The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a system used by the College Bowl owners to determine which teams should play in which college bowl. Before BCS the Rose Bowl was considered at one time to be the final determination of which team is the national champion.Under old rules the sports writers, coaches , and others made this decision using real data and secretive subjectivity to categorize teams and make the matchups. BCS added a "computer algorithm" to add more logic (and mystery) to this process to legitimize the outcomes. With "sports junkie" activity now in Congress and preferences expressed by the President himself, it seems that a congesssional inquiry may reveal how much "truth" there is in all this and why a "bracketology based" extensive playoff season is needed.
While sports fans debate the merits of all this, one can only imagine how this may affect the grades of players in college who are supposed to be studying. With a prolonged season they may never go to class. It is also questionable if the existing system or any improvements would satisfy the most rabid fans, but nobody asked them. Sports elites make all the rules and apply their "black box" formula to choose the champion. No voice for fans who pay for all this and add to the enjoyment of watching the game.
American Idol is a very popular variety show and entertains millions of viewers worldwide. Ambitious, dreamy contestants come from all over and go through a series of selection filters in the audition process months before the airing of the live TV program.This practice eliminates many "artists" from the list before the shows multi night airings with procedures designed to bring the best short list to the TV program.Over a few weeks these finalists are weened weekly until the final show when the winner is selected.
The process, as depicted, allows viewers to vote with their cell phones by calling a unique number for each contestant to express their choice. The purist may question how each vote or cell call is treated when multiple calls from the same cell or phone number are made.It is also bewildering how the computer/phone handling system may track such a large volume and tabulate the results without losing a call (vote), to say nothing of suspicions regarding the audit trail of this complex. The true skeptic wonders where the fraud begins and ends. There are ways to block calls made from the same cell or phone number after the first call placing the the single allocated vote. THere are firms that can certify the accuracy and integrity of such a system to assure the most suspicious, like myself.
But , hey, this is show biz and entertainment. Not one man one vote.Not a democracy.
A Voter Referendum process for Connecticut would allow the voting public to "up or down" a proposed law or change to an existing law as is common practice in many states.Voter registration lists are used to authenticate only those allowed to vote. The process is clearly defined, accurate and can be tracked to insure integrity.One man, one vote, for all. We don't need to invent or purchase anything to make this happen.
There is no better way to get the input of all to determine the will of the people and their wishes to make Connecticut a better place to live. No elites, no filters, no questions of integrity, all data and information is transparent and is considered by all to make the decision.We don't need elites to decide what we need and dictate that through arrogant laws.
In the 2009 legislative session when a Voter Referendum bill was proposed, no public hearing was held and the bill died. This 2010 session has seen extensive discretionary debate over Sunday sales of liquor that could have been applied towards this important topic.
Hey, you could call your legislator and tell him what you want. Will he listen?
For additional comments on this topic please view my blog history;
1. April 1, 2009, Who Speaks for Connecticut?
2. March 21, 2009, Voice of Anonymity
3. March 24, 2009, Term is Up!
Showing posts with label voter referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voter referendum. Show all posts
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Referendum for Referendums
In Connecticut the legislature has the power to to initiate an amendment to the Constitution without consulting the public but requiring public ratification.It was done in November 1992 to define a budgetary spending cap methodology to limit legislative spending. This has not proven to be adequate to constrain or limit spending and seems to have lost its purpose considering Connecticut's current 2009 budgetary dilemma. The amendment as stands, lacks clarity,definitions, realistic procedures, and allows manipulation to the point of rendering the amendment useless and ineffective.
The fraud continues as in November 2009 the citizens are facing a saga of budgetary crisis when the legislature did not make the hard decisions and rolled them to a future day during the 2009 session and passed a budget with gimmicks and borrowing. Nobody could agree on the "Revenue Forecast" was often cited as an excuse and required by the spending cap constitutional amendment. Knowing full well that this was not a "balanced budget" means the legislature is guilty of intentionally violating the spending cap so ill-defined by them in the constitution. They are immune from prosecution, but will face voter wrath in November 2010.
If they cannot or will not do what is necessary it is essential for the people to speak, take control, and do the right thing. With legislative authority and a favorable popular vote in November 2010 the constitution can be re-amended to provide a much needed set of parameters, definitions, priorities and boundaries to finally cap the budget and insure a more meaningful spending limit. When such a referendum is placed before the voters in 2010 everyone has a chance to fill the definition void and make concrete decisions about what is best for Connecticut.Consider this an "appeal referendum" now for the legislature to allow a voter referendum so the citizens can clean up this mess and move the state towards fiscal responsibility.This action should be a test for candidates seeking office who should not get a vote if they do not support voter referendums.
Under the current constitution adopted in 1965 and amended 30 times since, it is a 2 step process to make amendments:
1. Both houses of the legislature must first pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment by a 3/4 majority in each chamber
2.The resolution is submitted to the popular vote for ratification in the next election
This "appeal referendum" is a request by the voters to have the legislature do the right thing and fix their definitions and processes to avoid these budget impasses in the future.
A more bold approach would have the legislature hear the voice of the people and propose an additional amendment. A voter referendum or "voter initiative" as an additional capacity to voters when a similar crisis occurs would provide the direct voter involvment often used in other states to resolve the impass on what the public really wants. Where a spending cap definition is the target today, future crisis could also involve direct voter reconciliation on issues not so complex or when a contentious indecision occurs.One party majority power is not the right answer all the time. This gives the voter power to resolve conflicts and have a true democratic voice and reflection of all values not bounded by parties or brokering.
The legislature should act NOW to propose this amendment so we may vote on it in November 2010. If they don't, they do not deserve our support with a revolution to follow..
