Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Rattling Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The purpose of this is to rattle Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Gyrocopter pilot Doug Hughes is going to run in the Florida 23rd Congressional district against Rep. Wasserman Schultz. See What should Doug Hughes do in FL23?

Sanders supporters and others think Rep. Wasserman Schultz, in her actions as head of the DNC,  has been "undemocratically" favoring Hillary Clinton.

The starting place for this effort against Rep. Wasserman Schultz (and for Doug Hughes) is  on Twitter.

To have effect, many tweeters and very large numbers of tweets will be needed.

The tweeting is going to break out of the "confine of like minded social media circles." See Breaking out of like minded social media circles.

For an idea of the tweeting tactics that will employed, see Tactics.

Before you start tweeting, be sure to read To Twitter: @Support.

In the tweeting, you should think about "what has a chance of being heard by Rep. Wasserman Schultz and her office?"

It is is desired for tweets to go to persons who are in the Florida 23rd Congressional district. Sometimes exact geographical location is not indicated by a Twitter profile. If there is enough information to believe that a person is in the 23rd district or in the surrounding area, go ahead and tweet. For a map of the Florida 23rd Congressional district, see http://c2.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/FL23.jpg.

The basic tactic is to send repetitively to followers on follower lists the same tweet. For how to do this efficiently, see Tactics.

There are many Twitter follower lists that could be utilized for sending tweets in this effort, and there are numerous possible tweet messages that could be sent.

I have started to look for follower lists to use. As I come up with follower lists to use, I will add them to this entry.

In proceeding through a follower lists, you should select followers whose profile indicates a likelihood that the person is in the 23rd Congressional district or surrounding area.

I think it is appropriate to send tweets to business Twitter accounts as well as individual Twitter accounts.

My experience is that I see page views of links as I am sending my tweets. If you notify me that you are sending tweets, I can give you reports on the page views that are showing up for the link in question.

You may get a few retweets and likes, etc., but don't be discouraged if you don't. I think it is satisfactory if recipients of your tweets click on the link in your tweet.

For a first follower list, I suggest Broward Democrats followers.

For a first tweet I suggest:
Voters in FL 23rd Cong'l dist. should tell Rep. Debbie Wassserman Schultz to #DeclareForDemocracyhttp://2016candidatesdeclarations.blogspot.com/2015/11/2016-congressional-candidate-declaration.html

Monday, December 28, 2015

What should Doug Hughes do in FL23?

Gyrocopter pilot Doug Hughes has filed to run for Congress against Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida's 23rd Congressional district. See Gyrocopter pilot Doug Hughes to run against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

It is fair to assume Doug Hughes, in his campaign, will make a pledge to fight for pro-democracy reform.

This would be in line with what Democracy Spring is doing as part of its mass nonviolent action planned for next April. In the action, Democracy Spring "will call on every member of Congress and candidate for office in America to join citizen equality champions in taking an Equal Voice for All Pledge that commits them to fight for pro-democracy reform."

It needs to be pointed out that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is one of 178 members of Congress whom MAYDAY.US has designated as "leaders supporting fundamental reform".

In these circumstances, how should Doug Hughes and his supporters promote his candidacy against Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the issue of pro-democracy reform?

This would seem to a matter of how strenuously and credibly Doug Hughes and Debbie Wasserman Shultz choose to press the reform issue, and that will be determined in part by the priority given to the issue by the candidates.

It will be up to Doug Hughes to decide what his campaign strategy and goals are, including the priority he will give to the reform issue, even possibly making reform his only issue.

Lawrence Lessig and MAYDAY.US have been confronted for more than a year with the question of how Presidential and Congressional candidacies can be most efficacious to contribute to advancing the cause of pro-democracy reform. Professor Lessig attempted a single issue referendum Presidential candidacy and was encouraging single issue referendum Congressional candidacies of others to be conducted in tandem with his Presidential candidacy.

Professor Lessig's Presidential candidacy foundered, and he has not revealed much about his current thinking. It is unclear what advice Professor Lessig and MAYDAY.US  would give Doug Hughes about how his candidacy could best contribute to advancing the cause of pro-democracy reform.

I have proposed the concept of Congressional candidates making a public declaration in which candidates declare their belief that the American people should use the 2016 elections to force Congress to address the corruption issue and pass a reform before November 8, 2016 that voters can take into account in casting their votes on their Congressional candidates. See 2016 Congressional candidate Declarations.

For the reasons set out at Rationale, I think the declaration idea is worthy of utilization by candidates and by campaign finance reform activists. If you are persuaded by the declaration, you should next read the Tactics which I advocate, and further read Breaking out of like minded social media circles.

Next, decide whether you would like to join me in tweeting into the Florida 23rd Congressional district to help Doug Hughes.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Breaking out of like minded social media circles

Campaign finance reformers desire to achieve success for their goal.

They do a lot of Facebooking, tweeting, sharing, liking, retweeting, etc., on the social media.

Some do Thunderclapping and Twitter storming to augment communications effect.

The "reach" of these social media communications by campaign finance reformers may be gauged.

That "reach" is probably hundreds of thousands of persons who are recipients of social media communications made by campaign finance reformers.

To evaluate how these social media communications may contribute to success in achieving campaign finance reform goals, one should consider the extent to which the communications are received primarily by persons who are like minded and who already have greater than average awareness of campaign finance reform efforts and are supportive of the same. This will be the case largely due to people selecting for themselves which social media circles they want to be part of, and this results in conventional social media communications being received to a very large extent by like minded persons.

Coming at it from the other side, think about all the people who have virtually no awareness of campaign finance reformers but who might be persuaded to have an interest and be supportive if they knew more. There are also persons who have awareness but who do not place top priority on campaign finance reform goals. In all these cases, some effect can result merely from seeing that someone else has had sufficient interest to send a communication.

Consider people who evidence an interest in politics such as Twitter followers of political candidates, office holders, and political parties. There are many, many millions of such persons with such interest, but relatively few will be recipients of social media communications made by campaign finance reformers.

As an example, Donald Trump has more than five million followers on Twitter. There is messaging that campaign finance reformers should want to make to those followers, but very few will be recipients of social media communications made by campaign finance reformers because of the "like mindedness" phenomenon in social media circles.

I have been urging campaign finance reformers to find ways, in the social media, to break through the limitations of like mindedness in social media circles.

Most recently, I have been communicating with Democracy Spring about this.

I set forth below our email correspondence with individual identification deleted. I don't know whether Democracy Spring will support my ideas for how to "break out of the confine of like minded social media circles." I hope it is supportive.

I have been urging other campaign reform organizations to take this up, and I will continue to do so.

The central question for all concerned would seem to be whether "breaking out of the confine of like minded social media circles" will make the social media communications of campaign finance reformers more effective and increase the chances for success.

UPDATE 2/27
See Breaking out, Part II.


[Email correspondence with Democracy Spring]

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:36 AM
Subject: Example of technique
To: __________

_________,

At this moment, I am using the #DemDebate hashtag to send individual tweets to persons whose tweets are in that hashtag stream. My tweet to them says

Does your Prez candidate believe in citizens' #DeclareForDemocracy effort? http://2016candidatesdeclarations.blogspot.com/2015/11/2016-congressional-candidate-declaration.html

In about 20 minutes of doing this, there have been 59 pages views of the link and 5 Twitter notifications back to me. 

In the Presidential debate hashtag streams, there is a broad spectrum of tweeters using the hashtags, and my tweets right now are going to a broad spectrum.

I think this is a good example of my technique "breaking through the confine of social media circles of like minded people."

Sincerely,
Rob

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Breaking out of confine of like minded social media circles
To: _________

Thanks again for your replying, ________.

To start, I wish to reiterate how well I think #DemocracySpring and #DeclareForDemocracy meld, with the former focused more on the April action and the latter more focused on the Congressional races. See link. Publicizing and mobilizing regarding both can be mutually supportive and be done jointly if desired. The two efforts could even be merged into one.

As to other organizations, I think publicizing and mobilizing about all their respective activities is mutually supporting, subject only to time that is spent doing something specific to the agenda of one organization is not available to be spent on the agenda of another organization. Take MoveToAmend as an example. Publicizing and mobilizing relative to Democracy Spring also helps MoveToAmend's goal, and vice versa, I believe.

