You are browsing the archive for special interests.

How U.S. Voters Can Wrest Control of Elections from Special Interests: Electing Elizabeth Warren in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate Race

12:39 pm in Uncategorized by letsgetitdone

Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy in 2009 with the support of the special-interest backed Tea Party movement, and large campaign contributions from the banking and financial sector. He was also helped by disaffected working class voters. Whether Brown or another candidate supported by these players runs in 2012, mainstream Massachusetts voters will face an uphill battle trying to elect a senator who will champion their interests against special interests.

The legislative track records of major party lawmakers, especially Congressional representatives, show they are closely aligned with the interests of the corporate financial interests that finance their campaigns. While Democratic and Republican Congressional electoral candidates try to make it appear that there are major differences between them, their votes on key legislative issues tend to be quite similar in reflecting the priorities of their corporate campaign contributors. So regardless of which major party’s candidates voters elect, as hamstrung voters jockey back and forth between the two parties, voters get roughly the same special interest-favoring legislation.

Not only are the major party candidates unlikely to provide voters real alternatives in 2012, but the rumored third party presidential candidate who might emerge from the special interest-backed No Labels party, and the Americans Elect online nominating convention, is likely to run on an agenda crafted by the same conservative financial interests that are bankrolling both of these organizations, as well as the Democratic and Republican parties. Although No Labels and Americans Elect claim they are focused on the so-called “center” of American politics, comprised of the nearly 40% of voters who have defected from the ranks of registered Democrats and Republicans, both appear to be pursuing a conservative fiscal agenda articulated by financial fat cats like Peter Peterson.

While these political facts of life may make it seem impossible to imagine a scenario in which Massachusetts voters could elect a senator who would champion their interests, there is one scenario that might work. If Harvard law professor and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren decides to enter the race, as she is being encouraged to do, she just might be able to take up the cause of mainstream Massachusetts voters and defeat these special interests to win herself the Massachusetts Senate seat if she and her supporters take advantage of two untapped political levers. The first lever is the large scale collective action power of the Internet, which has been showing increasing political muscle, and the second is the online voter mobilization potential of a unique social networking platform, the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS), now in development.

In two earlier posts in this series, I’ve analyzed the potential impact of IVCS on the 2012 elections in the 8th Congressional District of Virginia, and also in the coming Virginia Senate election contest that appears to be shaping up between former Senator George Allen and former Governor Tim Kaine. In this post, I’ll show how Warren’s supporters can leverage both the collective action potential of the Internet and IVCS’s unique voter-mobilization tools and services to win both primary and general elections on the Democratic line in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race. First, a brief primer on IVCS.

How It Works

IVCS enables voters to get out of a reactive mode and into the driver’s seat of U.S. elections. It is a voter-driven, political crowdsourcing platform that enables individual voters and political activists to bring virtually unlimited numbers of voters with common policy priorities into winning voting blocs and electoral coalitions that voters control. These blocs and coalitions can work within existing or new political parties to run and elect candidates to office who pledge to enact their priorities into law.

The IVCS social networking platform provides voters across the political spectrum free agenda-setting, organizing and consensus-building tools on a single website. The agenda-setting tools enable activists and voters to build personal networks with other voters who share their policy priorities. The platform’s organizing-building tools enable them to transform their networks into voting blocs and electoral coalitions hosted on the website. Its consensus-building tools enable them to build winning electoral bases of broad cross-sections of voters that run and elect candidates whom they can hold accountable for enacting their priorities into law. These electoral victories will enable U.S. voters to eliminate the ever widening gap between voters’ priorities and the legislation enacted by lawmakers who follow the dictates of their special interest campaign contributors.

Most importantly, voting blocs that use IVCS tools to build voter-controlled electoral coalitions and democratize political parties, by giving their members real decision-making power to set their agendas and select their candidates, can neutralize the influence of special interest money in elections. For they can use web-based IVCS communication tools to get their message out and get their voters to the polls without special interest money. Moreover, by involving voters across the political spectrum in analyzing, weighing and debating policy priorities, they will also be able to counter the cognitive distortions in voters’ perceptions that special interests create by spreading false information and political propaganda.

Significantly, IVCS-enabled voting blocs, coalitions and political parties can prevent the fragmentation of the U.S. electorate into losing splinter groups and parties too small to win elections, and neutralize the impact of three special interest-backed parties, assuming the rumored third major party materializes and runs candidates in the 2012 presidential election. They can use IVCS consensus-building tools to wean away mainstream voters from these special interest-backed parties by giving them decision-making influence over policy agenda setting across the board and candidate selection that none of these parties is inclined to do.

These consensus-building tools enable voting blocs to create broad-based coalitions among large cross-sections of voters around transpartisan policy agendas. They can involve virtually unlimited numbers of voters in making decisions and resolving disagreements by using the IVCS Voting Utility to vote on their agendas, which candidates to run, contested issues and proposed political alliances and coalitions.

Since problem solving in the system will be web-based and distributed, rather than centralized, blocs and bloc-run coalitions will be able to quickly increase their voting strength by using the social networking capabilities of the Internet, coupled with IVCS organizing and consensus-building tools to reach out to other voters online. Moreover, they will adapt to their political environments more quickly and effectively than formally-organized political parties organized around rigid platforms. They will spontaneously merge into a nationwide yet decentralized Internet-based web of voter-controlled political organizations. Their members will be able to interact with each other at the speed of light through the networking capabilities of the IVCS website and rapidly supersede legacy parties and special interests as the driving forces in the American political system. (For more information about IVCS, click here.)

How Warren Supporters Can Use IVCS to Elect Warren in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate Race

Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren is a nationally-known and highly-respected consumer advocate who served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel appointed to monitor the implementation of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which bailed out insolvent banking and financial institutions during the 2008 – 2009 financial crisis. Although Warren was widely heralded as the most able person to take the reins of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by Congress after the crisis to protect consumers from predatory banks and financial institutions, Congressional opposition from Republican lawmakers has prevented her from being appointed to head up the new agency, which she originally proposed.

President Obama yielded to the opposition and appointed her only to oversee the development of the bureau as his Assistant. Since the bureau will be housed in the Treasury Department, she was also named Special Advisor to Treasury Secretary Geithner, despite the fact that they are reportedly at odds on numerous fronts. Even after assuming these positions, Warren has continued to be relentlessly attacked in the corporate media, vilified by right-wing lawmakers, and castigated by banking and financial interests – at the same time that she has become an heroic figure to supporters of financial reform. In light of increasing indications that effective financial reform is on-hold in the 112th Congress, and Warren’s appointment as head of the bureau is unlikely, support is gathering behind a Warren candidacy for the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race.

If she runs, the economic and political facts of life in that state in 2012 are unlikely to have changed very much since the 2009 election of Republican Scott Brown. If anything, they have worsened. Unemployment and underemployment will still be very high; the banksters and fraudsters will remain unpunished; taxes for the wealthy will remain low and may get lower; austerity will evidently still be the order of the day; at this writing, there’s a good chance that Social Security expenditures will be cut before the Spring is out; a new wave of unemployment will be coming from state and local level austerity policies, and from a new round of foreclosures unless the state courts put a stop to them; health care costs and insurance prices will continue to rise; nothing will have been done about the unpopular “health care reform bill”; credit card interest rates will continue to be oppressive; the wars abroad are likely to continue; the “shared pain” of the trumped up fiscal crisis will not be shared by the well-off; and mainstream Americans will be somewhat, but not very much, concerned about public deficits and debts. During yet another election cycle, the economic and financial distress of working Americans will be given short shrift by politicians resorting to culture war issues to avoid talking about the real problems voters are facing. The views of a majority of voters regarding job creation, the distribution of the tax burden, and single payer health care will be ignored, or merely paid lip-service, by candidates whose real agendas reflect the wishes of their corporate campaign financiers.

So, voters will still be really angry at the Democrats for their poor performance in the last Congress, and absolutely livid at the Republicans for their performance in the present one, and their failure to do anything about any of the above — especially their failure to keep their promises about jobs. In this environment people will be angry at Scott Brown, and they’ll be none too happy with Massachusetts’s ten House Democrats. All in all, 2012 won’t be a good year for incumbents, for candidates of either of the two legacy parties, or for voters, who will be faced with choosing among a traditional Democratic or Republican candidate, or a rumored third party candidate running on a No Labels platform largely inspired by special interest fat cats like Peter Peterson.

The unique contribution of IVCS to this race (and any race, for that matter) is that it enables voters to join forces to set their own policy agendas, support announced candidates or put their own candidates on the ballot who will honor their agendas, and build electoral bases large enough to elect them to office.

We know from polls that a majority of Americans are fed up with both major parties and would like to replace most elected representatives in Congress. Any voter or political activist in Massachusetts can get the ball rolling to create a voting bloc to draft Warren by using the IVCS Policy Options Database on the IVCS website to set their individual policy agendas, and create their own personal home page on the IVCS website (which they can make public or keep private). This voter can query the IVCS Policy Priorities Database to see how many other Massachusetts voters have already selected priorities similar to theirs, contact them and invite them to the bloc.

These voters can form the nucleus of an ever expanding voting bloc hosted on the IVCS website, with its own home page, internal email and messaging tools. The organizers and members set their own rules for running the voting bloc. They can incrementally increase the size of their bloc by reaching out through their own personal online social networks to friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and members of like-minded groups of all stripes. They can invite them to join their bloc by accessing the website to set their agendas, compare them with those of the bloc as a whole, and decide to join the bloc if their priorities converge.

They should have no trouble ramping up the size of their bloc to attain decisive electoral strength, given polls showing that 60% – 80% of Americans are so dissatisfied with the Democratic and Republican parties that they want to see most incumbents in Congress defeated. They will be able to grow their bloc by leaps and bounds if they make systematic efforts to recruit new members by getting the word out that all of its members will be able to play an active role in setting the bloc’s agenda and formulating its electoral strategy. They can hold face-to-face and online “town meetings” to discuss the track record of Scott Brown, and collectively decide whether to get behind Warren and urge her to make a primary bid on the Democratic line. Assuming the bloc decides to do so, it can contact her directly to open negotiations to set a common agenda and address key strategic and logistical questions. Of course, the bloc will have to demonstrate its ability to gain the electoral strength it will need to get her elected in a primary and a general election

Needless to say, the Democratic primary for the Massachusetts Senate seat held by Scott Brown, as well as the general election, are likely to feature highly competitive races driven by the same divisive ideological and emotional issues that major candidates always use to gin up a winning electoral base on the part of supporters dispirited by their unsatisfactory legislative track records. IVCS can play a decisive role for a candidate like Warren entering the electoral fray by helping her forge a winning transpartisan electoral base that unites rather than divides the electorate.

A voting bloc that is large enough to win a primary election and possibly swing a close general election, but has an agenda that is likely to prove controversial to general election voters, could actually cost Warren votes if she committed to it. But a voting bloc that works with her to involve a broad cross-section of voters in setting a popular agenda can gain many votes for her, if she commits to the process and the agenda that emerges from it. Not only will the bloc’s members support her in getting out the vote needed to win the primary; but they can subsequently reach out across party lines, especially the lines of the unpopular Democratic and Republican parties, to involve large numbers of disaffected voters, especially those who have defected from the parties to register as Independents, in using IVCS agenda-setting, organizing and consensus-building tools. Such a unique, grassroots, pro-active involvement of voters can grow the voting bloc into a broad-based electoral coalition well beyond the ideological confines of the narrowing electoral bases of the Democratic and Republican parties.

One thing to keep in mind is that IVCS is likely to generate not just one voting bloc in the Massachusetts 2012 Senate race, but several. These blocs and coalitions can decide to run their own candidates or negotiate with candidates who have announced electoral bids. In exchange for the bloc’s support in mobilizing voters on their behalf, blocs can ask candidates to commit to bloc agendas that have already been set or to collaborate with them in creating a joint agenda. If, after these negotiations, candidates win with bloc support, the blocs will be able to hold them accountable in future elections for implementing mutually agreed upon agendas after they take office.

So, let’s assume that by late fall of 2011, IVCS is accelerating the formation of voting blocs and the mobilization of voters throughout the state. The whole roster of candidates for elective office in Massachusetts will find themselves in an unprecedentedly fluid, voter-driven political environment comprised of alternately diverging and converging IVCS-based voting blocs and electoral coalitions committed to enacting specific policy agendas set by their members. They will be rapidly growing in size. Once they have negotiated common agendas, endorsed candidates, and created coalitions and political alliances, they will be capable of mobilizing many hundreds of thousands of voters in Massachusetts and tipping the forthcoming elections in favor of the candidates they decided to support. Voters, not special interests, will be in the driver’s seat of the election.

The ability of IVCS-enabled voting blocs and coalitions to gain traction within the constellation of candidates in the Massachusetts 2012 primary election will depend on the present and anticipated size of specific blocs, the perceived degree of competitiveness of the races being run, the degree to which candidates and blocs can agree on common agendas, the blocs’ and candidates’ capacity to build electoral coalitions that mobilize other voters, as well as the degree to which candidates may be so beholden to special interests that they refuse to commit to enacting bloc formulated agendas.

So, assuming a pro-Warren voting bloc is formed with an agenda likely to be popular among Massachusetts voters, how large would its electoral base have to be in Massachusetts in order for her and the bloc to view the bloc as an effective organizational engine to get her on the ballot for the primary election, such that she would be induced to commit to its agenda?

