We The People: A National Referendum Mechanism

This proposal is based upon the conjecture that no significant monetary reform could be enacted within the current federal government system where both representatives and appointed advisors are heavily influenced by traditional private-banking lobbyists and power-brokers, and where 'transparency' of reform proposals, deliberations, and decisions is highly unlikely.

President Obama has encouraged all of us to 'get involved', and to express our ideas, opinions and priorities directly to him and his staff; he intends to employ new internet technologies to make this feasible. However, in the most recent interactive effort at "citizensbriefingbook.change.gov" site, it was very clear to information professionals that the implementation was seriously flawed; we posted our suggestions and do hope that he can employ some skilled technologists now (computer software designers, statisticians, and human-factors/polling experts).

Such a properly re-designed website would be a great informal mechanism for government to be more aware of and responsive to 'we the people'. Regular statistical summaries of results (and responses by officials) should be quickly posted for us to see.

Beyond that, I want to propose that a more formal mechanism be instituted, somewhat along the lines of 'popular referendums' at the State level. It would be administered by an executive 'Popular Referendum Agency' setup in a manner to assure reasonable independence from political pressure and resistance to fraud. Voters would be US citizens who choose to qualify and be registered. Presentation of issues and voting could then be implemented at a secure internet site. Qualification criteria would be of two forms: initial-general; issue-specific. Example general criteria: {citizenship; no felony convictions; prior public/military/charitable service record; character-references}. Example issue-specific criteria: 'Proof of Understanding' such as a passing grade in online-test regarding the basic statement of the proiblem and its proposed solutions.

Of course, for some initial development period, the results would be limited in force (advisory); but after the mechanism design and implementation are tested and confirmed, there should be some levels of 'legally-binding', depending on the type of issue addressed. The process would be something like this:

1) with some input from the informal mechanism (website, pollsters, senior executive officials and legislators), a 'votable-referendum-issue' statement would be formulated. This statement would be composed of something like:
(a) definition: a brief description of the problem issue
(b) motivation: why this issue is considered important
(c) facts: a balanced, moderately-detailed analysis of the known facts of the issue
(d) acts: a list of proposed solutions, with brief expert pro & con commentary
(e) 'The Proposed Ballot' composed of:
(1) Importance Measure ('vote' of 0..10, where 0 is least important).
(2) for each item in (d) solution-list ('vote' of 'confidence in' = 0..10).
(3) Objections: free-form text whereby voter can briefly express objections/suggestions, especially if he feels the entire formulation of the issue is misleading.

(x) Legal-Binding-Level-Category: {Advisory-Only; Mandate Executive-Branch Action; Mandate Legislative-Branch Consideration; Legally-Binding-subject-to-Presidential-veto; ... }

I'd like to illustrate with some referendum-worthy examples (obviously biased to my personal priorities):

[[1]] The Iraq war. Solutions: [1] Immediate termination by unilateral withdrawal of US forces. [2] Unconditional gradual withdrawal during max 1 year [3] Conditional withdrawal measured by level of enemy attacks vs.proven ability of current government. [4] Long-term occupation with consent of current government. ...

[[2]] The Afghan war. Solutions: [1] Immediate termination by unilateral withdrawal of US forces. [2] escalate by increasing military to a max of 3x current level ...

[[3]] Banking Financial Crisis. Solutions: [1] provide 'bail-out' funding to selected large banks identifed as 'too big to fail', to a max of $X trillion [2] temporarily nationalize all banks identified as insolvent [3] create an alternate banking system dominated by a non-private (US Treasury) National Central Bank, which will assume the assets and duties of the current Federal Reserve and all identified insolvent private banks.

[[4]] Federal Funding Crisis. Solutions: [1] continue using traditional methods. [2] Employ only 'money-creation' by a National Central Bank, which will eliminate the need for federal taxes of any kind, nor interest-bearing Treasury Debt.



The original posting in full context is at:
http://bright-ideas-thomas.blogspot.com ... anism.html

Please feel free to publish this, with simple attribution of author/date:
'Thomas Flood, December 2008'. I welcome comments and suggestions (tx@2346.net).

Nice work, Thomas, if you can get it. And welcome to the forum.

I am afraid your fine ideas will not get very far until our nation and world get a bit more beat up, and start looking more seriously at meaningful reforms and changes on a national level.

State and local reforms might be a bit easier to enact.

Nice to have you aboard.

Thanks for the Welcome, Jere. BTW, my blogtitle "bright ideas" is a family joke (my mom often admonished me "Now Thomas, Don't go getting any bright ideas").
About 15 years ago i totally gave up on political-level involvement, discouraged not only by the rampant and pervasive gov deception and abuse of power, but even more discouraged by near-universal complacency/naivete amongst family, friends, and acquaintances with whom i shared these ideas. Or maybe it is my own naivete, because it seems to me that 'we the people' still _do_ have the power -- whether it be to end war, or take control of the money system... apart from the ~50% of population that are Bush-style 'patriots', it seems obvious that if the other 50% (or even 25%, or 10%) were to finally get together in a conscious, determined, co-ordinated manner -- 'change' would happen (hence my stealth idea for a formal Popular Referendum mechanism at the federal level). I've always been incredulous about the 'no choice' attitude of victimhood. I've often wondered whether the explanation is indeed 'something put in the water supply' (or subliminally in TV programming)? Anyway, my choice has been to work on what David Icke (http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/in ... dicke6.htm)labels the 'underlying energetic level', aka, the 'matrix programming' -- or, being also a gnostic christian, what i simply call 'meditative prayer'. But for a brief moment at the inception of the Obama Era, i thought it might be worth surfacing for a 'public appearance' -- and was glad to discover Ellen Brown's writings (via 'Yes') and this site. Thanks again, and good luck to us all!

Yeah, the thing is, like you said, the politicians are all owned by the money power.
And the money power is willing to kill to stay in power and retain control of the money supply. So, what can actually be done short of violent overthrow?

Thanks to angrycitizen for the reply. Here's my opinion for what it is worth:

Anger (and consequent violence) is a natural response, but counterproductive, because in fact the elite 'controllers' both anticipate such and use it deliberately to consolidate their control. So, i am fundamentally against a violent reaction.
You can view my other posts for more suggestions on a nonviolent agenda to restore personal liberty. I'm also confident that a peaceful victory is assured.

I recommend you view:
[ http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/dicke5.htm ]
and read his other videos and books for a full overview and strategy.

Thanks, and best wishes!