally. First of all, I was so pleased to see how polite and friendly people are in our community. And, I was greatly encouraged by the positive response that I had from so many citizens.

Surprisingly few of the people I spoke with are already committed to one or another of the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties. Admittedly, these few were in no mood to hear my suggestion that Nevada Vote Direct has a new idea for putting citizens in control of their representative in Congress. They are, it seems, happy with things as they are, and I respect their judgment as individuals even if the status quo seems to me so patently corrupt and dysfunctional.

But it was evident from talking with the random sample of citizens whom I approached with the petition, that the great majority (easily 80-90%) are VERY unhappy with the government. Some of these people were not able to sign my petition because they are not even registered to vote, since they regard the electoral system as fixed and a scam. But, again, it was surprising how few have given up on voting. Most people seem to want to carry on with it even though they are extremely skeptical about the process. This is a tribute, I think, to the democratic idealism of people in general, and they inspire me to work tirelessly to give new life to the ideals we share.

Almost all of the people who are discontented with the system as it is were very interested in the new system that we are putting forward at Nevada Vote Direct. Again and again, I heard people say about this new system, “Well, that’s just the way it should be.” Or, “That’s just what we need.” Or, “It’s about time someone did this.” Or, “What a great idea!” And, yes, I also heard, “You’ve got my vote.” Obviously, people want very much to exercise real control over their representative in Congress. People often began by telling me that they couldn’t sign my petition, not knowing anything about me. But when I explained the idea behind Nevada Vote Direct, they quickly changed their mind and eagerly signed. They expressed their warm support and wished me luck.

My enthusiasm has been nourished and fortified by this experience, and I am anxious to take our message to citizens throughout the district. I have put aside all other work for the duration of the campaign. I will go anywhere, anytime, to talk with people about Nevada Vote Direct. While I plan to do this on the econo-plan, this will require money. If you can possibly contribute in any amount to the campaign, please consider going to our Contribution Page on the Internet, or phone us at 775-267-7144, or mail directly to Daniel Rosen, P.O. Box 2963, Stateline, NV 89449.

Best regards,
Daniel Rosen
Candidate for Congress 2006

A primary purpose of Nevada Vote Direct is to cut through the knot of political corruption that politicians have been incapable of untangling. In the face of recent corruption scandals in Washinton, we might scrutinize the record of the man who has replaced indicted Representative Delay as the Republican Leader in the House. Here is what we learn from Public Citizen about Representative John Boehner of Ohio:

- Boehner recently characterized Hastert’s plan to ban privately funded travel as “childish” and dismissed the need for a ban on gifts from lobbyists to members of Congress. “If some members’ vote can be bought for a $20 lunch, they don’t need to be here,” he said. Later, Boehner backed away from his characterization of the travel ban as “childish,” but not the sentiment underlying his remark.

- Boehner’s political action committee collected nearly $300,000 from private student lending companies and for-profit academic institutions from 2003-2004. Boehner has used his chairmanship of the Education and the Workforce Committee to promote their pet causes - legislation that would make it more difficult to cut the fees on government student loans, which would cut into the private lenders market share, and legislation that would provide millions in subsidies to for-profit colleges and trade schools. (For more details on this, see a report in the Washington Post of January 28, 2006.)

- Boehner has taken more than $157,000 in free trips, placing him seventh among 638 current and former members of Congress, including senators, in the value of privately funded travel accepted between 2000 and 2005, according to American Radioworks. These included a $4,869 trip to Scotland in 2000 and a $9,050 trip to Rome in 2001, both of which were sponsored by the Ripon Educational Fund, a nonprofit group largely run by business lobbyists. Family members traveled with him for free on both trips.

- An exceptional number - at least 24 - former Boehner staff members have passed through the revolving door from government service to find work in the private sector as lobbyists or corporate public affairs specialists. (For more details on this, see a report in The Hill newspaper of February 1, 2006.)

