# Steven Hill's Book: 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

https://p3books.com/books/10_steps_intro.html

I happen to agree with all of these proposals, and see logistical problems with only a few. But so far, and by far, it's the best repair manual I've seen to address the major problems with America's election process.

The cite includes the book's introduction and first chapter.

Any thoughts?


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Can't determine what the 10 ideas are from that link. (the ToC page is insufficient to determine the meaning of "reform the Supreme Court")

The first one I agree with: regulation and enforcement with regards to election tampering has been way too lax. Georgia has finally beaten back the cries of racism to require a photo id to vote. I didn't take it as a good sign that the citation in the excerpt referenced the myth that Florida was stolen from Al Gore instead of something more recent and relevant like the stealing of the Washington state Governorship.

And I'll say this straight as a computer professional: the computerized voting machines have made it easier, not harder to rig an election. When it's 1's and 0's, there is such a thing as a perfect forgery (undetectable false vote).


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I don't agree with expanding voter participation. Too many of the wrong people are voting. 

How about voting on Saturday and Sunday instead, making it very easy for people who are committed to work and career to vote? As it is, having the polls open 7-7 on a weekday makes it very difficult for people who commute to vote.

I would be infavor of bringing back the literacy tests, too. Discard "one man, one vote." Maybe weight votes in favor or property ownership, prior military service, employment (accumulated months of earned income), etc.

Actually, all this might actually expand voter participation. Maybe is some busy, productive person didn't think his vote would be completely canceled out by by some clueless wino who got a free ride to the polls, he might bother to show up!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Poor people should also have the right to vote. Maybe you should concentrate on educating people to help them vote responsibly instead of excluding them.

I do agree with making voting more user friendly. Holding elections on the weekend might not be a bad idea.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

If you can't get to the polls, just vote absentee. Or in some states you can vote ahead of time on the weekends.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Can't determine what the 10 ideas are from that link. (the ToC page is insufficient to determine the meaning of "reform the Supreme Court")


Here are slightly expanded descriptions of Hill's proposals:

- Expand voter participation by a "right to vote" constitutional amendment, universal registration (everyone 18 and over automatically registered to vote, as is the case in most modern democracies), and prohibiting voter intimidation.

- Proportional elections. Scrap the "winner-take-all" election system that usually leaves political minorities completely unrepresented. His model: Illinois' success, from 1870 to 1980, with three-seat state House districts. Voters could cast all their three votes for one candidate, or distribute them as they chose.

- Reclaiming the airwaves: obliging broadcasters who're licensed to use public frequencies to provide ample free media time for candidates. Hill also urges a more robust public broadcast sector (TV and radio) to counterbalance our increasingly powerful (and monopolistic) corporate media.

- Public financing of all campaigns at local, state and federal levels, and spending caps on candidates.

- Direct popular election of the president.

- Runoff voting, now being used in San Francisco's mayoral elections, Utah Republican primaries and other places. Voters list their preferences - #1, #2, etc. If no candidate gets a majority of the #1 choices, immediate recounts include voters' second (or even third) choices. The lowest vote-getter is eliminated on each count, until there's a majority. The method has big pluses: diminished campaign mudslinging, incentives for higher voter turnout, and less impact by potential "spoiler" candidates.

- Reforming the U.S. Senate to give heavily populated states more seats. Personally I'd prefer to see the Senate abolished altogether, but this (and Hill's) proposal is just wishful thinking. Corporate interests aren't about to allow their primary vehicle for croneyism to be threatened.

- Reforming the Supreme Court by shifting confirmation power from the Senate to the House, and limiting Justices to one 15-year term.

- "Secure the vote" by ensuring that all votes are counted - and correctly counted. A comprehensive Caltech-MIT study found a stunning 6 percent of ballots cast nationwide in 2000 weren't counted because of faulty voting machines, poorly designed ballots, or foul-ups with absentee ballots.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

A bunch of hot air. Or, nothing new. 40 years ago listening to the adults talk it was the same blaw blaw blaw. The only thing different is a few technologies that didn't exist, and people are more informed and less decieved because of C-SPAN. But the gullible still want to be decieved.

What America has today is far superior to what any other country in the world has- if it's not broken then why pretend to fix it? Of all the countries in the world more people want to immigrate here than anywhere else in the world. Even in a perfect world people will find something to complain about.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Here are slightly expanded descriptions of Hill's proposals:
> 
> - Expand voter participation by a "right to vote" constitutional amendment, universal registration (everyone 18 and over automatically registered to vote, as is the case in most modern democracies), and prohibiting voter intimidation.


What do you mean by this- non-citizens should be able to vote?



> - Reclaiming the airwaves: obliging broadcasters who're licensed to use public frequencies to provide ample free media time for candidates. Hill also urges a more robust public broadcast sector (TV and radio) to counterbalance our increasingly powerful (and monopolistic) corporate media.


