Molon Labe!

by Boston T. Party

  1836: Texas from Mexico

  1839: Guatemala from the U. States of Central America

  1861: Southern States from the U.S.A.

  Although the South was forcibly rejoined to the Union after War, the secession was itself initially successful. Had the South not fired on Fort Sumter (the last remaining Federal garrison in the South, which had only one week of rations left), and instead continued to blockade, the Civil War might have been averted. However, the cannon fire of 12 April 1861 was to the North a "Pearl Harbor" event.

  1862: West Virginia from Virginia

  West Virginians refused to secede from the Union with Virginia, declared their independence from both Virginia and the Confederacy in 1862, and became the 35th United State in 1863.

  Here's the kicker: the Confederacy let them go in peace.

  1903: Panama from Colombia

  1905: Norway from Sweden

  Norway declared its independence after 91 years of union with Sweden, and Sweden wisely let her go without war. (Incidentally, the Northern and Southern states had been together only 84 years when Dixie seceded.)

  1949: Ireland from Great Britain

  1965: Singapore from Malaysia

  1965: Rhodesia from Great Britain

  The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) lasted until 1980 when Rhodesia was abandoned by the "free world" to the eventual Communist dictatorship of Robert Mugabe.

  1967: Biafra from Nigeria

  REVISING DEMOCRACY

  by the

  Wyoming Reform Council

  The human saga is an ongoing experiment. With the goal of constant improvement, we intentionally try different things and hopefully learn from our mistakes. This is especially necessary in the field of politics. Within the continuum of anarchy to autocracy there are several major choices of political systems. In America we have roughly settled on a democratic republic. Although democracy in general is our tradition, we have not very widely experimented with different forms of it. Our failure to do so has allowed systemic defects to surface rather poignantly (e.g., the 2000 presidential election), which in turn is causing some to challenge the very notion of democracy itself.

  Are the American people fit to rule themselves? This has been the question for over 200 years, and we are beginning to doubt ourselves.

  Therefore, we must objectively review our political infrastructure. If we can, for a moment, dispassionately suspend our civic mythology and work to diagnose the gridlock, unfairness, and inefficiency in our political corpus, we may be able to operate in time to save the patient. However, if we do not, the patient (already terminally ill) will die within a generation (two at most), taking the nation with it.

  So, for your consideration, we outline several current issues which reduce the fairness and effectiveness of our democratic institutions. Please consider them carefully.

  Must state legislatures have two houses?

  Isn't one enough? It has been for Nebraska since 1937!

  Much of the states' constitutions and political structures were borrowed, if not copied outright, from the US Constitution. Given the genealogy of the federal government from the Articles of Confederation and the Philadelphia constitutional convention of 1787, the one-state/one-vote of the US Senate was a predictable and unavoidable expedient for the states' ratification of the Constitution.

  But is a bicameral legislature truly required for the states? Evidently not, as other states have done just fine with just one legislative body. Ask yourself this: If two houses are better than one, then would three houses be better than two? Hardly. In this case, two are not better than one. Sometimes, two is simply one too many.

  Not only can one body of legislators function very well by itself, not only is an entire tier of unnecessary government removed, but a unicameral house will eliminate that corrupt and secretive organ of needless gridlock: the conference committee, which is run exclusively by kept men who kill any legislation which threatens their power.

  In a unicameral legislature, everything is done in broad daylight. Representatives can no longer hide behind a committee's closed doors; they must visibly stand on their votes. No more shuttling bills back and forth between two houses, with each trip ratcheting up the dollar amount.

  Why must your legislators be from your home district?

  You may know of a candidate from another legislative district who is preferable to the candidates in your district. Since you are a Wyomingite voting for a state legislator, why must you be constrained to choose from within your district? Isn't it more fair that state legislators should be, just like the governor, elected by the state voters as a whole?

  How can Reps be free to vote their conscience?

  By we the People electing them based on their conscience.

  This is not possible today with legislative districts and partisan primaries. When party candidates must claw their way to the nomination through caucuses and primaries, all you get are finalists skilled at little more than back-room politics. At the same time, fine candidates with strong public support are rejected for not placating their party bosses.

  So instead of being able to vote for "the best of the bunch" you must choose between "the lesser of two evils." Because of this, voter turnout has been falling for forty years! We have a better idea.

  Our solution to the above problems

  How about a choice from amongst up to 80 state Reps?

  Today's congressional elections are total Win/Lose propositions. Generally, two candidates face off; one wins and the other loses. If the winner gets 501 votes and the loser 499, it means that 499 diligent voters got absolutely nothing for their efforts, merely because two votes went the other way. And the winner claims he was voted in by "the people." No, by only 50.1% of "the people." (Hardly a mandate.)

  In any election, up to 49.9% of a district's voters have no say at the Capitol; up to nearly half are not represented. It's unfair, frustrating and wasteful. Little wonder that only 55% of the eligible voters vote in Wyoming elections (and only 25% in national elections).