Answer: if the bloc were the only organization working to put Warren on the ballot of the Democratic Party, bloc members would have to collect approximately 15,000 signatures from registered Democrats in order to be fairly certain of obtaining the minimum 10,000 valid signatures required by state law. Clearly, getting her on the primary ballot would not present an insurmountable hurdle for the voting bloc to overcome, assuming it has implemented a systematic voter recruitment and mobilization strategy that taps into the collective action power of the Internet and the social networking capabilities of IVCS.

For the next hurdle, the number of votes needed to win the primary election itself is quite a bit higher. In 2008, in a primary that wasn’t hotly contested, Democratic Senate candidate John Kerry won the election with 335,923 votes out of 487,396 total votes cast. By comparison, in the 2009 special election, Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley received 310,227 votes out of 664,195 total votes cast in the Democratic primary.

The ultimately victorious Republican candidate, Scott Brown, won the Republican primary with only 145,465 votes out of 162,706 votes cast. (Once he got on the general election ballot, the donations and voter mobilization assistance he received from Tea Party funders and supporters, combined with the financial contributions he received from banks and financial institutions, enabled him to garner 1,168,178 votes, against 1,060,861 votes cast for his Democratic opponent Coakley in a state that has long been a traditional Democratic strong-hold.)

In view of the 2009 primary results in the Brown-Coakley race, in order for the voting bloc to persuade Warren to get behind the bloc’s agenda, or create a joint agenda, it would have to provide convincing evidence that it could mobilize upwards of 350,000 votes in a 2012 primary, or an average of 35,000 per Congressional District. (If more candidates enter the race, the number of votes the voting bloc needs drops, but it will still have to surpass the total garnered by any other candidate.) This 350,000 figure looks realistic considering that there’ll probably be at least 3 or 4 candidates in the Democratic race. Announced, potential, and declined candidates include Martha Coakley, the 2010 Democratic candidate, who appears disinclined to run, with likely contenders including Mike Capuano, Joseph Patrick Kennedy III, Stephen Lynch, and Ed Markey. Three of them are in Congress now and are all very well-known. But the question remains whether an IVCS-enabled voting bloc could deliver 350,000 Democratic primary votes, and whether a candidate like Warren would be sufficiently convinced that it can deliver to commit to a voting bloc’s policy agenda and run on it.

This is where a new, emerging political constituency, comprised of young Millennial voters, combined with the collective action power of the Internet, and the political crowdsourcing capabilities of IVCS, can create decisive levers for an insurgent candidate like Warren running an uphill race against major party regulars. Research on the 2008 presidential election demonstrates the margin of victory that Millennials can provide in a tightly divided race, and the effectiveness of web-based social networks in mobilizing them to become actively involved in these races.

Post-election surveys show that upwards of 125,000,000 Americans conducted their political activities during the 2008 presidential election over the Internet — almost as many people as voted in the election itself. Barack Obama’s victory in that election is credited to his campaign’s ability to use the crowdsourcing capacity of web-based social networks like Facebook and MySpace to recruit young Millennial voters born between 1980 and the early 2000s. He used his campaign’s Facebook and MySpace pages to increase his “fan” base, and then migrate his fans to his campaign website, where his political organizers had built a huge database of voter files with many different kinds of information on each voter.

They used these files and the data they contained to transmit a steady stream of personally-tailored messages to each supporter. These messages were aimed at enticing them not only to volunteer to hold events in their local communities, distribute flyers, and solicit cam paign contributions, but at constantly encouraging them to use their own personal social networks to recruit their friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to Obama’s campaign website. When it came time to get out the vote, the original database had swelled to nearly 13,000,000 voters with whom the campaign could communicate instantly via email and text messages to drive his voters to the polls. The outcome was that Millennials provided Obama 80% of his popular vote margin over McCain.

With IVCS, it is voters rather than candidates who will use the political crowdsourcing potential of web-based social networks to run winning campaigns they control on behalf of agendas they set and candidates they select. Better social networking tools than Obama’s campaign used to create his margin of victory will be available to Millennial members of IVCS-enabled voting blocs hosted on the IVCS website. It is quite likely that they will not work as actively for Obama in 2012 as they did in 2008, because his policies have given them, along with most of the American middle class, the proverbial royal screw, when it comes to jobs and prospects for their futures. In 2012, they’ll be looking for new, non-establishment, non-special interest-backed candidates to support. Elizabeth Warren may well be one of them.

Given the ubiquity of Millennials, the largest generation of voters in history, who will comprise 25% of the electorate in 2012 and 40% of the electorate in 2020, and their well-established sophistication using the web to build individual personal social networks comprised of hundreds of friends, family and co-workers, a voting bloc supporting Warren should have little difficulty building a winning electoral base. Once unemployed and uninsured, Millennials will join forces with disaffected mainstream voters to formulate policy agendas for bettering the condition of the middle class and providing full employment. They will use their social networking finesse to build a powerful web-based political constituency that can easily decide both the primary and general elections in Warren’s favor.

She is likely to commit to its policy agenda and to join forces with voting bloc members to win the Massachusetts primary and general elections because together, they can create a transpartisan electoral base that can outmaneuver and outflank the declining electoral bases of the two major parties. She and her supporters within the bloc, and whatever electoral coalitions they create can use IVCS tools and databases to continuously hone their policy agenda, and expand their electoral base to counter the fiscally conservative, special interest-backed agendas that the two parties (and possibly the third major party in formation) will be trying to foist off on a hapless public, which would be without recourse were it not for IVCS.

The game-changing nature of IVCS will further provide a paradigm-shifting reference point and perspective not only for a voting bloc supporting Warren in Massachusetts; but also for other voting blocs in other states running insurgents against major party regulars. As IVCS-enabled voting blocs take the place of traditional political parties as the reference point for political activists as well as mainstream voters, they will engender viewpoints among their members that defy contemporary dogmas and reject traditional political discourse presented to them by the corporate-controlled mainstream media outlets.

As participation in IVCS-enabled voting blocs and coalitions becomes habitual and sustained, political propaganda disseminated by special interests will be dissected and rejected. Corporate political advertising will be critically evaluated by voting bloc members, especially since their advertising messages are by necessity and design very simplistic, while the dialogues, debates and internal communications inside voting blocs will be richer, more layered, and more textured. Typical political mailings will be laughed at. Attempts to divide and distract voters with sensationalism will be viewed as cynical attempts to manipulate the perceptions of voting bloc members. Even the debates among major candidates will be viewed through the reality-based conceptual lenses being developed continuously within the voting blocs. Debates by talking points and disingenuous counterpoints will be recognized for the kabuki they are. And when the post-debate spinmeisters appear to claim victory for their candidates, their views will be quickly dismissed.

In brief, IVCS, and the alternative social/political sphere it will create, will insulate voting bloc members from the special interest-controlled sphere of mass politics and mass political persuasion. The blocs will weaken the power and influence of special interests, and undermine the value of special interest-funded advertising and marketing activities that make it so expensive to run for office.

Remember that the reason why political advertising and marketing messages are effective now is because they are targeted at specific identity groups, and designed to divide the electorate into irreconcilable camps. But when conflict-fomenting marketing and advertising confront new political constituencies that can unite to set common transpartisan agendas and voter-controlled voting blocs with winning electoral bases not under the control of special interests, they will lose their fire power. Will the marketers and advertisers be able to adapt to this new dynamic and figure out how to manipulate it? I don’t think so, because they won’t be able to keep up with the speed and versatility of voting bloc learning processes, and the continuous adaptations of voting bloc agendas and strategies to emerging political realities.

In early 2012, Massachusetts Senate candidate prospect Elizabeth Warren, together with one or more IVCS-enabled voting blocs eager to support her candidacy, will have the opportunity to reach out to each other, assuming the IVCS website is fully up and running. Given the range of choices available in the IVCS Policy Options Database, and the possibility that voters and candidates can add new options to it, it is quite likely that they can negotiate a common, mutually acceptable policy agenda. Assuming that the voting bloc has put in place an effective strategy for attaining the voting strength that it will need to elect Warren in the primary election against Democratic opponents, and the general election against all other candidates, Warren and the bloc are likely to agree to jointly announce her candidacy.

At this point, the bloc can move quickly toward building the electoral base it will need to garner the approximately 35,000 votes on average it will need in each of the Massachusetts electoral districts to win the primary. Warren’s potential for success in the primary will depend, first and foremost, on what she does. If she works within the confines of the present political system, and declines to join forces with an IVCS voting bloc to use IVCS consensus-building tools to create her own constituency around collective transpartisan agenda-setting, while one of her competitors, say Mike Capuano, the Congressman from the Massachusetts 8th, decides to commit, then the primary campaign will be very hard for her to win.

Moving on to the general election, here Warren will probably need about 1.6 million votes, or an average of 160,000 per Congressional district to win the 2012 Senate race. This assumes that roughly 3 million to 3.2 million people will turn out. It is also worth bearing in mind that there may be a third party candidate running on the No Labels ticket who will be targeting so-called “centrist” voters who have defected from the Democratic and Republican parties, and who will receive substantial backing from fiscal conservatives who think that the political stalemate created by the unpopular Democratic and Republican parties is harming the nation’s ability to solve its pressing crises. In this case, the candidates running on the Republican and No Labels ticket will draw votes from a Democratic ticket led by Obama at the top.

So even if Elizabeth Warren wins the Massachusetts Democratic primary, registered Democratic party voters may continue to decline, so disaffected are they with party performance at all levels. Their defection is likely to prevent Warren from winning on the basis of Democratic voters alone. Given her track record in attempting to regulate predatory bankers and financial institutions, she will be at a great disadvantage in competing against candidates like Scott Brown who will be heavily financed by them. So she will not be able to win the general election with only Democratic votes or with traditional Democratic funders.

But she can turn this necessity into a virtue by working with the IVCS voting bloc to forge a transpartisan electoral base. Elizabeth Warren has been a champion of the middle class for some time, and a general election campaign spear-headed by an IVCS voting bloc would enable her to involve middle class voters across the political spectrum in crafting a transpartisan agenda that addresses their economic and financial distress.

Logistically, her IVCS voting bloc would go all out to use IVCS consensus-building tools to forge a winning electoral coalition and mobilize its voters to go to the polls to ensure that Warren wins the general election in 2012. Given overwhelming voter dissatisfaction with establishment incumbents candidates, which is likely to remain unchanged by election day, and the capability of IVCS to forge electoral coalitions whose members espouse the similar policy priorities, and who are motivated to work for the electoral coalition and those they support, I think it’s very likely that an IVCS electoral coalition supporting Warren can deliver the 1.6 million votes that it will need to elect Warren and upset Scott Brown.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).

How Voters Can Get Control of the 2012 Virginia Senate Race

5:38 pm in Uncategorized by letsgetitdone

The 2012 Virginia Senate race is shaping up as a contest between former Governor and Senator George F. Allen, and former Governor Tim Kaine, both establishment candidates in the legacy parties and heavily favored to win their respective nominations. They will couch their messages in terms calculated to resonate with Virginia voters. But once elected, if recent history is any guide, their legislative priorities will diverge significantly from the priorities of the voters who elect them because they will be heavily influenced by special interests that finance their campaigns.

The Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS), when fully developed, enables Virginia voters to upset their respective apple carts. In my last post, I described its potential impact on Jim Moran’s next campaign in Virginia’s 8th Congressional District, and explained how the IVCS could lead to the formation of a voting bloc or electoral coalition that could make Jim Moran, or an alternative candidate selected by the voting bloc, accountable to the voting bloc or coalition and its policy agenda. In this post, I’ll do a similar analysis of the Senate race focusing on Tim Kaine.

Tim Kaine

Tim Kaine has had a notable career as a Democratic Party centrist. As an attorney he built a very good reputation as an advocate for victims of housing bias based on race and disabilities. In 1994, after 10 years of practice, he was elected to the Richmond City Council. In 1998, the Council elected him Mayor of Richmond. In 2001, he was elected to the position of Lieutenant Governor with 925,974 votes, 50.35% of the total. This was a narrow win, but Kaine had become closely associated with the very popular Mark Warner during his term, and in 2005, with Warner’s strong support, he was elected Governor with 1,025,942 votes, 51.72% of the total, a margin of 6% over his Republican opponent Jerry Kilgore.

Kaine governed as a centrist. He balanced the budget, emphasized transportation development and funding, continued Warner’s strong support for education, emphasized conservation, signed an Executive Order banning smoking, and, in general, tried to promote balanced growth for the State. Kaine has been a strong supporter and friend of Barack Obama who named him to chair the Democratic National Committee. He was on Obama’s short list for the Vice Presidential nomination, and the president has recently indicated that he thinks Tim Kaine, who has yet to formally announce his candidacy for the US Senate, would make a fine successor to the departing Jim Webb. Since George Allen has announced his candidacy for the 2012 US Senate race in Virginia on the Republican line, it’s becoming increasingly likely that Tim Kaine will be the Democratic Party’s choice to try to hold that Senate seat for the Democrats against George Allen’s attempt to return to the Senate.

Visualizing the Potential Impact of the IVCS on Tim Kaine and the Democratic Party

In my last post analyzing the potential impact of the IVCS on Jim Moran’s upcoming re-election campaign, and also in a number of others, I’ve written about how the IVCS environment will enable its members to form initially small voting blocs around specific policy agendas and then how, through problem solving, collaboration, negotiation and compromise, aided by IVCS social networking facilities, smaller voting blocs can aggregate into ever larger ones, and finally into electoral coalitions unifying millions of people in support of a policy agenda they share. If you’re interested in these details please read the posts linked to above and also “2012: How U.S. Voters Can Wrest Control of Congress from Special Interests”, and then try to visualize how things might work in the US Senate race coming up in Virginia in 2012.

