OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Browse Ideas with tag 'democracy':

• Recent Ideas (17)
• Popular Ideas (17)

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  114 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  Develop and Implement a National Strategy for Sustainability

  I would suggest that the best way to strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness, while making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative, would be for the Obama Administration to lead the American People in Developing and Implementing a National Strategy for Sustainability. It is commonly recognized that those of us in the United States are not living sustainably today. With ...more »

  I would suggest that the best way to strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness, while making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative, would be for the Obama Administration to lead the American People in Developing and Implementing a National Strategy for Sustainability.

  It is commonly recognized that those of us in the United States are not living sustainably today. With only 5% of the world’s population, we consume 1/4 of the natural resources. Since 1940, Americans alone have used more of the earth’s mineral resources than all previous humans put together. We still only recycle about 15% of our waste; use 120 pounds of natural resources per person per day; and greenhouse gas emissions rose 13 percent in the US between 1990 and 2003 according to the EPA’s 2007 Report on the Environment. Meanwhile humanity uses 30% more of the earth’s bio-capacity than can be sustained. At this rate, we’ll need two planets to live on to meet everyone's needs by 2030.

  Fortunately, millions of Americans are already doing what we can to change the situation and to contribute to creating a more sustainable future. Now our federal government needs to lead the people in creating a Sustainable America.

  GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT

  The US agreed to create a National Strategy for Sustainability during the UN Rio Earth Summit Conference in 1992 and then again at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. The US is one of the few Developed Countries that has not already developed, much less implemented, a National Strategy Plan. The Obama Administration should thus invite all Americans to join it in developing and implementing our National Strategy for Sustainability, beginning with a review of the reports and recommendations from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development that were developed during the Clinton years. See: See: http://clinton5.nara.gov/PCSD

  The National Strategy could encourage such things as green building practices; transitioning to renewable energy; protecting and restoring the natural environment; limiting toxic chemicals; investing in all types of green jobs; adopting sustainable business practices; educating for sustainable development; ensuring that all people’s basic human needs can be met; and integrating the work of artists, engineers, educators, and restoration scientists on infrastructure, restoration, and other sustainable community projects; etc.

  (This recommendation and description of the National Strategy for Sustainability is rather long as it is meant to introduce the idea to key people within the Obama Administration. If you want to know more about it please continue reading, however if not but you still like the idea please vote for it now.)

  There is already a lot of interest and support for this idea of creating a National Strategy for Sustainability. In December I entered a proposal urging the Obama Administration to develop and implement a National Strategy for Sustainability in Change.org’s Ideas for Change in America web voting competition. It made it in the Top Ten out of more than 7800 Ideas entered and 600,000 votes cast and was in first place within the category of Environmental Conservation.

  GOALS, GUIDELINES, AND PRINCIPLES

  The development of a National Strategy for Sustainability ought to be based upon an agreed set of guidelines and principles, such as those developed by the OECD, beginning with a participatory and collaborative process (see: http://www.oecd.org/DATAOECD/34/10/2669958.PDF page 73). Coordinated and cooperative action is needed and the federal government needs to lead the way. The Strategy should include an Action Plan, authorizing legislation, and a significant budget and appropriations. An Office of Sustainability ought to be established, along with inter-agency working group(s) and a cabinet level committee on sustainability. Each state could be required to issue an annual report on sustainability.

  The overall goal of the National Strategy for Sustainability ought to be to make as rapid a transition to full sustainability as is feasibly possible. A system of metrics and indicators is needed along with a Visioning and Planning Process which encourages the participation of the American People in determining our common future. In fact, the Administration ought to support civil society in playing a leading role in developing an independent multi-stakeholder process that fully involves all serious and committed contributors in driving the development of the National Strategy for Sustainability.

  The National Academy of Public Administration and the National Academy of Sciences are two Congressionally chartered, non-profit, non-partisan institutions that provide an example of the type of entity that could be established with the mandate to lead the process of developing and implementing a National Strategy, which would include but also go well beyond government participation and activities.

  GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION

  At the global level, preparations and consultations have already begun again at the United Nations for the 20th Anniversary of the Earth Summit Conference which will most likely be held again in Brazil in 2012. The US is going to look pretty foolish if we are one of the only developed countries that is not yet implementing a Sustainability Strategy and Plan. In addition, the federal government ought to be developing a process to encourage multi-stakeholder input and participation in the preparatory process for the Summit; and the effort to create a US Strategy could provide a good means for doing so.

  The United Nations is also completing a ten year Marrakech Process to develop a Global Framework of Action on Sustainable Consumption and Production; and our federal government has just begun to participate actively in this process within the last year or two, though it did host a North American consultation in Washington DC in November of 2008. (http://esa.un.org/marrakechprocess) The Obama Administration should thus integrate the development of a National Framework on Sustainable Consumption and Production with our National Strategy for Sustainability and ensure that both are integrated as well with the Global Framework.

  EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

  We are also now half way through the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development and UNESCO recently held it’s five year review conference for the Decade in Bonn (http://www.desd.org). In the US the US Partnership for Education on Sustainable Development has been leading the organizing effort (www.uspartnership.org); but unfortunately the federal government has provided very little leadership to date in engaging our country in this global process.

