equilibrium. .. i think what people really need, i think we're ready for voters revolution, and i think the last 10 years i've been saying the. people looked at me strange. now everybody says yes we need a revolution. we have to flush congress. they are full of -- never mind. so my question is don't you

think we need to independent candidates for local state and federal and presidential elections to lead that voter revolution? the time is now. >> i concur. i agree with you. i agree with you. i can say i definitely agree. >> i will be a troublemaker. right now you know my experience is the political process, throwing in another candidate is sometimes really helpful, but it doesn't go to the core of our divisions. and that's where my real interest is. i don't, so what's going to cause the flip? i'm just putting that out there as my question. >> okay. before you start, just one second. just to let you all know we are going to run this discussion

until 12:30 p.m. so that's 15 more minutes. before we break for lunch but i did want to ask people to keep your statements or your questions concise. >> thank you. thanks to each of you for leading this discussion. i'd like to suggest first of all briefly that according to a research there's a vacuum of americans, despite being americans, actually hate american democracy and i think that's part of her problem and that's what we are up against. that's just to throw that out there i would like to thank mr. johnson for the image of the canoe because my name is philip. i'm from new york and i'm homeless. and i think from what you said that if i think if i sink using. i appreciate that. i suffer from long-term homelessness despite a college degree about like to ask you in the independent party if this is an appeal to make homelessness an issue for across the nation. because we are seeing increasing

criminalization of homeless people despite the fact there's that an increasing number of college-educated people and veterans among us. so this is, of course a particular question of interest to me. i am involved with advocates in new your city and the like to throw the issue out to the national party. -- new york city, this the issue becomes important to the party across the country. thanks very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> i think homelessness is poverty. i mean i organize homeless people all the time. it is a very important part of what it is that we are doing. it's critical. and what i teach homeless people is that with all the pain and misery involved and how their lives are lived, they have to get out here and help to build this because that's going to make a difference so thanks.

thanks. >> in arizona we created the central arizona shelter which was an organization that started while i was in office, and i was involved in putting together. we put business leaders on that group and it was manna because our legislature and others completely ignored the issue. it is amazing how after we put corporate people on the board first they came up with good processes and procedures. they did a good job of dealing with financial, keeping the or commission healthy, they also became a voice to the other side. again my concept i think i would really stressed do today is understanding the importance of symbiotic mutualism. you have to find ways to take these issues and bring people together on them, to educate to listen to one another. when that happens it's much more healthy for democracy and it has a much greater sustainability. [applause] >> fondness is part of my --

homelessness is part of my platform would iran for governor in illinois. i will keep that up there. >> i am a third year student at the university of north carolina at greensboro. i study human development and family studies african-american studies and 97 question for the panel. how can reform and independent politics bring about in of social and structural change to a capitalistic society whose foundation is built on perpetuating violence, and that violence being poverty? capitalizing off the poor keeping us poor and making the rich richer. [applause] >> i mean things are brought to society by virtue of activity on the ground of people. so the society itself is not going to reorganize itself but it's going to reorganize itself, are you? our young people and rich people

who care about these issues and everybody in between? it's the activity we have to organize people to do. if we want to change it we have to change it. >> i'm heather demarco and i have a question regarding moms rising. it's something that really intrigued me and i agree with both of you that we should not blame social injustice on babies. i had a question as to how do you think that the psychological development of people in poverty have an effect for come as a whole nation culture? we are very passive when it comes to things. we can change the laws but culturally we have become very sick. the impression to think that a woman and a child is something that is not worth change is quite sad in this nation. so how do you think we can use

psychology through developing the youth as a tool to change the platform for youth to be more interested in political situations? [applause] >> well, i think it's about getting mothers and the kids to show. we had a great group of mothers and kids show up in washington state were paid sick days just two weeks ago i think. and paid sick days are happening. so when things are not working on a national level sometimes we can get a really substantial successes at a local, some of the paid sick days have been happening in cities and at the state level and start modeling good behavior. it is a big system and a lot to do but the hope is that doing

some of this work that it will start moving faster and faster. >> what all the young people in the room stand or raise your hand? [applause] >> look at them. that's my answer. >> hello. i am the president of independent voters of nevada and i just wanted to share an anecdote that you, from my visit with jackie salit and joan when you talk about your changing the conversation. and in january i went to the nevada women's lobby which i'm a member of. we lobby our legislators, and this your face with the most conservative legislature we have had in 30 years. so the question came up about young voters and the fact we

can't get them to the polls to vote and change what's happening with the legislature. so i asked a question how do we change the conversation to a more inclusive and less they don't like the language so how do we change that conversation? and the entire room came undone. these are democratic leaders from the state. it's supposed be a nonpartisan group, and it got partisan real quick and it's been 45 minutes doing the. i just wanted to share that. [applause] >> good day, everyone. i apologize for the cell phone. my name is reginald sweeney. iran campaign called sweeney 2013 on the democratic ticket. my campaign was run with just 4000 out of. we have seven candidates. once the democratic candidate

won that primary, it was a shoo-in out of brooklyn. we have the same people for 39 years, 40 years. i'm just thankful to be here because i snuck out of the house, four year old son, but i want to know how does the independent party groom its candidates? i'm looking, i'm not frustrated i'm just a little tired of the same two party system. when i ran in the primary they were very upset. my goal is to have an independent voice. i don't feel switching parties because i'm angry one party that really doesn't do anything. i've heard a lot of things about homeless and poverty. we wasn't born poor and i just wanted to just put it out there, when you have candidates that previously ran, somebody like myself, i wanted, i came there before, last year, and so my

question is this. how do you vet the candidates that you put there to run for these primaries? and there's a little groundswell with the minorities within the middle class, upper lower middle class. they want to switch party. i'm involved in sunset park so there's a lot of conversation at the table about one party doesn't do anything, the other one, so you'll have a lot of voters who are not happy with a lot of things that are going on. and i hope that maybe someday i can meet someone i can probably talk to me more about your party but it was sweeney 13. i would be interested if you look at because i bdo did and i want to make sure didn't sound like i sound like the one of debating these guys. they were so many for libel suit for both parties, your party can probably make some inroads, but i'm out of brooklyn. there's homeless, thanks. i just want to thank you.

