Submissions/Public Vote Option on Competing Dem. vs. Rep. Versions of Congressional Bills

This is a rejected submission for Wikimania 2012.

Submission no.

710

Title of the submission: Public Vote Option (PVO) on Competing Democratic vs Republican Versions of Congressional Bills

Type of submission (workshop, tutorial, panel, presentation): presentation

Author of the submission: David A. Harness

E-mail address: dvhar19@gmail.com

Username: Ehound

Country of origin: USA

Affiliation, if any (organization, company etc.): no affiliation

Personal homepage or blog

Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal): The Public Vote Option (PVO) is an undiscovered power the US Congress has right now, whereby Joint Resolution party leadership could end their media filibustering, and put their competing Democratic vs. Republican vs. Independent versions of any bill to a public vote. Binding on no one other than Congress itself to pass along the eventual majority winning version to the President for signing, or veto, and so on as usual. The legislative precedent being there is no legal difference between a Joint Resolution and a Bill. Hence the present Competing National Referendum Amendments idea could apply equally as well to any national legislative charter in the world.

This PVO idea was submitted as a video-question in the 2007 CNN-YouTube Presidential Debates. First as entry #499 in the July 23 Democratic debate, then #330 in the November 28 Republican debate; making the following 29 sec statement:

"My question is for all the Democratic and all the Republican candidates. How about a public vote on the competing Democratic vs Republican versions of a Congressional bill? For example, y'all claim to have tax code and healthcare reform plans. Fine, put it in writing. This way the media polls and media talk shows would have something real to talk about, before putting your final Democratic vs. final Republican versions of a Congressional bill to a public vote."

To put the present PVO Competing National Referendum Amendments idea in writing, as Constitutional Upgrade 28.0 it would insert just 18 hard words into the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Article I section 7:

...Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, [OR AT THE DISCRETION OF CONGRESS, EVERY COMPETING VERSION OF A BILL HAVING GAINED THE PUBLIC VOTE MAJORITY], shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President....

A National Initiative Amendment (i.e., privately written laws) is NOT a new idea and is NOT supported on the federal level since this would generate further disorder contributions. Consider alternatively the protocol of competing representatives written-bills as a means to channel and legitimize the present govt by competing private-sector polls, and focus groups--which are now used to scientifically fabricate the most attractive lies to tell to get through continuous campaign 24-hour news cycle.

The present PVO video appeared several times on the background monitors on Paula Zahn's NOW program the week before the July 2007 CNN-Youtube Presidential Debate as she explained the new format for the debates. Even seemed like the "Decision Team" CNN Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman was talking about it saying "That's a really good question. He puts it in context." (Camera cuts to another Decision Team member who says) "When he asks that, the candidates are just going to"...(then the camera cuts away). And now in 2012 the candidates are just going to continue lecturing how badly their system is broken. Imploring ad infinitum ad nauseam: "It's critical now more than ever that you the American people exercise your responsibility as citizens and get directly involved to end politics-as-usual."

However, all experience has shown the candidates, and continuous new party leadership, are going to do nothing other than extend their long train of abuses and usurpations gaming the system out to complete social breakdown. Exactly as indicated by Abramoff (Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist 2011) & Bueno de Mesquita and Smith (The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior Is Almost Always Good Politics 2011). Wherein JOB #1 of both parties is to spin every new issue or idea apart by its extremes, make new false promises, culminating in a classic bait-and-switch sting, retaining power in private backroom deals. This presentation maintains however that a governmental system based on disorder will eventually loose control–and now that time has come, as is becoming clearer at this stage of the global information revolution.

This PVO competing national referendums idea was not put to the 2008 candidates, and Zahn quit CNN right after the Democratic Debate. Coincidence? I think not. Consider remarkably Paula Zahn's replacement, Anderson Cooper reported prior to the Republican Debate "There've been some fistfights. There've been arguments over which questions are gonna get asked." So what's the rest of the story?

Truth is: It is common knowledge that in America no politician can get elected by telling the truth. Hence the elite are not the only ones to blame for the broken US Constitutional system. Truth is: We are all children of VooDoo Economics of the 1980 Reagan-Democratic borrow-and-spend deregulation deal-with-the-devil now coming due in the 2012 Global Sovereign Debt Crisis. Truth is: Reaganomics never worked right from the start just as Stockman pointed out in 1981. Resulting in the infamous "trip to the woodshed," where Reagan told Stockman he can't be telling the people it's not working. Truth is: It has been mandatory for some time now for all institutional managers of banks, campaigns, police departments, corporations, etc. to practice THE ART OF WAR wherein "All warfare is based on deception." Notice however, SunTzu first starts out saying: Moral Authority is #1 constant factor to the Victorious.

Thus the present PUBLIC VOTE OPTION in 2012 is more relevant than ever to regain US Moral Authority. To revive the living document of the US Constitution from its near-death experience, thereby what the troops really need for moral support. In practice moderation would prevail. Since the competing Republican and Democratic versions of a bill would need to be written away from party base extremes in order to gain the PUBLIC VOTE MAJORITY. In a process that would re-strike the BALANCE OF POWER from the present CITIZENS UNITED: TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY, effecting the LINE-ITEM VETO and CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, via re-directing the CASH FLOW. Thus an Emergency Spin Recovery Procedure to pull out of the MSNBC/CNN/FOX spin.

In conclusion, more Constitutional amendments have dealt with the EXTENSION OF VOTING RIGHTS than any other single issue. A PUBLIC VOTE OPTION would form the next logical term in the series. Perspective is to proceed via human growth. Just as every previous step in the extension of voting rights has required human growth of both the elite and the middle class, now to the extent of the maturing of the democratic process.

10 minute question session.

Track

Length of presentation/talk: 25 Minutes.

Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?: Depends on the reason the Wikimania "Decision Team" would give for not accepting this presentation.

Slides or further information (optional): I posted a thread of the same title as this presentation on the OccupyWallStreet Forum...and surprisingly got mostly negative responses. To the extent this is relevant, judging from the OWS Forum the movement is primarily about anarchy, intellectual hair-splitting, and academic tail-chasing.

Someone on the Public Congress website posted this Public Vote on Competing Dem. vs. Rep. Versions of Congress Bills video on their website.

Special request as to time of presentations: Right before lunch.

Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (~~~~).

Add your username here.