Mediaboss Marketing

Democracy is easy to take for granted because we have always had it. But democracy in Iowa is weak and our freedoms are being chipped away by a very partisan government in Des Moines.

If democracy were strong, we would not pass:

A law to ban books, reminiscent of Hitlers Germany.

A law to limit teachers free speech when students confide in them.

A law to attack minorities instead of teaching a little humanity.

A child labor law allowing children to be more easily abused.

A bill to restrict a womans reproductive freedom and freedom for a doctor to practice, leaving everyone to equate pregnancy with death.

Freedom of religion took a hit when the state legislature in Des Moines broke the unwritten law of separation of church and state by passing a law giving government the power to take tax dollars levied for public schools and redirecting those dollars to church schools. Freedom of religion means no government intervention, and preventing that intervention is why tax exemption for church property has existed for nearly 200 years.

Poor laws like the above should not stand, especially in Iowa that was long known for common sense.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read this article:
Letter: Democracy is weak in Iowa due to partisan state politics - The Dispatch Argus

Tags:

Idahoans revere democracy. Its the system of government our Founders created, and its proven to be a resilient one. For more than 200 years, it has withstood crises, bad leaders, even civil war. It has fostered freedom, growth, prosperity and peace. It has also been a beacon to the world.

But it takes work to keep it strong.

And in Idaho right now, democracy could use some help.

A democracy a democratic republic is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

In the recent much-hyped GOP presidential caucus, a measly 39,584 people in the entire state participated. That is less than half the population of Twin Falls County.

That is only 6.8% of registered Republicans.

For a democratic republic a system of government that is supposed to involve everyone that is terrible.

But to Dorothy Moons GOP, that is surely not a surprise or a disappointment. As University of Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell noted, when participation in precinct caucuses is low, it is the most polarized people who are most likely to show up.

Primary elections attract more voters, but not nearly enough. Since 2016, for example, while an average of more than 76% of registered Idaho voters participated in the general elections, only 28% voted in the primaries. Thats just 19% of the voting age population.

Thats bad, too. Because, heres the thing and its an important thing:

Around these parts, primary elections are the ones that really matter. Almost without fail, whoever wins the primary and gets an R by their name will win the general election. Period.

When fewer people vote in the races that really matter, only a small sliver of the citizenry end up calling all the shots. That sounds a lot more like a different form of government one in which (according to dictionary.com), all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique.

Thats the definition of an oligarchy. It is government by the few.

Governments naturally tend to drift in that direction. Like a funnel which starts wide, but then narrows to a small point, the political power is gradually taken away from we the people and funneled into the hands of the few.

That certainly describes whats been happening in Idaho.

Here are a few of many recent examples.

Last summer the Idaho Republican State Central Committee purged the voting rights for the official representatives of Idahos Young Republicans, College Republicans, and Republican Women.

The top brass of the party hatched a plot to get rid of another leader who didnt line up with their way of thinking National Committeeman Damond Watkins. Straight out of a Batman and Joker movie, their orchestrated operation was sinister, sneaky, and dirty, including a stealth recording of him speaking in church. As reported in the Idaho Post Register, they also violated many party rules in the process.

All of this was in order that Idaho Freedom Foundation officer Bryan Smith could slide into the role.

And so the funnel of power narrows.

Heres another example. Any GOP official who doesnt line up behind the current leaderships peculiar definition of conservative can now be summoned before a platform enforcement tribunal, where they can be censured and stripped of party support.

These and other similar developments illustrate how power is moving down the funnel away from the people and toward the few.

One of the most consequential steps toward narrowing this funnel of power happened in 2012 when the Republican party closed its primary elections.

This essentially denied many Idahoans a voice. And not just the 270,000 independents who make up 30% of Idaho voters. Regular old-fashioned Republicans those who want to think for themselves, who arent as intensely political, and who just want good government also have less influence.

Candidates quickly learn that in order to win, they only have to listen to the loudest voices. They really dont need to pay attention to anyone else. A lot of regular folks are effectively shut out from the process.

Today were living with the results. Our political system is less responsive to average Idahoans. And it is more dysfunctional. We do still have many good leaders, but they are all swimming against this tide.

Far too many lawmakers are not interested in healthy, honest, respectful dialogue to try to solve problems. They spend their time and energy keeping us divided and angry, instead of doing the hard work of actually tackling real issues that impact the lives of everyday Idahoans.

A potential solution to this problem will likely be on the ballot this November the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI).

The initiative would establish an open primary where all voters would be free to participate. The top four vote-getters from the primary would advance to the general election. This, supporters say, would generate more competition between candidates and more options for voters.