i don't want to take 30 seconds but good work and you never know but there is room for change. >> thank you. [applause] >> hello. there isn't a national conversation about poverty as dr. fulani said earlier. however, since we last met two years ago there has been created a very prominent international conversation about persistent and growing inequality of wealth and income. and in the u.s., interestingly it really started with grassroots organizing and protests by occupy wall street. and now it's gotten much bigger with republican presidential candidates having to address this issue. "the wall street journal" on monday having an op-ed piece

which you know try to refute the idea that the government and the political system can do something about these conditions. and so my question is whether you have been at all thinking about how to relate this to the problem of political dysfunction dysfunction. because one of the most recent books did a study of 23 or so democracies around the world wealthy democracies, and found that there was a direct relationship between the extent of inequality in wealth and income and the structure of the political system in terms of how many vetoes they were before something could become law. and we are right at the top of that because we have the congress, the senate, the president and the supreme court. and i think what can be added to

that from what the independent movement is doing is to point out that we have yet another dysfunction, which is the partisanship of the illegal parties, that that should be put into the equation in this national and international conversation about what can be done about changing the growing inequality of wealth and income. so my question is do you think we can intersect this with the issue of political partisanship? >> yes. >> yes. [laughter] [applause] >> hi. my name is doreen. i'm with the delicate -- delegate from the b.c. and were invited by doctor rafael nadal is. my question is this is the first time i've ever been to a

political forum and i really liked it. and i'm thinking about -- >> we like you. >> thank you. i'm thinking about being an independent voter. [applause] my question is if i assert myself to be a poor person and the government or the president is never allowed to say poor person or poor people, but keeps saying the middle class, how will i know that there's somebody there who recognizes my condition and will help me get out of it? and also know i want to be independent voter. if they vote for any independent candidate, what is the guarantee that this president is going to recognize my condition in society and can help me out of it? thank you. >> i have two quick things. one is that, i mean i know we've and i'm voting for candidates but what we're really trying to do is to transform

what the process is. so part of what independents should be doing as they run for office is working on that issue whether they win or lose because that's the issue. i'm great if i run for president of the united states, and i want but if i did the system is not going to change. we are trying to change things systematically. what was your first, what was the first thing you said? what was the first question you asked? >> my question is, if the president is not supposed to talk about -- >> then you dump him. [laughter] i'm serious. that's what you do. obama did that. he went from talking about the poor and poverty when he first ran in the night of his second inauguration he talked about middle-class. i turned the tv off. [applause] >> here's what we're going to

do. we are going to take two more people from this site, to where people from this site. please keep your comments their short. everyone else, you get a chance to talk again in the second audience discussion. >> i am a member of u.s. i am see ica and am also involved with the thomson kids. and my question is this. we have been infiltrated by our government by outside forces who actually messing the country of the how do we get rid of those people who are actually inside of the white house with their policies and their lobbies? they are taking money out of the american public that we need here for education and the kids. how do we stop these maniacs? >> well, one way to stop the ship to vote more independent candidates into office. that's it. that's the reality right there.

>> a comment that was made earlier about how to prevent people come here's the best way to vet people. you let everybody to run and the top two vote getters get to the next level meaning the voters that them. >> i'm a daily volunteer with kathy stewart and ms. hoffman. i'm a graduate and i've noticed that the united states of america is really the divided states of america. everything in this country is separated, age, color gender everything religion. everything is so separated but we say we are united. my thing is that if we would focus more on solutions to the problems instead of focusing on

parties and give the people more of a voice, we would find better solutions to these problems. i don't believe that it's their that only two parties dictate these directions of how the government to -- of how the country grows. i believe that if we have this political reform will be just eliminate parties, just eliminate the parties. know, i'm being frank. i will wrap it up in 20 seconds. at the end of the day it's a solution that we need. i tell my client am going -- i'm pretty sure you know what's happening. but at the end of the day i tell my clients that at the end of the day we need to speak up. we need to get out and be more involved in our communities to have a better voice for solutions to be made more apparently clear.

instead of parties dictating. [applause] >> i have a question for dr. fulani. i love the video greeting this morning. i saw a wonderful picture of you in 1992 campaign in the new hampshire democratic primary and that picture we all saw this morning said above it to roads are better than one. and what you meant by that is to roads to run, i'm running in the democratic primary in new hampshire and am running in the general election. if we had had a top two system in the presidential election in 1992 you could not have run in the general election. one of your roads would have been taken away. so i wonder how you feel about that? >> well first of all what i was speaking to was the reality of the political process at that

time and i was supporting reverend jesse jackson because historically his campaign was important in the democratic primary, and i ran myself as an independent because i knew that the democratic party was not going to give their primary position over, or whatever, their presidential slot over to jesse. so i don't know if this is a trick question -- [laughter] but that had particular historical meaning. i don't think everybody, every time, the next time that iran iran on a to roads strategy. and i don't know what else to say. what is it that you don't like? [laughter] >> you'd give me a second chance to i'm a san francisco voter. my about -- >> i love the top two. that's which are speaking to. the reason why i love top two is because i have watched in the

communities that i most close to nyc all of the country the same people run for office, the same people get elected. there's no challenge in the black community and in other communities. you can be the dumbest person in the world, but if you've been in office for 55 years, there's nobody to have a debate with. so i'm passionate about it because i want people to go there and i want them to kick their butts. i want him to stay to these politicians, let me tell you what you should be working on and say to the community i'm better than them. you don't have to be locked into getting, supporting them because they're the only people here. we love top two. [applause] >> i'm a san francisco voter. my ballot in november had one republican and one democrat and nobody else. so i didn't vote for the first time in 50 years.

