Ballot Initiative Strategy Center

Alright! For many years (although it seems like decades), I have discussed with friends, family and colleagues that "We the people" is a bit askew in our representative democracy. The argument which I presented compared various state governments with our federal government.

One of the most prominent differences is that, in most states, citizens (i.e., We the People) can create legislation by ballot initiative. For example, consider the states of California, Florida and Washington. This year (2007) and next (2008) these three states will have, on their ballots, for all voters' consideration, a ballot initiative (or referendum) to implement a single-payer (i.e., universal) health-care system in their respective states.

It is clear from the discussion at the federal level over the past 3 decades, that having such an initiative at the federal level would be fair and would help keep the multi-billion-dollar insurance and/or pharmaceutical industries at bay. For the past 30 years, there has been discussion by certain political "leaders" about such a program for our nation. And during that time, the oodles of money from (primarily the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry) these 2 industries has kept the discussion from becoming more than campaign-time rhetoric. (One simply need to pay attention to the 2008 Presidential candidates' promises, or look back at the promises of Pres. Clinton and the -- apparent -- attempt by then-First Lady H.R. Clinton.)

From my experience living in Hawaii (and remembering the Clintons' public testimony in Congress during th '90's), I know that the Aloha State has such a plan. If memory serves me correctly, it is called SHIP (State of Hawaii Insurance Program). Indeed, that plan had been held up as a model for the federal government to follow.

While "campaign finance reform" is much-discussed, and congressional rules are shuffled to create the appearance of such reform, the authentic power of our democracy can be placed where it ideally should be: in the hands of "We the People."

It is understandable that the federal government was set up as a representative democracy (i.e., a republic) since, at the time, communications (esp. mass communications) was still a very slow process. Now, however, two centuries later, that constraint is no longer a reality.

As most of us are aware, direct communications between citizens and government is technically viable (vis a vis telecommunications). Most of us are aware of this -- and it has been demonstrated for over a decade now -- because that is how the majority of us file our taxes.

Since we can rely on this technology for reconciling our tax bills with the government, there is no reason that we could not use this same technology to communicate with our government directly to express ourselves in making laws. The fact that several states already implement this in the form of referendum and ballot initiative has proven the technique is effective.

The major hurdle in implementing such a national strategy would be to set the boundaries. For example, regardless of whether the majority felt that slavery would be a nice way of cutting expenses for private businesses, we would rely on the constitution to prevent such a horrible law from becoming enacted. In paraphrasing the words of one constitutional scholar, "the rights of the minority of citizens must be honored despite the will of the majority of the electorate."

Over these many years of my thinking about this subject, I had not identified a significant player in our nation with which to involve myself regarding this issue... until today.

There is an organization, the BISC Foundation, which was created in 2002 (?need to verify date). The Foundation supports the BISC (Ballot Initiative Strategy Center) whose url is http://www.ballot.org.

I encourage friends, family, and colleagues to find out more about this initiative. At the very least, give it some thought and imagine (in your own ideal world) where it might fit into the grand scheme of things. Imagine, if "We the People" really were empowered, the wealthy elite would need to convince citizens and not, simply, buy the vote of our representatives in government.

Then, democracy would be strengthened to its rightful place... and capitalism could be restored to its rightful place. And (at least, in my ideal world) the scales of justice would become more balanced than they are at the present. As I stated earlier, it is evident that currently the scales of justice are askew; the configuration being significantly in favor of money.

Another organization which appears to be interested in a government by "We the People" is the National Initiative for Democracy. Interestingly, it was founded by Former Senator Mike Gravel, who coincidentally, is a 2008 U.S. Presidential Candidate. I mention this for the purpose of full disclosure and not to represent that I endorse his candidacy. I am yet deciding whom I shall endorse in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.