You know better than I, but does not the status of Democracy Spring sponsoring organizations bespeak that those organizations would be supportive of their respective members and followers helping out on the Democracy Spring effort? I am sure Democracy Spring wants to think so and will be suggestive to the sponsoring organizations to encourage their members and followers to lend a hand on the Democracy Spring front.

I have endeavored to draw out the organizations and will continue to do that. On all the various organizations, I say, let what comes, come.

Before stating my advice, let me indicate the reaction I am seeking from Democracy Spring. I would like something of this tenor:

Democracy Spring understands how, via Twitter, you are trying "to break through the confine of communications limited to social media circles of like minded people and to achieve broader messaging to persons who are outside such social media circles and who are potentially receptive to information about the cause and may be persuaded to help the cause." Democracy Spring encourages you in your Twutter efforts and encourages others to join in with you in such Twitter efforts. You may say publicly that Democracy Spring is encouraging of your efforts and of others joining in on your efforts.

With such a reaction of Democracy Spring, I would proceed to try to recruit volunteer tweeters with tweets. such as "Be a volunteer tweeter for Democracy Spring. http://2016candidatesdeclarations.blogspot.com/2015/12/tweeting-tweeting-tweeting.html" or "Will you be a volunteer tweeter for Democracy Spring? http://2016candidatesdeclarations.blogspot.com/2015/12/tweeting-tweeting-tweeting.html"

My advice and suggested technique are indicated in my blog entry Tactics. That is the starting structure for the effort I initiated and will be subject to developing, revising and adapting. It is readily adaptable for #DemocracySpring.

On the matter of hashtags, I can envision tweets with no hashtags, with #DemocracySpring and/or #DeclareForDemocracy, and with possible other hashtags depending on the particular tweeting context and the targets of the particular tweeting.

I am up and running with #DeclareForDemocracy and can get going right away for #DemocracySpring if Democracy Spring approves.

If you have any questions, or want to discuss, just let me know.

I hope DemocracySpring goes with this.

Sincerely,
Rob

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 1:24 PM, __________ wrote:
You make an excellent point. Reaching people outside of like-minded circles is a challenge. I have tried making connections between the goals of our campaign and the goals of other organizations. For example, big money corruption in politics affects every issue to some extent. So there's a common ground there. However, getting folks to stand together on that ground isn't easy. Specifically on Twitter, hashtags can be used in an attempt to reach a broader audience and unite around common goals.  What are your thoughts? Are there any techniques or advice that you would offer?
Thank you
On Dec 19, 2015 11:58 AM, "Rob Shattuck" <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ________,

I would like to elaborate on the reference in my previous email to whether Thunderclap and TwitterStorm have limitations in getting messaging out.

While Thunderclap and TwitterStorm may reach large numbers of people, a preponderance of those people are likely to be already like minded and already generally aware of the information being communicated. Further those large numbers of people are a very, very small percentage of all voters and citizens, and you could almost say 99% lay totally outside the reach of the messaging being done.

DemocracySpring should be cognizant of the foregoing and should strive for ways to break through the confine of communications limited to social media circles of like minded people and should seek to achieve much broader messaging to persons in the 99% who are outside such social media circles, but who may nonetheless be open to information about the cause and be persuaded to support the cause.

I have been endeavoring for almost two years to break through this confine in question and advocate to others in the movement that they seek to break through the confine.

I first tried to do this in the realm of email. There is a  similar social media circle confine if emails are limited to social media circles in the form of email lists of like minded persons.. You may read about how I tried to break out of the confine in the email realm in these blog entries of mine from 2014:

After I gained familiarity with Twitter, I decided Twitter was more amenable for seeking to break through the confine of like minded social media circles, and I have been focused almost exclusively in trying to do that on Twitter for the past 18 months.

I hope this is helpful explanation to DemocracySpring concerning what I am seeking, and I am very much interested in what you and others involved with DemocracySpring think about 'breaking out of the confine of social media circles of like minded persons."

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Democracy Spring
To: __________

Thank you, ________.