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Who speaks for the people of Connecticut?
In the 2009 January session of the Connecticut Legislature, 3 bills (SB071, SJ017, and SJ018) were introduced to allow the voters of Connecticut the ability to propose initiatives and referendums directly to the people. This granted authority by the legislature requires a constitutional amendment by way of the legislature.
In simple terms, Connecticut citizens would have the right to propose laws through direct initiative and the power to approve or reject a statute through a referendum to the people subject popular vote. Additionally:
1) A 5% threshold of those registered to vote in the preceding gubernatorial election must sign the petition. Other formulas may be considered.
2) The proposition must pass legal tests set forth. Individual rights or those of minority groups, for example, as codified in the Bill of Rights, must be protected.
3) This allows the public to directly vote on bills already passed or allowed by activist judiciary if enough people feel so inclined or outraged.
There is a volume of literature on this topic and other States, like Massachusetts and California , have used this technique to cap taxes, for example.
It is conspicuous in Connecticut that such a notion does not resonate with voters. The arrogance of our legislature does not seem to be enough to trigger enough activism on this issue to spur an outcry for justice.
The Constitutional Convention was embarrassingly defeated in the November 2008 election. Controversial laws have been passed despite attempts by legislators who encouraged direct voter involvement with a referendum; gay/same sex marriage for example was never really voted upon, the courts made us do it and we passively went along. Public opinion is not really sought and special interests groups support most legislation as directly benefitting their cause with testimony.
Without such a tool available to the voters at large we can only remain hostage to those in power who neither listen nor respect direct democracy where the voices and will of the people should be heard. We should be allowed a voice when controversy creates divides among the people that violate our fundamental moral codes and force/push us in the direction of selecting winners and losers with a moral compass that knows not which direction is true.
This is not multi-partisan reconciliation and as a result the divisiveness (attributed to diversity?) continues to grow as more causes provoke or promote their need for more recognition contrary to that of the majority. If we are to have more government involvement in social engineering, then the real elites are the elected government leaders making arbitrary choices based upon on their preferences, choices, and views on how the world should look, think or act.
Yes, tyrants can exist in a democracy, but only until the people realize a governmental crisis and that revolutionary tactics are necessary. Direct democracy is the best law abiding, civilized, peaceful, and respectful tool we have to work within the bounds of our society including its values.
In simple terms, Connecticut citizens would have the right to propose laws through direct initiative and the power to approve or reject a statute through a referendum to the people subject popular vote. Additionally:
1) A 5% threshold of those registered to vote in the preceding gubernatorial election must sign the petition. Other formulas may be considered.
2) The proposition must pass legal tests set forth. Individual rights or those of minority groups, for example, as codified in the Bill of Rights, must be protected.
3) This allows the public to directly vote on bills already passed or allowed by activist judiciary if enough people feel so inclined or outraged.
There is a volume of literature on this topic and other States, like Massachusetts and California , have used this technique to cap taxes, for example.
It is conspicuous in Connecticut that such a notion does not resonate with voters. The arrogance of our legislature does not seem to be enough to trigger enough activism on this issue to spur an outcry for justice.
The Constitutional Convention was embarrassingly defeated in the November 2008 election. Controversial laws have been passed despite attempts by legislators who encouraged direct voter involvement with a referendum; gay/same sex marriage for example was never really voted upon, the courts made us do it and we passively went along. Public opinion is not really sought and special interests groups support most legislation as directly benefitting their cause with testimony.
Without such a tool available to the voters at large we can only remain hostage to those in power who neither listen nor respect direct democracy where the voices and will of the people should be heard. We should be allowed a voice when controversy creates divides among the people that violate our fundamental moral codes and force/push us in the direction of selecting winners and losers with a moral compass that knows not which direction is true.
This is not multi-partisan reconciliation and as a result the divisiveness (attributed to diversity?) continues to grow as more causes provoke or promote their need for more recognition contrary to that of the majority. If we are to have more government involvement in social engineering, then the real elites are the elected government leaders making arbitrary choices based upon on their preferences, choices, and views on how the world should look, think or act.
Yes, tyrants can exist in a democracy, but only until the people realize a governmental crisis and that revolutionary tactics are necessary. Direct democracy is the best law abiding, civilized, peaceful, and respectful tool we have to work within the bounds of our society including its values.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Voice of Anonymity.....?
We should all know that in CT most legislation proposed is done through the work of special interest groups who approach individual legislators or committees. The process is well known, documented, and controlled (somewhat), but is widely recognized for its values (to some):
1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.
2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.
3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.
The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:
1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.
2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.
3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.
The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:
1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.
2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.
3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.
4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.
Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)
Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.
I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.
How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.
Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.
This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.
With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!
A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.
1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.
2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.
3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.
The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:
1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.
2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.
3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.
The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:
1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.
2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.
3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.
4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.
Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)
Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.
I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.
How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.
Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.
This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.
With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!
A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
CT 2009 budget
You have a squeeky clean governor, Jodi Rell, trying her best to create a responsible budget and adhere to the shortfall forecasts. Still, nothing happens.It makes you wonder, if she is the "good", where must the evil lie? The answer? The Legislature, with inert Republicans!
How to extract a budget from them as gradiodse as it is likely to be, (see Obamamania) , also is troublesome. Maybe the voters with a voter referendum could establish an adult version and pass it. How hard could that be if we practice "core" values?
How to extract a budget from them as gradiodse as it is likely to be, (see Obamamania) , also is troublesome. Maybe the voters with a voter referendum could establish an adult version and pass it. How hard could that be if we practice "core" values?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)