  There's small choice in rotten apples.

  — Shakespeare

  How about this instead:

  1) The 30 Senate Districts and 60 House Districts are abolished. (No more complex and expensive redrawing of districts every 10 years!) The Wyoming legislature is then streamlined into a unicameral house.

  2) A legislative candidate would first require the petition signatures (sigs) of at least 5,000 registered voters from across the state. These 5,000 sigs would: A) assure that Representative (Rep) a seat in the legislature, and B) allow the Rep entrance in the general election to increase his constituency (and thus his voting weight). The 400,000 eligible Wyoming voters means a maximum potential of 80 Reps, though this number would likely never be reached because voter registration and turnout is never 100%, and nearly all Reps would have more support than the 5,000 voter minimum.

  Let's say that 50 Reps have received at least the required 5,000 sigs.

  3) A general election is then held. Understand that the 50 Reps have already made it to the legislature with their 5,000+ sigs — the election is held only to give those Reps a chance to increase their overall voter support. The voters who have petitioned for a particular Rep have already voted. This election is only for those voters who have not yet endorsed any particular Rep. (Actually, the petitioning could even be foregone with a general voting for one's candidate.)

  4) The results of the general election are published. Of those 50 Reps, let's say their voting support ranges from the minimum 5,000 to a high of 30,000. That means that the top Rep has six times more voting weight in the legislature than a Rep with only 5,000 sigs/votes.

  5) Once Reps begin their single 4 year term in January, their respective voters may switch loyalties on a semiannual basis. That way, no Rep could con the voters just to get elected. If a Rep begins to ignore the wishes of his/her voters, they can "change horses" and drain that Rep's voting influence. An incumbent's power
is exactly proportional to his/her approval. Approval grows, power grows. Approval wanes, power wanes.

  A Rep whose intraterm support goes below the 5,000 minimum for two consecutive quarters (or four times within his term) is ousted, and his residual supporters move to other incumbents. A Rep must have the mandate of at least 5,000 voters to achieve and hold office. See how equitable this would be? No more waiting out bad state Senators for four years and bad Congressman for two. For once in history, lawmakers would be accountable and responsive on a near daily basis to their bosses, the voters.

  Summary

  Every cohesive group of 5,000 or more could have their own Rep in the legislature. Voters in different counties with common issues and views could enjoy common state representation. Johnson and Sublette County Libertarians could have their own Rep. Teton County environmentalists could have theirs. The petroleum workers theirs. Minority viewpoints would finally have a palpable voice. And the voting weight of each Rep would exactly mirror his numerical voter support. Reps with more voter support would justifiably have a proportionately stronger influence in the legislature. Elections under this scenario wouldn't be Winner/Loser affairs with as little as 50.1% of the voters electing the legislature, and the other 49.9% griping about it. No more costly recounts and frustrating legal challenges. That sort of thing split our country in two back in 2000.

  These elections would be Winner/Winner. You'd no longer have to limit your choice of Rep to just a mere handful in the primaries — you could choose from up to 80! No more "lesser of two evils" — finally you could choose "the best of the bunch."

  Now that's freedom of choice. That's representation!

  "With up to 80 candidates all running for state office, wouldn't campaigning be too expensive and confusing?"

  No, not necessarily. The initial campaigning could be done through a state website. Office seekers pay a nonrefundable fee to become listed and from there try to elicit the needed 5,000 signatures. Each petitioner would have an identical number of pages and mpeg video time to describe themselves, and their views could all be compared in a matrix.

  Voters would cast their petition signatures electronically. With modern public key (asymmetric) encryption, your vote will be absolutely protected from tampering. The process is not only safe, but simple.

  The website would not show a running tally of how many sigs each had, so as to encourage voters to choose out of principle versus from assured winners. It also will prevent the candidates from learning where they stand, and by "keeping them in the dark" they will have little choice but to remain true to their stated views. (Polling fosters expediency, and thus should be discouraged, if not made illegal.) Finally, the sheer suspense will create and hold much more public interest in the electoral process.

  Voters cast one unrecallable petition signature. The computer software will ask three times: "You are about to cast your one and only vote for ___________. Are you sure of your choice? Yes or No?" By clicking "Yes" three times, the silly Floridian farce of "I didn't know" is avoided.

  In the event a voter's candidate does not receive the 5,000 sig minimum, he is not allowed to vote in the general election. Either way, he has already voted. This is to encourage committed decisions amongst the electorate, and to discourage the truly kooky. (I.e., go too far out on a limb with your views, and perhaps not even 1 voter in 80 will join you.) Sure, a voter could prefer to vote in November rather than to petition, but this means that his menu of Reps has been decided by those with more resolve (who petitioned early). Also, the fewer the petitioners, the smaller the menu. So, there are pros and cons to petitioning.

