Let's put OSTRACISM on the table

[metamars]

I wrote a dailykos diary entry called Time to start formally ostracizing Democrats and Republicans. After reading the lastest DU complaints about Pelosi, I've decided to cross post it here, though if you want the links check out the original at: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/111936/147/313/539724

I included a poll with my diary, wherein I asked Do you believe that a formal ostracism would empower voters? At the time, the ratio of 'yes' to 'no' answers was about 2:1.

I have a simple philosophy with regard to crappy Congress Critters - You're fired! (A tip of the hat to Donald Trump :-) ) We need to get rid of the Nancy Pelosis in Congress, and not just complain about them.

The FISA capitulation vote reminds us, once again, of how out of step Congress is with the voting public, it's putative boss. Ancient Athens practiced a formal ostracism in conducting its democracy, determined by the voting public, to banish citizens for 10 years. While the practice of Athenian ostracism was uneven (and sometimes silly and unethical), it also is credited with helping Athens survive. I call for a formal ostracism, by registered Democrats and Republicans of Democrat and Republican members of Congress, respectively. The penalty would not be banishment, but rather informing of the office holders' constituents of their dubious representative's status. With any luck, enough ostracisms would ensure that incumbents stand no chance of re-election.
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

The FISA capitulation vote reminds us, once again, of how out of step Congress is with the voting public, it's putative boss. Ancient Athens practiced a formal ostracism in conducting its democracy, determined by the voting public, to banish citizens for 10 years. While the practice of Athenian ostracism was uneven (and sometimes silly and unethical), it also is credited with helping Athens survive. I call for a formal ostracism, by registered Democrats and Republicans of Democrat and Republican members of Congress, respectively. The penalty would not be banishment, but rather <em>informing of the office holders' constituents</em> of their dubious representative's status. With any luck, enough ostracisms would ensure that incumbents stand no chance of re-election.


Mott Stoller of openleft.com has asked the readers of his blog What would you like to say to Steny Hoyer? (After the recent FISA capitulation vote.) My answer is rather lengthy, and involves writing no letter at all, so I've decided to write up a diary entry, and post it here. The realization of my answer is long overdue, and if anybody out there can make it happen, please do so.

I wouldn't write a damn thing to Stenny Hoyer, because I don't think Hoyer gives a hoot about anything I would say. But I can think of something his constituents would give a hoot about, which would help rid us of sell-outs like Hoyer.

Some time ago, I wrote out my thoughts, born mostly out of my disgust with Pelosi on the one hand, as well as the Democrats, in general, rolling over on a previous 'battle', for a revival of ostracism. I firmly believe that the Constitution is defective, in that there is no provision for removing Congress people. The President can be impeached, but how can we dump Pelosi? Then there's the whole issue of incumbency being so difficult for challengers to overcome. I don't want Congress people feeling secure in their jobs (or worse, yet, feeling secure only if they please plutocratic interests, and count on skill in managing public perception for us 'little people'). In the modern day business world, most of us have to perform. Why shouldn't incumbents feel the same, of their putative bosses? Why not a continual improvement of Congressional personnel, such that the American public is empowered to give out essentially report cards, and the worst 5% (for example) of the 'class' are sure to get the boot, every 2 years? Many businesses have periodic layoffs, looking to get rid of their worst non-performers. Should not the government of the most powerful nation on the earth be subjected to a similar pruning mechanism? Especially if you believe, as I do, that we need to get rid of not 5% of our 'representatives' (cough-cough), but rather 50%!

This idea was posted on the old Randi Rhodes message board, and is not available, now. However, it's basically a very simple idea.

The ancient Athenian democracy practiced a formal ostracism. ( See wikipedia's entry on ostracism ). While of dubious ethics (it could be practiced preemptively, to ward off damage to the government resulting from strife between factions), it is credited with having successfully made Athens more stable.

The ostracism penalty in Athens was banishment for 10 years. While I wouldn't mind banishing a good deal of our Congress critters for 10 or 20 years, that is hardly necessary. The way to accomplish a modern ostracism is to have postcards sent out to the constituents of Congress persons, informing them of their Congress persons' 'victory' in the ostracism voting, pointing them to an accompanying web site where the defects of the Congress person are discussed in a dedicated forum, and asking them to please, please consider voting for somebody else next time an election for that Congress person's office comes up. The title of the ostracism postcard would read something like this:

In 2008, Q2, Representative STENNY HOYER of Maryland has been OSTRACIZED by the registered Democrats of the United States of America

Ostracism votes would be conducted online, 4 times a year. That would provide frequent feedback (read: pressure from the public), as well as some opportunity for corrective behavior during the remaining part of their terms. Hopefully, any office holder who receives multiple ostracisms can count on NOT winning re-election. The voters in the ostracism process would not just be constituents, but voters throughout the country. (This is required, actually, since if you confined the voting to constituents, they would be forced - in the case of their Senators - to ostracize one of them, even if both were fine.) Preferably, only registered Democrats could vote, and they could only vote to ostracize members of the Democratic Party. (A similar process should be created for Republicans - they are also abusing their constituents....) Recipients of the postcards, on the other hand, would be any constituent household. The net result should be ostracism of, say, the worst 5% of Democrats, and the worst 5% of Republicans, every 4 months. So, when registered Democrats get to ostracize 5% of Democratic Congress people, if there's 50 such Senators and 218 Representatives, then the net result is that 3 Democratic Senators and 14 Democratic Representatives get ostracized. The voting could be held over a 2 week period, and ostracism voters could add comments. (These would hopefully be read by the staffs of the ostracized Congress critters.) If it's not possible to obtain rock solid lists of registered Democrats and Republicans, an alternative process might be to make all voting identities public, complete with address information, and a required online legal agreement that the individual doing the voting is who he or she says they are, and that they are indeed registered to the required party (Democrat or Republican), subject to legal penalties for fraud. (A wrinkle on this idea is to also send reminder postcards to constituents a week before election day, if any of their representatives has received even one ostracism during the previous 2 years, and furthermore is up for re-election.)

Most Americans do not follow politics on blogs such as this one, and if the issue doesn't get the amount of press that it should in the Main Stream Media, the Stenny Hoyers of this country can count on the public either not knowing about this issues, or else mostly forgetting. However, if they've received an ostracism report card, in the form of a post card mailed to their house, with links back to an informative web site, we can expect to have major influence with what I'll call the 'politically lazy'. A politically lazy voter is likely to be VERY susceptible to a reminder - especially a last minute reminder - of what his/her non-politically lazy PEERS think about a particular candidate. Not what pundits think, not what the media thinks, not what specials interests think, certainly not what the candidates' campaign staff thinks, but rather what fellow voters think. And that is something very powerful, akin to testimonials by common folk in advertisements, but with a negative twist.

Directing politically lazy Americans to an ostracism portal web site will could have a secondary benefit - some of these will stop being lazy, and some will become activists, instead! Once again, with a nod to wikipedia, we read that

//////////////////////////////////////////
A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot', which finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ἰδιώτης (idiōtēs), meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning. In his Funeral Oration, Pericles states: 'it is only we who regard the one not participating in these duties not as unambitious but as useless.'
//////////////////////////////////////////

A body politic full of idiotes has led directly to the current day situation with a shredded constitution. I can easily see, and at least hope, that an ostracism process would have an electrifying effect on potential voters, helping them make the transition from idiotes to responsible, empowered, and enthusiastic citizens.

To this end, there are networking possibilities with activist groups such as the Progressive Democrats of America and moveon.org. E.g., PDA members in an ostracized Congress person's district or state could also send out postcards or email, and offer to meet with interested voters in discussing alternatives to the ostracized incumbent. While the (Democratic) ostracism process should reflect the will of the registered Democrats as a whole, there is nothing wrong with activist or progressive sub-groups using the results of the ostracism to reach out to fellow voters to try and sway them in their direction. It's only natural that different members of the Democratic Party have different ideas about the direction that the Democratic Party should be going in.

I emailed Lawrence Lessig, of change-congress.org, with this idea a few months ago, and he replied "Very cool. Thanks." I wonder if there is now enough disgust with politicians misbehavin', such that the activist base can help put it aright using a revival of ostracism. Ultimately, IMO we also need to change the Constitution to allow removal of bad apples, but one step at a time.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Members of Congress do not represent all of us -- only their districts/states.

I have no trouble instituting a formal means of sending a nasty message to Congress or individual representatives, but we need to keep in mind that they do not answer to most of us.

[metamars]

4. Shouldn't their constituents be knowldegeable about their defects?

Please see my answer to the post below yours. The decisions of members of Congress who don't answer to most of us do answer to their constituents, and furthermore their decisions do affect us greatly. Casting an ostracism vote is a form of free speech, and in the end we are telling a Congress critters' constituents what we think about their representative. There is nothing legally binding in my ostracism proposal. The Ancient Athenian ostracism had a draconian penalty - often exile for 10 years - but I am not proposing anything so binding..

The Congress critter may not care about non-constituents, per se, but they will care about whatever decisions prompted their ostracism if their constituents are made aware of these decisions, and agree that Congress person X has got to go.

Let's not forget that most voters aren't terribly informed about what their representative does. An ostracism is like a bad report card, and will help keep voters on their toes. Keeping voters on their toes is a good thing - it means that they are more likely to reject the re-election of their representative when they are not similarly on their toes. We need to separate textbook notions of how a well functioning democracy works in the US from the putrid way that it actually does function. The ostracism process is targeting the reality of incumbents' arrogance and non-responsiveness to their putative bosses.

[jody]

2. Congress-critters are elected every two years. If their constituents keep returning them, then

apparently they are doing what the majority of voters want even though you and I don't agree.

The Democratic Party platform is the only document that purportedly defines what the party believes.

Are you suggesting the Dem Party ostracize senators and congresspersons if they don't vote according to the Dem Party platform?

[metamars]

3. The incumbency advantage should be removed, and constituents should be knowledgeable

As you should know, getting rid of incumbents is far more difficult than it should be. As Lawrence Lessig points out, a lot of the corruption of Congress comes from their doing things to make sure that campaign re-election funds keep on a-comin'. The point of ostracisms (and also no-confidence votes, which was the topic of another recent DU thread) is to help get rid of incumbents when re-election comes up, and to twist their arm to modify their behavior and voting before it comes up.

I'm not suggesting that the Democrat Party bigwigs ostracize Democrats who don't conform to a party platform. I'm suggesting (even begging :-) ) registered Democratic Party voters to exercize their free speech in the form of an ostracism. In order to be of use, the results of the ostracism need to be communicated to the voters of the state/district of the Senator/Representative. The most cost effective way I can think to do this is via postcards.

The criteria that voters use should be issues that matter to them, and not some platform document.

The question of the propriety of out-of-state and out-of-district voters voting to ostracize a Congress critter is an interesting one, and objections are not totally without merit. However, the issues that I care about are mostly Federal ones, and not, e.g., related to how much pork a Congress critter delivers to the homies. I can't think of any issue where the Democrats made my blood boil that had something to do only with Congress persons' home state. Frankly, I expect that the ostracism will be understood as expressing the will of registered Democratic Party voters nationwide, rendering judgement based on strictly national issues. What would be the point of ostracizing somebody on a purely state or local district related issue that really doesn't affect you?

In my proposal, voters receiving the ostracism notification post cards are directed to a web site where discussion of the factors leading to ostracism are discussed by fellow voters. It's to be hoped that voters receiving the post cards make it their business to review this information. And even if they don't, I'm still optimistic that the more activist-oriented Democrats who take politics seriously and responsibly will exercize their ostracism votes thoughtfully.

[jody]

5. Congresspersons represent people of all political parties, not just Dems and certainly not a handful

of activists with their own agenda talking to each other on a web site.

Obviously you feel very strongly about your idea but I don't understand how you can improve upon the current system of electing congresspersons every two years.

IMO failing to get reelected is the ultimate in ostracism.

[metamars]

6. Nobody is calling for changing election schedules

What I am calling for is changes in the information that voters have regarding incumbents, should most of the registered members of the Congress critter's party in question decide that he/she should be ostracized. An ostracism, along the lines I have written about in my proposal, will guarantee that some constituents will be better informed than otherwise. Think about it - if you got a postcard telling you that registered Democrats had ostracized your Senator or Representative, wouldn't you want to know why? I sure would. Even if I was of a different party. One happy byproduct of my proposal is that postcard notification will stimulate discussions with friends and family. Americans are not political enough - half of us don't vote for President!

