by Greg Coleridge and David Cobb
by Greg Coleridge and David Cobb
Workshop at Democracy Convention | Saturday, August 5, Minneapolis, MN
David Cobb and Greg Coleridge
Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy Principals
July 19-25, 2017
Four years ago, we met around a table, smacked our foreheads and decided it was high time we featured Clevelanders doing cool things in the region. We put together a long list of candidates. The only real qualifications were that we thought our subjects were interesting: They were young, old, black, brown, white, straight, gay, trans, cis, artistic, entrepreneurial, social, political and smart. They were weird and wonderful and enthusiastic about things that we sometimes were, and sometimes were not, also enthusiastic about. We had so much fun talking to our subjects that we did the same thing the next year, and the year after that, and the year after that.
This is our fifth annual People Issue, and once again we’ve been bowled over by the energy and diversity of the human beings with whom we share a city. In the following pages, you’ll meet artists, activists and an architect; writers, teachers and chefs. You’ll meet a rapper and a lawyer, a hardwood restoration specialist and a naturalist. You might meet someone you know — but you’ll certainly meet 27 people who you’ll want to know.
This is the Scene People Issue: Don’t be shy.
People 2017 photos by Ken Blaze Photography.
It happened again. For the fifth time in our nation’s history, we have a President of the United States who received fewer popular votes than his opponent.
As if we needed more political developments to question the legitimacy of our political system, we can now add to the growing list a President claiming a mandate to implement his agenda who lost the election by 2.86 million votes.
This issue for many is all about the individual persons who actually won and lost. It shouldn’t be. The larger, more fundamental issue is about democracy. It’s about the credibility and legitimacy of our political system.
The fundamental question is very simple: should citizens in the United States have the right to have their individual votes count equally when electing their President? Yes or No?
While Congressional Committees are now investigating the threat posed to our elections by the Russians, including possible hacking of private emails, every citizen should be hacked off by the proven threat to democracy on full public display every four years by the built-in system for (s)electing the President: the Electoral College.
Never mind a possible single wall built between Mexico and the U.S. in the next four years, multiple walls were erected in our own original Constitution to keep We the People outside our own government and governance.1 Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay and other of our nation’s “founders,” fearing the potential political power of “the rabble,” had little interest in establishing anything approaching a real democracy.
The Electoral College is one of those walls. A relic of the immoral and heinous slavery era of our nation, the Electoral College was included in the Constitution to protect the political power of southern slave states when electing the President. Since slaves had zero rights, including the right to vote, an actual democratic national popular voting system would threaten the institution of slavery.
A nifty alternative was proposed by southern slave masters counting the “votes” of states over those of citizens, with each slave counted as 3/5ths of a real person when determining the number of proportional “electors” representing that state. This inflated the political power of slave states, protecting the barbaric institution. Democracy, like many slaves who resisted their inhumane treatment, was tarred and featured. Little wonder that four of the nation’s first five Presidents were from slave-dense Virginia.
Adding to the dismay was the requirement that each state, regardless of population, would receive an additional two electors — representing the number of Senators of each state. The democratic distortion was in full display (or decay) before the ink dried on the parchment of the original Constitution.
The sordid link between the Electoral College and slavery transcends its birth. Rutherford B. Hayes was the second loser of the popular vote to become President. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden in 1877. Twenty electoral votes were “unresolved.” The (s)election of Hayes as President was determined by a special commission, controlled by the CEO of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and made up of Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. A deal was struck, The Compromise of 1877: Hayes would receive the 20 electoral votes if he agreed to pull federal troops from the South. This put an end to Reconstruction and the launch of Jim Crow racist laws. Those same troops were shifted to put down the first national labor strike in 1877, resulting in the death of over 100 strikers. Other troops were sent to fight the “Indian Wars” in the West, which stole land and created a different form of enslavement – Indian Reservations.2 Thank you Electoral College!
A few years ago Donald Trump said: “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”
Views can and do obviously change when the shoe is on the other foot – or in his case Tweets are coming from another smartphone. It’s not surprising that Electoral College outrage is so partisan. It’s the same with gerrymandering. Those doing the line drawing to benefit their political party and marginalize the other party always think it’s fair, even if the drawing paints a democratically damning picture. The Electoral College is, however, a nonpartisan assault on real democracy.
The major pillar of the Electoral College defense is the argument that it provides balance in ensuring political voice and power to rural and unpopulated communities and states. The point was made, for example, that the entire 2.86 million popular vote advantage of Clinton came from just California and New York and, thus, a popular voting system would in effect be determined by wishes, wills and whims of these two coastal states.3
Numbers can be parsed, of course, in ways to make exactly the opposite point. Texas, with its 38 electoral votes, can be claimed to have determined the national election. Given that Trump received 74 more electoral votes than Clinton, it can be asserted that it was the wishes, wills and whims of the Lone Star State alone that determined the final outcome.
There’s a reason that no other nation on the planet self-identifying as a “democracy” or “democratic republic” has anything like an Electoral College. Why? Because it violates the basic democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” Every vote should count and be weighted identically. Under the Electoral College, voters in small states have greater power per person than in more populous states due to every state, regardless of population, automatically receiving two electoral votes. It’s simple math.
Smaller states also have disproportionate power in the U.S. Senate. Gerrymandered congressional districts result in one political party (Republicans at the moment) having far better representation in the House of Representatives than their number of registered party members would warrant in state after state. If you add in the rights of minorities from majorities (be they individuals or institutions) inherently protected by the U.S. Supreme Court, a solid argument can be made that the constitutional scale is tipped well away from the right or power of popular, majority rule.
The fundamental democratic “unit” in our country is the human person (or in the case of elections, voters), not “the state” or “substate” like such as individual states, counties, cities, wards, or precincts. It should be irrelevant, therefore, how many states, counties, cities, wards or precincts presidential candidates won, but only how many eligible human votes they received. That’s how winning candidates are determined for Senate, House of Representatives, state elected office, county elected office, mayor, councilperson, even ward precinct committee person. Governors in all 50 states are elected by popular vote. Should not the same be true for the governor of all states – the President?
It’s only the Electoral College that permits losers to be winners.
If this were as fair as its promoters suggest in choosing a President, it would be a relative breeze to develop an equivalent Electoral College-friendly system at the state level to elect, say, U.S. Senators. Compared to the months it takes for state officials every decade to create gerrymandered congressional and state senate and representative districts, designing such a system would be a relative cakewalk. Winning the greatest number of counties in their a state with rural counties weighted more heavily would elect U.S. Senators regardless of the state’s overall popular vote. Why hasn’t it happened? Because no politician or “Blue Ribbon Commission” could sell it to the public.
Winning when losing broadens and deepens the ever-growing legitimacy crisis of the Presidency in particular and U.S. political system in general.
The hallmark of one person, one vote as the mechanism to determine outcomes transcends politics to include virtually every civil society organization. Even “Dancing with the Stars” honors one person, one vote in their annual faux electronic elections. You can’t get any more culturally legit!
There are very few moments when fundamental flaws in governing institutions are so blatantly revealed. This is one of them.
The challenge will be to address fundamental democratic constitutional flaws amidst responding to scores of anticipated horrific public policy proposals from the Trump Administration.4 It’s what the Move to Amend (www.movetoamend.org) campaign to abolish corporate constitutional rights and money defined as constitutionally-protected free speech faces in the coming years.
It’s the same old story for people of conscience: deciding where to strategically place their strategic time, energy and resources. Should we focus on electing or unelecting public officials? Should we advocate for better laws and regulations? Should we organize for long-term structural and institutional change?
The answer is, of course, some of each. They’re all needed. They all, if understood as a package, reinforce one another.
Despite the in-our-faces contradiction between the myth of one person, one vote that we’re raised to believe our nation upholds compared with the reality the Electoral College presents, little activist energy exists for a constitutional amendment campaign to abolish this antidemocratic arrangement, despite an Amendment being introduced in late 2016 by former Senator Barbara Boxer.
Abolishing the Electoral College is more likely to occur as part of a larger package of constitutional “Democracy Amendments” in the future. This will require that citizens continue organizing a larger “democracy movement” which undergirds many current social, economic, political and environmental efforts. As a reaction to the evaporating myth of democracy in our country, there is growing dedication to a democracy movement capable of successfully pushing a package of “Democracy Amendments.” It could be a reality much sooner than we think.
In the meantime, there is an alternative strategy that would neutralize the Electoral College and its democratic distortions. Ten states and the District of Columbia have already passed legislation awarding their respective Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. These states and DC account for 165 electors. If additional states with a cumulative total of 105 electors take the same action, the Electoral College would, in effect, be trumped with one person, one vote becoming the means for deciding the next President.
Being hacked off about the Electoral College is wholly legitimate. Our task is to convert that anger into positive vision, engagement and common action on behalf of an electoral system with democratic integrity.
1 A list of undemocratic Constitutional provisions has been itemized in an earlier POCLAD article, A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND, http://poclad.org/BWA/2007/BWA_2007_MAR.html#3
2 Human Rights for Human Beings, Not Corporations,
3 The word “coast” is constantly used in this and other contexts not as a geographic descriptor but as a form of derision. “The coast” infers being on the edge or fringe, compared to being mainstream, or the center. The Midwest is authentic or real because it lies in the “heartland.” Interesting how those who use the word “coast” with such derision never use it when describing, say, Texas, with considerable coastline on the southern edge or fringe of the nation.
4 There would have been many horrific policies, though in some cases of a different set, deserving of immediate reaction and resistance if Clinton had been elected.
The first ever Move to Amend “Leadership Summit” took place in early May. Among the nearly 100 MTA leaders from across the country were several POCLAD “principals.” Below are their reflections of the event.
Jim Price (also Co-Chair, Move to Amend in Tuscaloosa, AL)
My foremost impression of the Move to Amend Inaugural Leadership Summit was the seamless way the staff and volunteer leadership worked together. I have been part of many such events and realize that things are constantly happening and adjustments must be made. It is the way leadership goes about addressing those situations that tells a lot about them. This combination of staff and top volunteer leadership handled these challenges with good humor, collaboration and respect. Congratulations!
Another strong impression for me was the success of having over 50 participants lobby on Capitol Hill and obtain three additional co-signers to House Joint Resolution 48. The experience gained in this activity should pay dividends back home as these leaders continue to train their colleagues and expand their lobbying effectiveness at all governmental levels within their congressional districts.
There were many other high points for me. Ashley Sanders’ facilitation of the “Personhood Timeline Exercise” bordered on perfection. She made every word count! The visioning exercise on Sunday morning was a mind freeing experience for me, as I was able to think of a democratic society beyond the constraints of our current U.S. Constitution. To have that serious discussion with like-minded, small “d” democrats was exciting and bonding!
The session on “Building Relationships across Issues and Movements” was nothing less than moving and powerful! The validating response of the audience to the speakers was inspiring. The session on Recruiting and Engaging volunteers taught me skills that can be incorporated into our affiliate’s activities. Relatedly, David Cobb’s facilitation of a discussion on “Communication across Aisles” helped me obtain a better grasp of how to use “conservative” language when speaking to those groups. Finally, the Talent in the Family show was creative and joyful! It brought levity and fun to the often serious work of Move to Amend.
In summary, I feel that all involved should be proud of a well-planned, thoughtfully organized and deftly conducted Move to Amend Inaugural Leadership Summit. Congratulations to all who played a part in making it a highly successful event!
Virginia Rasmussen (also a member of the Move to Amend National Leadership Team)
Conferences, Congresses, Summits — many of us have been to plenty of these in the course of our years in social change work. Some we remember fondly and others we don’t! Move to Amend’s recent Leadership Summit was uncommonly satisfying in my experience. What made it so? – Content that was on the mark in relation to affiliate members’ needs and growth and organization that was adept and well communicated. There must have been a few glitches, but staff or leadership team rose to intercept them before they hit the ground! No one was the wiser!