Start by generalizing the scenario I provided for Jim Moran’s Congressional race in the Virginia 8th to all 11 Congressional Districts in Virginia. In the Congressional scenario, I highlighted trans-partisan voting blocs that were focused on the 8th Congressional District. But the IVCS enables such voting blocs and electoral coalitions to easily organize on a cross-district basis because it is web-based and uses social networking technologies to interconnect voters with similar policy priorities irrespective of where they live. In fact, the natural mode of voting bloc organization is initially around policy options and policy agendas, not around specific election districts. So we are as likely to see cross-district, and even cross-state voting blocs emerge and organize around policy options and agendas as we are to see them focus their memberships to conform to political boundaries like local, state, and Congressional District boundaries in order to further those agendas. Given the demographics of Congressional Districts, they are likely to provide voting blocs the most fertile ground for initially flexing their political muscles. Once the voting blocs start organizing by Congressional Districts, however, they will quickly recognize that they can also mount campaigns and primary challenges to major party incumbents and favored candidates for any offices elected by state voters, whether they are local, state or federal. So, let’s visualize the situation in Virginia in a typical House and Senate election year, assuming the IVCS is in place.

First, let’s take a typical House election year. To get a candidate on the ballot and ensure a primary challenge to at least one of the major Party candidates in each District, the IVCS voting block in each of the 11 Congressional Districts would need to gather at least 1500 petition signatures from qualified voters per district, for a total of at least 16,500 signatures.

Second, let’s take a Senate race. To meet state requirements for getting a single primary candidate for the US Senate in Virginia on the primary election ballot, it would be very easy for IVCS voting bloc members to gather another 1500 in each District, that is, another 16,500, at the same time. Since Virginia requires 10,000 qualified voters total and at least 400 from each of its 11 Congressional Districts, and recommends that 15,000 – 20,000 be gathered with at least 700 from each Congressional District, the voting bloc would easily meet Virginia’s requirement for entering a candidate in a major Party primary.

This means that Tim Kaine, currently viewed as a “shoo-in” choice of the Democratic Party, assuming that he decides he will run for the US Senate, could easily face a voting bloc primary challenge in 2012 if there’s no agreement between himself and the voting bloc on a common agenda, and the bloc decides to enter its own candidate in the primary. Of course, if there is no agreement between Kaine and the voting bloc on a policy agenda, this divergence doesn’t guarantee that Kaine would lose a primary challenge to a voting bloc supported candidate. However, what would favor a voting bloc candidate’s victory in the primary is the fact that US Senate primary elections in Virginia have very low turnouts and highly motivated blocs of primary voters can determine the outcome even if their numbers are small. For example, there was a 3.45% turnout for the Jim Webb/Harris Miller Democratic Party primary race in 2004. Jim Webb won with 83,298 votes, which was 53.47 percent of the votes cast.

If Tim Kaine were expecting stiff primary opposition, the Democratic Party could mount a major effort to support him. But considering that the Senate primary race occurs months after the presidential primary in Virginia, the turnout potential for the major parties is much more similar to what it is in an off-year congressional election. Most probably, the most the Party organization would be able to produce is the turnout that occurred in the three-way hotly contested gubernatorial primary of 2009. That primary had a turnout of 6.3%, and was won by Creigh Deeds with close to 158,000 votes, very close to 50% of the approximately 319,000 votes cast.

This previous history suggests that a voting bloc candidate who would be a very safe prospect for an electoral victory in a Virginia US Senate primary would probably require no more than 200,000 votes, or an average of roughly 18,000 per Congressional District. In the 2008 general election, Democrats won 6 of the 11 Virginia Congressional Districts, and 2 of the 3 in Northern Virginia. They received over 200,000 votes in 3 of the 6, and between 140,000 and 200,000 in the other three. They also garnered between 114,000 and 150,000 in each of the 5 Congressional Districts in which they were defeated. In view of these 2008 general election vote totals, and the fair amount of Democratic strength in all Congressional Districts in most regions of the state, an average of 18,000 primary votes in each Congressional District for a Senate candidate it supports seems well within the reach of a statewide voting bloc, since it is less than 10% of the general election total, and we can expect stronger commitments among voting bloc members translating into higher percentage turnouts in primary elections than parties normally receive because IVCS forged social bonds are likely to be much stronger than political party ties.

Considering that Jim Webb won the VA Senate Democratic primary in 2004 with 83,298 votes, even a voting bloc candidate that could command only 100,000 votes, an average of roughly 9,000 per Congressional District, would present a very significant challenge to a Tim Kaine candidacy, and may well persuade him to embrace the voting bloc’s agenda in the primary. Whether or not he does that, however, the voting bloc can be expected to easily arrive at the 18,000 average votes needed per District to produce a very safe electoral margin. That’s because the number of Democratic voters and other voters of various persuasions whom the voting bloc can bring into the primary is substantial and sufficient to elect the bloc’s candidate, due to the following factors:

– Widespread dissatisfaction of voters across the political spectrum with the legislative track records of known candidates and incumbents of both parties as expressed in polls,

– Lack of responsiveness of major party candidates and incumbents to mainstream voters’ current economic and financial difficulties, as reflected in their inability to develop a job creation strategy that works, a strategy that halts foreclosures and stabilizes the real estate market, a strategy that will clean up the financial system continually victimizing Americans, and a strategy that provides good health care at a stable price that working Americans can afford.

– The IVCS-enabled voting bloc will be able to use IVCS agenda-setting tools to mobilize disaffected voters to define their policy priorities across the board, rather than being restricted to the confines of party alignments, and participate in creating a written legislative mandate for their candidate.

– The web-based consensus-building tools of the IVCS will create stronger social ties and loyalties among voting bloc supporters than the legacy Parties can create among voters contemptuous of their prior track records.

These four factors will make it possible for the IVCS-enabled bloc to create a larger electoral base of motivated voters than Kaine’s base of disaffected Democrats, and in turn lead to a higher turnout, and it will also allow the bloc to do that without recourse to large amounts of campaign money because if its use of IVCS organizing facilities. Since the requirement of 200,000 votes is less than 5% of the total votes available, it’s not a very high bar to overcome.

As with the scenario I outlined for Jim Moran’s upcoming re-election effort, if Tim Kaine earned the backing of the voting bloc in the primary in exchange for supporting its agenda, and then won the primary with the votes of the voting bloc, the bloc could keep the pressure on Kaine during the general election by putting up a “back-up” candidate on the Independent line or on the line of a third party. The bloc could shift its support to this candidate in the event Kaine reneged on his support of the bloc’s agenda during the campaign. On the other hand, if Kaine maintained his advocacy of the bloc’s agenda, then the bloc would go all out to use IVCS consensus-building tools to forge a winning electoral coalition and drive its voters to the polls to ensure that Kaine wins the general election in 2012.

The 2008 Senate race was won by Mark Warner with a total of 2.37 million votes (65% of the 3.64 million votes cast). That race had a high turnout of about 72.4% of the total number of registered voters since it was held during the 2008 presidential election. Assuming that it’s unlikely that turnout in 2012 would exceed 75% of the total number of registered voters in the Senate race, and that total votes would exceed 3.9 million, then I infer that a safe total needed by Kaine or any of his opponents to win would be about 2 million votes.

The requirement for IVCS then, is to deliver an average of 182,00 votes per Congressional District, to ensure the election of Tim Kaine, provided that he remains committed to the voting bloc’s agenda, or its alternative candidate, if he defaults on his commitment to the bloc’s agenda. If turnout is less than 75% and the growth in registered voters is less than I’ve projected, then the requirement might fall to as low as an average of 162,000, many less than the average of 215,000 who voted for Mark Warner.

Can an IVCS-enabled voting bloc build an electoral base with 2 million+ voters? I think it can, because it can use the broad repertory of IVCS web-based consensus-building tools, including an online Voting Utility, to forge a winning electoral coalition with other voting blocs, political parties, labor unions and grassroots advocacy groups. It can do this by involving Virginia voters in setting an agenda FAR MORE to their liking than anything that Tim Kaine can come up with. That agenda can be transpartisan and incorporate priorities that the Democratic Party and Kaine’s special interest campaign contributors would normally oppose, priorities like direct federal job creation, Medicare for All, etc. The voting bloc could mobilize many very angry and eligible voters who have been staying away from the polls, once they see it get a commitment from Tim Kaine to support an agenda that they participated in formulating with no special interest influence as part of the process.

To accomplish this, the voting bloc or electoral coalition most likely will have to agree on a more broadly shared agenda than those that were agreed upon for the Congressional elections and candidates. Generally speaking, the diversity of opinion in any of the 50 states may well be greater than the diversity in any one Congressional District. So, the shared policy agenda negotiated by the members of the statewide Senatorial voting bloc may well require more prolonged negotiation and turn out to be more diverse in its policy options than the shared policy agendas of Congressional District voting blocs. Members of the statewide Senatorial voting blocs will need to negotiate the policy priorities to be included in these shared agendas, and here the IVCS consensus-building tools, particularly the Voting Utility, will facilitate setting the broader shared agendas that will be required to create the broader electoral base that the bloc will need to obtain Kaine’s support for its agenda AND get him elected in an anti-incumbent era.

With skillful negotiation, and a willingness to compromise, the statewide Senatorial voting blocs will be able to bring broad cross-sections of voters into winning, broad-based electoral coalitions that override the vitriolic divisiveness engendered by the legacy parties. This will be a further development of the bottom-up democratic process that leads to voting bloc emergence, and that intensifies the sense of belonging, loyalty and commitment that people will have to the voting blocs.

Generally speaking, as these voting blocs rack up electoral victories in major party primaries throughout the country, they will begin to democratize and revitalize the major parties, by ensuring that voters control their agendas and determine who wins their elections. In the case of the Virginia Senate race, success in the 2012 Congressional and Senatorial races, coupled with outreach to party officials and membership to persuade them to align their efforts with those of IVCS-enabled voting blocs, will accelerate the democratization and revitalization of the Democratic Party of Virginia and its alignment with its historic mission of representing mainstream Americans, rather than special interests.

Conclusion

This post continues my analysis of how the IVCS will work to empower the U.S. electorate to wrest control of elections from special interests. My previous post on the IVCS and Jim Moran, outlined how things would work at the Congressional level. This post extends the analysis to the level of the election for the US Senate in Virginia.

The Democrats are in a ditch of their own making in Virginia, because of their very poor performance in Congress since the President’s election, and his own failure to ease the pain of mainstream Americans, while he created the conditions that have allowed the very well-off to further increase their wealth. Tim Kaine’s close association and friendship with Obama, and his identification as a centrist, organizational Democrat, could be a real deal-killer for many 2012 Virginia voters, in spite of the fact that Kaine was a popular Governor. That’s because of high unemployment rates, for which Obama is now blamed, and because Kaine may simply have too much baggage to carry to be successful in a conventional party campaign in an anti-incumbent era in which special interest-funded right wing fringe groups like the Tea Party have taken center stage in non-stop media wars. Moreover, even though the big money he will likely get from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and special interests may help him with political messaging ads, the ads, and the money used to pay for them, may well add to that baggage by providing tangible proof of his association with interests widely held in contempt by voters.

George Allen may well run a full-throated Tea Party campaign that will pull out hordes of conservatives, Christian fundamentalists and Tea Party regulars. In such an environment, only an IVCS-enabled voting bloc capable of building a broad-based electoral coalition around voter-set agendas and getting out the vote without the aid of big money, could pull Kaine’s irons out of the fire, in terms of setting an appealing transpartisan (but not right wing) agenda that would attract the electoral base he needs to get those 2 million+ votes.

I believe that scenarios like the ones I’ve outlined for Virginia are generalizable across the country, and that Senate candidates, whether incumbent or not, can be persuaded to commit to, and also adhere to, agendas formulated by the voting blocs, especially since the blocs will offer the prospect of delivering large numbers of committed voters at very low cost. If this is correct, it means that voters can disconnect the two major parties from their corporate and special interest bonds and make them responsible to broad-based popular needs and desires once again. My next post will continue this analysis at the presidential election level and analyze the potential impact of the IVCS on the 2012 Presidential election and its aftermath.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).

A Global View of the Interactive Voter Choice System

7:14 pm in Uncategorized by letsgetitdone

We Americans have a problem. We’re supposed to be a democracy responsive to the people. But polls show that policies favored by heavy majorities of Americans don’t get legislated by either or both parties in Congress. Instead, bills are passed that a majority of people either don’t care about, or view as a betrayal of their interests. People believe this is because both major parties are dominated by special interests who provide big money contributions to run their campaigns. In addition to these financial advantages, the major parties have gained control of the electoral system by structuring the rules of the game so that third parties cannot grow and threaten their domination. How can we get around this closed system, and either make the major parties responsive to us, or see to it that third parties can be successful?

We can use the Internet to create a network of voter-driven political organizations that make big money irrelevant. Web applications like the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS), developed by Nancy Bordier, make the creation of such organizations feasible. IVCS and the website being built around it will provide people with a virtual place through which they can:

  • Define their own policy options and prioritize them to create policy agendas,
  • Social network with others who have similar agendas to their own,
  • Work together to create collective policy agendas, voting blocs, and electoral coalitions that work within existing parties or build new political parties, and
  • Hold elected representatives accountable by monitoring and evaluating how well their performance matches the policy agendas of the voting blocs that have elected them to office.