Can we discuss what the nature of Thunderclap and TwitterStorm are, what their limitations are in pushing messaging out to the public, and what the nature is of the tweeting campaigns I am advocating and how they may work to push messaging out to the public that Thunderclap and TwitterStorm may not accomplish?

Sincerely,
Rob 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:26 PM, __________ wrote:
Hello Rob,
Thanks for reaching out. We recently conducted a Thunderclap campaign and organized a TwitterStorm around its release date and time. I would love to work with you on future social media efforts. Look forward to hearing from you and connecting on Twitter!

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir,

I would like to participate in designing and implementing a tweeting campaign for DemocracySpring. Please see http://2016candidatesdeclarations.blogspot.com/2015/12/tweeting-tweeting-tweeting.html

Thank you.



Rob Shattuck


Friday, December 18, 2015

Tweet, tweet, tweet, and more tweet

As explained at Tactics, the conduct of this #DeclareForDemocracy effort has been initiated to take place via Twitter.

As discussed at #DeclareForDemocracy and #DemocracySpring, it is believed that #DeclareForDemocracy melds with what Democracy Spring is doing.

Democracy Spring does not yet say on its website what things it will do between now and April to publicize itself and to mobilize the citizenry.

It would well serve Democracy Spring for publicizing and mobilizing to start happening immediately and to expand as much as possible in the lead up to April.

If you are big for #DemocracySpring, please let's tweet together to publicize and mobilize.

Take a look at the tweeting plan set out at Tactics, and let's discuss applying it for #DemocracySpring.

Good tweeting can be done today, tomorrow and tomorrow night in connection with the Democratic Presidential debate. For this purpose, please read Tweeting during debate and Getting the people organized.


Thursday, December 17, 2015

#DeclareForDemocracy and #DemocracySpring

Democracy Spring is organizing a mass nonviolent action to take place in Washington, D.C., next April, for the purpose of demanding that Congress take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in politics.
I think my #DeclareForDemocracy effort set out in this blog melds with the #DemocracySpring campaign and I would like to discuss this.

Appended at the end of this entry is material copied and pasted from The Campaign webpage of the Democracy Spring website.

Please consider the following elements of the #DemocracySpring campaign.
1. The campaign will "kick off" on April 2nd "just as the advancing presidential primaries bring the national election to center stage," and there will be issued "a simple demand to Congress . . .  to take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in politics and ensure our elections are free, fair, and afford every American an equal voice, regardless of wealth." This will be accompanied by a "call on every member of Congress and candidate for office in America to join citizen equality champions in taking an Equal Voice for All Pledge that commits them to fight for pro-democracy reform."
2. Then "[o]n the road to Washington, Democracy Spring marchers will meet with fellow citizens, talk to the media, and create a firestorm of anticipation by laying out a simple choice to Congress: either pass bills to make the 2016 elections free and fair for for all people as equal citizens, or be prepared to send [marchers] to jail simply for demanding an equal voice."
3. Democracy Spring "will unleash unstoppable momentum for deep reform. It will reveal exactly which side the members of Congress and the candidates for office from President to state legislatures and city halls stand on in this fight to save democracy. With the Equal Voice for All Pledge as a tool we will leverage this momentum and exposure to make crystal clear for voters across America which candidates are committed to reform and which are defending the status quo of corruption."
4. This "will force this issue into the heart of the 2016 election narrative and make the election a referendum on whether our democracy should belong to the People as a whole or to the billionaire class alone."
5. BUT the campaign says:  "Given the current makeup of Congress, immediate reform is extremely unlikely."
Here are some things to consider about the #DemocracySpring campaign and my #DeclareForDemocracy effort.

#DemocracySpring refers to the April 2016 kick off of its campaign as being when the advancing Presidential primaries bring the national election to center stage. The 2016 Presidential election has been in the front of the news for months already. Further, #DemocracySpring seeks Congressional action, that makes Congressional races and elections significant, and it should be an object of #DemocracySpring to try to affect those. Waiting until April to do that would seem very disadvantageous. All in all, it seems obviously the case that #DemocracySpring should be seeking to get as much publicity and mobilization for its campaign as possible from now until April. I suggest that my #DeclareForDemocracy effort would be excellent for doing that.

#DemocracySpring seeks pledges to fight for pro-democracy reform and that Congress pass bills to make the 2016 elections free and fair. As part of this #DemocracySpring wants "to make crystal clear for voters across America which candidates are committed to reform and which are defending the status quo of corruption."  My #DeclareForDemocracy expressly acknowledges that there are a variety of possible reforms that could be considered to fix corruption, and that these can legitimately be subject to debate by Congress. This solicits candidates to set forth what they think should be done and for Congress to debate them. This seems more realistic about what would actually happen if #DemocracySpring was successful in moving the matter forward. #DemocracySpring ought to consider whether getting it to be "crystal clear" about where candidates stand is overly simplistic and whether, instead, inviting ideas to be put forth and for there to be debate by Congress would increase public attention and be a better framing of its campaign.

Also my #DeclareForDemocracy seeks to force candidates to say one way or the other about whether they think Congress is corrupt. That backs the matter up one step to allow for cornering candidates with the question of "how can you represent us in Congress if you can't tell us whether you think Congress is corrupt or not?". #DemocracySpring ought to consider whether it is helpful to get candidates to confront the corruption question first in order to provide for an opening to get at consideration of possible solutions.

The Presidential race, which has been in the front of the news for months, has manifested widespread and powerful disgust, anger and resentment that millions of American citizens currently have regarding Washington DC and our political system. This pervades Democrats, Republicans and independents alike. These politics should be availed of by #DemocracySpring in its campaign. Effective messaging is needed in the #DemocracySpring campaign to reach citizens of all political persuasion. I think such messaging can be accomplished in my #DeclareForDemocracy effort. I look forward to seeing messaging that #DemocracySpring develops.

If you are strong for #DemocracySpring, and you see how my #DeclareForDemocracy effort can help with the #DemocracySpring campaign, please read Getting the people organized and join in to do organized tweeting during Saturday night's Democratic debate.

Democracy Spring lists on its website about 25 public pledger individuals and about 50 endorsing organizations. I would like to find out what specific things those individuals and organizations urge campaign finance reformers to do between now and April to advance the Democracy Spring campaign, and, if I learn about those things, I may be in a position to publicize them. I hope the pledger individuals and endorsing organizations will consider whether my #DeclareForDemocracy effort can help and, if so, urge their followers and supporters to participate in my #DeclareForDemocracy effort.

[Edit 12/18. The above was composed without my having read http://www.democracyspring.org/faq. The FAQ gives helpful additional information and shows an even closer fit of #DeclareForDemocracy with #DemocracySpring.]


[Below is copied and pasted from http://www.democracyspring.org/the_campaign]

From five-million signer petitions, to State House resolutions, to ballot initiatives advancing fair elections, there is a growing movement in the US demanding solutions to our deeply corrupt political system.
But to shift the political climate much faster in favor of reform — during an election year awash in a tsunami of big money — we need to create a watershed moment to show Washington that Americans are determined to claim the democracy we were promised. With little more than our peaceful, dignified determination to stand up (by sitting down), we have the power to create that watershed moment. Together we can defend the basic, beautiful concept that in our democracy everybody deserves an equal voice, not just billionaires and big money interests.
Here’s the plan.

WE MARCH

The campaign will kick off just as the advancing presidential primaries bring the national election to center stage, on April 2, when a pioneering group of marchers from every state in the union will gather with supporters at the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia on April 2nd. There, where the dream of American democracy took flight, we will issue a simple demand to Congress: listen to the People and take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in politics and ensure our elections are free, fair, and afford every American an equal voice, regardless of wealth. And we will call on every member of Congress and candidate for office in America to join citizen equality champions in taking an Equal Voice for All Pledge that commits them to fight for pro-democracy reform. Then, in the spirit of Granny D, the Selma to Montgomery marchers, Cesar Chavez and the farmworker pilgrimage, and others who walked for freedom, we will set out on a 10 day, 140-mile march from Philadelphia to the Nation’s Capitol.
On the road to Washington, Democracy Spring marchers will meet with fellow citizens, talk to the media, and create a firestorm of anticipation by laying out a simple choice to Congress: either pass bills to make the 2016 elections free and fair for for all people as equal citizens, or be prepared to send us and thousands of patriotic Americans who join us from all across the country to jail simply for demanding an equal voice.

WE SIT IN

When the march arrives in Washington on April 11th, we hope we will be able to rally to celebrate that Congress has come to its senses and passed at least one of the perfectly-viable reform bills now pending before it. But if they refuse to do anything, we will have no choice but to reclaim the People’s House in mass, dignified but determined, nonviolent sit-ins to force their hand.
Inspired by the American civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, and other successful traditions of nonviolent direct action, students and teachers, grandparents and grandchildren, faith leaders and former elected officials, as well as a number of celebrities and public figures already confirmed, will risk arrest in mass sit-ins at the Capitol and in Congressional offices every day for at least a week. This is our moment of moral clarity: will Congress send thousands of patriotic Americans to jail instead of simply doing it's job to ensure that our elections are free and fair for all people? Millions of people throughout the country watching an unprecedented nonviolent confrontation at the Capitol will find out.
During the sit-in, we will maintain a public convergence center as a gathering point for supporters and the press and will coordinate call-in days, online petitions, Twitter storms, local solidarity actions and more to amplify the power of the mass sit-ins for people across the country and the world.

WE WIN

Given the current makeup of Congress, immediate reform is extremely unlikely. In fact, we expect that the defenders of corruption in Congress will choose to put thousands of Americans in handcuffs instead of passing perfectly-viable, on-the-table pro-democracy reforms supported by the vast majority of the country.
But no matter what happens in the immediate endgame, we win. Because mass nonviolent action at this moment, on this issue, will focus the nation’s attention — as never before — on the urgency of this crisis, the existence of solutions to it, and the strength of the popular demand to enact them.
A Democracy Spring will unleash unstoppable momentum for deep reform. It will reveal exactly which side the members of Congress and the candidates for office from President to state legislatures and city halls stand on in this fight to save democracy. With the Equal Voice for All Pledge as a tool we will leverage this momentum and exposure to make crystal clear for voters across America which candidates are committed to reform and which are defending the status quo of corruption.
Together, we will force this issue into the heart of the 2016 election narrative and make the election a referendum on whether our democracy should belong to the People as a whole or to the billionaire class alone.That’s a referendum we will leverage historic momentum to win, setting the stage to achieve fundamental reform that will give us — finally — the democracy for all we were promised.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

WI07

Ballotpedia Wisconsn 7th Congressional district
Democratic
No Democratic candidates have formally declared yet.
Republican
Sean Duffy - Incumbent

Getting the people organized

In the battle of people versus money, consider how those with money organize their campaigns.

To wit, they pay for what they want done, and exactly how they want it done, and they can get whatever organized effort carried out they think will be most effective for accomplishing their campaign objective.

Compare that to people power, which does not have money to pay for campaign efforts as a way to get them carried out in organized ways.

Not being able to pay money, people power, if it believes organized activity has greater potential, needs to persuade volunteers to do things as part of an organized effort for accomplishing a desired objective.

This can be hard to do.

Volunteers frequently have their own ideas about what they will and will not do.

This propensity of volunteers can easily defeat organized activity.

That may be what happens in the end, to wit, there will not be organized activity for people power to accomplish an objective.

So, those on the people power side need to decide what they think about the value of organized activities. They need to decide whether an organized activity has greater potential to accomplish a result that a myriad of unorganized individuals doing their own things will fail to achieve. Money power believes organized activities work better and will pay for them. How willing are those on the people power side willing to cede the advantage of organization to money power? Maybe those on the people power side will determine they are not going to cede such an advantage, and they will exert themselves to curb their propensity to do their own thing and they will strive hard for organizing themselves.

As a case in point, consider the matter of live tweeting during last night's Republican debate.

Please read and think about what I say in my previous blog entry Tweeting during debate as it has bearing on carrying out organized tweeting.

I solicit anyone who wants to participate in organized tweeting during the Democratic debate this Saturday to please let me know, and let's discuss the possibilities. UPDATE 12/17
If you are strong for the #DemocracySpring mass nonviolent action in Washington DC next April, please read my entry #DeclareForDemocracy and #DemocracySpring, which discusses how I think my #DeclareForDemocracy effort can help the #DemocracySpring campaign.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Tweeting during debate

I wish to suggest what I think is more effective live tweeting by #DeclareForDemocracy reformers during Tuesday night's Republican Presidential debate. [Edit 12/18 This was originally drafted for the Republican debate earlier this week. Revisions have been made to adapt it for tomorrow night's Democratic debate.]

My experience is that hundreds of tweets per minute can stream under the debate hashtags that are used by tweeters during a Presidential debate. (The hashtags for the Republican debate were #CNNDebate and #GOPDebate. For the Democratic debate, #DemDebate is being used.)

It would seem that the object of campaign finance reformers should be to do messaging that gets more notice rather than less.

It is my belief that, in the stream of tweets during the Presidential debates, tweets of campaign finance reformers appearing in the stream under the above debate hashtags will receive very little notice.

I believe more notice can be obtained if individual, directed tweets are sent to tweeters whose tweets appear in the stream under the #CNNDebate or#GOPDebate or #DemDebate  hashtag, and further better messaging will be achieved if the individually directed tweets contain links to a fuller message. These individually directed tweets need not use the debate hashtag, and it is probably better if they don't use the hashtag.

I have had excellent experience with getting tweet recipients at least to click on a link that my individually directed tweets contain. With a tweet specifically addressed to a recipient, there seems to be a significant inclination to click by reason of  the tweet being personally addressed to the recipient.

The extent to which tweet recipients read the links that they click on is highly uncertain, as is the extent to which recipients are in any way influenced by the tweets and the links.

Notwithstanding, if the first step of effective messaging is to get a  message in front of the eyeballs of the persons being targeted with the message, the method of individually directed tweets seems to me to be better than tweeting unaddressed tweets in the hashtag stream.

The views of other campaign finance reformers are solicited about what kind of treating during debates is to be preferred.

As for tweet messages and links to tweet during this week's Presidential debates, I would suggest the following for consideration by #DeclareForDemocracy reformers:
Make Congress count. Get your Congressional candidates to #DeclareForDemocracyhttp://2016candidatesdeclarations.blogspot.com/2015/11/2016-congressional-candidate-declaration.html
or
Congress counts. Get your Congressional candidates to #DeclareForDemocracyhttp://2016candidatesdeclarations.blogspot.com/2015/11/2016-congressional-candidate-declaration.html
If you are amenable to sending individually directed tweets to tweeters using the #CNNDebate or #GOPDebate or #DemDebate hashtag, 30 or 40 tweets can be sent in 15 minutes. Just pick a starting point in the tweets in the stream, and follow the note set out at the end of Tactics.

UPDATE 12/15/15
Comments from others:



Further, see Getting the people organized.

United States Senate - Michigan

There is not a United States Senate election in Michigan in 2016.
Ballotpedia - United States Senate elections 2016
That notwithstanding, the United States Senators from Michigan can still be asked to #DeclareForDemocracy.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Rationale

The broken political system

There is widespread belief that our political system is broken.

There is also widespread belief that nothing can be done about it.

That notwithstanding, there are burgeoning efforts around the country seeking to bring about change. Various approaches are being undertaken directed at local, state and Federal levels of government. A very useful informational website about the efforts is Reclaim The American Dream.

Trying to fix it through Congress

MAYDAY.US is the organization that has taken the lead for trying for reform through Congress.

MAYDAY was started in 2014 by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig. Its stated goal was to obtain a reform minded Congress by 2016. Professor Lessig acknowledged this was a "moonshot."

MAYDAY initially raised about ten million dollars in 2014, which MAYDAY spent on a small number of test Congressional races in 2014 to find out what it could accomplish. The results were not very propitious.

Looking towards 2016, it is important to understand the great difficulty in what MAYDAY is trying to achieve.

MAYDAY has on its website front page this quotation:
"The mortal struggle at hand today is not between the right and the left. It is not between Republicans and Democrats. It is not between the Congress and the president. It is between us (currently outsiders to our own government) voters and the Washington Insiders."
This mortal struggle diagnosis would seem to call for great mobilization and unity of voters to elect Congressional candidates who will take action on behalf of reform.

There is a big problem here for MAYDAY.

Voters have differing views on important issues, such as climate change, immigration, and privacy versus security in fighting terrorism and crime. If a Congressional candidate takes positions on other important issues, many voters may not support the candidate on that basis, and this undermines the needed unity in the struggle of voter outsiders against Washington insiders.

At the same time, a Congressional candidate who takes the position that Congress must be fixed first, that voter unity on that must not be undermined, and for that reason the candidate declines to take positions on other issues, in all likelihood, will attract little or no voter support.

The foregoing conundrum may have been a contributing factor in Lawrence Lessig's decision to leave MAYDAY and undertake a "Hail Mary" run for President utilizing his idea of a trustee President whose only purpose was to get reform passed by Congress. Professor Lessig denominated this a "referendum Presidential candidacy."

That Presidential candidacy has foundered.

The conundrum continues, however, for MAYDAY at the Congressional level.

Professor Lessig could not run a single issue Presidential campaign, and very likely no Congressional candidate can run a viable single issue Congressional campaign.

If unity of voters is critically important in order to force the passage of reform by Congress, and if Congressional candidates cannot run single issue candidacies, and if that can cause the reform issue to get lost in the mix in the 2016 elections, how might the conundrum be resolved?

Here is the idea of this effort for avoiding the problem, to wit, force the current Congress to take action about reform before the 2016 elections, under the threat that the 2016 elections will be a referendum on how Congress, and individual Representatives and Senators, do in taking action to pass reform.

This would require massive citizen mobilization for such a threat to become credible. Incumbent Representatives and incumbent Senators would need to be put on notice by their constituents that they risk being voted out of office if they don't act to pass reform before the 2016 elections, or if they pass reform and the reform that is passed is judged by voters not to be adequate.

While there is widespread belief that Congress is "broken", there are numerous different things that might be done to try to "fix" Congress, and there will be differing ideas about what should be tried. These would be legitimately subjects of debate.

Indeed, that is exactly what should happen. Both Republican and Democratic incumbents in Congress should be forced to take a position about whether or not they think Congress is "broken."

They can take a position that they don't think Congress is "broken" and their constituents can decide whether the constituents agree or not.

Alternatively, an incumbent in Congress who says that Congress is "broken" can propose what he or she thinks should be done to try to "fix" the broken Congress.

Congressional debate should then ensue.

This debate would be subject to an overhanging threat that Congress must debate the subject and agree, or not agree, on something, and that something will be the subject of the 2016 elections referendum.

Voters can vote in favor of their incumbent if they think Congress has done a credible job in what Congress has proposed (or not proposed), or against their incumbent if voters are dissatisfied with what Congress has proposed (or not proposed).

Under this approach, MAYDAY need not be involved with supporting particular Congressional candidates because of their position on reform but can dedicate itself exclusively to mobilizing citizenry to demand that all Congressional candidates publicly declare that the issue needs to be addressed and resolved by Congress prior to November 8, 2016, subject to the voters ultimately deciding about the matter on November 8, 2016.

It would seem that any Congressional candidate who will not make the declaration can expect to lose support in their campaign, and a Congressional candidate who makes the declaration should not lose support from making the declaration. This dynamic should allow for great public awareness of the issue, and that gives the Declaration idea plausible efficacy.

The Presidential race demonstrates that the time is right

The mind boggling turmoil in the Presidential race, and the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, make manifest widespread citizen resentment, disgust, and anger regarding Washington DC and Congress. Activists for reform should endeavor to use that to appeal across the political spectrum for citizen mobilization to force Congress to face up to its brokenness before November 8, 2016. The candidates' Declaration idea set out in this blog seems well worth dedicating efforts to.


For a wording of the candidate declaration, see 2016 Congressional candidates Declaration.
If you are persuaded about the rationale for this effort, please consider the Tactics being employed and also this updated Progress report.