- Boehner preceded indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as the head of the “K Street Operation,” the Republicans’ efforts to coordinate policy and fundraising with well-heeled lobbyists, which since has been dubbed the “K Street Project.” But the Ohioan lost the job to DeLay in 1998 after he was voted out as head of the Republican Conference. (For more details on this, see a report in the Baltimore Sun of December 21, 1998.)

- Boehner caught a large amount of flack for handing out checks to his colleagues from tobacco company PACs on the floor of Congress in 1995. Although not illegal, it certainly showed poor judgment but was consistent with his role at the time as the party’s chief liaison with K Street. (For more details on this, see a report in the New York
Times of May 10, 1996.)

Much as we all dread the rush at election time to read the voter booklet on pending citizen initiatives and propositions, it is important to remember that initiative reform was one of the principal ways in which citizens in the early 20th century curbed the power of big moneyed special interests. Unfortunately, the pendulum has obviously swung back in the opposite direction in our own time. Freedom and democracy are never a finished work. Each generation must fight the good fight.

Many people today are disturbed by the influence of big money on the initiative process. And recently, a sociologist at Lake Tahoe Community College suggested that special interests might be able to influence voters at Nevada Vote Direct, so as to compromise our own purpose and goal. Consider then the research study by Elisabeth R. Gerber, detailed in her book, “The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation.” This is how her publisher, Princeton Press summarizes her conclusions:

“Do small but wealthy interest groups influence referendums, ballot initiatives, and other forms of direct legislation at the expense of the broader public interest? Many observers argue that they do, often lamenting that direct legislation has, paradoxically, been captured by the very same wealthy interests whose power it was designed to curb. Elisabeth Gerber, however, challenges that argument. In this first systematic study of how money and interest group power actually affect direct legislation, she reveals that big spending does not necessarily mean big influence.

“Gerber bases her findings on extensive surveys of the activities and motivations of interest groups and on close examination of campaign finance records from 168 direct legislation campaigns in eight states. Her research confirms what such wealthy interests as the insurance industry, trial lawyer associations, and tobacco companies have learned by defeats at the ballot box: if citizens do not like a proposed new law, even an expensive, high-profile campaign will not make them change their mind. She demonstrates, however, that these economic interest groups have considerable success in using direct legislation to block initiatives that others are proposing and to exert pressure on politicians. By contrast, citizen interest groups with broad-based support and significant organizational resources have proven to be extremely effective in using direct legislation to pass new laws. Clearly written and argued, this is a major theoretical and empirical contribution to our understanding of the role of citizens and organized interests in the American legislative process.”

Recently I received some very thoughtful questions from a Nevada citizen who worries that Nevada Vote Direct will disenfranchise people who are too poor to have Internet service, or who for other reasons have limited access. She also questioned the security of our voting system. My reply follows:

Dear _____,

Thank you very much for your interest in Nevada Vote Direct, and for taking the time to convey your very thoughtful questions. I feel very much in harmony with the spirit of your questions, and I hope you will believe that my entire purpose is to give more power to people, not less. And I do not hesitate to say that this applies in particular to poor people, the people who are most disenfranchised by the system as it is. Someone once said, “Blessed are the poor.” And I daresay there’s something to that.

Let me begin, then, with your fear that Nevada Vote Direct will “exclude people who can’t afford computers or Internet.” Like all of your questions, this one involves a very real and undeniable practical problem. But, as such, I believe it has practical solutions. For example, it is certainly possible that many of the people without computers and the Internet could make use of library computers, or school computers. I am also hoping that, far from further isolating people in their homes and in front of their computer screens, Nevada Vote Direct will encourage individuals to open up their homes for neighbors to register their votes on issues that concern them. Ultimately, if I am elected, I promise that I will allocate some of the financial resources of my office to provide cheap computers to people who would agree to make them available in suitable settings to others in their community. (Internet-ready computers that sell for @$100 are already being made for distribution in countries like India and China.) I envision a corp of younger constituents (high school and college students), who may visit people in their homes to help them to participate.