Sounds nice, but who is going to pay for it? Since nothing is free.



> - Direct popular election of the president.


The only reason why this sounds good is because somebody you like lost. But, it could happen the other way too. So, I don't see a gain.



> - Reforming the U.S. Senate to give heavily populated states more seats. Personally I'd prefer to see the Senate abolished altogether, but this (and Hill's) proposal is just wishful thinking. Corporate interests aren't about to allow their primary vehicle for croneyism to be threatened.


A three way system breaks ties, so it adds balance. We need the Senate.



> - Reforming the Supreme Court by shifting confirmation power from the Senate to the House, and limiting Justices to one 15-year term.


I think both houses need a limit on how many years they can run. Ted Kenndy should have been put out to pasture 20 years or more ago.



> - "Secure the vote" by ensuring that all votes are counted - and correctly counted. A comprehensive Caltech-MIT study found a stunning 6 percent of ballots cast nationwide in 2000 weren't counted because of faulty voting machines, poorly designed ballots, or foul-ups with absentee ballots.


Over seas military votes are rarely counted- this is an unfairness that should end.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> - Reforming the U.S. Senate to give heavily populated states more seats. Personally I'd prefer to see the Senate abolished altogether...


That is not "reforming". That is destroying the exact underlying concept of the current Senate system. It always amazes me when an immigrant, such as myself, has to point out some basic civics to native borns. It really is sad when said native born passes himself/herself off as someone that is informed on the topic.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That is not "reforming". That is destroying the exact underlying concept of the current Senate system. It always amazes me when an immigrant, such as myself, has to point out some basic civics to native borns. It really is sad when said native born passes himself/herself off as someone that is informed on the topic.


Well said. Clearly something is working if the House is "ok", but the Senate structure is a "problem".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well said. Clearly something is working if the House is "ok", but the Senate structure is a "problem".


The Senate and Executive Branch are collapsing, I'd say have already collapsed under the weight of their own corruption and moral bankruptcy. Ben Franklin understood this to be an eventuality:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The Senate and Executive Branch are collapsing, I'd say have already collapsed under the weight of their own corruption and moral bankruptcy. Ben Franklin understood this to be an eventuality:
> 
> "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."


So all the corruption is centered outside of Congress, all in the Senate and Exec? Yeah, evidence certainly supports that idea. https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/04/politics/main2882231.shtml

/boggle.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The Senate and Executive Branch are collapsing, I'd say have already collapsed under the weight of their own corruption and moral bankruptcy. Ben Franklin understood this to be an eventuality:
> 
> "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."


Fraud, you really should learn some new tricks and perhaps actually study some history. I will just link to my response the last time you tried to use this quote out of context.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=521839&postcount=64
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=521857&postcount=66

Seriously, whatever MoveOn.org seminar you were at that taught you this quote had no idea what they were talking about.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Fraud, you really should learn some new tricks and perhaps actually study some history. I will just link to my response the last time you tried to use this quote out of context.
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=521839&postcount=64
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=521857&postcount=66
> ...


Nicely done.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Fraud, you really should learn some new tricks and perhaps actually study some history. I will just link to my response the last time you tried to use this quote out of context.


Franklin's prediction was an aside, and it exists irrespective of the rest of his speech. There's nothing "out of context" about it.

As for history, parallels between America and e.g. the Roman Empire are not only beyond remarkable, they're beyond question to anyone who doesn't have his eyes and ears firmly clamped shut.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Franklin's prediction was an aside, and it exists irrespective of the rest of his speech. There's nothing "out of context" about it.


You obviously don't even know what an aside is:


> -noun
> 6. a part of an actor's lines supposedly not heard by others on the stage and intended only for the audience.
> 7. words spoken so as not to be heard by others present.
> 8. a temporary departure from a main theme or topic, esp. a parenthetical comment or remark; short digression.


"In these sentiments ..." is not an aside. It is not a digression; nor is it a parenthetical comment. It was an explanation of a conclusion specifically denoting context. You can't take something that says "in these sentiments" outside the sentiments. To do so is _Fraud_ulent.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You obviously don't even know what an aside is:
> 
> -noun
> 8. a temporary departure from a main theme or topic, esp. a parenthetical comment or remark; short digression.
> ...


It's a perfect example of an aside. The main theme of Franklin's speech was his agreeing to vote for the Constitution; his prediction of eventual despotism was parenthetical.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> It's a perfect example of an aside. The main theme of Franklin's speech was his agreeing to vote for the Constitution; his prediction of eventual despotism was parenthetical.


No, it's not a perfect example of an aside. Even if what you say is true (it isn't) it would be at best a tortured example of an aside.

No, that was not the point of Franklin's speech. He could have simply voted "Aye" and agreed to vote for the Constitution. Franklin's point was much, much larger than that. If you had actually read and studied the speech and the proceedings surrounding the speech you would know that; as I do.

This is the second time you have shown that you have no real understanding of the quote. At least now maybe you have read the actual speech; the point of which still doesn't appear to have sunk in.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I agree the Senate should be reformed.

Re-formed to it's original postition of power by repealing the 17th amendment.

Senators should be appointed by the elected State governments (they can choose either the Legislature or Governor to appoint). Maybe make them appointed by the Governor but recallable by the Legislature. 

Then the House and Senate will both be democratic but have substantially different constituencies when they consider the impact of legislation.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Everybody has a personal laundry list to fix some aspect of our nation. The trouble is everybody thinks somebody else is going to throw the dirty linen in the washer. Voting and political participation is not an inconvenience. It is an obligation and willfull failure to do so should be penalised, as if the results aren't penalty enough sometimes. Any and all systems are subject to corruption; The Soviet State, various churches, Plumber's Local # XXXX etc and ad nauseum. I was in class at UCB when the shooting of President Reagan was announced. A few students clapped. The teacher started to smile, made eye contact with me and changed his facial expression. I had this rather inconvenient credential of being from the real world for 6 previous years- something my fellow students and half the faculty had seemingly yet to experience. Reagan was my Commander in Chief. He was my President. He was even a brief figure from my childhood. I told my classmates anybody who found joy in Reagan being shot could step outside and demonstrate similar personal resolve- or shut up. The only thing this tome lacks is a set of training wheels.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> I agree the Senate should be reformed.
> 
> Re-formed to it's original postition of power by repealing the 17th amendment.
> 
> ...


We've been there and done that. The eventual result was corruption, bribery, appointment deadlocks etc. The 17th Amendment was an attempt to fix these problems. Overall it didn't work.

IMO the bottom line is, the Senate is and always has been nothing but institutionalized croneyism (as is the House of Lords in Britain), just as the Executive Branch is an obsolete relic of the British monarchy. Neither one has a role to play in a democratic government, except to stand in the way of the will of the people. The last six years especially have proven that fact beyond any doubt.

A check and balance is required to prevent legislative violation and abuse of our Constitution, but we already have one: it's called the Supreme Court.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Everybody has a personal laundry list to fix some aspect of our nation. The trouble is everybody thinks somebody else is going to throw the dirty linen in the washer. Voting and political participation is not an inconvenience. It is an obligation and willfull failure to do so should be penalised, as if the results aren't penalty enough sometimes. Any and all systems are subject to corruption; The Soviet State, various churches, Plumber's Local # XXXX etc and ad nauseum. I was in class at UCB when the shooting of President Reagan was announced. A few students clapped. The teacher started to smile, made eye contact with me and changed his facial expression. I had this rather inconvenient credential of being from the real world for 6 previous years- something my fellow students and half the faculty had seemingly yet to experience. Reagan was my Commander in Chief. He was my President. He was even a brief figure from my childhood. I told my classmates anybody who found joy in Reagan being shot could step outside and demonstrate similar personal resolve- or shut up. The only thing this tome lacks is a set of training wheels.


Wow wee, Kav, you really showed them, didn't you? America, Land of the Free to Agree With Kav. Or else step outside, my daddy is bigger than your daddy.

What a pathetic pea brain.

A lot of Americans clapped when Reagan was shot. And a lot of those people voted for him three years later.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Wow wee, Kav, you really showed them, didn't you? America, Land of the Free to Agree With Kav. Or else step outside, my daddy is bigger than your daddy.
> 
> What a pathetic pea brain.
> 
> A lot of Americans clapped when Reagan was shot. And a lot of those people voted for him three years later.


It is refreshing to see such an equal opportunity hater as Frank. Preach on Brotha Frank!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I sure did Frank. I love my Alma Mater, received an excellent education in my degree field. But hypocrisy is hypocrisy and I call it when I see it AND call it out when I see it, as I did you once. Make that two pair of training wheels, the second set for that armchair you fight the good fight from.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Here are slightly expanded descriptions of Hill's proposals:
> 
> - Expand voter participation by a "right to vote" constitutional amendment, universal registration (everyone 18 and over automatically registered to vote, as is the case in most modern democracies), and prohibiting voter intimidation.


These all seem redundant... The right to vote is well established in caselaw (unless this point is actually a ploy to get the vote returned to felons who have not been pardoned). Motor Voter is bringing us very close to universal registration. Voter intimidation is a violation of civil rights, it can and has been prosecuted in the past.



FrankDC said:


> - Proportional elections. Scrap the "winner-take-all" election system that usually leaves political minorities completely unrepresented. His model: Illinois' success, from 1870 to 1980, with three-seat state House districts. Voters could cast all their three votes for one candidate, or distribute them as they chose.


This is a State issue, not a Federal one. California is trying to put this on the ballot now: it's being fought tooth and nail by the Democratic establishment.

The "three votes" and other gimmicks are just that. If a butterfly ballot was overly confusing and a violation of voters' rights, why wouldn't this be the same. (I can just imagine trying to explain a three-vote system to a little old lady in her 80s)



FrankDC said:


> - Reclaiming the airwaves: obliging broadcasters who're licensed to use public frequencies to provide ample free media time for candidates. Hill also urges a more robust public broadcast sector (TV and radio) to counterbalance our increasingly powerful (and monopolistic) corporate media.
> 
> - Public financing of all campaigns at local, state and federal levels, and spending caps on candidates.


These seem contradictory. If there is going to be free airtime, why do you need public financing.

I'm against public financing for the same reason I'm against a national id card (although that battle seems lost) and a 'federal worker database' (for employment verification): it puts too much power in the hands of the Feds. What this will basically do is let the two-party system control who gets to run. Basically the same people who decide who gets to go to the debates would get to decide who gets public funds and thus to run.



FrankDC said:


> - Direct popular election of the president.


No strong feelings on this one.



FrankDC said:


> - Runoff voting, now being used in San Francisco's mayoral elections, Utah Republican primaries and other places. Voters list their preferences - #1, #2, etc. If no candidate gets a majority of the #1 choices, immediate recounts include voters' second (or even third) choices. The lowest vote-getter is eliminated on each count, until there's a majority. The method has big pluses: diminished campaign mudslinging, incentives for higher voter turnout, and less impact by potential "spoiler" candidates.


As before, a confusing gimmick.



FrankDC said:


> - Reforming the U.S. Senate to give heavily populated states more seats. Personally I'd prefer to see the Senate abolished altogether, but this (and Hill's) proposal is just wishful thinking. Corporate interests aren't about to allow their primary vehicle for croneyism to be threatened.


We should repeal the 17th amendment. Senators appointed by the State Legislatures would breath life back into Federalism, shift control back to the states and stop some of the 'unfunded mandate' stuff.



FrankDC said:


> - Reforming the Supreme Court by shifting confirmation power from the Senate to the House, and limiting Justices to one 15-year term.


This is a terrible idea. Already the Senate has said that they can reject on politics, not qualifications (at least the Democrats have). Shifting it to the House would increase the politicization of the Supreme Court and ensure its decisions have little to do with good jurisprudence. 15 year term I'd have to think about. I've been disappointed that Justices on both the right and left have stayed on the Court after they are clearly incapable of doing the job, but I'm not sure that's the right answer.



FrankDC said:


> - "Secure the vote" by ensuring that all votes are counted - and correctly counted. A comprehensive Caltech-MIT study found a stunning 6 percent of ballots cast nationwide in 2000 weren't counted because of faulty voting machines, poorly designed ballots, or foul-ups with absentee ballots.


Easier said than done. Qui custodiet custodien?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Motor Voter is bringing us very close to universal registration.




That's absolute nonsense. Using California as one example (I can cite a dozen others), a much lower percentage of eligible voters are registered now than when the Motor Voter law was implemented in 1995:

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/15day_06gen/hist_reg_stats.pdf




radix023 said:


> We should repeal the 17th amendment. Senators appointed by the State Legislatures would breath life back into Federalism, shift control back to the states and stop some of the 'unfunded mandate' stuff.


More nonsense, and a claim that can be made only by completely ignoring the reasons why Congress and the States passed the 17th Amendment in the first place. I agree the amendment didn't fix many of the problems with the Senate, but repealing it certainly won't make any of these problems better. The institution, like the Executive Branch is corrupt to its very core and has been for well over a century now.




radix023 said:


> Qui custodiet custodien?


I think you mean "quis custodiet ipsos custodes". If we've reached the point where no one can be trusted to even count our votes, I'll let ksinc whine about my taking Ben Franklin's prediction out of context.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Here are slightly expanded descriptions of Hill's proposals:
> 
> - Expand voter participation by a "right to vote" constitutional amendment, universal registration (everyone 18 and over automatically registered to vote, as is the case in most modern democracies), and prohibiting voter intimidation.
> 
> ...


Not too bad other than the proposed change to the election of the president and the Senate "reform".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I don't support any of those "reforms".


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I remember when JFK got killed and a lot of people were very sad, even weeping. It seems back in those days people cared for others way more than today. I have never got the impression that those people of those days that any were glad JFK was murdered, even the ones that didn't like him as President.

Some people in this thread have pointed out they don't care for other people at all. But this thread shows the lack of love in America today. Is is greed that has replaced love?


----------