Learning took many forms from presentation and discussion to art and drama. We mastered a few “ins and outs” of effective lobbying from those MTAers with experience, and then put our know-how to work when meeting with Congressional representatives on Capitol Hill. During three of those visits representatives agreed to co-sponsor House Resolution (HR) 48, the We the People Amendment, bringing the current total to 17.
An especially fruitful afternoon was spent “Building Relationships across Issues and Movements,” with panelists from Black Lives Matter, United We Dream, and the NAACP’s Environmental and Climate Justice Program. The session provided an opportunity to find the common ground of our work against corporate rule whether the issue be immigration, mass incarceration, environment, or workers’ rights.
Workshops, panels and networking conversations dealt with such matters as how to recruit volunteers, pass resolutions and ballot initiatives for the 28th Amendment in local and state jurisdictions, include fun and artful Civil Disobedience actions, and communicate/organize effectively on-line. We discussed how to engage across the aisle, learned to use public speaking as a means to organizing, and told our stories about corporate rule through the lively and participatory “Theater of the Oppressed.”
The completed Ten-Year Strategic Plan was unveiled at the start of the Summit. It joins MTA’s vision and mission with a specific agenda and yearly benchmarks in pursuit of passing the We the People Amendment. This plan was not “breaking news” to most of those present. Affiliate members participated in its development over many months of conversation and phone conferencing. This thoughtful effort is evidence that Move to Amend seeks its goals with intention and means what it says! Check it out at http://www.movetoamend.org/plan
Greg Coleridge (also helps coordinate the Move to Amend Ohio Network and serves as Director of the NE Ohio American Friends Service Committee)
The Move to Amend (MTA) Leadership Summit was wonderfully organized.
It was a further step in the growing movement to end corporate rule and achieve real justice in all its forms. Twenty years ago a few small groups of individuals, including POCLAD, were researching, teaching one another, and holding small public gatherings on the mind-numbing concept of illegitimate corporate constitutional rights. This work is now a national force on behalf of a constitutional amendment abolishing corporate constitutional rights and denying that money is equal to political speech. It has turned into a movement that takes on tangible, current problems and, in the just-released 10-year strategic plan, sets a timetable to address them.
Such fundamental change, however, requires a movement that will not and cannot be coopted or divided and conquered. This was the reason much of the Leadership Summit focused — through workshops, plenary panels and group exercises — on not only “getting big money out of elections,” but on “ending corporate rule” (to counter cooptation by those working merely on campaign finance reform) and on creating real democracy by ending oppression in its many forms (to counter being divided and conquered).
It’s very apparent that movements for justice, peace, democracy, and sustainability are tied to directly challenging our nation’s power elite that has an iron grip on economic and political decision-making. Issues must be connected. Dignity and respect of all must be affirmed. Movements must be united.
It was a privilege to co-facilitate two workshops on organizing MTA resolution and citizen initiative campaigns with a leader of the WAmend effort in the State of Washington that collected over 330,000 signatures for a ballot initiative this November. The commitment, selflessness and persistence of MTA organizers all over the country are impressive.
Whether by accident or fate, the personification of the intellectual and integrity connection between POCLAD and MTA joyfully occurred during the Convention when we celebrated the 80th birthday of Virginia Rasmussen. Virginia’s long-time involvement with POCLAD includes having helped unearth the history of public control over the corporate form and engaged with others on the findings. She also helped popularize the term “corporate personhood” and grappled with others to reapply democratic strategies like revoking corporate charters in the modern era. Regarding MTA, she currently service on its Leadership Team working to enact the “We the People” Constitutional amendment and works with others in the growing movement to rethink and envision a more democratic and just U.S. Constitution.
It was a grand celebration.
It was a good gathering.
Interview of David Cobb, Move to Amend National Outreach Director and principal of the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy on his “barnstorming” speaking tour in Ohio, elections, social movements, corporate rule, race and oppression, and the Move to Amend 10 year plan for ending corporate constitutional rights and money as speech.