Fwd: Update on the Citizen Equality Act project
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Bruce Skarin
Nov 21, 2015, 9:23:28 PM11/21/15
to Citizen Equality
Hello CEA volunteers. This a test email that I'd like to get a bit of feedback on before sending it out to the full list. Please also take a look at the updates to the site and let me know if we can improve it more. Thanks! -Bruce
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Team Equality <teameq...@citizens4equality.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Update on the Citizen Equality Act project
To: bruce...@gmail.com
From: Team Equality <teameq...@citizens4equality.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Update on the Citizen Equality Act project
To: bruce...@gmail.com
Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders. |
William Cerf
Nov 21, 2015, 9:32:46 PM11/21/15
to Bruce Skarin, Citizen Equality
Greetings,
I like the site and just signed up with $0.01. I think the minimum should be $0.02 just so folks know that they can put their two cents worth into the project. Over time I hope to donate more money and do so more often. The site looks good to me.
In an earlier post someone mentioned how interest groups get hung up on their own issue and develop an aversion to everything else. Hopefully, we can gather enough momentum that other groups wishing to reform voting, elections and campaign finance will see the value of the CEA as the first step.
Cheers!
William
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/CAJ8f8_yPdPtznzZQ%3DwbN89juz_D7hRw%2Bd3q%3D4U3QnWiEE_6hng%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
William Cerf, Ph.D Candidate, ABD Status
I am willing to be someone who connects with people, their hearts, their ideas and our suffering.
Mislav Kos
Nov 21, 2015, 10:53:48 PM11/21/15
to Citizen Equality
Hi Bruce,
Here's a rewrite with some small edits (mostly copy-editing). See the notes below for what was changed. Feel free to keep whatever changes you like or even ignore it altogether :-)
Thank you for signing up on citizenequality.us or citizens4equality.org to help make the Citizen Equality Act (CEA) a reality.
When Larry Lessig first introduced his vision for the CEA, it finally provided a much needed focal point for anyone who cares about fixing government. The CEA is our chance to define exactly what is needed to fix Washington once and for all.
Right now we have a lot of work to get ready for January 1, but we wanted to get the current working plan out to you as soon as possible. Today as we hit our first 1,000 signups, we've updated the site to reflect our plan and to set our minimal goal of 51,000 citizen cosponsors.
For those who signed up earlier or have yet to make a pledge, please do so now, so that we can hit our minimum goal early. Your contributions will be tax deductible, and, even if you are unable to give, we still need you to put in your two cents ($0.02), so that we know that you want to take part.
Please visit citizens4equality.org now to read the latest and make a pledge today. Thank you.
Summary of changes made:
- Removed space between "citizenequality" and ".us".
- Changed "anyone that cares" to "anyone who cares".
- Removed the following sentence, because it sounded awkward to me, and also because it doesn't make sense to just say "we need proof" and then stop there (without offering any proof):
- "When 96 percent of voters are desperate for change, but only 9 percent believe change is even possible, we need proof that change is possible".
- Added comma after "signups".
- Changed "For those that" to "For those who".
- Changed "or have have yet" to "or have yet".
- Added comma after "please do so now".
- Added commas before and after "even if you are unable to give".
- Added a dollar sign before "0.02".
- Added comma before "so that we know".
- Changed "So please" to "Please" and removed the comma after "please".
Other feedback:
- Why are we using two sites (citizenequality.us or citizens4equality.org)? That may be confusing and may also seem a bit disorganized to whoever is reading this.
- Why 51,000? Is there some significance to that number? If not, can we do make it a nice, even 50,000?
Brian Shields
Nov 21, 2015, 11:55:53 PM11/21/15
to Citizen Equality
I would remove "anyone that cares about" so the line reads "a much needed focal point for fixing (our) government"
Or, to be honest, changing it entirely to the phrase "a much needed spotlight on the corruption in our government."