The result of using IVCS will be voting blocs of various sizes, and influence. People will use the application to formulate policy agendas and then create self-organizing voting blocs and political parties around those agendas. They can use the application’s search/data mining tool to locate others whose policy agendas are most like their own, and join with them.

From the viewpoint of an individual, it may not be easy at first to organize voting blocs that develop cohesiveness and staying power, because people will have to negotiate out their differences to join together. But negotiating common agendas and crafting winning electoral strategies at the grassroots gives voters a lot more power than being hamstrung by the two major parties. The application will support such negotiations, and create the potential for so many policy agendas and voting bloc coalitions to form that it is virtually certain that new and powerful blocs, and even political parties, will emerge, grow rapidly and begin to acquire national influence.

Voting blocs will at first have only a virtual identity. But the social ties formed will be real. When the bloc members start to take the blocs into political party organizations and primaries, the transition will be made from virtual to full social reality. The application will support agenda formation and political organization better than the legacy political parties because its Policy Options Database enables voters to formulate written policy agendas for the first time in history, and use their agendas as legislative mandates to select candidates and oversee those they elect. In addition, it will provide consensus-building and collaborative tools that legacy parties have never sought to provide their supporters. The content management tools will also be better than any political party’s. The social networking tools will be far superior. The problem solving and knowledge processing tools supplied will also be better than those of any existing political party’s. Finally, state-of-the-art campaign organizing tools will be provided by third party software vendors with proven track records.

So, the application will supply a richer virtual environment for new voting blocs to emerge than anything now available. It will also support openness, transparency, and political inclusiveness within its voting blocs, as well as whatever degree of privacy and security a voting bloc wants. Voting blocs will make decisions and resolve conflicts either by consensus or by using the IVCS Voting Utility. They can also use the Utility to vote on proposed political alliances and coalitions. Blocs will be able to adapt to their environments better than traditional voting blocs, transcend the awkward stages of initial growth, and develop into new political organizations that can successfully challenge the legacy parties and the special interests that have become the driving force in the American political system.

The likelihood that national voting blocs will form and maintain themselves is great, because the yearning in America for change is great, as is the potential for many, many groups to form and fail, while giving up their members to those that survive. Most Americans want to do something about the mess we’re in. They want the political system to be responsive to the people. They’ll take advantage of IVCS because it’s the only way they can build winning voting blocs, electoral coalitions and political parties they control; select candidates for office on the basis of their own criteria (their written policy agendas); evaluate those they elect; influence them; and, finally, hold them accountable.

Since it will cost little more than time to organize and get one’s messages out by using it, the application will eliminate the need for voting blocs, political parties, and candidates to rely on contributions and special interest campaigns to get support. It will de-fang the Citizens United decision, and the influence of special interests more generally. It is the solution to the problem of how we can shift the balance back from special interest domination to government of, by, and for the people.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).

2012: How U.S. Voters Can Wrest Control — Part V: How Voting Blocs Can Expand Their Electoral Bases

10:52 pm in Uncategorized by letsgetitdone

2012: How U.S. Voters Can Wrest Control of Congress from Special Interests — Part V. How Voting Blocs Can Expand Their Electoral Bases by Increasing Their Membership and Building Electoral Coalitions with Existing Parties, New Parties, Labor Unions and Other Membership-Based Groups

[Author's note: This series has been re-posted by Joe Firestone (a.k.a. letsgetitdone) on behalf of author Nancy Bordier with her express permission.]

By Nancy Bordier

See the series introduction here.

Voting blocs can attain the electoral strength they need to win Congressional elections even when their candidates face strong opponents with seductive messaging machines that are well-financed by special interests. They can do so by conducting sustained, systematic campaigns to increase the membership of their blocs and form electoral coalitions.

Both strategies are built around the Interactive Voter Choice System’s consensus-building tools, including the Voting Utility. These tools enable voters to continue negotiating and even voting on which priorities they wish to include in common agendas, until they can identify the combinations of priorities that attract the number of votes required to beat their candidates’ opponents. This process also enables them to build electoral bases that outflank and outmaneuver those of stand-alone, special interest-controlled parties and voting blocs, whose members are constrained to accept fixed, narrow-gauge, special interest agendas.

Significantly, as voters scrutinize their policy options and alternative combinations of options, they will simultaneously solve the contrived conflicts over legislative initiatives that political partisans and special interests have created to inflame voters’ passions and prejudices, divide the electorate into hostile camps, and create the appearance of stalemate in Congress that both parties’ representatives use to camouflage their obedience to special interest agendas.

To increase their membership, voting blocs can:

1. Invite newly registered website members who live in their Congressional districts to join their bloc, by continuously querying the Policy Priorities Database to locate and contact new voters in their electoral districts who have recently submitted policy agendas with policy priorities that are statistically similar to those of the voting bloc.

2. Invite like-minded friends, family, neighbors and co-workers in their districts to set their policy agendas using the Policy Options Database and submit them to the Policy Priorities Database. These voters can then query the database to see whether their agendas comprise a sufficient number of shared priorities with those of voting bloc members to motivate them to join the voting bloc.

3. Recruit new non-website members by advertising their voting blocs, agendas and action plans in venues outside of the website. They can invite prospective members living in their Congressional district to set their policy agendas using the Policy Options Database. After submitting their priorities to the Policy Priorities Database, the prospective members can then query the database to compare their agendas with the blocs’ agendas. If they find that they share a sufficient number of shared priorities with bloc members, they can opt to join the blocs.

4. Contact membership-based affinity groups, e.g. environmental groups, and invite members living in their Congressional district to set their policy agendas using the Policy Options Database, submit them to the Policy Priorities Database, and then query the database to see whether their agendas share a sufficient number of priorities with voting bloc members to motivate them to join the bloc.

5. Query the Policy Priorities Database to identify and contact website members with statistically dissimilar agendas who, nevertheless, share enough policy priorities with voting bloc members to motivate them to join the blocs, in exchange for the addition or deletion of particular options.

Voting blocs can also expand their electoral bases by creating electoral coalitions. For example, they can:

1. Search the website’s list of existing voting blocs to identify prospective coalition partners with members who live in their Congressional district. They can contact the blocs with priorities similar to their own. If these blocs are willing, the two blocs can open negotiations to create shared agendas using the Policy Options Database and the Policy Priorities Database. If a consensus emerges, they can proceed to see if they can select common slates of candidates and join forces to pool their resources to get out the vote to elect them.

2. Contact external voter mobilization groups with similar agendas who are operating in their Congressional district. If these groups are interested, they can open negotiations to create shared agendas. If a consensus emerges, they can proceed to see if they can select common slates of candidates and agree to pool resources to get out the vote.

3. Contact labor unions with state and local chapters in their Congressional district. If they are willing, the two sides can open negotiations to create shared agendas using the Policy Options Database and the Policy Priorities Database. If a consensus emerges, they can proceed to see if they can select common slates of candidates. If so, they can join forces and pool resources to get out the vote to elect their candidates.

4. Contact local political parties to see whether they are interested in forming a coalition. If so, the voting bloc can invite party officials and interested party members to set their policy agendas using the Policy Options Database and submit their priorities to the Policy Priorities Database for tallying under the party’s name. The members of the voting bloc and the party can compare their respective agendas to see whether there are a sufficient number of shared priorities to form the basis of a coalition.

If so, they can proceed to a vote using the website’s Voting Utility, so their members can collectively decide which priorities their members wish to place in a common agenda, and what slate of candidates they wish to run. If a consensus emerges, according to whatever procedures and rules they decide to adopt, their coalition can pool their resources to mobilize their members to go to the polls to vote for the slate of candidates they jointly agree to endorse.

Strategically and tactically, voting blocs will have to decide whether they will be more effective in getting their candidates elected by working within existing political parties, and even by getting organizational control of them, than by diverting their resources to the arduous task of collecting the signatures each state requires to start new parties. The new party route will leave the Democratic and Republican parties intact, and permit them to continue to use their unfair advantages in gerrymandered districts and special interest fund-raising to run and elect party-backed, special interest-funded candidates to office.

This strategy of working within existing parties prevents the fragmentation into losing splinter groups of the majority of U.S. voters whom polls show want to see most Democratic and Republican candidates replaced. However, it should be kept in mind that regardless of whether they work inside or outside an established party, the application’s consensus-building tools enable broad-cross sections of voters to build voting blocs and electoral coalitions that have the voting strength to win elections.

The splintering into a whole raft of small political parties of the majority of U.S. voters who want to oust the nation’s Congressional lawmakers is not a formula for success in running winning candidates against the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties, particularly at the presidential level. In the long run, agile and malleable voting blocs using the IVCS application will become more important than political parties. They, not political parties, will become the driving force in elections and legislation, especially since these blocs can easily gain organizational control of established parties once they start winning elections on party lines, and register enough bloc members in the party to elect their members to a majority of official party positions.

The fact of the matter is that IVCS-enabled voting blocs can perform all the functions of a political party, without actually having to form a party, especially since they can run their candidates on existing party lines on the ballot by collecting the number of signatures required by the state to get them on party lines. In addition, blocs have unique mechanisms that parties do not have for building ever larger transpartisan electoral bases by increasing their membership and forming electoral coalitions.

By running their candidates on existing party lines and building winning electoral coalitions that have the voting strength needed to beat party candidates in primaries, they can avoid the time consuming efforts involved in collecting the signatures needed to create new political parties from scratch. Also, once they start electing their candidates to Congress carrying the banner of the two major parties, they will have access to the pivotal leadership and committee positions that are traditionally divided up between the major parties, positions that have the authority to decide which policies will, and will not, move through the legislative process and be enacted into law.

Representatives who owe their election to the voting blocs and truly represent the best interests of the American people will be free to revoke anti-majoritarian rules and practices like the Senate’s filibuster and secret holds, which have permitted a minority of elected representatives representing a minority of the American people to decide which bills will and will not be enacted into law.

5.Build new parties. Working within existing parties at the outset of their formation does not prevent voting blocs from eventually establishing national federations of local blocs that become de facto parties and even official third parties, in all 50 states, similar to what Ross Perot attempted to do back in the 90′s. Since IVCS-enabled voting blocs will be able to develop electoral bases that have members in all 50 states, these blocs can easily use IVCS consensus-building and agenda-setting tools to bring together broad cross-sections of voters around shared policy agendas under a minimal number of party umbrellas.

Voting blocs already operating at the state level will be well-equipped to proceed on this front, since they will have enough members to gather the number of signatures required by state election laws to establish a political party. They will also be familiar with the legal ropes, having worked with state election authorities within state legal guidelines for running candidates on the ballots of existing parties.

Since the members of IVCS-enabled parties will have set their common agendas using the application’s consensus-building and agenda setting tools, and can update their agenda at any time by using the Voting Utility, the parties will not be plagued by the internecine conflicts over their platforms that typically plague political parties because they can resolve divergent views by holding on-line votes to determine the preferences of the majority.

Blocs can also use the application to screen prospective party candidates by comparing the party’s platform with candidates’ platforms. By using its various tools and analyzing past election results and current polls, they can also determine how they might wish to customize their agendas to enhance the electoral prospects of their candidates in particular states and counties.

Unlike the present situation where candidates of both major parties espouse policy options that fall well outside the confines of the preferences of rank-and-file party members, IVCS-enabled third parties and their state-based supporters who use the application’s agenda-setting tools can prevent candidates from running on their lines, in the event that they espouse policies that are clearly inimical to those of the party.

The important point to keep in mind is that the overarching goal of the application is to enable the U.S. electorate to fundamentally alter the U.S. political party system, not simply start new parties. The objective is to fundamentally alter the nation’s electoral and legislative processes, not merely to elect new representatives.

The end-goal of the application is to empower voters to run the government, not political parties, compromised politicians, special interests that fund their campaigns, or lobbyists whom special interests fund to sit at the table with lawmakers and dictate the legislation they pass. Whether voting blocs opt to get control of the Democratic and Republican parties or create new parties is merely a means to this end.

IVCS-enabled voting blocs will become more powerful than parties because they will be able to build broad-based electoral coalitions around transpartisan agendas that can outflank and outmaneuver them. These voting blocs will be able to dominate the American political landscape because they can engage the entire U.S. electorate in setting their agendas and deciding who will be elected to enact them into law.

It will be the members of the voting blocs who will shape public opinion, not political parties or politicians. Since voters will be running the government and sharing their political views with each other at the speed of light over the Internet, their influence will dwarf that of the political pundits, political parties, politicians and special interests that have limited the parameters of public debate for decades in order to promote and protect their private interests. Due to voting blocs’ size, ubiquity and capacity to continuously build consensus among voters across the political spectrum, they will dwarf the influence parties, politicians, and pundits, in deciding which candidates run in primary and general elections and win. Voting blocs will possess a nimbleness, flexibility and fluidity that enables them to continuously reshape and resize themselves in response to voters’ changing policy priorities, and create whatever electoral coalitions they need to run and elect bloc candidates to office at any level of government and in whatever states they choose.