  The US Partnership developed a series of recommendations, in partnership with the Working Group for Sustainable Change, which we submitted to the Obama Administration and Transition Teams for how the US could strengthen its involvement and promote Education for Sustainable Development. These recommendations should be considered both by the Department of Education and as we work on developing and implementing both the National Strategy and the Ten Year Framework on Sustainable Consumption and Production. (see: http://change.gov/open_government/entry/us_partnership_on_education_for_sustainable_development/)

  STRENGTHENING AND RENEWING PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES

  During the run up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 several hundred UN Partnership Initiatives were also developed. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have taken quite an interest in many of these Partnership Initiatives. They provide an excellent means for implementing sustainability programs and policies both in the US and around the world. Unfortunately, most of them remain rather under-capitalized and need much more funding to be able to fulfill the great promise and urgent role that they could provide. As a part of the development of the National Strategy for Sustainability the federal government should thus review these Partnership Initiatives and determine what could be done in the US and by our government to strengthen them; and the US citizenry should be invited to participate actively in this review process as well. (See: http://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainable/partnerships.htm and http://www.sdp.gov/usgweb.)

  The STAR Community Index is a new framework for improving the livability and sustainability of U.S. communities. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and the Center for American Progress (CAP) have established a partnership to develop STAR with the goal of launching this tool in January 2010. (see: http://www.iclei-usa.org/programs/sustainability/star-community-index) The STAR website states that, “there is a pressing need for a national framework to guide sustainable community initiatives. Many local governments have already developed frameworks, while others are seeking a framework that can be adapted to reflect local conditions. These frameworks offer a vast diversity in the structure and focus making it very difficult to compare the progress of one locality to another and reducing the opportunity to leverage change and share lessons learned.”

  A similar situation exists but the need is perhaps even more pronounced within the business community, educational institutions, and particularly within and among state governments. The development of a National Strategy should thus incorporate and promote the development of the STAR Community Index and support the development of similar such initiatives for businesses, educational institutions, rural communities, and state governments.

  THE PRESIDENT’S MEMORANDUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT

  As one of his first acts in office President Obama issued a Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government in which he outlined three principles for his administration: transparency, participation, and collaboration. The Memorandum states that, “Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector.”

  There could probably be no better way to engage the American people in the work of our government, at all levels, than to develop and begin to implement a National Strategy for Sustainability. Non-profit organizations, businesses, individuals, educators, and government employees at all levels are already doing what they can to contribute to creating a sustainable future; and we would welcome the opportunity, if provided by the federal government, to provide our expertise on how our country can do so as well.

  SHARING THE EXPERTISE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH GOVERNMENT

  The Memorandum goes on to state that, “Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.” Again, the development of a National Strategy and a Ten Year Framework on Sustainable Consumption and Production would provide an excellent vehicle to enable the American people to share our collective expertise and information with government departments and agencies.

  This would now include a multitude of initiatives that have been developed or are now springing up such as: the ABA’s Model Sustainability Policy and Implementation Guidelines for Law Organizations, the Environmental Law Institute, the US Green Building Council’s LEED Program, National Ski Areas Association’s Sustainable Slopes Environmental Charter, California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, AIGA Center for Sustainable Design, Green-Blue Institute’s Design Competitions, various Standards and Certification Schemes, and a great number of business consultants specializing in sustainable development.

  Then there is the PlugIn Hybrid Electric Vehicle Partnership, ICLEI’s Star Community Index, SustainLane’s Sustainable Development knowledge base for State and Local Government officials, Sustainable Land Development International, the Bioneers, BioMimicry Guild, Zero Waste Alliance, Center for a New American Dream, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, North American Sustainable Consumption Alliance, US Citizens Network for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Communities Network, etc. These are just a few examples of the many people and initiatives, showing just a bit of the breadth of the movement, that would eagerly embrace the opportunity to share their knowledge and information with government at all levels.

  OVERCOMING POLICY IMPEDIMENTS AND EMBRACING COLLABORATION

  Now I would like to respond to two questions raised as a part of this Open Government Dialogue process. We’ve been asked, “What policy impediments to innovation in government currently exist?”

  There is currently a lack of coordination of activities within and among agencies at all levels of government; lack of a coordinated approach toward dealing effectively with a host of urgent problems that must be solved to create a more sustainable future; coordinated means by which all stakeholders can contribute effectively to providing common solutions that could be replicated throughout our society; etc. These problems could all be solved through an effect effort to develop and implement a National Strategy for Sustainability.

  “What is the best way to change the culture of government to embrace collaboration?”

  The Obama Administration could develop an open and participatory process welcoming all Americans to join in developing and implementing a National Strategy for Sustainability, including such stakeholders as municipal and state government, the business community, educational leaders and students, civil society, etc. The effectiveness of such partnership processes has been demonstrated time and again through collaborations such as the US Partnership on Education for Sustainable Development, the National Council on Science and the Environment, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, the National Academy of Sciences Board on Sustainable Development/Report, the National Summit on Sustainable Development, UN Commission on Sustainable Development processes, UN Partnership Initiatives for Sustainable Development, etc.

  ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE AMERICA

  Finally, Law Professor John Dernbach’s latest book, Agenda for a Sustainable America starts with a simple but powerful premise: “Sustainable development would make the United States more livable, healthy, secure, and prosperous. Policies that promote sustainability would reduce risks to our national security, improve our economic efficiency and productivity, enhance our health and communities, improve the lives of the poorest among us, and foster greater human wellbeing in other countries. And it would achieve these things while protecting and restoring the environment for our generation and for generations that follow.”

  Now those are goals that would be worth striving for as we develop and begin to implement our National Strategy for Sustainability.

  For more information please contact:

  Rob Wheeler

  Campaign for a Sustainable America

  Robineagle @ worldcitizen.org

  Robwheeler22 @ gmail.com

  717-264-5036

  Citizens Network for Sustainable Development

  www.citnet.org

  « less full details »

  12 comments for Idea: Develop and Implement a National Strategy for Sustainability

  Submitted by Rob Wheeler 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  76 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Tools and Technologies »

  Make the Open Government Dialogue an ongoing process

  One week is not enough for this important initiative.

  It should be transformed into an ongoing tool for citizen participation in making decissions efffecting their lives.

  When doing this, make sure that every participant really votes only once (e.g., by linking the exiting voters lists with this site.

  3 comments for Idea: Make the Open Government Dialogue an ongoing process

  Submitted by mk 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  71 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Between Federal, State, and Local Governments »

  How About A Return To The Small Federal Government The Constitution Calls For

  From Healthcare to Nationalizing Banks and Privately Held Corporations This Federal Government is a bureaucracy out of control. The Pigs at the trough no matter their original good intents like it too much to leave it. It is time for states to regain the control authorized by the 10th amendment and perform "right sized" methods utilized in business everyday.

  5 comments for Idea: How About A Return To The Small Federal Government The Constitution Calls For

  Submitted by vacationtogo2003 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  69 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Uncategorized »

  Stop Calling America a Democracy!

  WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The word Democracy NEVER appears in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution! Democracy: a system based on majority rule: the doctrine that the4 numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. Thoughts from our Founding Fathers: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights ...more »

  WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

  The word Democracy NEVER appears in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution!

  Democracy: a system based on majority rule: the doctrine that the4 numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.

  Thoughts from our Founding Fathers:

  "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin

  "Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." - James Madison

  "Democracy... wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

  « less full details »

  20 comments for Idea: Stop Calling America a Democracy!

  Submitted by 1withtheforce 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  43 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Do-It-Yourself Government »

  Virtual democracy

  A website addressing proposed policy changes allowing for public vote & comment. Such a site should be developed & improved with the idea of becoming a binding mechanism for modifying & implementing policy.

  4 comments for Idea: Virtual democracy

  Submitted by johnny5_13 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  41 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  "There Oughta Be A Law"

  There needs to be a process whereby the public can initiate a process to introduce popular legislation with legal input on Constitutional issues. One option would be to create a site for each registered voter to sign in, be verified and get a numbered account. At that site, somewhat similar to this one, new legislation could be proposed that would also be sent to their Congressional representatives, and then voted on ...more »

  There needs to be a process whereby the public can initiate a process to introduce popular legislation with legal input on Constitutional issues. One option would be to create a site for each registered voter to sign in, be verified and get a numbered account. At that site, somewhat similar to this one, new legislation could be proposed that would also be sent to their Congressional representatives, and then voted on in each category. Once an idea reached a certain level of votes it would have to be considered, given a fair legal review, and then proposed into the legislative process and not held up in Committees endlessly. Such popular legislation should then be made available for all voters to consider, with public television access for full debate, and legal input on Constitutionality, and the voted up or down either by referendum or by the method mentioned earlier, giving the public voters just as many votes in Congress in both Houses as there are current Members. 100 in the Senate and 435 in the House. These votes would be divided proportionate to the referendum votes in each state and would count along with the representative votes in passage or failure of each new law.

  « less full details »

  9 comments for Idea: "There Oughta Be A Law"

  Submitted by copa 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  26 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Tools and Technologies »

  U.S. Representative Voting Preference Polls (P-poll for short)

  P-poll Now Universal Health Care? Yes or No Funding for War? Yes or No Immigration Reform? Yes or No How would you vote? Your U.S. Representative should know. Let’s require U.S. Representatives to poll their constituents regarding bills scheduled for a vote and publish the results at house.gov. For example: HR 101 $900 Billion Stimulus Plan The People say: Nay (68% vs. 32%) The House says: Yea (51% vs. 49%) ...more »

  P-poll Now

  Universal Health Care? Yes or No

  Funding for War? Yes or No

  Immigration Reform? Yes or No

  How would you vote? Your U.S. Representative should know.

  Let’s require U.S. Representatives to poll their constituents regarding bills scheduled for a vote and publish the results at house.gov. For example:

  HR 101 $900 Billion Stimulus Plan

  The People say: Nay (68% vs. 32%)

  The House says: Yea (51% vs. 49%)

  In a digital democracy, the will of the people should be visible on every House bill. Of course, we must allow Reps to vote their conscience, but we will also be free to vote them out of office.

  « less full details »

  6 comments for Idea: U.S. Representative Voting Preference Polls (P-poll for short)

  Submitted by pablo 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  23 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Communications Strategies »

  Civic Intelligence: Will We Be Smart Enough, Soon Enough?

  Civic intelligence is the term that refers to the collective intelligence of people as applied towards shared challenges in a fair and effective manner. Lacking a commonly used name, civic intelligence, though it already exists as a phenomenon, will not receive the attention it deserves. Civic intelligence in a general way measures how well a community, nation, or society responds. Civic intelligence can be intentionally ...more »

  Civic intelligence is the term that refers to the collective intelligence of people as applied towards shared challenges in a fair and effective manner. Lacking a commonly used name, civic intelligence, though it already exists as a phenomenon, will not receive the attention it deserves. Civic intelligence in a general way measures how well a community, nation, or society responds.

  Civic intelligence can be intentionally cultivated. What makes some societies smart? Why do some societies respond intelligently to shared challenges and some do not? What is the role of educational institutions, government, the media, etc.? Civic intelligence simply the next generation of democratic practice: Democracy as a way of promoting the collective thoughts and actions of citizens.

  Civic intelligence is more of a theme than a precise recommendation. It represents a way to describe both how societies come to make decisions now but an idealized way to make better decisions in the future.

  For more information, see the Civic Intelligence pattern (http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/pattern.pl/public?pattern_id=1) from the Liberating Voices pattern language project (http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/), an online collaborative effort to build a "pattern language" for bottom-up citizen-led information and communication initiatives.

  « less full details »

  4 comments for Idea: Civic Intelligence: Will We Be Smart Enough, Soon Enough?

  Submitted by douglas 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  21 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Making Government Operations More Open »

  Anti American - Anti Communist Hearings

  Our country, our great Republic is at risk of losing freedoms and democracy to anti-American activities perpetrated by Communists who have infiltrated the U.S. Government.

  17 comments for Idea: Anti American - Anti Communist Hearings

  Submitted by tommilbank 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  19 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  COMMUNITY WEAVING AMERICA

  We propose Community Weaving America! The mission is unique. We are weaving a new world one Good Neighbor at a time to...(the people engaged in Community Weaving complete the mission statement!) The time has come for people to be connected! Community Weaving creates an infrustructure in the grass roots comprised of people willing to be Good Neighbors who will serve as a support system. This system is needed in order to ...more »

  We propose Community Weaving America! The mission is unique. We are weaving a new world one Good Neighbor at a time to...(the people engaged in Community Weaving complete the mission statement!) The time has come for people to be connected! Community Weaving creates an infrustructure in the grass roots comprised of people willing to be Good Neighbors who will serve as a support system. This system is needed in order to maintain social order as government becomes more open and transparent. This infrasture will provide government with the means to track how the people are adapting to change so they can respond to the needs and empower the people.

  Community Weaving America creates an infrastructure within the grassroots that will help people assimilate information, identify hot spots, and create an adaptable citizenry that can be mobilized to maintain social order in times of chaos and confusion. We must prepare for the times ahead and work together!

  Community Weaving started in 1993 and America is filled with Good Neighbors and trained Community Weavers. Government can help build the effort exponentially by adopting Community Weaving practices as a new mode of operation. www.communityweaving.org

  Governing systems are not able to meet the rising demand for services using current management practices. Too many people with too few representatives to reflect the voice of the people.

  Recommend creating open and transparent governance system by training government staff how to engage citizens as Good Neighbors using a free web-based tool GoodNeighbors.net that makes human and tangible resources easily and immediately accessible and tracks the shift in reliance on formal systems to informal systems which reduces strain on government. This will require creative action and policy changes whereby agencies integrate Community Weaving practices into service delivery systems. To begin users and consumers will be recruited as Good Neighbors and interwoven into a new social safety net at the grassroots. This will create a whole system functioning of formal and informal community systems. This approach reduces the number of people relying on government systems to get their needs met because they will have free and direct access to the resources of the Family Support Network.

  Family Support Networks are self-organized by Good Neighbors across the country. These networks are comprised of Good Neighborsa and places where people from diverse socio-economic backgrounds can get connected and find support from their neighbors. Anyone connected into the network as a Good Neighbor can access the resources of the network for free...no lines...no paperwork, no qualifying! This approach creates a more adaptable and equitable system of support owned and operated by the people. Taxpayers pay for social services, yet not everyone has access to the information and services. It's time everyone has access to the resources they are paying for!

  Community Weaving makes a plethora of resources available for a minimal investment of taxpayer dollars. In 2006, 175,000 volunteer hours were tracked, valued as $2.6 million in volunteerism, on a budget less than $25,000. The funds saved can be used to serve the higher needs populations! Since the network is virtual, there is not need to pay for large buildings and costs associated with running them!

  Suggest all government staff register as Good Neighbors to weave everyone together before lay offs leave people with valuable skills and abilities stranded and disenfranchised.

  Train trainers in social services offices how to revamp policies to engage clients as Good Neighbor volunteers. This will leverage a myriad of human and tangible resources and increase social capital. This will capture the skills of the consumers and grow community capacity.

  By training Community Weavers within organizations across community sectors people from diverse socio-eonomic backgrounds will be interwoven to reweave the fabric of community. This will break down silos and reduce duplication.

  By training staff and citizens within the community as Community Weavers bridges are built to cross consumers over and connect them to the resources they need to get back on their feet with dignity and respect. Many will slef-organize into Family Support Networks and create their own informal systems of support that will prevent people from requiring formal assistance. By engaging consumers as Good Neighbors the government can play in instrumental role in re-weaving America and increasing community capacity to reduce reliance on formal systems and create resilient communities.

  This approach weaves people into the broader community system. By integrating the Community Forum into Community Weaving, the voice of the people creates an accountability system to public officials.

  In other words, Community Weaving reweaves the fabric of community and creates a more informed and engaged citizenry that is an integral part of the process of democracy.

  Community Weaving America is the change we need to save our children's future and create a more caring, just and civil society!

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: COMMUNITY WEAVING AMERICA

  Submitted by Unsubscribed User 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  16 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  Dynamic Self-Governance (DSG)

  Dynamic Self-Governance (DSG) is a way to organize informal groups, businesses of any size, and governmental agencies. DSG uses systems theory and cybernetics to create enterprises that function EXTREMELY well, AND treat people as human beings. The key to DSG is that the Dutch engineer who developed it 4 decades ago came up with a way to keep all participants equal in power: Consent decision-making for policy decisions. ...more »

  Dynamic Self-Governance (DSG) is a way to organize informal groups, businesses of any size, and governmental agencies.

  DSG uses systems theory and cybernetics to create enterprises that function EXTREMELY well, AND treat people as human beings. The key to DSG is that the Dutch engineer who developed it 4 decades ago came up with a way to keep all participants equal in power: Consent decision-making for policy decisions. He also came up with many other surprising structural innovations like the consent election process and self-ownership. If this is intriguing, please check out my website: www.beyonddemocracythefilm.com

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Dynamic Self-Governance (DSG)

  Submitted by teddidread 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  3 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  Obama ellicit a national awreness discussion on The State of Our Democracy

  The systems that are supposed to make our democracy the best in the world are failing us. That is why the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed about 10 years ago, supposedly to fix certain problems. We now know that it was an utter boondoggle which pushed the country towards electronic voting, an outrageous "failure of the imagination." We need to take pride in the working of our democracy again and to do that ...more »

  The systems that are supposed to make our democracy the best in the world are failing us. That is why the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed about 10 years ago, supposedly to fix certain problems. We now know that it was an utter boondoggle which pushed the country towards electronic voting, an outrageous "failure of the imagination."

  We need to take pride in the working of our democracy again and to do that we, the citizenry as a whole, need to understand the multiple systems which are required to making the concept of democracy work.

  One of the primary systems is news and opinion, without which we can't have an informed public. But the nuts and bolts of democracy are systems that protect ballot integrity, that allow ballot access, that allow 3rd parties to participate in presidential debates, that provide campaign funding transparency and some form of public campaign financing, that allow early voting, voting by mail, same day registration, instant runoff voting etc., all the way to issues such as the re-enfranchisement of felons who have done their time and are trying ro reassimilate into society, and making Voter Tuesday a national holiday. Even the right to vote isn't Constitutionally guarranteed, as we discovered in the Supreme Court decision which put Bush in office after the Florida debacle in 2000.

  Our democracy is our proudest heritage as Americans but it is not working well. Let's have a national discussion about it so we can pull together the brainpower to fix it up.

  « less full details »

  8 comments for Idea: Obama ellicit a national awreness discussion on The State of Our Democracy

  Submitted by grassrootsunity 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  1 vote

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Uncategorized »

  How can we strengthen our REPUBLIC and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory

  The problem with our country is that our government thinks that we are a democracy. Look at the first paragraph of this website..."How can we strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?" Democracy Versus Republic These succinct definitions of what is Democracy and what is a Republic was produced by the US Army in 1928, These ...more »

  The problem with our country is that our government thinks that we are a democracy. Look at the first paragraph of this website..."How can we strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?"

  Democracy Versus Republic

  These succinct definitions of what is Democracy and what is a Republic was produced by the US Army in 1928, These definitions have been quietly withdrawn since, soon after.

  Democracy:

  A government of the masses.

  Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

  Results in mobocracy.

  Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

  Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

  Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

  Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

  A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

  A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

  Republic:

  Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

  Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

  Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

  A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

  Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

  Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

  A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

  an executive and

  a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

  a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

  certain inherent individual rights.

  Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

  Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

  A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

  Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:

  Democracy:

  a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.

  b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

  Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences

  Republic

  a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

  b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

  Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

  The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.

  Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

  Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.

  « less full details »

  2 comments for Idea: How can we strengthen our REPUBLIC and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory

  Submitted by freedomfighter4theplanet 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  0 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  A Democratic Military

  Some will say that a democratic military is an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. But, that is because we have not critically examined our military, why it exists, it's purpose and it's place in the society. The US military belongs to all of us, acts in our name and we suffer or gain from the consequences of what it does. Millions of people participate in the military and their families are effected. However, the military ...more »

  Some will say that a democratic military is an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. But, that is because we have not critically examined our military, why it exists, it's purpose and it's place in the society. The US military belongs to all of us, acts in our name and we suffer or gain from the consequences of what it does. Millions of people participate in the military and their families are effected. However, the military as currently constituted does not reflect the values of a democratic society, despite the fact that enlisted members swear to defend the Constitution and believe they are fighting for democracy and the rights of others. Training, discipline and structure are central to military operations, or any operation, but they do not require the current draconian and Prussian military model we have in this country. To say we need a military is not to say we need this one, especially when it has an obsolete authoritarian structure and privileges. No other industrialized nation has an internal military judicial system, for example, nor do they ban unions. Our military does not reflect in practice the principles of the Constitution, the Nuremberg principles and other treaties, covenants and accords on warfare, and often violates international law and breaches Posse Comitatus and other barriers between military and police or civilian functions. We should create a military that respects and reflects the democratic and modern values of our nation and there are simple ways to make this happen in a dynamic way that takes the future into account. A democratic military will also be less of a force for constant warfare. Congress, the legislature and the courts should work together to ensure the following changes:

  1 - Insure that decisions about military personnel are transparent, open to Congressional and court review and public input and debate, and that the rights of enlistees, active and reserve members, veterans and their families are truly respected and that accountability and advocacy are established by independent non-military civilian review and appeal processes.

  2 - Own our military as a nation. Begin a national and open debate about the nature, purpose, size and budget of the military as well as how it treats anyone who is part of it. These decisions cannot be made behind closed doors.

  3 - Repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the internal military judicial system of courts and prisons and provide civilian court review, fines or imprisonment for violations of civilian law. Eliminate line officer non-judicial punishments including fines, bust in rank, imprisonment, extra duty and grades of discharge.

  4 - Require honest recruitment, no quality standard waivers, promises made in writing on the enlistment agreement treated as equivalent to contracts, immediate and voluntary discharge based on recruiter misrepresentation or fraud, and an established period of at least 180 days during with either the enlistee or the military can voluntarily effect a discharge without characterization or benefits, but not without real and documented cause on the part of the military. Provide transportation to home of record in these cases. Also require discharge or reassignment of recruiters involved in two or more instances of misrepresentation. Enlistment should be open to all people who do not have disqualifying or severely limiting physical or mental conditions or age limitations. Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve and not be segregated in the military. All military jobs and advancement or benefits should be equitable and open to all regardless of gender or race or sexual orientation, and not determined by a biased test taken at point of entry. The true test should be performance of those tasks. Do not make quota requirements incumbent on any individual recruiter or command, but on changes in policy, benefits, retention, or other related issues.

  5 - Eliminate punitive discharges of all kinds or any characterization of service. If information of a negative nature is retained in the record or for re-enlistment purposes, it must be considered private and not released even upon waiver to anyone but the enlisted member or next of kin if they are deceased. Eliminate any right to discriminate in hiring or other treatment or benefits based on past grade or characterization of discharge and do not allow employers to ask for that information.

  6 - All military service should be truly voluntary and applying for any discharge should be able to be initiated by the enlisted member with documentation or by the military with the performance record or other information that is verifiable over time and not created at the end of term of service. Discharges should be easy to obtain with a loss of benefits proportional to time served. There should not be any "stop loss" policy allowed that blocks discharges. Discharge decisions should be resolved within at least 30 days of application, with independent appeal rights. The government should ensure equally beneficial options for civilian employment and meet minimal survival needs of people so that a poverty draft does not prevail. No return to conscripted military service should be considered or allowed. Civilian court review of habeus corpus should be automatic and encouraged and courts should give no special status to military commanders or their decisions, and common standards should apply.

  7 - All participation in the military, in war and in particular wars should be fully voluntary. The rights of conscience regarding war in general, particular wars and even regarding orders considered illegal or immoral during combat, and adherence to Nuremberg principles and other internationally recognized articles and covenants of war and the rules of war, should be recognized and respected without punitive action or recrimination in the case of refusal of duty or of orders. John Kennedy said, "War will exist until the distant day when conscientious objectors are held in same respect as warriors are today." That day should no longer be distant, and we have current examples of the cost of violating international treaties and covenants and breaking the rules of war. This would also insure that pre-emptive, immoral, illegal or ill-guided wars would be less likely to be carried out as long as full and open debate and information guided civilian and military opinion about them. Thus, selective objection would not lead automatically to discharge, but would ensure assignment to compatible duties and prevent improper mobilization. These rights must be respected equally in peacetime and during conflicts because the objections most commonly arise during the practice of war, or sometimes only afterwards when integration of conscience is more difficult. Conscientious objectors to military service, all war, any war and any order should be recognized and accommodated in their stated beliefs regardless of timing and without requirement of proof of sincerity or sanity, as is now the case. Also the laws of war and the principles of conscience should be required to be explained and discussed prior to any enlistment so that we have a military of conscientious participators or we don't have enough troops to fight a war that violates conscience and law alike. If the reasons for going into a particular war are revealed to have been wrong or intentionally misleading, then a renewed decision about participation in that war should be allowed and encouraged. Right of appeal of any discharge decision should go outside military chain of command and allow automatic civilian court review if needed. Objectors should be immediately reassigned to duties that do not conflict with their stated beliefs until the discharge is resolved or appeals exhausted. Any order directly countermanding a prima facie statement of objection should be considered illegal.