I would sign it with your name, Bruce. It makes it personal. This is about returning the power to the people, and this first impression should reflect a personal touch. Look at all of the campaign emails, it's all personalized by someone within the campaign, written like it was just to you. This also means less of a formal signature.
Add a way to share the pledge on Facebook and Twitter, even if it's a link to a webpage to do so. We will need word of mouth marketing.
Also, please fix the bottom link to turn only the web address blue.
Brian Shields
Brian Shields
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/cf5d35ce-0019-4df1-a3e1-5f53c48889f2%40googlegroups.com.
Joe
Nov 22, 2015, 3:10:40 PM11/22/15
to Brian Shields, Citizen Equality
I'm not sure the CEA should be advertised as a "once and for all" fix. Larry framed it as "the most significant civil rights legislation in X years", which I liked.
Or maybe, "essential fixes to restore our republic", which, instead of being a promise to fix washington, is a promise to restore our ability to make Washington FIXABLE.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/4DA7CFC0-7B62-48F2-9D3A-C50DE5278E58%40gmail.com.
Bruce Skarin
Nov 22, 2015, 5:21:06 PM11/22/15
to Citizen Equality
Thanks again everyone. It really does help. Hopefully we will have some pro help soon. Below is an updated version. I'd like to send this out around noon EST Monday.
I've added a plan and sharing pages to the site so that we could trim down the front page. Please review them all and keep the feedback coming! -Bruce
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Skarin <teameq...@citizens4equality.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM
Subject: Update on the Citizen Equality Act project
To: bruce...@gmail.com
From: Bruce Skarin <teameq...@citizens4equality.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM
Subject: Update on the Citizen Equality Act project
To: bruce...@gmail.com
|
|
|
Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders. |
Mislav Kos
Nov 23, 2015, 12:11:09 AM11/23/15
to Citizen Equality
Hi Bruce,
Here is some feedback for the home page text (from www.citizens4equality.org):
>> "No donation is required, but your tax deductible contribution..."
>> And then later: "To take part, make a pledge below"
This is a bit confusing. The reader may be wondering: so is a donation/contribution required or not? My understanding is we're requiring a minimum $0.02 monthly contribution to take part in the crowdsourcing.
Here's a suggested rewrite: "A minimum monthly donation of $0.02 is required to participate in this crowdsourcing effort. Your tax deductible contribution will go directly to the delegates, team, and technology that will make this project possible."
For the following sentence, I would remove "There is nothing to lose". It sound a little desperate and a bit like I'm watching some 2 AM commercial.
>> "you can change your pledge at anytime throughout the project."
It wasn't clear to me at first reading that the pledges have to be for a monthly contribution, so this sentence didn't make sense to me. If you clarify before this sentence that the pledge is for a monthly contribution, then this sentence should be fine.
>> "How much would you pledge to donate month for the seven month duration of this project starting on 12:00 AM EST on January 01 2016? ¶ Other $"
Suggested rewrite: "Please enter the amount you would like to pledge each month for this project's seven month duration, starting on January 1, 2016. (You will not be charged prior to January 1, 2016.)"
Mislav Kos
Nov 23, 2015, 12:18:36 AM11/23/15
to Citizen Equality
Feedback for http://www.citizens4equality.org/the_plan:
The word "delegate" is used the first time in the first bullet point, but it's not going to be clear to the reader what a delegate is. You explain a bit what a delegate is further on below, but I think it would be helpful to define the term before using it in the bullet point list.
>> Delegates will be responsible for representing his or her 1,000 cosponsors
How will delegates represent their cosponsors? What will be the method for them to do this?
Tim Huegerich
Nov 24, 2015, 12:29:22 PM11/24/15
to Citizen Equality
I am really concerned about citizens4equality as the url. People who are allergic to the idea of income equality are going to be turned off from the get-go. To my mind, "equality" should never stand alone in our messaging: it's "citizen equality" that we stand for. That won't mean anything to people unfamiliar with this effort, but hopefully it will spark their curiosity to learn more rather than turn them off before they have a chance to learn more.