>> that's fine. >> thank you very much. >> and it's good to see you. >> my name is dominic edwards. i'm a student at north carolina queensboro. i'm a dance major as well as the psychology major. and if i would like to break is this idea that you don't care to get involved with changing the start of the governed. i'm 20 and a promise you we are with you guys. we are together and we worked together. [applause] okay. creativity in such ability of to each and everyone of our minds. it doesn't just lie in the hearts of painters, musicians, dancers. it's in all of us. finding new ways to do things is an outcome of creativity. i think those who believe in continuing the bipartisan system lacks great motivation to change the process not because they don't want to change but because they are scared to be created. what we can do, i don't know what we can do about this because our school system doesn't allow us to practice creativity in a way that sticks with is a strongly as it should

so that it sticks with us in all areas of our lives. [applause] on. >> thank you. all right. let's have another round of applause for our panelists. [applause] >> more now from a unified independent party conference. up next advocate efforts to change the american election process and the future of the independent movement. this panel is two hours. >> so i had the pleasure of introducing our distinguished panel here today. of course, let's welcome back to the stage paul johnson. [applause] who had a wonderful voice on the panel this morning. next to paul is robert richie and very excited to have rob.

rob is executive director of fairvote since its founding in 1992 which is a national nonprofit nonpartisan organization that advocates for nonpartisan redistricting reforms, also known as instant runoff voting and nostalgic a national popular vote for pressure. is just truly an inspiring and outspoken advocate for some very, very important political reforms. rob, it's really great to have you here. [applause] >> next to rob is a dear friend and colleague, michael hardy. michael is an attorney practicing attorney since 1988. he'she is a leader in the movement for social and criminal justice for many many decades. he is a founder of the national action network and serves as executive vice president and general counsel to the national action network.

please welcome michael hardy. [applause] >> next to michael, chad peace who is here all the way from california. chad is an attorney and he is the president of independent voter contact media llc. he was one of the leaders movers and shakers really of a behind the scenes architect of a successful effort to pass top two open primaries in california. [cheers and applause] and we thank you for that. if the national legal strategist for end of partisanship.org efforts to bring and very very important lawsuit in the state of the jersey which we will hear some about during the course of discussion excels at managing editor of the independent voter news which is an online platform for political news and analysis for independent-minded authors

chad peace. [applause] >> then the final two gentlemen at the end of the couch our homeboys. [laughter] so to speak. harry kresky is counsel to independent voting.org and open primaries. he conducted landmark litigation and protecting the rights of independent voters on the issues of primary reform. in 2002 he served on the new york city charter revision commission, an appointee of mayor michael bloomberg which considered for the first on the issue of nonpartisan elections. in new york is also the national legal adviser to end partianship new jersey litigation, and the most recently won dismissal of a lawsuit that try to dismantle south carolina's open primary system. our general counsel harry

kresky. [cheers and applause] >> and last but not least john opdycke is the president of open primaries which was founded in 2014 after being incubated for many years by independent voting.org. open primaries advocates for open and nonpartisan systems and participates in the building of state, local and national open primaries coalitions. john was formerly the director of development and chief of staff for independent voting.org. we have been around the world together and continue to do so. john opdycke. [applause] okay. so welcome. thank you all for being here and join in discover such. so here's where i want to start out. why should the american people care about political reform?

put it in a slightly different way, what's going on? what's the state of play? what's the state of affairs in this country that makes it the case that the american people should focus on concern themselves and become involved in issues of political reform. >> let me open it up. >> i don't mind starting to i think they are concerned about political reform. if you just get the voter. by the way, can everybody in the back here meet? great. they are concerned about political reform and we have to do is take a look what's going with voter registration to recognize it to a large segment of the population is giving up on the two parties. they are we registered as independents who no organized effort whatsoever. they have become disgusted with what they see is happening politically. they're disconnecting and disassociating with them. the reason they should be concerned about architecture reform or structural reform is

because as those voices leave the party were living a more distilled ideological base inside of both of them that now is increasing insisted on not compromise with the other side. that's having an effect on us congressional the, legislatively throughout our state and our ability to get people who have different points of view to sit down and work together for the common good. the whole concept of the poor was in and out of the many one, it's evading us. we are losing it. spent i think what the mayor said and what we heard this morning, you know, underscores the point that out to the background check, can people hear me okay? okay. which is grounded in the fact that the weight elected officials are happening, or the way they're behaving isn't just personal quirks and characteristic. it's incentives that flow from

the current rules we have. of course, some people rise above that but the general pattern of behavior is grounded in structures and rules that they respond to the incentives within those rules and acting in a certain way. if we don't change will just keep seeing the same kind of behavior. we are in a time of necessary change that is when we that certain regimes and certain facts about the american people that have been evolving and change but we have old rules and old structures. and they just don't mesh together, and if we don't change and update and modernize the rules and structures, which is going to get into a cycle of problems that, of course, are bad for the country. >> thank you. >> one of the interesting experiences in the wake of the oregon campaign for top two last

november was that open primaries did they set of focus groups after the election and we got shellacked in the election. we got just under 33% of the vote. and yet in these focus groups, six out of 10 democrats and republicans, and seven out of 10 independents said we want the top two open primary system. so my first reaction is perplexing. we just had an election on that and we lost big. and who we are revealing the depth of support for these fundamental structural reforms. administers of conversation and think about this and reflecting on this, part of what occurred to me was that people care deeply about these reform. what they want to make sure in some ways the week, they want to see a fight being real diverse coalition of people that are committed to making it happen.

i actually think our challenge is not promoting political reform. i think our challenge is promoting ourselves, promoting the movement and shown the american people that they can trust, they can trust that we can move forward on this because they want it. [applause] him and >> if i can explain why i'm coming from we change with a fundamentally different approach. what people didn't understand is that in california we started months, more than a year before the election doing nothing other than voter education. and what this is, it's not a campaign and it's not about us. it's about the way we elect our representatives. if you put into historical context, we have direct primaries to get the selection process out of the backroom. so where we've gotten today we've got to process we attempt

-- 10% political process across the country. we are 50% people don't feel represented by either party. but the first stage of our process is one conducted not for the purpose of electing representatives for all of us. the stated purpose in the law is to elect somebody who best represents both political parties, you don't have to run run a poll community to talk to people. just look at a restaurant. everybody recognizes it. the parties are not serving as the acting fundament and went to do is not a promotion oversells and i'm sorry to respectfully disagree, to educate the people around us this isn't about independent voters. it's about all of us and about having a system that represents every individual voter. that's not members of the democratic party, not members of the republican party, it's not independents. it's everybody. the right to vote the rise in the citizenship, not from join a political party. it's the principle we should be promoting.