Voting blocs of any size can join forces and recombine into larger blocs within states and, eventually, across any and all 50 states, virtually overnight. All they have to do to launch these expanding blocs is to take advantage of the Policy Options Database, the Policy Priorities Database and the Voting Utility to determine what policy priorities are preferred by how many voters. At every turn, they will be able to use the facilities of the IVCS application, to build consensus among ever larger numbers of voters and gauge whether they have an appropriate mix of policy priorities to obtain the voting strength they need to elect their candidates in upcoming Congressional elections. Any shortfalls can be overcome by forming electoral coalitions with other voting blocs, voter mobilization groups, unions and political parties around shared policy agendas. What matters most is that it will be U.S. voters at the grassroots who possess the exclusive power to run elections and decide who will represent them in government, and what policies their representatives will be instructed to enact in their name.

Conclusion

Voters can elect a majority of untainted Congressional representatives in 2012 if public-spirited citizens, political activists and web technologists join forces to weave together breakthrough democracy-building technologies like the Interactive Voter Choice System into user-friendly seamless applications.

Web technologies like IVCS give U.S. voters the keys they need to break the lock-hold that the nation’s two major political parties and special interests have attained over the U.S. Congress. These technologies empower voters across the political spectrum to join forces to get control of Congress without changing any of the laws the parties and special interests have passed to prevent voters from ousting special interest-backed representatives in Congress and electing their own.

As described above, voters can use these technologies to build transpartisan voting blocs that work within existing parties or in new parties. They can build broad-based electoral coalitions with other blocs, labor unions, existing political parties and new parties that can elect a majority of representatives to Congress in 2012 who are untainted by special interest money and influence.

All that is needed to bring these possibilities to fruition are concerted efforts to integrate technologies like those used in the IVCS platform, and make them available to the U.S. electorate by mid-2011. We invite anyone who is interested in participating in such efforts is invited to email us at info2012@reinventingdemocracy.us. Kindly indicate what you can do to help and how you would like to participate.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving, Fiscal Sustainability, and Reinventing Democracy.)

2012: How U.S. Voters Can Wrest Control of Congress from Special Interests — Part II: Why the Political Context Is Favorable for A Populist Takeover of Congressional Districts Using The Interactive Voter Choice System

9:25 pm in Uncategorized by letsgetitdone

[Ed. note: This series has been re-posted by Joe Firestone (a.k.a. letsgetitdone) on behalf of author Nancy Bordier with her express permission.]

By Nancy Bordier

See the series introduction here.

Thanks to advances in Internet technologies, the obstacles the major parties and their special interest backers have erected to prevent voters from ousting their incumbents can be circumvented by voters who leverage the large scale collective action power of the Internet via the web application described in this series to get control of U.S. electoral processes. This application, the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS), enables dissatisfied voters to self-organize and build voting blocs and electoral coalitions that can run winning candidates in local Congressional elections without special interest funding. The voting blocs and coalitions will be able to run candidates who can defeat special interest-backed candidates, wealthy self-funded candidates, and candidates run by special interest-backed voting blocs, such as the Tea Party, because they will be able to set transpartisan agendas that appeal to a broader-cross section of voters. These voters will decide who they want to run and what their candidates’ agendas will be.

The political context is very favorable for supporting this kind of role for the IVCS. 40% of the electorate has rejected membership in the Democratic and Republican parties. Their membership has shrunk to roughly 33% and 23%, respectively. Not all of them identify strongly with the Parties. In fact, two-thirds of all Americans favor having a third political party that would run candidates for president, Congress and state offices against Republican and Democratic candidates. With more than 80% of the electorate wanting to oust most Congressional representatives, because they favor special interests over their constituents’ interests, typical election districts have more than enough dissatisfied voters to decide who wins and loses in the 2012 Congressional elections.

Because they will be able to mobilize these voters and engage them in collectively setting transpartisan bloc agendas crossing party lines and embracing new ideas, self-organizing voting blocs, whose formation will be facilitated by the application, will be able to create winning electoral bases comprised of disaffected voters across the political spectrum. These electoral bases will be broad and transpartisan. They will be able to outflank and outmaneuver stand-alone political parties and voting blocs running special interest-backed candidates with special interest agendas.

What is unique about the IVCS application is that it empowers voters for the first time in history to set agendas that can serve as written legislative mandates to candidates and incumbents setting forth voters’ policy priorities across the board. The application enables them to use their legislative mandates to drive U.S. electoral and legislative processes every step of the way. Voters can choose their policy priorities from a database of 104 options, annotate the options, and add their own options to the database. They can then contact voters who have chosen similar priorities, and join forces with them to build voting blocs in their local Congressional election districts around shared policy agendas, using communication and collaboration tools and services provided on the website built around the application.

The application is also unique in that it enables voters to play a pro-active rather than a re-active role in U.S. elections. Voters can use their voting blocs and legislative mandates to set the terms and conditions for supporting Congressional candidates. They can use them to identify, nominate, run and elect Congressional candidates whose agendas converge with their own. When their candidates take office, they will have written legislative mandates from the constituents they represent. Voters can use them to oversee their representatives’ legislative initiatives, guide them through legislative decision-making processes, and help them decide what compromises to make in order to build support for their initiatives. Voters can also use their legislative mandates to evaluate their representatives’ track records and hold them accountable when they come up for re-election.

By enabling voters to run candidates with specific legislative mandates and use the mandates to hold them accountable, the application enables voters to close the glaring gap that has arisen in U.S. politics between voters’ policy priorities and their Congressional representatives’ priorities, and the laws voters want to see enacted and those that are actually enacted. Lawmakers will no longer feel free to cavalierly disregard the promises they make on the campaign trail once they are in office. If elected representatives cannot demonstrate that they have exerted their best efforts to implement the written legislative mandates their constituents gave them when they ran for office, the voters will be able to defeat them when they come up for re-election, even in the face of special interest funding and support.

The application also will greatly reduce or even negate the influence of special interest money in elections, and eventually may cause direct special interest contributions to dry up due to their increasing ineffectiveness. Since voters will put their own candidates on the ballot running on legislative agendas that converge with their own, the candidates will not have to solicit special interest campaign contributions to get their message out, since voters will already know what it is. Neither the blocs nor the candidates will have to pay for expensive political advertisements, since voting blocs will be able to count on their own members as the mainstay of their voting strength, as well as on their ability to reach out to the invisible, but very real and powerful foundation of American political dynamics, their own local influence networks of friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to get out a winning vote on election day.

In addition, by enabling voters to set their policy agendas across the board, the application also enables voters to mobilize a broader electoral base around a larger repertory of priorities than existing political parties or special interest-funded voting blocs, like the Tea Party. Moreover, as described below, the application, especially its Voting Utility, allows voting blocs to easily and pragmatically modify their agendas to enlarge their electoral base quickly, increasing their chances of defeating opponents whose agendas are constrained by fixed, special interest ideologies.

Significantly, the application will shift the locus of political debate from the national to the local level, where voters will be continuously engaged in debating the policy options they want to include in their agendas, updating the legislative mandates they give to their elected representatives as legislation moves through Congress, negotiating common agendas with other blocs and coalition members, selecting their nominees, collecting signatures to put them on the ballot, and getting out the vote to elect their candidates in primary and general elections.

Voters will be able to team up locally with their candidates and elected representatives to devise pragmatic, workable policy solutions to national crises that the stalemated U.S. Congress appears unable to resolve, such as the economic recession, and the failure of the economy to generate the jobs needed by American workers. Voters can use the application to transform their local communities into seed beds of democratic public policy formation that serves the public interest, and prevents special interests from dictating public policy at the federal level.

Moreover, the citizen-managed policy dialogues that grassroots voting blocs engender, will overshadow the mass media disinformation campaigns that dupe undiscerning voters and turn political discourse in the U.S. into verbal slugfests. Since the website built around the application will provide voting bloc members state-of-the-art one-to-one and one-to-many messaging, networking, and collaboration capabilities, voters will be able to communicate with each other instantaneously to share and objectively screen and vet critical information. They will be able to debunk the political disinformation, innuendo and propaganda emanating from the corporate-funded campaign advertisements that will be flooding the country as a result of the Citizens United decision.

In addition to online messaging, voting bloc members working within a Congressional district will be able to hold "town hall" meetings where they can get together, face-to-face and online, with other bloc members and non-bloc voters to express, debate and reconcile their views — by using the application’s Voting Utility to vote on them if necessary. Voting blocs engendered by this application may well be unique in their capacity to institute democratic consensus-building processes at all levels of government by electing representatives who will see to it that such processes replace undemocratic ones like the Senate’s filibuster, and become the norm in all public policy decision-making arenas.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving, Fiscal Sustainability, and Reinventing Democracy)

2012: How U.S. Voters Can Wrest Control of Congress from Special Interests — Part I: The U.S. Electorate versus the U.S. Congress

11:53 pm in Uncategorized by letsgetitdone

By

Nancy Bordier

The majority of U.S. voters want to see most elected representatives in Congress defeated because they favor special interests over voters’ interests. But, voters face enormous obstacles in replacing the nation’s lawmakers with representatives untainted by special interest money and influence. These obstacles are the result of the electoral monopoly of the two major political parties, the gerrymandering of electoral districts, unfair federal and state election laws, and special interest-inspired campaign finance laws that favor private over public financing of elections. The recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC exacerbates the influence of these factors.

These obstacles make the large majority of seats in Congress "safe seats". Incumbents and first time candidates running on the Democratic and Republican tickets with special interest financing have virtually insurmountable advantages over candidates running against them without major party support, or special interest financing. Top-down manipulation of elections is the result. Since voter dissatisfaction can’t be expressed through the dominant parties, grievances accumulate over time in feelings of frustration, anger and alienation.

From time-to-time however, these feelings morph into rage, and we see things like the recent surge of militant fringe groups of irate voters who are infuriated by government, both major parties, and their Congressional representatives. Front groups financed by wealthy special interests are co-opting these voters into a new 21st century form of hybrid voting bloc. It contains similar segments of voters as the bloc that enabled the Republican party and its special interest backers to dominate U.S. Politics.

Although these front groups claim to support fringe group agendas, they use their financial leverage to broaden these agendas to include fiscally conservative, pro-business stances. For example, after fringe groups operating under the Tea Party banner began receiving support from special interest-funded front groups, its members’ broadened their initial opposition to federal government bank bailouts, an anti-special interest objective, to include opposition to government spending, taxes and intervention in the economy, all items on the traditional agendas of fiscal conservatives and special interests.

To wean these voters away from government social programs like Social Security and Medicare, which they label "socialist", the front groups encourage fringe groups to embrace "individual freedom and responsibility" as the path to prosperity and security, and to oppose government intervention in the economy to spur economic growth. As social critics point out, this effort is the latest manifestation of the special interest strategy launched in the early 1930s to fight New Deal "socialism" embodied in Social Security and subsequent social programs like Medicare.

In the eighty years that have passed since the strategy was formulated, special interests have used it to dupe a significant portion of the American electorate into turning against the governmental institutions which the founders of the Republic created to protect them against special interests. The strategy of co-opting voters to embrace special interest agendas has allowed these interests to take control of legislative bodies like the U.S Congress and use them to pass legislation favoring private interests at the expense of the public interest. The special interests that have bought the votes of elected representatives with their campaign contributions have disabled the protections of the public that were built into the American system of representative government. In the process, they have turned the electorate against the government itself.

Fast forward to the new Millennium, the special interest-driven voting bloc that appeared on the horizon in 2010, appears to be part of a concerted fusion-oriented political strategy aimed at "melding the anti-government, anti-spending, anti-tax fervor of the Tea Party with the faith-based agenda of the religious right" — under the overarching themes of patriotism, support for U.S. Troops, and a dominant role for the military in protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks. The early success of this special-interest backed political strategy for mobilizing irate and aggrieved voters was on display at Glenn Beck’s August, 2010 rally, which brought nearly 100,000 Tea Party activists to Washington, D.C.

This nascent hybrid voting bloc began to flex its electoral muscles in early 2010 with the decisive role it played in the election of Scott Brown on the Republican ticket in Massachusetts to take over the Senate seat long held by Democrat Ted Kennedy. In preparation for the 2010 Congressional elections, the bloc has elected unknown candidates on the Republican ticket in upset primary elections defeating long-time establishment incumbents. Special interest campaign donors, like the California-based Tea Party Express, which directly fund electoral candidates running under the Tea Party banner, have played a significant role in these victories.

The front group strategy of simultaneously mobilizing angry voters into the special interest fold via the new hybrid voting bloc and running special interest-funded candidates for Congress, while flooding the air waves with corporate-sponsored political advertisements, is proving to be an appealing proposition for primary voters in an era in which a majority of all U.S. voters wants to see most elected representatives defeated. It is also provoking speculation that the Tea Party movement, directed by the front groups, will take over the Republican party before the 2012 elections. This speculation is fueled by primary turnout rates (as of August, 2010) showing that 3 million more votes were cast in Republican Congressional primaries than Democratic, particularly in "anti-establishment" races featuring Tea Party candidates.

The hybrid voting bloc’s sudden appearance as a major contender to assume the reins of the Republican party coincides with the apparent eclipse of the enthusiasm of mainstream voters. who voted for a Democratic majority in Congress in 2006, and put a Democratic president in the White House in 2008. Neither the president nor the Democratic party’s Congressional candidates and their campaign organizations, have been able to come up with policies that address and defuse the voter anger fueling the growth of the special interest-backed hybrid voting bloc — or keep it from being directed against themselves.