Tim
p.s. I doubt this is much of a concern for people already signed up for emails, who just received this missive. But my feeling is that it is critical going forward as we attempt a broader rollout.
Tim Huegerich
Nov 24, 2015, 12:34:39 PM11/24/15
to Citizen Equality
Ok, the first word on the citizens4equality site is a typo: Lobbyist should be Lobbyists..
Bruce Skarin
Nov 24, 2015, 12:37:10 PM11/24/15
to Tim Huegerich, Citizen Equality
Uhg. Fixed, thanks!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/c0541d91-29ba-4178-b8f2-3f2485f2cdec%40googlegroups.com.
Bruce Skarin
Nov 25, 2015, 10:21:36 AM11/25/15
to Citizen Equality
This is a really good point Tim. Some careful thought on a broadly appealing name is worth doing. In particular, as things continue to evolve, the idea of an omnibus act becomes both logistically hard and problematic if it repeats what is in other bills.
I just had a conversation with the ED at issueone.org and they are looking to write a new gold standard bill for campaign finance in 2016, fairvote has a complete bill, but it could use review and possibly revisions, I am sure we could find a voting rights group to sponsor the third bill. What do folks think of a name like allourvoices ? We still keep the crowdsourcing model, which would make us sort of the grassroots wing for all three of these more expert communities.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
-Bruce
Joe
Nov 25, 2015, 10:37:50 AM11/25/15
to Bruce Skarin, Citizen Equality
How about Citizens For Citizen Equality?
Just kidding.
I like the name "Citizen Equality" and I think it differs in exactly the way that it should from the meaning of "Citizens For Equality."
Here's another suggestion: "Equal Voices"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/9bdc6677-f7f8-4b0a-8e2b-a776ea327c26%40googlegroups.com.
Tim Huegerich
Nov 25, 2015, 10:40:49 AM11/25/15
to Bruce Skarin, Citizen Equality
Thanks, Bruce. Ah, I see the concern about duplicating efforts, but I think you're right that there remains a role for us from the grassroots crowdsourcing angle. In any case, I love "All Our Voices"! I think the "equality" wording has strong resonance on the left, but (really just guessing, here) I'm not sure it connects on the right even when paired with "citizen(s)."
Have you had any interaction with the group Larry mentioned as "coming from the right" in his last campaign email? We might study up on their messaging (if they are getting traction, that is) at the veyr least: http://www.takeback.org/content/page/Educational-Papers#interest
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/citizenequality/z5ETXH30fTU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
Bruce Skarin
Nov 25, 2015, 10:54:20 AM11/25/15
to Tim Huegerich, Citizen Equality
Yes, John Pudner is the ED of takeback.org and I remain in touch with him. He is onboard with being a delegate. I'm trying to line up a number of "celebrity" delegates that are also experts in the domain areas.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/CAF7xUjPAFmzhGE%3DAzfh%2B1URuuXfBqBoxbj1S038Z-yo_mE7bNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Al Cannistraro
Nov 25, 2015, 11:25:46 AM11/25/15
to Citizen Equality
All Our Voices makes sense only if you already know what it’s all about. Citizen Equality at least gives a broad hint.
How about a name that at least suggests The People’s getting Congress back from The Few?
Restore Congress
Fix Congress
Congress for the People
Peoples Congress
Unrig Congress
The Congressional Reclamation Project
Fair Congress
Al C.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Thoughts?
-Bruce
Joe
Nov 25, 2015, 11:29:16 AM11/25/15
to Al Cannistraro, Citizen Equality
Those are some attractive suggestions, Al.
I'm kind of drawn to the <verb> <Congress> ones.
UnrigCongress has a nice ring to it, although the word Unrig somehow strikes me as possibly aesthetically unpleasing. Not sure why.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/5655e109.24618c0a.6b349.42b8%40mx.google.com.
Joe
Nov 25, 2015, 11:31:55 AM11/25/15
to Al Cannistraro, Citizen Equality
Can I just add one more thought? I think our name should live up to what we're trying to do here, which is big.
Larry said he wanted to pass "the most significant civil rights legislation since the 1960s"
That's a grand statement that represents our cause, and our name should carry that kind of weight to it.
Which leads me back to "Citizen Equality", which is a big sounding vision.
Joe
Nov 25, 2015, 11:34:31 AM11/25/15
to Al Cannistraro, Citizen Equality
Group, let me offer one more suggestion. Ralph Nader's group is called Public Citizen.
How about we call ours "Equal Citizen"? I think that may have a better ring to it than Citizen Equality.
Tim Huegerich
Nov 25, 2015, 12:58:27 PM11/25/15
to Joe, Al Cannistraro, Citizen Equality
I concur on retaining "Equal Citizen" or "Citizen Equality," especially for maintaining continuity (and it's been the name of the Act, afterall). What I am more against is "Citizens for Equality."
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/CADN8HjOZGnCxbjCxN7FgdgQ4iSJ3SFmAxJPBRPgmu6FvGxZgqA%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruce Skarin
Nov 25, 2015, 2:04:00 PM11/25/15
to Citizen Equality
Equal Citizens might convey the meaning the best. I think it makes it the clearest that we aren't talking about citizens that are equal in every sense, e.g. wealth, but rather people that are equal as citizens.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequality+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizenequality@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/5655e109.24618c0a.6b349.42b8%40mx.google.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/citizenequality/z5ETXH30fTU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to citizenequality+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizenequality@googlegroups.com.
Joe
Nov 25, 2015, 2:07:34 PM11/25/15
to Bruce Skarin, Citizen Equality
Singular or plural?
Equal Citizen
or
Equal Citizens
Ralph's group isn't pluralized. Not sure what's preferable.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/5655e109.24618c0a.6b349.42b8%40mx.google.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/citizenequality/z5ETXH30fTU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/CADN8HjOZGnCxbjCxN7FgdgQ4iSJ3SFmAxJPBRPgmu6FvGxZgqA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/29bd9419-651f-4512-8bab-7d290fd7ea14%40googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
Tim Huegerich
Nov 25, 2015, 2:14:00 PM11/25/15
to Joe, Bruce Skarin, Citizen Equality
Maybe plural to avoid sounding too much like the Nader-founded group?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/CADN8HjN_jtVRjtwLTJwc-vFSxVPRvG%3DWwaLxHJx3c9H-D68X7A%40mail.gmail.com.
Joe
Nov 25, 2015, 2:29:21 PM11/25/15
to Tim Huegerich, Bruce Skarin, Citizen Equality
That's a strong point.
Joe
Nov 28, 2015, 12:23:55 PM11/28/15
to Tim Huegerich, Bruce Skarin, Citizen Equality
This is totally random but I saw that Bernie Sanders made the following statement:
"Criminal justice reform must be the civil rights issue of the 21st century."
This could foreshadow a conflict with those of us who describe our issue as the most important civil rights issue of the 21st century. Maybe it's worth thinking about what kinds of rhetorical strategies might help minimize these conflicts, or help us deal with them when they do happen.
Maybe one idea is to better emphasize, or lead with, the voter rights aspects of our plans. So, instead of leading off with Citizen Funded elections, we could lead off with equal right to vote.
Personally, I think the campaign funding aspects of our goals are the most essential but I also tend to think that they are least "inspiring" to our cause of "equality". The voter rights and equal representation aspects could attract more allies than just nerdy types like many of us (I assume).
Clay Shentrup
Nov 28, 2015, 12:59:37 PM11/28/15
to Citizen Equality
Gee, you might think that if more black, Latino, women, etc. folks made it into office, our criminal justice issues would be a lot better. E.g. whites make up 29% of Ferguson's residents, but five of Ferguson's six city council members were are white, as is Mayor James Knowles. (That was true in 2014, though I don't know if that's changed since then.)
With proportional representation, that almost certainly wouldn't have been the case. And the effects of greater diversity would trickle down into hiring decisions within e.g. the police department. So how is electoral reform not on Sanders's radar?
Joe
Dec 5, 2015, 1:47:07 PM12/5/15
to Clay Shentrup, Citizen Equality
Quick item for you all: I noticed this website being promoted by Ben & Jerry:
I think its a great idea but I wasn't terribly crazy about their stamp slogans. I think it might be pretty cool to basically steal their idea and have stamps that say something like:
Fix our broken government
This would probably be a good way to raise funds as well.
Feedback?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Clay Shentrup <cl...@electology.org> wrote:
Gee, you might think that if more black, Latino, women, etc. folks made it into office, our criminal justice issues would be a lot better. E.g. whites make up 29% of Ferguson's residents, but five of Ferguson's six city council members were are white, as is Mayor James Knowles. (That was true in 2014, though I don't know if that's changed since then.)With proportional representation, that almost certainly wouldn't have been the case. And the effects of greater diversity would trickle down into hiring decisions within e.g. the police department. So how is electoral reform not on Sanders's radar?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/f9bacdad-8da3-4ba2-800b-63da7eb49526%40googlegroups.com.
Elizabeth Lindquist
Dec 5, 2015, 6:30:27 PM12/5/15
to Joe, Citizen Equality, Clay Shentrup
Stamp Stampede has been helping pretty much all the get money out groups, so I think they'd be happy to help once there's a real organization. Good idea.
-Elizabeth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/CADN8HjNjFe602KgpKfgmyugEXdnzsz89X94Xa9GRoyWFZagMTg%40mail.gmail.com.
Clay Shentrup
Dec 5, 2015, 10:42:59 PM12/5/15
to Citizen Equality
It would be ideal if they understood the best way to make money less influential. Fix the voting system.
Clay Shentrup
Dec 5, 2015, 11:33:30 PM12/5/15
to Brian Shields, Citizen Equality
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Brian Shields <shiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- I honestly think half the problem is that the election is too long.
This may compound the problem, but it is small in comparison to the effect of the voting method.
With the current vote-for-one system, voters are strategically "forced" to vote for someone who is electable. Even if you love, say, Dennis Kucinich, you're not going to vote for him if you think he'll lose the general. So you have to figure out who the frontrunners are, and vote for your favorite from among them.
How do you determine who the frontrunners are? What are the indicators of electability? To a large extent, it's about who has raised the most money. There are also other factors, like getting key endorsements, or doing well in early polls. But even those other indicators are themselves heavily influenced by money. Romney famously paid tons of money to bus in supporters to early straw polls with no official significance, just to create the early impression of electability. With a sane voting system, that would be an absurd way to spend money. You'd want to focus on spending money to actually make people prefer you. But with Plurality Voting, it's even more critical to spend money convincing people that you can win.
Then there's a whole other level when you consider that the dominant two-party system is inherently biased toward the established system. Independent and minor party candidates would, if elected, have a radically greater propensity to enact legislation to curb the impact of money in a variety of other ways (e.g. legally repealing Citizens United). But with our present voting system, you have that entrenched two-party system, with a huge number of "safe seats". The two-party establishment isn't going to pass your campaign finance regulations.
Brian Shields
Dec 8, 2015, 7:57:22 AM12/8/15
to Clay Shentrup, Citizen Equality
I honestly think half the problem is that the election is too long.
Every other democratic nation has theirs wrapped up start to finish in 90 days. We're only 35-40% done with a year to go.
More time means more money to spend which means more peddling influence in order to survive the election.
Brian Shields
Brian Shields
It would be ideal if they understood the best way to make money less influential. Fix the voting system.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Citizen Equality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to citizenequali...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to citizen...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/citizenequality/c1343a30-8abb-4a79-b4a3-17d6e40107a2%40googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages