Evan is the founder of the Voting by Phone Foundation, the instigator of the new free speech tables on the Mall as well as the 13th Street bike path now under construction, and the Mall tightrope-walker for 15 years.
Published in the Colorado Daily 10/93
AS THE MILLENNIUM TURNS by Evan Ravitz
In the weeks before the November 2 vote on the Boulder Voting
by Phone City Charter Amendment we must answer all the worries.
I've named them after their main voices. Today, the most substantive
concern:
The Elise Boulding/ Charlie Butcher/ Bob Seivers/ Scott Simon/
Matt Appelbaum argument: "The People can't be trusted
to do the right thing if we use phone voting for electronic town
(state or national) meetings. Look at Colorado Amendments One
and Two, passed by citizen initiative."
Whoa. This year's Charter Amendment that Boulder votes on Nov.
2 simply gives you the option to vote by phone. It doesn't ease
the initiative process. That's our second goal. You can vote against
it when and if it comes up. But you shouldn't:
This is Boulder, which voted against One and Two. We are
also, according to the U.S. Census, by far the most educated city
in the country: 59% of adults have at least a bachelor's degree;
Raleigh NC comes in second with 40%! We should be the model for
learning self-government. If not us, who?
Imagine too, how the vote on One and Two might have gone if many
more people had voted, as happened with the first binding telephone
voting in Nova Scotia last year with the Liberal Party leadership
election: 96.4% participation! The ACLU reports that "the
Christian Coalition has been quietly organizing...to seize control
of school boards and other key posts most vulnerable during low-turnout
local elections."(emphasis ours) High turnout
will mean the real majority rules. If not now, when?
Amendment One sent a bottom line message to government: We don't
like what we're getting for our money, so no more money for you
(without our permission). If the initiative process was accessible
to average citizens (not just rich landlords like Doug Bruce or
powerful groups like Colorado for Family Values), we could legislate
instead to get what we want. Amendment One is a
sledgehammer. Voting by Phone is pro-active, not just reactive
to what government proposes, like One. As Alexander Hamilton said:
"If there is a problem with democracy, the solution is more
democracy."
Amendment Two was confusingly worded, so that many voted the "wrong"
way. [We're hardly saying the present initiative process is perfect.
But it can be refined by using the existing process.] Amendment
Two has never gone into effect. If the preliminary ruling of the
Colorado Supreme Court holds, the equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment to the US Constitution means that "fundamental
rights...depend on the outcome of no election". The majority
cannot tyrannize the minority.
Buckminster Fuller, the apparent inventor of democracy by phone
(in 1940), wrote: "The people will make mistakes. But they
will be honest mistakes. And quickly correctable." Two's
opponents stood ready to bring a better-worded Two back to the
ballot to reverse it. If the initiative process was more accessible
(fewer signatures required, more frequent votes), their process
would be easier and faster.
Interestingly, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Denver Police
and Gay and Lesbian Center of Colorado statistics all show hate
crimes against homosexuals down significantly April-June compared
to January-March. The first 2 sources also show all hate crimes
in the second quarter down by half compared to second quarter
of last year (anti-gay statistics were not kept separately until
this year}. These may be more serious crimes than ones
reported only to the GLCC, which are up this year. Is it possible
that Amendment 2 brought the hidden hate of Colorado out in the
open (out of the closet) for discussion in a way that has reduced
its violent expression? Ben Barber, in his book Strong Democracy,
calls this a "democratic conversation". The media and
courts and citizens are discussing Two. We're learning about gays
and straights and our feelings about each other. This isn't an
academic discussion for the few: it includes everyone.
Scott Simon of NBC & NPR stated at the opening of the Walter
Orr Roberts Institute that Colorado Springs (home of One and Two)
is a good argument for representative (as opposed to participatory)
government. We see them as complementary. Colorado
Springs is largely a military town funded by our tax money to
fight the Cold War, which UP syndicated writer Richard Reeves
says "drained away our national treasury fighting shadows
in the dark." Our taxes, funneled into his unusual city by
an exclusively "representative" government (there is
no participation by initiative or referendum nationally), helped
fund One and Two. Our government needs citizen participation by
all, to check and balance its excesses. It's still wildly out
of balance.
Elise Boulding, a 1990 nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize -and
a former supporter of Voting by Phone- changed her mind and wrote
me that "...we need to put much more effort into education
for democracy, and becoming familiar first-hand with community
contexts." That's what we're getting: it's one of Barber's
"democratic conversations" we're having these days!
If you're of a millennial cast of mind, you could call it God
(the people) talking to itself (ourselves).
[I wrote in the May 16 Camera about this kind of education at
Sudbury School in Framingham, Mass., where for 24 years the kids
and staff have enjoyed true freedom and democracy. It works wonderfully,
and for half the cost of the Massachusetts public schools. Call
443-3786 for a copy.]
The voices of this argument are thoughtful, caring people. I can
feel their pain over One and Two. Opinion leaders of little faith,
We invite you back into the democratic conversation. Debate us,
or join us!
Evan is the founder of the
Voting by Phone Foundation, the
instigator of the new free speech tables on the Mall as well as
the 13th Street bike path now under construction, and the Mall
tightrope-walker for 15 years.