On the contrary, polls indicate that a substantial portion of former Democratic Party and Obama supporters are so dispirited with their performance in office, that they do not plan to vote in the 2010 elections, or are planning to vote for third parties. This trend might well lead to a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, alongside substantial gains in the Senate.

Such a shift, however, is unlikely to bring into office the lawmakers untainted by special interest money and influence that the majority of the nation’s voters are seeking. Most of these voters are likely to reject Tea Party candidates in the 2010 elections. But the large majority of the Democrats and Republicans they do elect will, in all probability, continue to implement special interest agendas at the expense of mainstream American voters. Neither party has come up with a job-creating economic strategy to stop the erosion of the nation’s job base, and the continuing erosion of working Americans’ standards of living. Voter impotence to hold Congressional lawmakers accountable at the ballot box is likely to fuel a continuing stream of special interest-inspired legislation at the expense of average Americans.

Incredible as it may seem, by the time the 2012 elections roll around, voters’ choices may well be even more limited than they are now. Special interest funders and front groups now backing the Tea Party movement, and the hybrid voting bloc they are building around it, will undoubtedly use their dollars and message machines to pull Tea Party members sufficiently back from the far right towards the center to enable the bloc’s Congressional candidates to emerge victorious in sufficient numbers to take control of Congress. If their strategy of co-opting infuriated anti-government voters succeeds, and they are able to use the hybrid voting bloc they are building around it to take the reins of the Republican party, they may usher in a prolonged era of special interest control of Congress and possibly the White House.

Although the stymied electorate cannot stop special interests from using Tea Party activists to build a formidable hybrid voting bloc, or compel elected representatives to change the laws they use to get elected and re-elected time after time, the large majority of U.S. voters who want to oust special interest-controlled representatives from Congress can get out of the electoral bind they have been boxed into by the two major parties and their special interest backers. They can leverage the large scale collective action power of the Internet, the web savvy of the 125 million voters who used the Internet in 2008 to influence the elections (who nearly equal the number of voters who voted in the elections) and web-based self-organizing tools and technologies described in this series.

These levers enable grassroots voters to seize control of electoral and legislative processes from special interests in 2012 by building winning transpartisan voting blocs in their local Congressional election districts around shared policy priorities which can elect a majority of untainted representatives. They can operate their blocs within existing political parties, across party lines, or within new parties they or others create. These blocs can use the application’s consensus-building tools to acquire the voting strength they need to win elections by forming electoral coalitions with other voting blocs, political parties and labor unions around negotiated policy agendas and slates of candidates.

See the series introduction here.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving, Fiscal Sustainability, and Reinventing Democracy)

Preventing the Collapse of Democracy with the Interactive Voter Choice System

6:35 pm in Uncategorized by letsgetitdone

By

Nancy Bordier and Joseph M. Firestone

Overview

The two of us met recently at an AmericaSpeaks event in Fairfax, VA, on June 26th. We decided independently to attend the event, but for the same reason. We wanted to protest the undue attention being given the federal budget deficit compared to the far more critical need to restore job-creating economic growth. Increasing tax revenues by getting the unemployed into new jobs is a more effective way to reduce the deficit than self-defeating cuts in entitlement expenditures. We also wanted to protest the bias built into the event, which Joe later analyzed in a seven part series, The Procrustean Democracy of AmericaSpeaks.

After the AmericaSpeaks event, we discussed the problem of powerful special interests that mislead the public, distort U.S. priorities and deform public policies. A prime example is the billionaire deficit hawk who is advocating entitlement cuts and funded the event. We agreed that the increasing enfeeblement of the electorate is part of the problem. Voters’ influence over the agendas of the Democratic and Republican parties and their elected representatives grows weaker as the influence of the business and financial interests that finance the parties and the campaigns of their candidates grows stronger.

Corporate-funded mainstream media have joined forces with the compromised parties and their elected representatives to put special interest priorities in the limelight, and create a political climate conducive to the enactment of public policies they favor, to the detriment of the public interest. Governing officials who should be protecting the American people from predatory special interests have joined forces with them to further their depredations.

They have facilitated the bloating of the financial services sector at the expense of the real economy, the job base and working Americans’ share of national income. The result is a sharp increase in the upward redistribution of public and private wealth to those who are already wealthy, especially those in the financial services sector, and the increasing impoverishment of middle class and working Americans who cannot find jobs that pay living wages.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC has now set the stage for a complete collapse of democracy by giving corporations free rein to spend unlimited amounts of corporate funds to elect pro-business candidates. They can put hundreds of millions of dollars into a single campaign to dominate every messaging channel and use slick, emotionally-tinged political advertisements to dupe undiscerning, low information voters into voting against their own interests for politicians who will ignore them once they are in office, to do the bidding of their special interest campaign financiers.

At this point, Nancy mentioned her patent pending invention, the Interactive Voter Choice System. Its mission is to empower voters across the political spectrum to get control of political parties, elections and legislative decision-making by leveraging the collective action power of the Internet.

The invention, a web-based application, provides voters free tools and services for setting their policy agendas across the board, in writing, for the first time in history, in order to re-set the nation’s priorities from the grassroots, and build trans-partisan voting blocs and electoral coalitions around their agendas that can elect representatives who will enact them into law.

The invention’s consensus-building tools and services empower voters to use their voting blocs to form broad-based electoral coalitions that have the voting strength needed to run and elect candidates to office, on existing party lines or new party lines. They enable the members of voting blocs and electoral coalitions to negotiate common agendas among virtually unlimited numbers of voters of diverse political persuasions. They can use their blocs and coalitions to get control of existing parties so they can run their candidates on party lines, or create new parties.

Nancy also expressed the view, and Joe agreed, that none of the current strategies for ousting special interests and the elected representatives they control will make much of a difference in the near term, either singly or in combination, especially since it is unlikely that campaign finance laws and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision can be reversed in the foreseeable future. The power of corporate cash fused with the electoral clout of the two major political parties and the legislative clout of party-backed elected representatives has created a political juggernaut which has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to outmaneuver efforts to replace incumbents and reform the system.

Karl Popper thought that the primary virtue of democracy is that it provides people with a peaceful way to change their leaders when they no longer approve of their leadership. The U.S. political system, however, is falling way short of this core virtue. The large majority of elected representatives are re-elected time after time even though polls show that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their performance and want to see most representatives defeated. They are especially adamant about replacing Congressional representatives whom they believe are more interested in serving special interests than the people they represent.

Yet these rogue legislators cling to office despite widespread popular opposition. They can do so because the party-engineered gerrymandering of the boundaries of electoral districts have created "safe seats" for most representatives, who use their corporate-funded campaign war chests to mislead and even dupe their constituents about their intentions and track records when they are on the campaign trail. They also benefit from campaign finance laws and federal and state election laws that make it virtually impossible for most insurgent candidates and third parties to win elections.

Evidence that the parties have deliberately skewed electoral processes to prevent the election of candidates who genuinely represent the people can be found in the anomalous fact that there are only two Independent elected representatives in Congress even though approximately 40% of the electorate has been comprised of Independent and non-affiliated voters for many years.

If Independents held 40% of the seats in Congress, they could break the stalemate between the Democrats and Republicans. They could also revoke rules like the Senate’s filibuster, which enables a single member representing a tiny minority of the electorate to bloc legislation and prevent the democratic rule of the majority of American voters.

Even in the rare instances when incumbents are replaced, newcomers backed by the two major parties typically follow in their predecessors’ footsteps and betray their campaign promises by enacting legislation that favors the special interests that financed their campaigns and those of their predecessors. The process essentially puts these interests beyond voters’ reach, which is especially harmful to the public interest when they possess massive global financial and economic power.

Nancy argued that since corrupted lawmakers routinely block attempts to change the laws that provide them and their financial backers "safe seats" from which to control legislation, voters must change the system from below. With her invention, voters can leverage the collective action power of the Internet to remedy the failure of representative government in the U.S. without changing any laws.

When Joe expressed interest in Nancy’s invention, she invited him to go to the prototype website built around it and share his thoughts about its capacity to engender a voter takeover of U.S. electoral and legislative processes. After a month of exchanging emails and phone chats, and a long lunch in Arlington, the two of us appear to be largely in agreement that the invention, in combination with Web 2.0 applications that facilitate social networking and online collaboration, and eventually Web 3.0 and 4.0 technologies, has a unique capacity to empower voters to create popular political coalitions that can achieve electoral accountability and grassroots control of government.

Self-organizing voting blocs originating and maintaining themselves through the Interactive Voter Choice System could replace special interest, corporatist, and minority rule in Congress with majority rule in just a few election cycles. They could break the stalemate between Democratic and Republican representatives who have demonstrated their inability to legislate solutions to the severe crises plaguing the country that serve the public interest.

The purpose of this post is to share the results of our exchanges. We’ll summarize the premises and diverse capabilities of the IVCS web application, and show how it empowers U.S. voters to prevent the pending collapse of democracy in the U.S. by joining forces to elect representatives who will enact voters’ policy mandates into law.

Premises

The core premise of the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) is that voters who want to get control of government will embrace the system because it is the only way they can get control of government, once again. U.S. voters across the political spectrum are so dissatisfied with their elected representatives that they will take advantage of the first effective mechanism that is made available to them at the local and national levels to oust these representatives from office.

Assuming that polls like the recent CBS News-New York Times poll are correct that 80% of voters want to see most representatives defeated, what dissatisfied voters in a typical Congressional district need to do so, is an application like IVCS that enables them to get control of elections, namely, by setting a common policy agenda and creating a common slate of candidates that attracts enough votes to elect them to office. They can run their slate on the ballot lines of existing parties or create new parties. It is important to keep in mind the fact that incumbent Democrats and Republicans in Congress are often elected to the U.S. House of Representatives with less than 100,000 votes in a typical Congressional district, especially in gerrymandered districts. (Each district comprises a total population of approximately 600,000.)

To get elected, a candidate needs only a plurality of votes cast, i.e. the most votes cast rather than a majority of all votes cast. With polls showing that 80% of Americans want to see their elected representatives replaced, most typical districts are likely to have at least a plurality of discontented voters who will oust their representatives if they have an effective mechanism for doing so. We believe the IVCS application is that mechanism.

The Internet and IVCS make it relatively easy for voters to take the reins of U.S. electoral processes, which we believe they will, based on surveys showing that the Internet has become the primary channel for popular participation in elections. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 125 million people used the Internet to participate in all phases of the 2008 presidential election, a number approaching the 131 million people who actually voted in the election. Web savvy voters who use the IVCS application are numerous enough to replace most elected representatives.

The gateway to this usage is already well-traveled and the access tools well-known, thanks to the fact that the IVCS application enables all 125 million Internet users to employ the same social networking technologies as Facebook, which now has 500 million members worldwide. Voters who use IVCS will be able to add friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to their politically-oriented social networks just as they do on Facebook, as well as like-minded voters with similar policy priorities whom they meet for the first time on the IVCS website.

A key related premise of the IVCS application is that people can and will self-organize around specific policy preferences and priorities. Despite the elitist argument that voters are only capable of expressing broad value preferences but lack the capacity to set legislative agendas or formulate policies, voters have consistently demonstrated they are entirely capable of articulating specific policy priorities even in complex and highly technical legislative battles.

A majority of U.S. voters did so recently during the complicated health care debate by persistently supporting the single payer option in the face of the concerted opposition of their Congressional representatives, who refused to put it on the table. Despite the complexity of the fraudulent Wall Street practices that brought down the nation’s banking system and economy, a majority of the population has steadfastly opposed lawmakers’ bailouts of the banks and financial institutions that were responsible.

Moreover, voters are capable of scrutinizing an intricate array of policy options, as demonstrated by thousands of people across the country who participated in the recent AmericaSpeaks event. They selected their preferred policy options from a list of 42 options for cutting the federal budget deficit that organizers were projecting (and the two of us were opposing). Voters are also capable of formulating their own options (as the two of us tried to do during the event, though without much success given the highly structured and, we think, biased nature of the proceedings).

Based on the outcome of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, another premise of the IVCS application is that the online organizing that will be fostered by the application will be a determining force in future elections. The Obama campaign used online social networking technologies similar to those used by the application to mobilize millions of Millennial generation voters, who were reported to have given him 90% of his victory margin. Thanks to the Internet and social networking technologies, voting blocs that use the IVCS application will be able to perform all the functions of political campaigns and political parties. In addition to recruiting new members on-line, they will also be able to form broad-based trans-partisan electoral coalitions that can acquire the voting strength to take over existing parties, or create new ones, to elect coalition-backed candidates.

How the Application Works

One of the most important functions of the application is to enable U.S. voters across the political spectrum to make their voices heard without the interference of manipulative politicians who claim to speak for voters. It enables voters who use the IVCS application to identify, debate and resolve their differences by themselves in arenas that are not controlled by the mass media or dominated by attention-grabbing pundits, politicians or party officials trying to ignite controversies in order to keep themselves in the limelight.

Surveys show that a majority of Americans share largely consensual policy preferences, suggesting that the acclaimed polarization of American public opinion is more likely to be an artifact of the two parties’ electoral machinations and manipulation of public opinion, than an accurate reflection of voters’ actual stances. One such survey, conducted just after the 2008 presidential election, demonstrates that this consensus remains intact. A majority of Americans across all demographic and political lines, by a greater than 2:1 majority, want government to ensure that everyone has at least a basic standard of living and level of income — even if it increases government spending. They prefer a government that actively tries to solve the problems facing society and the economy rather than one that stands on the sidelines.

The failure of the nation’s elected representatives to enact this emerging policy consensus into law has led to a voter revolt in which a majority of Americans want to throw their elected representatives out of office. The IVCS application is designed to enable them to defeat these representatives, and run and elect candidates who will implement voters’ legislative priorities. Here’s how:

Step 1. Setting Agendas, Resetting the Nation’s Priorities and Building Voting Blocs.

Unlike other voter mobilization applications such as those of the Tea Party and the Coffee Party, the IVCS application is a bottom-up organizing tool, designed to enable voters and voter mobilization groups to build consensus across voting blocs, and negotiate common policy agendas that they can use to form broad-based electoral coalitions. These coalitions will give them the voting strength they need to win elections against major party candidates they oppose. We believe the application can play a unique and unprecedented role in enabling voting blocs and voter mobilization groups taking on the two major parties to avoid fragmenting the dissatisfied majority of the U.S. electorate into political splinter groups too small to win elections, especially at the presidential level.

The IVCS application is unique in its capacity to empower voters to set their agendas across the board and use them to build trans-partisan voting blocs, political parties and electoral coalitions with common agendas which can run candidates and elect representatives who will enact them into law — without fragmenting the electorate into splinter groups that are too small to win elections. Indeed, IVCS tools and services enable voters and voter mobilization groups to build voting blocs, political parties and electoral coalitions of virtually unlimited size around negotiated trans-partisan policy agendas.

It does so by providing voters and voter mobilization groups across the political spectrum a comprehensive Policy Options Database from which they can set an agenda comprising the policies they wish to see enacted into law. (Click here to view a prototype of the database.) The options cross party lines and advocate divergent and even diametrically opposed policy choices. (Voters can add additional options and update their agendas at any time.)

The trans-partisan comprehensiveness of this database is in sharp contrast to the policy platforms of typical voter mobilization groups, and political parties. Most options in the IVCS database do not refer to a specific political party, due to the application’s mission of encouraging voters across the political spectrum to find common ground across political party lines. Moreover, voters are not asked to identify their political party or ideological stance (e.g. conservative, liberal, etc.) since research shows that when voters can freely choose their preferred policy options and are not restricted to a limited set of options, those they choose cut across party lines and ideologies. This contrasts sharply with the limited choices provided by most voter mobilization groups, such as the Coffee Party and the Tea Party.

Unlike IVCS, such organizations leverage the Internet and social networking technologies to recruit members and build an electoral base around a specific set of priorities. They invite people who are interested in the organizations’ priorities to create accounts on their websites so they can communicate with other members, participate in local events sponsored by the organizations and even attend national party conventions. They require prospective members to provide their email address in order to register. This contact enables the organizations to email them newsletters and simultaneously solicit donations of money to run the organizations, get their message out and influence elections. The precipitous rise of these web-based voter mobilization organizations shows that they recognize the potential of the Internet to enable them to perform all the functions of national political parties.

In contrast to this centrally organized approach, the IVCS application is a bottom up organizing tool designed to enable individual voters at the grassroots to create their own voting blocs around their own policy priorities. While organized voter mobilization groups can also use the application, it is nonetheless designed first and foremost to encourage and facilitate voter self-mobilization and the formation by individual voters of self-organizing voting blocs.

The application is also designed to facilitate the formation of consensus among diverse voting blocs and the creation by them of winning electoral coalitions — in contrast to voter mobilization groups that seek to differentiate themselves and their membership from each other, and, if possible, lure away each others’ supporters. While the Coffee Party is on record as espousing civility and eschewing divisiveness, the Tea Party, and other more aggressive voter mobilization groups, tend to focus on controversial and divisive issues. They use them to criticize and even caricaturize the positions of competing organizations in order to attract new supporters, reinforce the loyalty of current supporters, and convince the supporters of competing organizations to come over to their side.

To help voters who use the IVCS application weigh their policy alternatives, all options contain links to online sources of information describing the pros and cons of the options from a diverse array of vantage points. Voters can propose additional links, which are updated continuously.

Voters can select any number of priorities, rank order them, if they wish, from most to least preferred, define different agendas for different purposes, update their agendas whenever their priorities change and save all their agendas in their own personal archive on the website for future reference. They can display all their priorities, or preferred clusters of priorities, on their personal web pages on the website. They can also email their agendas to whomever they wish, such as their elected representatives.

Once voters have set their agendas, they can compare them to the agendas set by other voters. They can make these comparisons by entering their priorities into the IVCS Policy Priorities Database. Once they have entered their priorities, they can then query the database to find out how many voters have agendas that contain priorities that are statistically similar to their own and how many voters share with them clusters of similar priorities, or even a single priority.

They can ask for the ZIP codes of these voters so they will know in what states, counties, and electoral districts they live. They can also ask for the usernames and internal email addresses of voters whose policy priorities are similar to their own, based on the information they provided when they registered. In response to their query, inquirers will receive a list of the usernames of voters who share their policy priorities, their ZIP codes and their internal email addresses so they can contact them directly via internal email.

It should be noted that by contributing their priorities to the IVCS Policy Priorities Database, voters will be joining with other voters throughout the country in resetting the nation’s policy priorities, since statistical reports summarizing voters’ priorities will be published periodically on the IVCS website. This unprecedented voter-initiated survey of policy priorities will be uniquely free of special interest or party bias and external constraints. IVCS users can take advantage of the published reports to see how their priorities compare with those of voters nationwide.

In addition to identifying and contacting like-minded voters, IVCS users (and voting blocs they establish) can also request database information of interest to them showing persistent patterns of policy priorities chosen by voters nationally and by ZIP code, as well as emerging trends and shifts in priorities that may result from political factors, such as lawmakers’ statements related to pending legislative proposals and actions that voters favor or oppose; media coverage involving politicians and pundits; changing economic conditions, such as employment rates, etc.

Voters can send the results of their database queries to the news media, elected representatives and candidates to publicize the degree to which voters’ preferences converge with, or diverge from, those espoused by representatives, candidates, political parties, advocacy groups, special interests and pundits, or those attributed to voters by these individuals and groups.

When media attention is focused on clashes between voters’ policy priorities and elected representatives’ statements and legislative track records, they will be pressured to change course if the divergences appear severe enough to raise doubts about their electability in the future.

Voters will be able to increase their political clout not only by publicizing their views and priorities in the media but by joining forces with like-minded voters to create voting blocs and electoral coalitions that can get their priorities enacted into law. If they join forces to influence the political process, their relationships will be unique among those of the 125 million Americans who use the Internet to exert political influence because they will owe their origin to initially shared policy agendas chosen from the same database. While many of the 346,000,000 people globally who use the Internet to post their views on blogs do so to contrast their views and debate their differences, IVCS users can create relationships around already shared policy preferences.

Voters who query the Policy Priorities Database to find and contact other voters with similar policy priorities can add these voters to their personal networks on the IVCS website, and vice versa, just as Facebook members add "Friends" to their networks so they can use social networking tools for one-to-one and one-to-many messaging. They can then access each others’ networks, if allowed, and begin to expand the number of voters in their personal networks who share their priorities.

If the relationships among IVCS users with similar priorities who contact each other endure, and if, after examining their representatives’ legislative track records they decide that the incumbents are not exerting their best efforts to enact their priorities into law, they can join forces to influence forthcoming elections to elect representatives who will, by transforming their personal networks into groups hosted on the website that can function as voting blocs. They can

1. Give their group a name

2. Create a registration process for new members

3. Establish a mailing list so they can email messages to all their members simultaneously, to send newsletters and invite members to participate in online and face-to-face events sponsored by the group as a whole, or by individual members.

4. Post their agenda on the group’s home page on the website, if they wish

5. Decide how much access to their group and its activities they want to give non-members.

6. If they wish to recruit new members to their group, they can post its name and a link to it on the IVCS website’s homepage. They can also add links to their group’s site from external sites.

Group members can take advantage of the website’s chat and forum features to discuss their agenda, consider proposals to update them to take account of major events and changing conditions, and plan how they can use their agendas to put pressure on their representatives and influence upcoming elections.

They can add links to their group’s web pages connecting their members to websites that provide information about elected representatives of interest, including their legislative votes, sources of the campaign funds they receive, speeches, public statements, press releases and stories about them published in the media. The IVCS website itself will provide all its members an exhaustive set of links to websites that they can use to zero in on specific legislative issues, documents related to these issues, and the actions of legislative committees and voting bodies affecting these issues.

It is in this context of direct interaction with elected representatives that the policy agendas which voters create using the IVCS application can truly transform U.S. electoral and legislative politics. For the agendas, backed by the voting blocs formulating them, create an unprecedented lever of individual and collective control over the entire U.S. political process, by serving as a written mandate that voters can use in a quasi-contractual sense to set the terms and conditions according to which they will vote for or against any electoral candidate, or put any candidates on the ballot, and vote for them in primary and general elections.

Agendas can thus serve not only as mandates, but rating tools for evaluating announced candidates and recruiting prospective candidates, as well as monitoring tools for tracking and overseeing elected representatives’ legislative actions. The agendas can also be used to structure online, as well as face-to-face, debates among candidates that are run by, and for the voters, rather than reporters and journalists, who typically let candidates weasel out of giving clear, unequivocal answers to voters’ questions. Voting blocs can request that candidates discuss particular policy priorities, how they envisage getting support from their Congressional colleagues to move them through the various stages in the legislative process, and their analysis of the prospects for getting them enacted.

In effect, voters can use across-the-board agendas to wield real clout in negotiating with their representatives and candidates, specific policy-based terms and conditions for giving them their votes at the ballot box, instead of wasting time writing ineffectual letters to compromised representatives about single issues; or signing petitions launched by voter mobilization groups to influence representatives who have already sold their votes to special interests. If incumbents cannot provide tangible proof that they have exerted their best efforts to implement specific policy priorities contained in voters’ agendas, they will not get their votes.

Incumbents and first-time candidates will no longer be able to get elected just by talking through their hats. They will have to have credible IVCS agendas in hand that converge with voters’ agendas, supported by concrete evidence showing they can be trusted to do their best to enact them into law.

To institute such unprecedented voter-representative relationships based on written policy mandates, IVCS-enabled groups can request that elected representatives and candidates state and email them their policy agendas, using the IVCS Policy Options Database, accompanied by tangible evidence of prior support of voters’ policy priorities. Then voters can compare their own agendas with the agendas of representatives and candidates, and their track records. If the agendas converge and the track records reflect best efforts, the group can pledge to vote for them in the next election.

On the other hand, if their respective agendas diverge, or the group is dissatisfied with the representatives’ track record, the group can decide to transform itself into a voting bloc aimed at ousting them and running and electing their own representatives. Such a course of action is feasible, since voting blocs can put candidates on existing parties’ primary and general election ballots, with or without the support of organized parties, and get them elected if they can mobilize enough voters behind their candidates.

Once the group has decided to move from dialogue to action and transform itself into a voting bloc that becomes a major player in targeted elections, members may wish to create an organizational structure, if they have not already done so, to divide up and share the various tasks involved in electoral campaigns.

To help them plan and execute their campaigns, the IVCS website will partner with organizations that have developed state-of-the-art, cost-effective tools for raising funds online, putting candidates on the ballot, and mobilizing voters behind slates of candidates. They can also use IVCS tools and services to build broad-based electoral coalitions that have winning electoral bases, as described below.

Step 2. Building Electoral Coalitions, Debunking Political Disinformation, and Defusing Hate-Based Politics

Voting blocs using the IVCS application can be built around any set of policy issues and priorities and target elections at any government level and any number of states, including all 50 states.

We anticipate, however, that many blocs with significant clusters of members in specific states will initially decide to focus their attention on influencing elections in a single state, e.g. elections of the state’s representatives in Congress. By focusing attention on electoral races where their current members are clustered, they can potentially exert a direct and decisive influence over the most fundamental and decisive electoral activity of all — the nomination of candidates to run for office.

Even though most media attention in U.S. politics is focused at the national level, especially on the interactions between the president and Congress, none of these elected officials can get elected unless enough local voters sign nominating petitions to meet state requirements for putting them on the ballot and then vote for them in primary and general elections.

Moreover, despite all the hype, Congressional elections are no less important than presidential elections, because Congress holds the purse strings and the president is dependent on their authorizations to implement his legislative proposals.

As we have seen, in the case of the number of signatures required to put a candidate for Congress on the ballot, the number is small compared to the number of votes cast, which is also small compared to the number of eligible voters. Moreover, the growing number of dissatisfied voters identified in recent surveys makes it much easier for insurgent candidates to receive a plurality of votes cast once they get on the ballot.

At the outset, IVCS users who create voting blocs to influence Congressional elections in their state may not have enough members to put candidates on the ballot and elect them without undertaking concerted efforts to increase their numbers by creating electoral coalitions with other voting blocs, voter mobilization organizations and, possibly, existing political parties.

To build popular coalitions that can win Congressional elections, whether they are transient or long lasting, emerging voting blocs are likely to find it necessary to negotiate with prospective coalition partners shared agendas that attract broad cross-sections of voters, agendas that comprise trans-partisan sets of policy priorities that cut across traditional ideologies and party lines.

Parenthetically, it should be noted that the IVCS application enables voters not only to build broad-based consensus among disparate groups and voting blocs, but simultaneously to shift the locus of political debate from the national level to the local level, where the critical issues facing the nation can be solved by fair-minded citizens, rather than left to fester in the hands of conflict-fomenting lawmakers.

To build coalitions that can oust these dysfunctional officials from office, voters may decide that the most effective course of action is to devise among themselves pragmatic compromises to the burning political controversies that politicians keep stoking in Washington, D.C. to increase their re-election prospects. These controversies include, in particular, those relating to the relationship between government and the private sector and the extent to which government should regulate the practices of businesses, banks and financial institutions; or transfer public funds into private hands, whether they are banks, automobile manufacturers or insurance companies.

The IVCS application intertwines the processes of conflict resolution with coalition building, by providing voters eight outreach mechanisms for simultaneously building consensus about policy priorities and expanding the number of voters belonging to trans-partisan electoral coalitions to give them the voting strength needed to elect their candidates. All of them take advantage of the application’s unprecedented outreach tool for engaging U.S. voters of all political persuasions in an entirely new consensus-formation and coalition-building political activity; namely setting their policy agendas across the board, in writing, and building voting blocs and electoral coalitions around shared agendas. Significantly, they will be assisted in this endeavor by the IVCS Voting Utility, which enables the members of existing voting blocs and prospective coalition partners to vote on any issue, including which priorities they want to include or exclude from common agendas.

IVCS voting blocs seeking to increase their membership and form electoral coalitions can invite prospective members and allies to set their policy agendas using the Policy Options Database, to provide them a basis of comparison, and see how much convergence there is with respect to the policy priorities they have each selected. If their stances are sufficiently similar on issues they mutually regard as fundamental, so as to indicate that they might be able to agree on common slates of candidates who share their agendas, they can proceed to create a formally organized coalition through which they can join forces to screen and select candidates, put them on the ballot, and elect them in primaries and general elections. They can then use IVCS tools for creating a single group on the IVCS website which includes all their members and provides the leadership of the coalition, and all members, one-to-one and one-to-many messaging tools.

On the other hand, if they are in agreement on fundamental priorities, but disagree strongly on other priorities that are part of each other’s agendas, they will have to figure out whether these discrepancies are a deal-breaker with respect to forming a coalition. If necessary, they can put the matter to a vote by their respective memberships using the IVCS Voting Utility. The members of the two blocs can vote separately on which priorities they want to include in a common agenda, and which ones they are willing to drop in order to join forces to obtain the voting strength that coalition candidates will need to defeat their opponents in the election. If a majority consensus emerges on which priorities to include and exclude, the coalition can come into existence and move to the next set of strategic and tactical decisions, including decisions on a common slate of candidates, and collecting the signatures required to get them on the ballot.

Below is a list of eight IVCS outreach mechanisms through which voting blocs can attain the numerical voting strength they need to win elections. They can:

1. Search the list of existing IVCS-enabled voting blocs that the blocs have elected to post on the IVCS website, to identify prospective coalition partners and contact those with priorities similar to their own. If they are willing, they can open negotiations to create shared agendas using the IVCS Policy Options Database. If a consensus emerges, they can proceed to see if they can select common slates of candidates.

2. Contact external voter mobilization groups with similar agendas and, if they are willing, open negotiations to create shared agendas using the IVCS Policy Options Database. If a consensus emerges, they can proceed to see if they can select common slates of candidates.

3. Contact labor unions with state and local chapters. If they are willing, open negotiations to create shared agendas using the IVCS Policy Options Database. If a consensus emerges, they can proceed to see if they can select common slates of candidates.

4. Recruit new non-IVCS members by advertising their voting bloc, its agenda and action plans in venues outside of the IVCS website. Invite prospective members to set their policy agendas using the IVCS Policy Options Database. After submitting their priorities to the IVCS Policy Priorities Database, the prospective members can then query the database to compare their agendas with the bloc’s agenda. If they find that they share a sufficient number of shared priorities with bloc members, they can opt to join the bloc.

5. Invite like-minded friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to set policy agendas, using the IVCS Policy Options Database, submit them to the IVCS Policy Priorities Database, and then query the database to see whether their agendas comprise a sufficient number of shared priorities to motivate them to join the voting bloc.

6. Invite newly registered IVCS members to join their bloc by continuously querying the Policy Priorities Database, to locate and contact new voters in their electoral districts who have recently submitted policy agendas with policy priorities that are statistically similar to those of the voting bloc.

7. Query the IVCS Policy Priorities Database for IVCS members whose agendas are statistically dissimilar but comprise enough shared policy priorities to motivate the individuals to join the voting bloc in exchange for the addition or deletion of objectionable options.

8. Join forces with existing political parties, or start new parties. Voting blocs seeking to expand their membership can contact existing local political parties to see whether they are interested in forming a coalition. Since the Democratic and Republican parties have been losing supporters in recent years, on the whole, they may welcome the opportunity to reinvigorate their electoral base.

To put the negotiations on a concrete plane, the IVCS voting bloc can invite party officials and interested party members to set their policy agendas using the IVCS Policy Options Database. Officials and party members can then submit their priorities to the IVCS Policy Priorities Database for tallying under the party’s name. The members of the voting bloc and the party can respectively compare their agendas to see whether there are a sufficient number of shared priorities to form the basis of a coalition. If so, they can proceed to a vote using the IVCS Voting Utility so their members can vote on which priorities their members wish to place in a common agenda and what slate of candidates they wish to run.

If a consensus emerges, according to whatever procedures and rules they decide to adopt, their coalition can pool their resources to mobilize their members to go to the polls to vote for the slate of candidates they jointly agree to endorse.
Strategically and tactically, IVCS-enabled voting blocs may decide that they will be more effective in getting their candidates elected by working within existing political parties, and eventually getting control of them, than to divert their resources to starting new parties, state by state. The new party route will leave the Democratic and Republican parties intact, and permit them to continue to use their unfair advantages in gerrymandered districts and special interest fund-raising to run and elect party-backed candidates to office.

This strategy of working within existing parties prevents the fragmentation into losing splinter groups of the majority of voters who want to see most Democratic and Republican candidates replaced. However, IVCS consensus-building tools enable broad-cross sections of voters to build voting blocs and coalitions that can win elections, whether they work inside or outside an established party.

The splintering of the majority of U.S. Voters, who want to oust the nation’s Congressional lawmakers, into a whole raft of small political parties is not a formula for success in running winning candidates against the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties, particularly at the presidential level. In the long run, agile and malleable IVCS voting blocs will become more important than political parties. We believe that they, not political parties, will become the driving force in elections and legislation, especially since these blocs can easily gain organizational control of established parties once they start winning elections on party lines and register enough bloc members in the party to elect them to a majority of party positions.

The fact of the matter is that IVCS-enabled voting blocs can perform all the functions of a political party without actually having to form a party, especially since they can run their candidates on existing party lines on the ballot by collecting the number of signatures required by the state to get them on the party’s lines. Moreover, IVCS blocs have unique mechanisms that parties do not have for building ever larger trans-partisan electoral bases, by merging with other voting blocs and forming electoral coalitions with voters across the political spectrum.

By running their candidates on existing party lines and building winning electoral coalitions that have the voting strength needed to beat party candidates in primaries, they can avoid the time consuming efforts involved in collecting the signatures needed to create new political parties from scratch. Moreover, once they start electing their candidates to Congress carrying the banner of the two major parties, they will have access to the pivotal leadership and committee positions that are traditionally divided up between the major parties, positions that have the authority to decide which policies will and will not move through the legislative process and be enacted into law.

Representatives who owe their election to IVCS-enabled voting blocs, and truly represent the best interests of the American people, will be free to revoke anti-majoritarian rules and practices like the Senate’s filibuster and secret holds, which have permitted a minority of elected representatives representing a minority of the American people to decide which bills will and will not be enacted into law.

Working within existing parties at the outset does not prevent the eventual establishment of one or more IVCS-enabled third parties in all 50 states, similar to what Ross Perot attempted to do back in the 90′s. IVCS-enabled voting blocs will have members in all 50 states who can easily use IVCS tools and services to bring together around common agendas decisive numbers of large cross-sections of voters under a minimal number of party umbrellas.

IVCS voting blocs will be well-equipped to proceed on this front, since they will not only have enough members to gather the number of signatures required by the state to establish a political party, but they will also be familiar with the legal ropes, having worked with state election authorities within state legal guidelines for running candidates on the ballots of existing parties.
These blocs can use IVCS agenda-setting and consensus-building mechanisms to enable their members to determine the parties’ policy agendas. Since the members of the party can update their agenda at any time by using the IVCS Voting Utility, the party will not be plagued by internecine conflicts over its platform since they can resolve divergent views by holding on-line votes to determine the preferences of the majority.

Moreover, they can use the platform to screen prospective candidates by comparing the party’s platform with the candidates’ platforms. By using IVCS agenda-setting and consensus-building mechanisms, and analyzing past election results and current polls, they can also determine how they might wish to customize their agendas to enhance the election prospects of their candidates in particular states and counties.

Unlike the present situation where candidates of both major parties espouse policy options that fall well outside the confines of the preferences of rank-and-file party members, IVCS-enabled third parties and their state-based supporters can prevent candidates from running on their lines, in the event that they espouse policies that are clearly inimical to those of the party.

The important point to keep in mind is that the goal of the IVCS application is to enable voters to fundamentally alter the entire political system so that they run the government, not political parties, compromised politicians, special interests that fund their campaigns, or lobbyists whom special interests fund to sit at the table with lawmakers and dictate the legislation they pass.

Whether IVCS-enabled voting blocs opt to get control of the Democratic and Republican parties or create new parties is merely a means to this end. In either case, IVCS-enabled voting blocs will be more powerful than parties, because they will dominate the political landscape from coast to coast by engaging the newly empowered U.S. electorate in setting its agenda and deciding who will be elected to enact it into law.

Moreover, it will be the members of IVCS-enabled voting blocs who will shape public opinion, not political parties or politicians. Since voters will be running the government and sharing their political views over the Internet at the speed of light, their influence will dwarf that of the political pundits, political parties, politicians and their special interest campaign contributors who have limited the parameters of public debate for decades in order to promote and protect their private interests.

IVCS-enabled voting blocs, due to their size, ubiquity and capacity to continuously build consensus among voters across the political spectrum, will also dwarf their influence in deciding which candidates run in primary and general elections and win. This is because IVCS-enabled voting blocs will possess a nimbleness, flexibility and fluidity that enables them to continuously reshape and resize themselves in response to voters’ changing policy priorities so that they can create whatever electoral bases they need to run and elect bloc candidates to office at any level of government and in whatever states they choose.

IVCS-enabled voting blocs of any size can join forces and recombine into larger blocs within states and, eventually, across any and all 50 states, virtually overnight. All they have to do to launch these expanding blocs is to take advantage of the Policy Options Database, the Policy Priorities Database and the Voting Utility to determine what policy priorities are preferred by how many voters. At every turn, they will be able to build consensus among ever larger numbers of voters and gauge whether they have an appropriate mix of policy priorities to obtain the voting strength they need to elect their candidates in upcoming elections. Any shortfalls can be overcome by forming electoral coalitions with other voting blocs, voter mobilization groups, unions and political parties around shared policy agendas.

What matters most is that it will be U.S. voters at the grassroots who possess the exclusive power to run elections and decide who will represent them in government, and what policies their representatives will be instructed to enact in their name.

Conclusion

The Interactive Voter Choice System is a web application designed to support the creation of self-organizing voting blocs and popular political coalitions that become the driving force of U.S. electoral and legislative processes. We see people using the IVCS website to formulate policy agendas comprised of prioritized policy options and then forming cohesive voting blocs around these agendas. IVCS will create the potential for so many policy agendas and voting blocs to form that it is virtually certain that new and powerful blocs and even political parties will emerge to reshape the political landscape. They will grow rapidly and begin to acquire local, state and national influence once they figure out how to develop the right mix of policy agenda, collaborative modes of interaction, leadership, marketing savvy, and, no doubt, luck.

The blocs will at first have only a virtual identity, but the social ties formed will be real. When bloc members start to transform their blocs and electoral coalitions into competing forces with which the two major parties must contend because the majority of angry voters will be driving them, the transition will be made from virtual to political reality. IVCS tools and services will support agenda formation in ways never imagined by legacy parties. The collaborative tools will be better than the meager fare offered by legacy parties. State-of-the-art content management tools will enable voters to get into the nitty-gritty of policy analysis, formulation and advocacy to a degree that political parties never intended, or wanted to afford their members. IVCS social networking tools will enable individual voting bloc members to grow their blocs by leaps and bounds, virtually effortlessly, as infuriated voters realize that they no longer have to tolerate their political impotence at the hands of political parties that have betrayed their trust.

The IVCS application will support an unprecedented degree of openness, transparency, and political inclusiveness within IVCS-enabled voting blocs and coalitions. Because of these characteristics, they will more effectively solve disagreements and conflicts, and adapt with far greater agility to the non-stop political crises overtaking America.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the application will work as we’ve envisioned it. But the likelihood that new national blocs, popular coalitions and even political parties transcending state and local boundaries will form and maintain themselves is great, because of the richness of the application, the potential for many, many groups to form and fail, while giving up their members to those that survive, and also because of the yearning in America for change. Most Americans want to do something about the mess that we’re in. They’ll respond to an application like IVCS that enables them to prevent the looming collapse of a democracy that once provided inspiration to democracies everywhere.

(Cross-posted at Re-inventing Democracy, All Life Is Problem Solving, and Fiscal Sustainability).