[applause] >> i would say the american people have to care about a little reform because we are being locked outcome left out, killed, denied and give enough and. we have a generation of people that are essentially going to be worse off than the generation before them in so many ways. and if you look at that, the new york city for instance i think there was a report recently that showed new york has one of the most segregated public education systems in the country. many urban areas are more segregated today than they might have been right after brown v. board of education. you look at jobs and an unemployment rate. people were talking about it earlier today, the wealth gap. all of that on some level becomes a function of government. and when government is defined as two parties, then you have to begin to look at the structural

issue there and say what is happening and how can people are not allowed to participate. and i think that we have to figure out that there is a way for you to participate and we're going to show you how. [applause] >> i found the panel discussion this morning both very helpful in very painful, because there is not just a need for cultural change but really since the 1960s there's been a huge cultural change in this country, but the political system is still operating as if none of that happen. so we elect the first vice president, first black president with a new coalition and then lo and behold for the next eight years it's politics as usual. so americans are unhappy.

americans want things and our political system simply doesn't allow changes that are actually happening on the ground and among the american people to manifest themselves in government and in politics. somethings got to give. >> okay. [applause] >> let me see if i can tie together some of what was said here in this first go read and see if we can push and a little harder on this. so paul says well one of the things that's driving the country towards political reform is a mass exodus of americans from the two parties creating a huge new group of independents and that is leaving the party in a situation where they are more control by narrow interests, i organize interest. and that given the power the

parties have that setting up a dangerous situation. chad, you were talking about the importance of an overarching political principle which is very tied to the history of this country, including all of the difficulties we've had namely that every american should have the right to participate in the political process without being required to join a political organization and that's the premise we operate from. and michael, you talked about what's actually happening to people in this country as a result of a detained and corrupt political system, and that we need to reform the system -- dj'g -- because of those things that are going on. so i hear these things and i embrace all of them and this raises the question for me of our we find these things together enough?

do we have to tie them together from an organizing point of view, from a political point of view, from a coalition building point of view? how do we connect these things? and disconnecting them do we have to protect them and does connecting them make the movement more powerful? i'm interested in hearing your thoughts. >> i think it does, jackie. if i may i think two maybe three years, no, i guess maybe four years ago you and doctor newman did one of your [talking over each other] sessions at this conference -- one of your talk talk sessions at the conference. out of all of the things we could organize around, democracy in a way and politics in the form is one of the most difficult. it's like there's so many sexy issues out there to organize

around, but politics is a difficult one and, therefore it takes a certain amount of courage, if you will, to do that, to go into that. because it's not easy it's not sexy. and so i think when you think about that and then connect it to the tradition, at least of progress in this country, i come out of the movement that is deeply engaged in social justice. we believe in the traditions of dr. king. and so we just came out of this celebration of 50 years of selma. and, of course selma i think the gentlemen, i forget from which state, he just quoted johnson's speech when he decided that they would move in the congress, a congress by the way they did not want to pass the voting rights act to vote to pass it by saying, you know, our cause is just the time is now we shall overcome.

well, i think when people saw selma and saw the organizing that went into bringing that issue to the forefront of the stage of america, then people don't like yes this is a reform that we need and they felt like they could be a part of it, and we got the reform. so as difficult as it may be we have had the courage to do the things that may be necessary to make this kind of reform sexy to the american people. [applause] >> that store is a perfect segue into what we can't disconnect all of this. it was on the year before sub rights act that the supreme court said you can't preclude someone from voting in the bureaucratic primary on the basis of race. it was one year before the civil rights act. and what the court recognize was the only meaningful avenue of participation was through the democratic party at the time.

and so the effect on governance is that what it is doing in california right now is the top two is forcing account of the across the broader spectrum of people. so we are just as many democrats and republicans in the california legislature today, because the change wasn't about part. it was about who they are accountable to. when you start the first phase of the process in the '60s now they're accountable to african-americans, and now 2014 they are accountable to everybody, you get legislation that are acting in the best interest of each other. so i don't think you can disconnect the legal apparatus from the legislative apparatus to the real world facts on the ground. and today i think we have a serious situation that frankly it's not that the representative don't want to listen to a. it's because they can't. the moment the act in everybody's best interest they get, the consequence is a new term to the political discourse they get primaries.

>> one of the interesting things that is helping tie all this together ironically is the actions of the parties themselves. so for the past 20 years the parties have engaged in assault on states that have open primaries, have convinced the court that their private associations and, therefore, should have the right to prevent people that haven't signed on the dotted line to join and participate in the primary elections. independents in our lawsuit says the they are private associations why is it that the state is funding and paying for the primaries? secondly there's this fascinating case that was argued in the supreme court coming out of arizona good things and bad things come out of arizona paul johnson -- >> you are the good. >> arizona state legislature sued a reduced in commissions that have been established by initiative and referendum to

remedy the harm in this gerrymandering that takes place in arizona and elsewhere the state legislature sued the commission to the supreme court agreed is the case and the state legislature took the position that because they said on the legislature can decide matters pertaining to congressional elections, not the people. so what tied this together hopefully, and people begin to see that this is a matter of sovereignty. if the people don't govern, if that's not a source of power, if the legislature can say measures and reforms and issues that could directly to the people can be nullified by the courts or by the legislature, then the very fundamentals of democracy are called into question. and perhaps that's why cannot all of this together. [applause] >> if i can add on to that i think it is at the core because

if you look at the case law highly developed and democratic party versus children it was the state of california to try to open a bipartisan based system. and the court in that case it know, you can do the. the state can't infringe on the rights of the private political party, force them to accept independent voters into their primary. what's unique about the case that we are working on together and send, so in this room from integers is the state of new jersey instead of saying taking the side of the voters has literally put itself in the position of the parties and said we're going to reject this party based on the argument that those political parties have the exclusive right to the election process. and so it's very interesting development now and i think we're going to get decisions on each side of the aisle across the country, but that's an important point that harry me to they really replace themselves from the world of voters. >> there's a history of the american people being mobilized

around process issues. with developments in politics. 1912 teddy roosevelt have been a republican president ran as a third party candidate, bole moose party. finished second to really show that politics in a lot of ways, brought a lot of new ideas and special with progressive era into, you know, that much higher into the conversation and it wasn't an accident we change the constitution just a few years ahead. direct election of senators that's a process issue. we have not been able to elect senators before. when the suffrage, 1860s was a tumultuous time with the rise of a new party with abraham lincoln, and out of that we also process issues that included the 15th 16th a minute. many of the cost issue of minutes since the bill of rights have been about suffrage.