And there are other possible solutions to this particular problem. For example, there is no reason why Internet voting should not be supplemented by secured telephone voting systems. Such a system has been developed by Sandia Laboratories on contract for the state of New Mexico, and has proved very successful in comprehensive testing. (Sandia was chosen because its work in weapons development gave it extensive experience and expertise in the field of security.) We should probably also implement voting by mail, and as we know from absentee ballots used in the current electoral system, it is certainly possible to make such postal systems secure.

Regarding security more specifically, you asked: “If the US Government can’t even secure electronic voting how is it that you can secure a website to get an accurate representation of the intention of voters in Nevada?” I wonder if the proper word is “can’t.” It seems to me that the problems we have had with government systems are very easy to explain. The Diebold and EMS computer voting machines currently in use, and proliferating, are based on proprietary technology that is not open to inspection. By contrast, the system I have created at Nevada Vote Direct is based on open-source software. And as we state in various places on our web pages, our software is open to inspection by anybody at any time upon request. You asked about someone by the name of Bruce McPherson, and I assure you he is free and welcome to examine our system. We have no secrets at Nevada Vote Direct. In fact, I eagerly invite examination by experts in the field, not because I believe my system to be fool-proof, but precisely because I know that no computer system is fool-proof. Only by involving outside experts can we hope to make our system as close to perfectly secure as humanly possible.

In calling our system secure, as it is, we are simply complying with the definition of the term and the standards of security currently in use. In this regard, I want to point out that we regularly accept the use of computer systems that are not fool-proof in various functions that have become an essential part of living in the modern world. The banking system and our economy would utterly collapse were this not the case. It seems to me that we must, in every instance, carefully estimate the costs of failure in the system, and weigh them against the benefits. (In the case of Diebold and EMS systems, on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, I am personally dead set against their implementation.)

You asked, “Too what about rural folks. We’re ranchers and we can’t get high speed internet out here so our internet is dial up and takes forever. I don’t check my email but once a week, so those of us who can’t check our email every five minutes to get an idea about what is going on in Congress and whether we need to cast our vote are also disenfranchised.”

I have designed our site at Nevada Vote Direct to be as economical as possible with respect to “bandwidth.” I don’t think that there will be any substantial time required to bring up our pages on computers using dial-up access. Actually, I haven’t had sufficient feedback as yet with respect to this issue. If there is a problem, we can certainly provide a mirror-site that would not include graphics, so that time online could be kept to an absolute minimum. As for needing to check email every five minutes to keep updated, we can perhaps hope that people may be able to pressure their local newspapers into providing alerts about pending votes. And I have no doubt that people will come up with other ideas that can deal with this problem.

I’m sorry that I must dispute your statement, to wit: “There are hundreds of bills in Congress that pass in a day?” I do not think that this is true. But there is no doubt that, even so, on some rare occasions legislation does happen in a matter of days, the PATRIOT Act being a case in point. And certainly, some legislation is amended at the last minute, the inclusion of the Alaskan arctic drilling amendment with defense legislation being an example.

Let me remind you that Nevada Vote Direct provides for registered voters to make binding Motions of any kind. A voter might, for example, put forth a Motion that says, “Any last minute amendment providing for oil drilling in the arctic will disqualify any bill to which it is appended, with the exception of bills providing for military appropriations.” This Motion, if approved, would require me to vote no on any non-military appropriation bill that was so amended.

On the other hand, the registered voters in our district might prefer to leave this matter to my discretion as their representative. In the system at Nevada Vote Direct, this is entirely up to the voters.

And yet, I don’t want to pretend that all contingencies can be provided for. Nor can I, as just one individual, envision all of the circumstances that might develop along these lines. You have raised a complicated issue that requires extensive consideration and a great deal of intelligent and innovative thinking. And it seems to me that we will have to learn constantly from experience. But this applies to all of the questions that you asked. I hope that I have not conveyed in any way the impression that I believe the system at Nevada Vote Direct to be perfect. (How dull life would be, if ever we could bring it to the summit of perfection)

And this raises a question that, with your permission, I should like to ask you. If all of the reservations you have about Nevada Vote Direct could not be addressed intelligently with practical solutions, would it not even so be preferable to the system currently in place, which in my judgment has almost completely disenfranchised nearly all of us. Is there any doubt left that the current system is entirely controlled by big money and special interests? Would a system that enfranchises many thousands not be better than one that excludes all but an elite few? If we concede that Nevada Vote Direct is not a perfect system, is it not preferable to the status quo? Are we to make the perfect the enemy of the good?

Once again, thank you. I so much appreciate your questions and the spirit in which you asked them. Naturally, I hope that I have allayed some of your concerns, for I would so happily welcome the participation in our project of someone such as yourself. It is people like you who will make Nevada Vote Direct, if not perfect, at least somewhat closer to that ideal. Were you to join, I would ask if we might post your questions, and the answers that I’ve given here, on the site. For I’m sure that other people will have the same questions, and my answers are by no means the last word on the subject. These are questions that need to be discussed at length by many imaginative people, so that appropriate practical solutions can be found.

Please join us and help us to make our political system more democratic (small “d”), and in this way to make our world a little better. It is possible. We can do it!

Sincerely,
Daniel Rosen
Candidate for Congress 2006
http://www.NevadaVoteDirect.org

As you may gather from the pages of Nevada Vote Direct, we believe that the innovation we propose in our political system is the only way to cut through the knot of political corruption by moneyed special interests that threatens to destroy our republican democracy in America.

It is interesting, however, to ponder this innovation from another point of view. What can we say about the decisions that the constituents of Nevada’s Second District are likely to make on the issues of the day? Will they reflect a fundamental intelligence and wisdom of conscious and conscientious adults based on their education and experience of living in society? Or will they simply amplify the prejudices and ignorance that are the constant bane of humanity through the ages?

More to the point, how will the decisions of the constituents in our district compare in relative wisdom with the decisions of a chosen representative to whom they would otherwise delegate their authority according to the old system?

A thoughtful and well researched answer to this question is presented in a new book by a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine, Mr. James Surowiecki. His book is entitled The Wisdom of Crowds. And his answer may surprise you: “large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant—better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.”

Read an excerpt from the book here.

And long overdue. Hope you win big time!!!! You have my vote.
Best regards,
Zen Williston

Hello Fellow Citizens,

Please feel free to write anything you like in this category, Discussion. There are various places at NVD where your communications are welcome. Of course, you may always submit Motions. And on the page that is assigned to every Motion you will find space for comments in which you may try to influence how other voters think about the issue (look for the “Comment Box” below the Motion). But you may also want to enter your posts and comments here on the Discussion Pages. You may use these pages just to express yourself, or to ask questions, or to propose a subject on which you and others may offer comments and replies.

The Motion Pages really ought to be used to comment on the specific individual Motions and the issues related to them (always one page per Motion, with comments listed chronologically in receeding order). But, here on the Discussion pages, you may want to just vent on any old subject, or brainstorm, or tell us all a funny joke - for if we’re not laughing we’re not healthy.

This is a good place to ask questions, if you like. Or to highlight a need that has no clear solution that can be formulated in a Motion. As people discuss it, an idea for a Motion might naturally emerge.

As always, yours truly, your WebMaster (ooh, what a word!), will be reviewing all posts and comments, so don’t worry about stumbling upon anything obscene or abusive. On that point, I’d just like to say that I’m a great believer in free speech, and I’m confident you will be satisfied with my moderation of these forums. But, as should obviously be kept in mind, here at Nevada Vote Direct, I serve in this position at your pleasure. Motions to replace me, your WebMaster, are always in order. And I promise there will be no hard feelings in that event. I simply can’t wait to see all of you taking an active role in NVD, and I will welcome that no matter what.

Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, suggestions, or just want to say HI.

To publish your comment, click on “Comments” below. This post will then appear on its own page with a comment box at the bottom.

Best regards,
Sophie
NVD WebMaster