Are you hunky dory with voters in Nancy Pelosi's district not to know about her misdeeds? If Nancy Pelosi was considered bad enough by registered Democrats to earn an ostracism, her constituents that are ignorant of reasons for the ostracism voters' displeasure would become informed; her constituents that aren't ignorant of reasons for the ostracism voters' displeasure would get an unhappy reminder. I don't see why either case should not be welcomed. (Unless your name is Nancy Pelosi, of course. :-) )

My proposal calls for registered Democrats ostracizing only Democrat office-holders, and for registered Republicans ostracizing only Republican office-holders. The reason is pragmatic - Republican dirty-trick artists will encourage Republicans to sabotage Democrat ostracism votes, and vice versa. Remembers Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? I don't want to leave the door wide open for partisan trickery.

As for a "handful" of activists with "their own agendas" talking to each other on a web site, it's partly because, to a large degree, that's all they do, that we need an ostracism mechanism. The activists of DU, e.g., should be eager to convince non-DU'ers to vote with them on the ostracism candidates. If they can't do that, then their viewpoint doesn't deserve to propagated to the constituents of whatever Congress critters does get ostracized.

Do you think DU'ers have some sort of moral duty not to communicate their views of crappy Congress critter, either to the crappy Congress critter themselves, or their constituents?
Do you thing non-DU'ers and non "activists" have some sort of moral duty not to communicate their views of crappy Congress critter, either to the crappy Congress critter themselves, or their constituents?

Don't both groups of people have a free speech right, under the Constiution, to do exactly that?

It seems to me that your concern is that activists will be over-represented, due to their greater concern about politics. This makes as much sense to me as complaining about people who bother to vote for President, because those who didn't vote didn't make their voices heard. Who is more to blame for choosing a bad President - somebody who voted, or somebody who did not?

My ostracism proposal is open to voting by all registered Democrats (for the Democratic ostracism) and all registered Republicans (for the Republican ostracism).

[jody]

7. I'm trying to understand how your proposal would effectively remove congresspersons from office if

you and those who agree with you want to target them.

IMO if there is no real threat of removal or failure to reelect, then why would a congressperson be worried?

Each congressperson represents about 690,000 people.

In the 2006 elections, 81 million people voted so that's about 186 thousand voters in each of the 435 congressional districts.

Note about 122 million people voted in the 2004 presidential election

I'm trying to understand how the process you want to create would affect those 435 congresspersons.

[metamars]

8. "no real threat to reelect" = incumbency advantage

That's a great part of the problem with 'bad' Congress critters, especially if they're long-time incumbents. They're not worried about getting re-elected. They're not responsive to public pressure. Not the way they should be. How else can you explain such lousy approval ratings?

Voters who are paying attention, who therefore have a basis for pronouncing a given Congress critter as 'bad' or not, would be empowered with a facility to communicate not only their displeasure, but the reasons for that displeasure, to the 'bad' Congress critters' constituents. If their arguments for ostracism are persuasive enough, and if the constituents are stimulated to pay attention, then their Congress critter will be sent on permanent vacation - no re-election, and no more incumbency.

As an example, do you think that if all of the complaints re Pelosi, as discussed at DU, were well known to her constituents, that she would have a prayer to be re-elected? I don't. This illustrates the problem that ostracism is supposed to solve - ostracism is an antidote for ignorance in the electorate. Solve that problem, and you solve a good part of the problem of arrogant and disconnected incumbency.

[jody]

9. You assert "ostracism is an antidote for ignorance in the electorate" but can you prove that? n/t

[metamars]

11. Can you prove that it isn't?

Can you prove the contrary?

Nobody is pretending that it's a perfect antidote. But seriously, where do you think most people get their information regarding a candidate? If their candidate is a major player, like Pelosi, they will get information from the crappy national news. And how accurate a picture will that be? Otherwise, it's likely to be a 60 second campaign ad that they saw on TV. Or an email, from a friend that got it from a friend that got it.... from a campaign worker that's twisting things to their own ends. Maybe they'll peruse campaign literature, or take in a debate or interview on PBS. Then again, maybe they won't.

One place I don't think most voters get much information from is from online political forums, such as DU. That should change, IMO. Although DU is OK, with some warts (though notable in allowing non-mainstream topics), many of the articles at dailykos.com, e.g., are both well researched and well written, and could easily appear in the NY Times (though without politically correct framing that a NY Times article is likely to have). If heretofore ignorant voters end up directed to forums of the quality of a dailykos, why should anybody lament their superior education?

Do you have a problem with less educated voters getting influenced to become more knowledgeable?

[jody]

13. I don't have to, you made the assertion. You might wish to browse "List of fallacies", link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[metamars]

16. Politics isn't mathematics, or logic

I've presented arguments for why I believe an ostracism process is a very desirable functionality that would enhance the functioning of democracy in the US. My argument is not a proof, nor is it presented as one. Your counter-arguments are practically non-existent, never mind weak. Apparently, your only arguments are that "Congresspersons represent people of all political parties" (which everybody knows) and constituents can vote not to return them to office (which, again, everybody knows).

When I asked you "Can you prove the opposite?", that was a rhetorical question. Of course, I know you can't, and for the same reason - the contrary proposition is not one of mathematics, or even logic (what I know of formal logic, anyway; I've studied mathematical logic, but not the classical kinds). Clearly, if you don't like the proposition, you should present counter arguments. Strong ones. I haven't seen you present any strong counter arguments, yet.

I'm not sure whether you're pulling my leg in treating a rhetorical question as a (formal) logical proposition, but supposing you're not, please tell us how many political debates you've ever heard where one of the debaters asked for proof from his/her opponent. E.g., do you think that if Obama claims that a capital gains tax increase of 4 percentage points will not hurt the economy, while making the tax burden fairer, that John McCain will say to him "Oh really, now prove it!" Obama can no more prove it than he can predict the future in any other area. What he can do is make a case for it, probably by citing an econometric study or two. And if McCain can't provide any decent counter arguments, viewers will be even less impressed with him merely asking a question whose contrary cannot be proven, either.

[jody]

17. Have a pleasant evening. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

10. "how can we dump Pelosi?" A better question is,

"What on Earth would make you think that you have the right to determine who will represent San Francisco?" You get to vote for your district's Rep, your state's Senators, and your state's Presidential electoral votes. The other Congressmen are chosen by other people.

[metamars]

15. Actually, this is a really dumb question

The execrable Nancy Pelosi is used as an example. At most, I would get one vote. Read that last sentence, again, OK? Thus, my individual ability to vote for an ostracism of Nancy Pelosi is but a drop in the bucket. I would have no more, and no less, right to exercize my right of free speech in this fashion than anybody else. (Within the limits of only registered Democrats/ Republicans that I have suggested.)

If nobody agreed with me that Nancy Pelosi should be ostracized, she certainly wouldn't be!

As for "determining" who will represent San Francisco, that's what's particularly dumb about your question. The only people that can determine who represents the San Francisco district are - drumroll, please - the voters of that San Francisco district.

Thus, a more intelligent question is "What makes you think you have the right to influence the people of San Francisco to dump Nancy Pelosi?" And the answer is "the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees me freedom of speech". Ever hear of the First Amendment? Do you have a problem with the Constitution? If so, I suggest you try and get it changed. Or, you can become a Republican, run for President, and if you get elected, just ignore the Constitution (with the appropriate legal embalming), the way Bush has done. If "impeachment off the table" Nancy Pelosi still has her position, you can expect that she will lead the Democrats to just roll over, for you, too!

Tell me something, as you have seen fit to write on a this public forum regarding Nancy Pelosi, if you were not in her district, what do you think would have given you the right to do so? You either believe in free speech being applicable to politicians in districts other than your own, or you don't. Well, which is it?

[Ghost in the Machine]

12. Is that how we cast out the Ostrich Demons who have taken over our government??

They *do* keep their heads buried in the sand, don't they?

Cast Out The Ostriches!

Carry on.....

[rucky]

14. Leper colony?

or would that be too inhumane to the lepers?

[mmonk]

18. Now I'm confused. I thought I as a voter was being ostracized by them.

[metamars]

19. Ummm, not exactly

:-)

You are being ignored, taken for granted, being played, excluded (compared to plutocrats), etc. But, I wouldn't say that you're being ostracized.