  8 - Military members and their families should have the right to dissent, protest and organize to improve their safety or working conditions and enlisted members and officers should have the right to form separate unions outside the military command. Unions should have the right to collective bargaining over work related issues and demands with the command once recognized and freely joined by the enlisted members or officers. Family members and others should have the right to dissent and protest conditions of enlisted members without being fined or jailed as under current federal laws. Military members should have the right to free speech, to petition, to distribution of materials, to assembly and to protected methods of appeals for redress and Congressional intervention. Enlisted members should have unrestricted rights of association with unions and other non-military organizations concerned with their rights.

  9 - Punitive discharges arising from past courts martial decisions should be expunged, and records of such criminal convictions should be private save in the case of crimes of violence or sexual assault that would require reporting and disclosure in civilian convictions. Transfer to long-term civilian facilities should be arranged for felony-level cases being held at Ft. Leavenworth brig or elsewhere for terms of six-months or longer and then military prisons should be closed and eliminated at the end of six-months as people end their sentences and depart the facilities. All subsequent crimes that would normally fall under civilian prosecution should be immediately referred to civilian jurisdiction with transfer of the individual to such custody or cognizance as the civilian arraignment would assign.

  10 - Codes of conduct within the military structure and society would be redrawn and clearly spelled out, with democratic input from enlisted members and the public, and enforced by discharge, denial of promotion, or counseling, training and voluntary correction if they were serious and disruptive. A complete review of all the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be undertaken, eliminating all those that are already covered by civilian law and treaty and those that restrict Constitutional rights and human rights recognized nationally and internationally. A balanced and democratic code should emerge that protects rights and equally limits the bad conduct of officers and enlisted members.

  11 - Instances of discrimination or abuse in the military based on criteria of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factor besides actual performance would not be tolerated, would allow an independent review and appeal process with no recrimination for claims, and would result not only in correction of wrongs done to the individual but in consequences for the officer or person involved in the discriminatory practices. Beyond this individual level of claims, all discharges would be reviewed with this in mind, initiated by either officer or enlisted, and a demographically consistent rate of enlistment, discharge, promotion and assignment would reflect if not improve on the distribution that exists in the society as a whole. An independent non-military agency should be created to both collect and decide on complaints, do the reviews, and suggest policies of recruitment, retention and treatment in practice that would make sure the military at all levels promoted equality of opportunity not privilege.

  12 - Benefits and promises should be guaranteed without exceptions to those who fulfill the terms of their agreement once they are discharged. This includes medical and other treatment for those harmed or injured or whose medical conditions worsened as a result of military duty, training or combat, with a much less hostile interpretation of whether the condition is linked to their military service or easily related to possible chemical or radiation exposure in the battlefield regardless of symptoms or previous conditions before entry. Clear breach of promise during enlistment should be grounds for discharge plus fair proportional compensation for time served, and denial after discharge of promised benefits should be grounds for civilian suits for recompense. The existing Feres doctrine, disallowing legal claims against the military for medical or other malpractice injury should be eliminated entirely, making the military accountable. Again, independent medical evaluations during and at the end of military service should be facilitated to help make these decisions about need for treatment for all related conditions.

  13 - Leadership in the military command structure, especially in the combat operations, should be a combination of military training and advancement and of mutually agreed respect from the troops under any command. Some military forces elect their officers without ill effect, for instance. A certain level of discharge requests, discrimination claims, and other forms of complaint (petition, redress of grievance, Congressional inquiries, and troop assessments) should be criteria in a command for replacing that leadership in a quick fashion, for discharge, retraining or reassigment as appropriate. Something like a political vote of confidence should be taken among troops being led into any combat situation prior to a final appointment

  14 - The public must be given a voice and a choice, just as much as the enlisted are, in what sorts of wars the US will participate in, regardless of how they are declared or sanctioned by Congress. Wars should be the result of referendums, as should be any military response even in a crisis situation. Clear alternatives should be discussed and proposed in open debate for a public decision at the start and during any combat operations and standards for military action or reaction should be reviewed and reset in a democratic way.

  15 - Militarization of the society, through excessive profits for defense and weapons contracts, denial of critical domestic needs by a bloated military budget, excessive size and global distribution of military troops requiring large levels of enlistment due to function and to lack of retention and turnover, combat training that does not retrain for civilian life and reduce violent tendencies, destruction of families and individuals through excessive stress in combat due to the nature of the combat, glorification of war and militarism as a mark of manhood or cultural adulthood in movies, toys and advertisements, recruitment and a constant military presence in middle and high schools, revolving participation in both military and corporate leadership regarding contracts and weapon development, involvement of the public in wars both covert and open that violate rules of war and treaty, the rise of the military-industrial-intelligence complex and the national security and homeland security state since General Eisenhower warned about it, massive expenditure of resources, production and human and financial capital at an increasing rate since the beginning of the last century creating a permanent war economy, and the status of the military as an undemocratic and unequal institution within the society and reflected abroad, as a sacred cow that cannot be questioned or changed, must be countered and ended.

  16 - The rise of a massive military intelligence structure and apparatus, the Defense Intelligence Agency with all it's extensions in various military branches, NSA, satellite reconnaisance and mapping, and security commands, its encroachment on police function and militarization of police, plans for Continuity of Government and martial law, privatization of military function, surveillance, esperimentation and spying on civilians since the early 1900s with databases on a majority of Americans, its functions under NORTHCOM which regards the United States as a battle command area, and it's control of 85% of the intelligence budget as well as command over massive covert operations here and abroad, threatens the country and the Constitution and dominates domestic, foreign, global and even space policy and militarization. It does this with virtually no oversight regarding even its legal right to exist, it's secret budget, its Black Ops, it's violations of law and assassination activities, its ability to define and expand its own powers, its addition to the secrecy surrounding critical issues and decisions, its extensions into civilian life and politics, and its impunity through virtual invisibility to the public at large. It is far past time for oversight, transparency and review that reveals its history, structure and expansion, replacement of civilian function, domination of all intelligence agencies and matters, and its reining in and dismantling to controllable and accountable size and disclosure, not to mention function. The DIA is without question the least democratic and Constitutional of all the institutions in society, and the least known, visible or accountable. It is time to bring it into public view and regulate its function and question its purpose and methods.

  « less full details »

  4 comments for Idea: A Democratic Military

  Submitted by copa 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  -7 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  Internet Voting to Replace Congress for Representation

  The strategy of having elected Congress members to represent constituencies was applicable when we had such a spread out citizen population and no technology to get every voice heard. We now have the technology available to truly have a government by the people. We will of course need congress-people, but their and their staff's role will be merely to sort through people-generated ideas (like this website)and to formulate, ...more »

  The strategy of having elected Congress members to represent constituencies was applicable when we had such a spread out citizen population and no technology to get every voice heard.

  We now have the technology available to truly have a government by the people. We will of course need congress-people, but their and their staff's role will be merely to sort through people-generated ideas (like this website)and to formulate, propose, and manage laws based on what the people vote.

  Monies will be needed to create the infrastructure so that ALL people of the Union can vote, such as voting centers in every neighborhood (like an internet cafe but for voting on a regular basis).

  If we are serious about a government BY THE PEOPLE, let's do it. Let's stop bottlenecking the power-load through Capitol Hill and open wide the gates of Democracy.

  « less full details »

  6 comments for Idea: Internet Voting to Replace Congress for Representation

  Submitted by evan.mcgown 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  -9 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  Allow voters to vote for more than one presidential candidate.

  Approval voting[1] is a system where a voter may vote for as many candidates as he or she wishes. As an example, suppose a voter likes a particular third party candidate, as well as a mainstream candidate. Should the voter "throw their vote away" on the candidate who isn't likely to win, or vote for the mainstream candidate? With approval voting, they could simply vote for both candidates. The candidate with the ...more »

  Approval voting[1] is a system where a voter may vote for as many candidates as he or she wishes.

  As an example, suppose a voter likes a particular third party candidate, as well as a mainstream candidate. Should the voter "throw their vote away" on the candidate who isn't likely to win, or vote for the mainstream candidate? With approval voting, they could simply vote for both candidates.

  The candidate with the most votes wins, as usual.

  States could allocate their electoral votes to the winner, similar to the way we do things now, or with a constitutional amendment or the agreement of enough states, we could do a direct popular vote using the approval voting system.

  I prefer approval voting to IRV and Condorcet voting because it's much easier to explain how a winner is determined, but any of those would be a vast improvement over the current system. Ranged voting is another reasonable alternative.

  [1] href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

  « less full details »

  6 comments for Idea: Allow voters to vote for more than one presidential candidate.

  Submitted by jsnow 3 years ago

• I agree

  Voting is Disabled

  -22 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  New Strategies and Techniques »

  Direct Democracy with Revokable Proxy Voting By Subject

  Given different expertise levels and passions to engage in certain topics, some people are simply far more expert than others. If one were able to vote on anything, or alternatively assign one's votes on particular subject areas to someone else they trust to vote wisely, then one could have confidence that their vote is most aligned with their intent. Proxied votes could be re-proxied to others as desired, potentially ...more »

  Given different expertise levels and passions to engage in certain topics, some people are simply far more expert than others. If one were able to vote on anything, or alternatively assign one's votes on particular subject areas to someone else they trust to vote wisely, then one could have confidence that their vote is most aligned with their intent. Proxied votes could be re-proxied to others as desired, potentially creating a strong voting blocks of like-minded individuals.

  « less full details »

  3 comments for Idea: Direct Democracy with Revokable Proxy Voting By Subject

  Submitted by bobhilt1 3 years ago

Displaying all 17 Ideas

All feedback received through the Open Government Dialogue is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

• Crowdsourcing
• Crowdsourcing Software
• iPhone Feedback
• OpenGov
• Suggestion Box
• Idea Management Software
• Employee Suggestion Box
• Brainstorming Tool
• Innovation Management