The initiative also allows ranked choice voting in the general election.

The process is simple. Youll see four candidates on your ballot. Just like you do now, you will vote for your first choice candidate. But, if you choose, you will also have the option to rank the rest of the candidates in order of preference. Its a way to assign where your vote will go if your preferred candidate loses.

When its time to count the votes, the first choices on all ballots are counted. If a candidate wins over 50% of the vote, the race is over. That candidate is declared the winner.

But if no candidate gets to 50%, then theres an instant runoff without having to come back to vote again. Once again, its simple. The last place candidate is removed. If you had voted for that candidate, then, in the instant runoff, your vote will now go toward your second choice candidate.

This process repeats until someone gets more than 50% of the vote, or else only two candidates remain, and whoever has the most votes is declared the winner.

This means that, if you choose, your one vote is never wasted. This, supporters say, is an exciting advancement in our election process.

It also means that the winner will need support from a broad range of voters and not just a narrow slice. It will motivate candidates not just to listen to the loudest, angriest, most divisive voices, but also to tune in to those who might rank them as second choice. It seems likely that this will also help increase healthy, honest, respectful dialogue and tone down the toxicity.

It should help us choose more leaders who can actually solve problems and get things done.

Experience from around the country has shown that this surprisingly simple adjustment to the way we vote can really help heal our dysfunction, and strengthen our democracy. If OPI passes, advocates say, the power can start to flow back to the people rather than to the few at the small end of the funnel.

Its no wonder that they dont like it.

One surefire sign that the OPI is onto something good is the reaction of those now pulling the strings of power. For example, Bryan Smith of the Idaho Freedom Foundation admitted, If Idaho gets ranked-choice voting, were finished. Its that simple.

So, no more IFF schemes to destroy our schools and other public institutions? No more of their out-of-state dark money infiltrating Idaho? No more pulling the marionette strings of IFF-backed legislators? Hmmm.

That sounds good. Sign us up.

The more people who participate in the democratic process, says Professor Campbell, the better. Greater participation not only makes it more likely that there is a true cross section of citizens expressing their voices but also that their voices are civil.

We believe that in a democracy all voices matter not just the loudest and most divisive. More citizens participating in choosing our leaders would be a good thing. And more respectful voices would be a very good thing.

If youre intrigued about a practical way to help strengthen our democratic republic one that would be attainable soon then we suggest taking a long look at the Open Primaries Initiative. It could be just the thing democracy needs.

In the recent much-hyped GOP presidential caucus, a measly 39,584 people in the entire state participated. That is less than half the population of Twin Falls County. That is only 6.8% of registered Republicans. For a democratic republic a system of government that is supposed to involve everyone that is terrible.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Follow this link:
OUR VIEW: Democracy Could Use Some Help. This One Adjustment Could Be Just What We Need - Times-News

Tags:

* The list of challenges troubling the U.S. society is ever-growing, making the narrative of American democracy even less convincing.

* The lack of discussion of solutions to existing global crises, such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, climate change and poverty, shows that the conference was just a platform for confrontation led by the United States.

* The essence of the Washington-sponsored summit is to weaponize democracy, foment division and safeguard its hegemony.

SEOUL, March 23 (Xinhua) -- The third so-called "Summit for Democracy" quietly ended here Wednesday. Unlike the previous two summits hosted or co-hosted by Washington, this year's event was outsourced to South Korea. Nevertheless, its fundamental nature as an ideological tool for confrontation remained unchanged.

Despite Washington's vigorous promotion, the previous two summits did not achieve any tangible results. The third edition did not focus on real crises in Ukraine and Gaza either. As the sponsor, Washington had one intention with the summit: to suppress other countries and divide the world in the name of democracy.

MUCH-CRITICIZED SPONSOR

Portraying itself as a "Beacon of Democracy," the United States frequently bloviates about democracy, yet the so-called beacon is getting dimmer. Facing various human rights woes at home, more U.S. citizens are losing faith in American democracy.

A Pew Center poll shows that 65 percent of Americans believe the U.S. democratic system needs major reforms, and 57 percent of respondents believe the United States is "no longer a model of democracy."

From aggravated political polarization and widening wealth disparity, to growing social divides and deep-seated racial discrimination, the list of challenges troubling the U.S. society is ever-growing, making the narrative of American democracy even less convincing.

Meanwhile, the American political landscape is riddled with systemic flaws, including rampant voter suppression, gerrymandering and outsized influence of corporate interests in electoral politics. These shortcomings have eroded public trust in the democratic process and undermined the legitimacy of American governance.

Failing to solve problems at home, the United States has waged wars around the world and imposed sanctions on other countries in recent decades, causing large-scale humanitarian catastrophes.

Since 2001, wars and military operations launched by the United States in the name of counter-terrorism have killed more than 900,000 people, of which about 335,000 were civilians. Sovereign countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya have suffered numerous disasters due to U.S. invasion and proxy wars.

For long, the United States and other Western countries have interfered in many countries and regions under the banner of "democracy" and "human rights," said Cavince Adhere, a Kenya-based international relations scholar.

The United States weaponizes the concept of "democracy," and its summits could hardly convince the public of what Washington preaches, Adhere added.

ABSENT-MINDED GATHERING

Over the years, the so-called democracy summits have been dogged by criticism from rights activists, who question whether these gatherings can push the participants to take meaningful action, Reuters reported Monday.

Last year's summit made the Ukraine-Russia conflict a topic of discussion but didn't come up with any constructive solution. Presently, the Ukraine crisis has hit a two-year mark, and the Palestinian death toll in the Gaza conflict has surpassed 30,000.

Ignoring the fact the two ongoing conflicts are causing humanitarian catastrophes, the United States has continued to fund the protracted conflict in Ukraine, and blocked UN Security Council draft resolutions for a ceasefire in Gaza multiple times.

However, participants did not seriously discuss these burning issues during the three-day summit, and the chair's summary of the summit, published Thursday, did not mention them either.

Kwon Ki-sik, head of the Korea-China City Friendship Association, criticized the summit for being an empty gathering that ignored the global crises at hand. The lack of discussion of solutions to existing global crises, such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, climate change and poverty, shows that the conference was just a platform for confrontation led by the United States.

For South Korea, the summit is more of a political demonstration of its international standing. According to the president's office of South Korea, the country has once again demonstrated its position and contribution to the world, creating an opportunity to consolidate the leadership of a "global hub country."

However, given the "regressing political situation" in South Korea, the government's boast of "our democratic leadership" will leave most citizens disappointed, South Korean newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun said recently in an editorial.

DEMOCRACY WEAPONIZED

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has seen growing support for multilateralism. Washington, however, has stubbornly pursued global dominance in disregard of this evolving landscape.

The essence of the Washington-sponsored summit is to weaponize democracy, foment division and safeguard its hegemony.

In East Asia, the United States is seeking to build an alliance with Japan and South Korea to contain China and Russia and create a "new Cold War" by putting the "democracy summit" in South Korea, said Lee Jang-hie, emeritus professor at law school of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

Washington's bid to rally some countries against others, which has further entrenched ideological divisions, undermines efforts to foster genuine dialogue and cooperation among nations with different political systems.

Kwon said the "democracy summit" is being criticized as a divisive international conference to build a hegemonic international order with the United States at the center. "The U.S. hegemonic action of weakening the function of the UN and leading a so-called 'democracy summit' is a hindrance to world peace."

"By weaponizing democracy as a political tool," said commentator Yirenkyi Jesse in an op-ed in The Standard, a leading daily newspaper in Kenya, "the United States seeks to assert its hegemonic dominance, dividing the world along arbitrary lines and sowing discord in its wake." (Video reporters: Chen Yi, Jin Haomin, Yang Chang; video editors: Zheng Xin, Li Qin, Lin Lin, Liu Xiaorui)

Read more:
Xinhua Headlines: Why U.S.-backed "Summit for Democracy" only triggers division, confrontation - Xinhua

Tags:

U.N. officials continue to sound the alarm over the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, which theyve described as one of the worst in recent history. The U.N. Security Council met Wednesday to discuss the conflict as it nears the one-year mark since fighting broke out between the Sudanese military and rival Rapid Support Forces. Edem Wosornu, the director of operations for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, warned Sudan is possibly on course to becoming the worlds worst hunger crisis.

Edem Wosornu: Malnutrition is soaring to alarming levels and is already claiming childrens lives. A recent MSF report revealed that one child is dying every two hours in Zamzam camp in El Fasher, North Darfur. Our humanitarian partners estimate that in the coming weeks and months somewhere in the region of around 222,000 children could die from malnutrition. And with the estimated WHO estimates that more than 70% of health facilities are not functional.

More here:
Sudan Could Soon Become the World's Worst Hunger Crisis - Democracy Now!

Tags:

Dokken: Hunting access discussion an exercise in grassroots democracy  Grand Forks Herald

See the rest here:
Dokken: Hunting access discussion an exercise in grassroots democracy - Grand Forks Herald

Tags: