This article aims to define Sen. Sanders's platform, by reflecting the words and spirit of he and his faithful, while including the most vital of initial policy concerns. Following Sen. Sanders's and Donald Trump's respective campaigns, this platform could be the most appealing response to recent events and their potentially frightening consequences, for a disenfranchised citizenry which represents more than half of voters.

::::::::

December 21, 2016

Introduction

While Greg Palast tweeted his ''like'' of my article addressing ¹constitutional change for the democratization of the U.S., his gesture was ironic, as discussed later.

This follow-up article expands upon and concludes the initial piece, to inspire a constitutionally-minded platform for Senator Sanders's party-to-be, while including an initial policy concern. Nothing could be more appealing to all disenfranchised citizens (which represents about half of eligible voters), in the aftermath to and consequences of Sen. Sanders and Donald Trump's respective campaigns.

Senator Sanders's budding party platform for democracy: The survey

A - Senator Sanders should endorse a broad survey, the answers to which would serve as confirmation of populist support for his party, including validation of its programme, while at the same time implicitly reflecting a rebuke of the 2 corporate-funded parties and the system upon which their domination is dependent.

B - The survey must respond to whether citizens are happy with the present system of government, while seizing the opportunity to also weigh-in on a major issue to which a democratic system would have responded years ago (based on long-since conducted surveys).

The survey:

Part 1

To join the Western nations that enjoy parliamentary democracies, the survey must ask if the respondent favours:

Choice #1 - No change to present non-parliamentary 2-party system.

Choice #2 - On the voting ballots, voters must select his/her favoured candidate, along with a second-choice-candidate; if the riding does not produce a candidate with 50% or more of that sector's votes, a majority would result via a second count which would follow the elimination of the party with the least votes. (If there are more than 3 parties, then the run-off would only include the top 2 parties.)

Choice #3 - Here, representation corresponds to the popular vote: This is favoured in most democracies (and the result is voter turnouts of about 75%).

In the example of choice #2 above, and as is the case in ^*Canada's present (but promised to change) parliamentary system, a minority government is possible. It is the ¹POSSIBILITY of (allowance for) a minority government which assures the existence of democracy.

However, in a parliamentary democracy where representation corresponds to the popular vote (choice #3), coalition governments replace minority governments; this ONLY refers to circumstances where the ruling party achieves less than 50% of the popular vote.

NOTE: Consistent with Choice #2, the survey participant must be asked what his/her second of the 3 choices is, and the survey results must therefore reflect the initial results as well as the ''run-off results'' (in the event that none of the 3 choices were to garner 50% support).

(Consistent with Senator Sanders's success, the survey would plainly reflect the VAST demand for change. Above all, it would demonstrate questions and participants' choices that analysts would be forced to deem fair and reasonable - hence, the birth of Sen. Sanders's party and its platform for democracy.)

Part 2

To capture survey participants' increased interest, I advise adding a policy question, so as to illustrate what kind of change is possible when citizens' voices enjoy democracy's ear, as opposed to the deaf corporate-sponsored political parties' arrogant dictates:

QUESTION: ''Do you support a ban on ALL firearms, with an allowance for the on-site rental of hunting rifles, including an additional exemption for police forces which may use rubber bullets? ''Yes'' represents favouring all of the preceding, while ''no'' represents the status quo.''

Would Americans find the above plan too difficult or unthinkable, solely due to opposition to it? As Sen. Sanders has been the defiant one, have recent events opened up this door, rendering Trump's victory a blessing in disguise?

Dangerously false democracy, democracy, and lousy ^*democracy

^*Canadians have suffered under the absurd ''first-past-the-post'' system and it has led to a drop-off in voter turnout.

The ''first-past-the-post'' system allows a candidate to win his/her riding with less than 50% of the vote and, as a result, Canada has been humiliated with MAJORITY governments that were supported by less than 37% of the vote.

{Americans haven't enjoyed voter turnouts in excess of 50% for most the U.S.'s existence, reflecting an implicit statement by the people that they do not have a democracy, self-congratulatory praise of democratic greatness set aside in favour of reality. (Therefore, not voting has been the most democratic and non-violent expression of patriotic duty.)}

Therefore, Canada, in its modern (post-1984) history has suffered under a right wing tyranny which led to numerous popularly opposed and sovereignty-crippling measures, thereby dropping the voter turnouts from the 70-75% zone enjoyed by the other Western democracies.

NOTE: A 2-party system feeds negative campaigning, and the latter in turn leads to lower voter turnouts, since positive reforms which appeal to the electorate are replaced by strategic off-putting ¹negative campaigning.

Meanwhile, given the U.S.'s laughable voter turnouts, policies are not deemed supported by even 25% of the people.

The more base the democracy, the greater the propaganda proclaiming its existence, and the combination fuels the ever-increasing sense of desperation and frustration, along with the latter's attendant ever-increasing levels of violence and murder.

For most in the free world, the 2-party systems found in France and the U.S. is NO democracy at all. Nor can the system be a parliamentary structure in name only (Japan), as the political infrastructure must NECESSARILY allow for a minority government.

At the other end of the dangerous corporate 2-party facade of democracy (which masks the need to found a democratic system), lie the democratic options summarized in this article, while, in-between we note Canada's broken system, which awaits a promised but still not realized overhaul.

As for the 2 systems of democratic government that are summarized for the survey above (and from which Canada will choose), while Choice #3 may be the purest, Choice #2 may be best for Americans as it represents a less dramatic change, for a country which presently has something worse than no democracy at all.

The final referendum question could contain an adjoining clause that allows voters to revisit the constitutional change in 15 years, to determine if the people would welcome an "upgrade" to Choice #3.

Simply, today, fewer than 25% of voters are deemed to be in support of most policies in the U.S.

Under today's Canadian system, that number would increase to about 37%, unless a party gains a majority with 37% while simultaneously misrepresenting its intentions, as has been the case in the post-1984 period under unprecedented neo-conservative rule (hence the coming promised electoral change), which has defied House conventions and basic decency that were respected since Confederation in 1867.

Under Choice #2, I believe approximately 44% of voters would be deemed to be in support of any given government policy.

Under Choice #3, 50% or more would be deemed to be in support of any given government policy.

Conclusion: Irony and futile efforts

When I sent the initial piece to Greg Palast, several activists, writers and, of course, Sen. Sanders, the senator was in the middle of the DNC.

Yet, only Greg Palast tweeted a "like" (I don't know if he read Rousseau's Social Contract, but Mr. Palast let the world know of his approval).

While the constitutional amendment (the ¹March 28, 2016 article actually represents more of an overhaul) addresses permanent overnight change and solutions, the new constitution would also prevent the reshaped borders and new currencies that otherwise lie directly ahead, including the massive human destruction that would almost surely run hand-in-hand.

Today's frustration and its building energy of violence would morph into the celebration of true greatness, replacing today's U.S. nationalist ranting and propaganda-borne facade of democracy.

The celebration's swell would be organic.

Greg Palast's appreciation was intellectual, while the initial article called for the organisation of writers and activists of all stripes and professional backgrounds, so as to finally make a real-world difference in the implementation of the constitutional overhaul.

Without the latter, all of the writing and faithful struggles to-date will have related to nothing more than futile efforts against a background of swelling success enjoyed by the increasingly arrogant and defiant monsters who operate a system wherein the good works of kind and brilliant minds are set aside most dismissively.

For this reason, Greg Palast's appreciation for the repeatedly linked article above is ironic. The article had a stated purpose:

To organize disjointed and almost-underground efforts and people, into a visible cohesive offensive of reason and patriotic love that could and would thwart all nationalism and the latter's tyrannical denial of the frustrated General Will.

I opined on whom to organize. To tweet a "like" is more writing. Hence the irony. This article has perfected, rounded out and rendered the platform more precise.

My dear American friends: You are proud to be people of action, yet it is too often the less desirable ones asserting themselves. For the sake of all, let the good people finally be the ones to act in unity, with both purpose and resolve.

¹OpEdNews: ''Jeffersonian Constitutional Amendment for Democratization of U.S.'', by Sid Klein March 28, 2016

Authors Bio:
http://www.sidklein.com/Japanese_equity_markets_expert.html