  "But some voters will not be represented!" some would cry. Well, what else is new? Today, up to 49.9% of the voters are not represented when they pick a losing candidate in a tight race. Our plan is much more fair and inclusive. Voters may choose from up to 80 Reps, so at least one of them should be tolerable for even the random maverick.

  However, if you pick a candidate who cannot garner even 4,999 other supporters from across the entire state, then your political views are so far out of the mainstream that they are not entitled to legislative weight. While the larger fringes will be represented (for the first time in history), the "fringe of the fringe" cannot — nor do they deserve to be.

  Even if we had a legislature with 400,000 Reps (which is what 100% representation would require), not everyone's views could win. Today, each Wyoming Senate District covers 20,000 voters, and each House District 10,000 voters. Because of the Win/Lose nature of today's elections, up to nearly 10,000 and 5,000 voters in those districts have no representation. "All or nothing" gambling is fine for Las Vegas casinos, but it has no place in a modern democracy for choosing legislators.

  Our plan offers real choice. With minimum voter blocks of 5,000 we believe that over 95% of voters will have actual legislative representation. This has never occurred in the history of democracy. Will the fringe be able to push through their agendas? No, but whatever portion of their agenda that is more reasonable can be coalesced with other Reps for passage.

  Once the previous example of 50 Reps have achieved their 5,000+ sigs, a televised pageant is held the night before election day. Each Rep gets equal time (say, 2 minutes apiece) to answer questions and address the Wyoming voters at home (who are marking their impressions on a scoresheet with such categories as: Candor, Intelligence, Resolve, Personality, etc.). Even with commercial breaks, the pageant would take only two hours. Production costs are paid by the state fund which collected the Z10,000 website application fees from all the applicants.

  The next day, voters who have not petitioned go to the polls to cast their vote for one of the 50 Reps (or even for one of the original website candidates, although such would be rare). The end result is that 19 out of 20 voters will see his candidate serving in the legislature.

  Barring the total elimination of legislators and turning the lawmaking power over to the popular vote (which is technologically feasible, though politically quite impractical), this bold reform is our best chance for a true and fair democracy. You will see huge opposition from lawyers and politicians, for it spells the end of their immoral and inefficient reign.

  We find the worst atrocities always occur at the end of the war. And this is the end of the war. It is over and you just have to keep out of the way of the dying dinosaur's tail...

  — Steve Kubby, American Medical Marijuana Assc.

  Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come.

  — Victor Hugo

  Ideas won't keep. Something must be done about them.

  — Alfred North Whitehead

  Part 2 of this Report discusses an even more controversial matter: the secret ballot and its inevitable path to tyranny.

  NO MORE SECRET BALLOT

  This is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended —civilizations are built up — excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings back the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin.

  — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.39

  Whether the State can loose and bind

  In Heaven as well as on Earth:

  If it be wiser to kill mankind

  Before or after the birth —

  These are matters of high concern

  Where State-kept schoolmen are;

  But Holy State (we have lived to learn)

  Endeth in Holy War.

  Whether The People be led by The Lord,

  Or lured by the loudest throat;

  If it be quicker to die by the sword

  Or cheaper to die by the vote —

  These are things we have dealt with once,

  (And they will not rise from their grave)

  For Holy People, however it runs,

  Endeth in wholly Slave.

  What so ever, for any cause,

  Seeketh to take or give

  Power above or
beyond the Laws,

  Suffer it not to live!

  Holy State or Holy King —

  Or Holy People's Will —

  Have no truck with the senseless thing.

  Order the guns and kill!

  Saying — after — me: —

  Once there was The People — Terror gave it birth;

  Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth

  Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!

  Once there was The People — it shall never be again!

  — Rudyard Kipling, MacDonough's Song

  Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.

  — Thomas Paine, The Crisis, IV, (12 September 1777)

  We believe that voting secrecy is an unnecessary evil. Stripping that veil is a vital component of a long overdue redesign of our democratic system. It would infuse a new and necessary responsibility for the actions of voters.

  The secret ballot fosters secret government and its irresponsible dominion. When any atrocious government act occurs, all parties involved (though guilty) are allowed to falsely claim their innocence.

  The enforcers say, "We were ordered to pull the trigger!"

  The politicians say, "We didn't pull the trigger!"

  The people say, "We knew nothing of this!"

  After an avalanche, every snowflake pleads "Not Guilty."

  To top it off, judges confer "sovereign immunity" upon such killers as FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi of Ruby Ridge. And everyone gets away with it because there is no assignable responsibility — no real chain of command. Well, if a democracy is a "government of, for, and by the people" then it is actually quite easy to assign responsibility. Enforcers are hired by particular bureaucrats, who are empowered by particular politicians, who are elected by particular voters. Everyone involved has a name, and the republic has a right to know who they are! If the voters were to be made personally responsible for the actions of their agents, then the voters would elect better people. It would simply be in their best self-interest.