they can rise to that level. but i think it also is come is often associate with candidates and people independent, third parties. our founding co-chair was john anderson who ran for president in 1980 and was a representative in the sense of republican party that left him and changed direction with ronald reagan. and so he ran. he had an important place in the discussion. and they think we need people like him on the ballot and the conversation when you do have when we get to what the reform needs to be to achieve the ideals that we want is we have to make the jump election in november representative and matter. and we need to make a representative assembly representatives in matter and that means rescuing the general election along with the primary election. [applause]

>> one thing i think about jackie, your questions about connection and connecting i think about, and we talked about this many times, george washington you know, as he's leaving office warning of the country, don't let there be official connectors. stay connected yourself the don't let there be parties at about four hours after speech made its way around the country, the parties were embedded and we have the most partisan election ever in 1800. and i guess part of what i think about is the importance of recognizing how our very understanding of connecting has been so shaped by the parties. it's been so overdetermined by how the democrats connect people and how the republicans connect people. and they do in this very sophisticated slick way that plays off mutual benefits but also antagonism.

it's a very pernicious. support of what i am personally very excited about this movement, this conference, is the opportunity to connect in ways that don't, we have to fit together perfectly or would have to smooth over things go into any kind of disagreements. i love connecting in ways that don't resolve our disagreements but use them creatively. i think that support and that's what this movement is doing. [applause] >> early on chad and john had a slight disagreement. i would just say that it think it relates to this question, they are both right. is why think they were both right. chad was talking about all politics are local, people make a decision because of how politics affects them personally. and so knowing that you're going to be empowered or that you are not being empowered under the current system has a big effect on how people vote.

but make no mistake people getting money from the outside or being involved from the outside and have an effect as well. in our particular case in arizona, the koch brothers spent about $2 million at the end of our elect were up by about 70%, 60%. that money had attachable impact on our ability to be successful because they raised doubt. and that doubt was just enough. that's all you need in an initiative. in fact, afterwards we found that the public still supported the measure by and large but about cost them to vote against uzbek what john was talking about, the connection by the national parties or the national group is the the parties we came about because of national politics, national public leaders that were trying to put grassroots organizations as a modern technique, as a modern device at the time to try to expand their influence. well, if we're going to be

successful as a group, if are going to be successful in moving this effort forward we are definitely going to have a national base to talk to why it's important to make it to the place engaged at a national level to take part and to finance it. and oftentimes to also described to the public why that's happening. why is it that people like us are engaged in a campaign in oregon or camping campaign in illinois? the only entity that is because what unifies us what's happening in our congress today. what's happening in our national political level. oftentimes the effort that moves the open primary system's forward our focus on the legislative process. what we need to also do is to focus them on the dysfunction is happening nationally and why thisthat should matter to them from an economic standpoint, a job standpoint as well as from a national defense standpoint. >> i would just add again

coming circling back to the mayors point, i also think that the end of the day i think people you ask can we make reform popular with the american people. i think people in general become excited about things that they actually can really truly participate in. and so i think part of the connecting that has to go on is the connecting that has always gone on in some respects. i mean, you have groups and organizations that are doing the legislative work around voting, or doing the creative work around building new coalitions. and i think we have to also bring in sort of a social movement aspect to it that people are gathering for a

reason to confront the institution that is stopping them from being able to progress and prosper. and i think if you can imagine what it would mean somehow if he really thought about voting. voting really has to be a social justice right. it has to be something that you are so passionate about and that the people are so passionate about that the idea that they cannot participate in a meaningful way is something that they're going to go hit the barricades on, metaphorically. and then practically making it how did you bring organizations together to make that kind of social justice movement happen which would make everything that is happening in the courts, in the discovery room and the concept rooms all come together and to bring the kind of opportunity for change that the

american people need. >> all right. let me ask the question than to build off of what you're saying, and also to refer to the comment that rob, unit at the very beginning when we talked about the importance of modernizing the electoral system. and want to ask of all of you have a question about, this is me to a question about modernizing, not just political machinery or the design of elections but maybe this has to do with modernizing or post-modernizing for some people certain concepts that are at the core of what we're doing here and i'm thinking about the issue of choice. because michael, when you talk about voting being a social justice concerned, it seems to me that part of what you're raising in that is not just having the right to vote and being able to exercise that vote, but having meaningful

choices along the way. now a lot, the question of choice in my opinion gets reduced to kind of a set of low-level, we didn't have more candidates on the bow or we need to have whatever. not to make an argument against having a whole bunch of candidates. i've always been in favor of that and i think that's one of the strengths of the top to open primary systems, puts everybody out there, let's all the voters address that and choose the two finalists. but maybe this is a philosophical question more than anything else. what is a choice? what is a choice? how do we think about that? how we think about that politically? how do we think about that legally? how do we think about that inspirational he? what is it what is it now? >> i'll take a crack at starting a that. we just had a national election in the midst of times where we

have a lot of problems on the table. about 30% ashton 36% of eligible voters felt their vote was worth casting and when it ended. 64% of the. a lot of people were not registered. that's a whole nother problem but that was the low turnout we have had in a midterm election since 1942. in the primary election open primaries, close primaries, the light, we had the lowest ever turnout in more than half of our state. so in that sense the sense of choice being something people feel there's a meaningful reason to participate, there's something meaningful for what they are doing. the choice they make matters to them and matters to their lives. and so it's not just a matter of having a mix of candidates, though i think that is essential to what we need to put as part of the mechanism of our reform. but it also means they have to

believe it matters. so choice has to have meaning for impact and then quite literally it has to be or than one. i will just use as a mechanism because i've been alluding to mechanism without saying things what they are but i'll use as an example of like what i think is a meaningful choice is the state of maine i notice there are some people from maine here. next year will vote on whether to have voting in the november election. they that a whole series of election for governor would have choice would have more than two people running and actually their last 11 races for governor only two were won with more than half the votes. of the big enough of a strong third party independent movement that, in fact, different rules they would've had more winners if they had angus king of course one is, and then as senator. but that is put stress on the system where they can only vote for one. a movement has come together to put ranked choice on the ballot, my first choice but here's my

second choice and so is my first choice is a weak candidate and finishes last my ballot gets to go to my second choice at five more choices and defense have more incentive to talk to more people because they not only made their first choice, they need your second choice. with that little statutory change we've had an expanded the opportunities for voters to consider different choices and for the candidate, credit this holder and senate would have to treat everyone as a swing voter acus everyone can have a first or second choice. showing how the mechanism can connect to meaning and connected choices. [applause] >> i will try to address what i see as the philosophical side of his choice question in my mind at least the problem with the choice, americans have lots of choices because in a supermarket in 37 different kinds of cereal, 14 kinds of yoga probably more. and the problem with the choice

is we have been led to understand that choice relates to the american people as consumers. the political process surely does that with the ads with the primaries and but americans rarely have the opportunity and have been organized from the choice or the creative activity of what kind of a political process do we want, what kind of a society do we want. what does our democracy need to be in 2015. what happened to the promise of the obama election? ..

why it is grounded in education as we need to understand the differences between this democrat that democrat committed to public income mud situation should be whether it is a voter or the person representing that voter looking at individuals for what they represent and not for a flat party affiliation. >> we now represent, as you say independent spirit we represent the majority.

with 435 districts in congress today. 400 of them arguably are not competitive meeting the decision is made in 400 of 435 primary for the majority of voters have no choice whatsoever when you get to the general election. this is about getting more voters the choice in the system. today it has become effectively a terrain uncle system. it is a system where a small group can go control whether the majority party is and by controlling the majority party they alleviate the choice the rest of us have in a general election. [applause] >> i think in that respect do you want people to igad learn that they have some choices and so it just makes me think of harriet tubman. harriet tubman said i could have freed a thousand more slaves had they known they were slaves.

all the voters locked out in different ways who are refusing to join any party because they feel like it's a choice we have to somehow convert that to say you know what, there is an underground railroad that can take you to the homeland. and we have got to build that and make it happen. [applause] >> already. something else i want to ask you about. this comes up with a common bad gelatin made on the panel this morning where she referenced some dialogue that she and i have been having over the last year about what she turned panic in the progressive movement. she was sane and again, she referenced the earlier is that a concern of hers is that progressive minded people are

panicked and that causes people to act in defense of kinds of ways. one of the issues we have found over the years is that some of the strongest opposition to democracy reform, particularly with respect to the primaries themselves comes from progressives, comes from people who are at least historically politically associated with being pro-democracy and in the forefront of social justice in opening up the political process. but at least in the most recent. a have been against some of these initiatives that bring more voters then. i would be interested to know

what each of you think about maybe some of what you're hearing things like that have been, how you might account for that and also i ask in part speaking now as a progressive myself i am concerned about this position within the progressive movement and i would like to find ways to impact on not into burning man along in this democracy movement. but i'm interested to hear how you see that and how you feel about that. >> is the goal of open primaries is to bring people together in arizona the one thing we pulled off very well for the democratic party and the republican party one way they agreed with. in arizona, we didn't have a

single love. they were all republicans. the legislature is overwhelmingly republican. their ability to win is very small. it's a very tough race for them. but you will find the interest groups would prefer to have a magnified voice. i don't see interest groups is necessarily evil. although all of our interest groups at some point in time come in contact that their concern is losing control in the power structure they understand. it is a natural instinct for a built-up loyalty from those parties, friendships at the most parties and they are so based in it to get them to step outside is difficult. if you go and talk to an hispanic elected officials who went in and hispanic district because the district is

gerrymandered to convince that person to go to an open primary very difficult indeed. but if you go to the people that elect him and say are you winning anything, how are you doing on education? how are you doing on health care and poverty reform? wii has those that are anti-hispanic, anti-black, what are you winning? it becomes a very different answer. the progressives come in to when they start looking in our state at what they are losing, it is an easy change. but not for the groups that represent them. their power comes to them from the power in place of the parties today. [applause] >> one of the attitudes that i come across frequently when

engaging with other progressives and democrats is kind of a philosophy that has been expounded over the last couple of years within democratic party progressive circles, which is namely the demographics are in our favor. the country is becoming more people of color it is younger more immigrants, more latinas. we simply have to wait here and they will come to life. speaking of the progressive that is such a problematic politic that plays right into the hands of the far right wing. and these people paralyze and leave them in a position, progressives or they have to advocate against structural reforms in changing the system. the underlying message that is we just have to wait here for

the country to become 2% were latino and then we'll start winning elections is keep the system the same. keep your rate because of the work in our favor in a couple more elections. that is such a bad politic for progressives to say we know it is rigged. they all know it is rigged. we need to keep your rate because eventually will help us and that is how we defeat the republicans. it is very prevalent and i think we have to challenge it. [applause] >> we don't realize the right wing, left wing, a pulling, down as part of the same movement doubled never be successful because if we seized this is a movement for the progressives are the right, i can tell you i have very close ties and what is my message?

the ultimate right to vote arises from the individual. that's a very libertarian message. it's a democratic message. if the conservative message with the state doing funding from a process that thirsty private parties. we should look at it as somebody's movement to get there. this is about all of us and how we have a better way to form a government that resolves natural differences among all of us. [applause] >> you know in terms of the panic issue you know i don't care what you say. a lot of people you can criticize barack obama that there are millions of people in particular african-americans who felt like their world changed when barack obama was elected.

he is not going to have another opportunity to run again. this nation has been different as a result of barack obama's election. so now the question is as we approach 2016, how do you avoid not been completely marginalized because at the end of the day you guys who are much more expert in this part of it than i am at the end of the day we would not have had barack obama but for the open primary that existed had it just been a primary system that would have never won the election in 2008. if that was any that was an in progress and i firmly believe that it was and i certainly think it created a new foundation for where we can go as a nation in terms of forming a more perfect union, then i

think we have to really take about how we make these things work because we will have some sort of choice in 2016. americans will be electing a president and we have to make sure all of the places that are eligible that can participate have the most possibility of having a voice. that means having a voice in the choices that end up as the choice for the american people. >> i want to pick on that. the choices that the choice been a key point. some of the proposals have moved quick weight without necessarily bringing together people before him to say that we actually putting the reform on the ballot that can bring us all together. moving forward in arizona we are worried about people opposing you. now is the time to bring them

together. now is the time to say are there ways we can make the proposal bring you in. very specifically in the top two primaries there's different ways of doing it. before when sort of takes one approach look at a way that might bring as many people as possible. there's different approaches. in the louisiana air model is that everyone on the ballot in november. no one doesn't get to the november ballot. and if no one wins a majority you have a runoff afterwards. maybe it's better, but it's one that puts everyone on a november ballot so it doesn't feel like it takes something away, which some people feel the november ballot test. those conversations make it inclusive as possible. you never get everyone, but you might give more people by letting people in early.

[applause] >> i think a challenge to the left in this country and this has been true for a long time is to be less concerned about outcomes and more concerned about me. a big problem for the last and at some level understand this that they are afraid that if things have been democratically with the tenet credit party that the left considers important despite the fact that safety net doesn't keep people very safe might be taken away. i think the obsession with outcomes keeps us on the defensive, keeps us locked down and doesn't give the american people the opportunity to express decency to express their passion, to express concern for everybody.

he wasn't the only person that on the beaches of normandy didn't know whether the guide standing next to you is democrat or republican. it didn't matter. we've got to give up uncontrolled outcomes and invite the american people as a whole into deciding what kind of country they want. [applause] >> one of the dangers in our experience is that once you are successful with the initiative after now you create a legal situation for yourself because everybody will come out in there some people in the room that spent a lot of independent money defending the top two system, which we believe is an enormous process of getting us to think about election in terms of people and not parties. one of the dangers of bringing a lot of people to the room on how

to construct something is you can start something that politically can be challenged because the koch brothers will come out and challenge the part of it and find the weakest part of a and after it's passed to the courtroom and challenge a small part of it and find the weakest link. part of a misunderstanding from the front end that you have to be disciplined enough to not look for the best possible answer you could ever have. you have to look at the possible answer you can sell to the people, that you can resist an opposition from somebody like the koch brothers or whoever is supposing that are narrow enough in the courtroom you can defend it. luckily we defended the top two of three lawsuits. there's a long process until we get there and get a first pass another states that are bulletproof and the opposition that's going to come. >> the very first issue in the

effort has to look at the legal issues. you have to pass both the u.s. and state constitutional muster is. if you don't do those, don't waste your time. we've had seven lawsuits in our efforts as you know. the second thing is you need to pull it. simpler is better. the shorter and simpler the better off you are. what we know the last time we had the libertarian opposed and we had the top two. what is interesting is our group in their group both genuinely dislike the system. we both believe it should be nonpartisan but we got into the weeds on the exact detail of how that works. i'm not certain how to completely pull out of that. i do know when you start dividing up your majority -- [inaudible] [applause] >> let's open it up to the

floor. so if we could have house light in our microphone in the front and i invite you to come and offer a comment or question to our panelists. we will start over here. >> my name is the tree said jones and am from florida. i am running for u.s. senate in 2016. my concern -- i actually came here today because i am going to run as an independent and i came because we need a support system behind us strong enough to help us because some of us to strategize. i believe an ordinary people because that is what this country was dealt on, ordinary people and that is the reality of it. people are hungry out here.

they want layman terms. they are open to ideas, but the way we present them as well make the difference. they have to fill the part of who we are. i've connected with the libertarian party also because in florida for charlie crist to come out of the republican side to the independent side gives almost 28% is a swing state. i'm asking you all -- i know i need your support across the board. i'd like to know where else can we go as independents they don't allow us to come in for any training. they blackball us in the media complete it. any suggestions in reference to what we can do? anybody who wants to help me, please give me your card.

[applause] >> just a brief word on that it is great that you are running and the issues that you're raising. there is a 152nd training. we'll do it right now. when you run for office, you have to make clear that you are running for office as an independent to change the way the system works, that you are not putting yourself forward as the alternative to the democrat or the republican, but you are running to represent the people and the desire to change the system. >> yes. i was on the ballot in 2014. that come with a lot of money. they pay everybody off and what happens is this is an emotional thing. 2016 is going to be nasty across the board. so that is why we need to definitely prepare. we have to get back to american and that's how i feel. if this is a candidate over here

that is going to do what i think they will do i will vote for them. that is what i fail the time. it's about the people. i don't hear anybody talking about the win. i don't hear anybody talking about abuse or children. those are core issues we need to deal with if we are going to motivate the people to see what the choices about. i'm a fourth-generation black american. my grandmother died at 122 years old in this country. she was a slave. it is very important to me when i talk to people in florida. when i talk to people around the country. people are hurting out here. you have to strategize and beat up the information as what i'm

saying. [applause] >> my name is jim and i am proud to be from philly. i have a quick question. he said at least in the short run the top two won't necessarily change to get the light to double change the way they behave because they are accountable to all the people. if you really notice a significant change to that then go back and caucus with their parties and vote along the party line anyway? >> it's beyond anybody in the wildest expectations that you can spend a day in the capital and has fundamentally changed. they go out and have a drink together right now. nonalcoholic rink. it has fundamentally changed. i have met with several members that it's not a question. it is the whole atmosphere in the capital has changed.

it's gone back to a real government structure in the facts on the ground in california are self-evident that they are dealing with problems instead of constantly focusing on division. so i think it has changed. [applause] >> this has been a great discussion. i admired each of you so much. you all are doing a great job. i could talk about this all night because this is my passion, this topic. i've listened to so many great things being said and i'm listening to you and you are all saying the same thing and yet you are somewhat trying to do something different. you are talking about how we need to bring people together and be not about outcomes and how this needs to be a movement that starts from the people because a lot of times reform comes about but actually the establishment doing it like a tea party was actually a hijack of the establishment trying to

have people. we watched this happen everywhere. as we tried to create the nonpartisan primary type of reform that would really do spend that time amongst the people and would really help them understand what the issues are and what type of partisan reform bill have. i am deeply concerned about trying to push the top two. i understand it's a lot easier. and understand that it's simple. i understand it is easier to explain and it accomplishes the purpose. i don't think it will bring people because nobody trusts each other. everyone is divided and the only way they'll feel we're about them and not trying to push our agenda, we have to make them feel we truly want to give them a voice. we truly want every single

person in the country to have their voice heard him we don't care about the outcome. we are for the people. the things that rob richie is trying to do even though it might be tricky, we need to have a serious discussion about ranchers voted on those types of things because those things while people understand by about tatters. i can vote because i can indicate what my first choice is that my second choice in the candidate that are suddenly actually make a blurb in the election. these types of things could help the people feel it is their moment. even if we end up doing talk to it's important we understand fundamentally the top two doesn't solve everybody's problems. it is in the best system even if it's better than what we have. people understand what the best system and were doing everything we can to get it.

[applause] >> i think we are going to fight with two major to radical parties. i think we welcome in any state at any time any euphoric because at the power of the party top-tier, top three karmic ranchers voted. every piece of flesh we could take out instead that the american people forward. [applause] >> i want to say thank you for your remarks. just because it hasn't been bad it is listing reforms that could be said. i want to make sure people know when paul was talking about the fact that we have congressional elections were 400 are decided because we have by statute one person represent each area. winner take all. that is a statutory decision.

we can go to a whole range of methods called representation systems. some can be used in a nonpartisan setting but we by statute by congress put everyone in a competitive election for congress with a good chance to crack open the red and blue wall. we need to look at that as well. having those conversations about what we want to do is terrific and we are doing it right now. so thank you. [applause] >> my name is dan howell. i'm the cofounder of the independent voter project in california and along with chad's dad, steve, co-author of the primaries in california. [applause] first i would like to make a comment about what we've seen as a results of the open primaries

in california. i work in sacramento in and around the legislature every day and i've been associated with the legislative process in california for four years. i began as a district representative in 1974. the thing that has changed the most in california is the behavior of legislators. it doesn't make any difference what party they were elected to represent. the first time the primary but in california in 2012 the result was a supermajority of democrats in both houses. you would think based on that it would have been a more liberal antibusiness type of legislature. in the first session, 27 of 28 job killer bills were defeated in the legislature in california. willie brown, a well-known african-american former speaker of the house calls the

california legislature not the most moderate legislature he has ever seen. i was asked the question last night a cobbler gentleman from florida asked me, why did she win in california? and make it a rather complicated answer, but i could've said we were lucky. the fact of the matter is we were lucky. when we started the process of developing an initiative in california, we started in 2006 and we were not on the ballot until 2010. early on in the process when we are trying to figure out what we were going to do, we did a series of focus groups and the first thing that happened for us we did these extensive focus groups and we were quite sure where we took a look at the results what they meant. so what we did is to the

transcripts and tapes from the focus groups and gave them one site to a republican pollster and we said look at these and give us an analysis. another site gave them to a democratic pollster and we asked him for an analysis. what we got back was to completely politically correct analysis from each one of those posters to the democrat gave us all the standard democratic answers. the republican gave us all the republican answers. so what i say when i say we were fortunate and lucky you, what that did for us to see the guide each other and said we have to give up the political instincts we have developed in the last 40 years as campaign political consultants. we no longer worked with oracle consultants on the campaign and as we move forward, we took a different perspective.

.. we have allowed in this country the political parties to completely take the process away from voters. not only do they control who gets on the ballot but take a look at the presidential

election next year. the political parties -- >> cannot just ask you to wrap up the? >> i'll be done in one second. the political parties across the country determine what days the political primaries are held in each state. about to tell you everything you need to know about where we need to go. thanks. [applause] >> thank you. yes? >> briefly, i am a thank you to all the panel, thank you jackie, for this want of conference. i was just thinking about the importance of the question you asked about choice and i think it's a very profound question it from my point of view one of the issues as doctor newman used to say those who make the rules rule. there was a paper about that. we are involving the american people in the process, ongoing of changing the rules, changing the process, having the ability to determine how we vote how we elect people. certainly it's beyond the simple

act of voting but it's critical to be involved in that process and it hasn't come obvious that it's not have it hasn't happened to our movement is drawing to get that underway and i think we're doing that. i think we're doing a good job but i just want to add that i agree with not putting things in terms of the two parties. i think this issue of choice is also a cultural issue a social issue of how we come together, how we have conversations and build together. one of the things i think is important that we not frame our discussions so much around issues. it's hard to do that but around people's lives and how they live and what's happening to our people in our country. to talk about once the issue of gun control a meeting to talk about what's happening to the people, to the young people of our country and not going with how the parties frame issues because the way they frame issues has to do with their being able to try and went

election. so there's a lot of innovative programs that have the great honor of working with the all-stars project with innovative programs and approaches in education. i think it's so important to get that kind of innovation and those approaches out into the discussion. the two parties will not allow. we the people have to produce but in those discussions and bring forward innovative ideas as well as including everybody in those conversations which i think is very important. thank you. [applause] >> yes? >> my name is pam lewis. i was thinking about a lot of things the two panels the social crisis, democracy can we make political reform popular. i was thinking about how when you ask somebody where they are and they tell you that they are lost, you think that or if they

say know where they are, you think they are lost or that they've lost their mind. and i think that americans are lost. i mean i really think think about the communities i grew up in as a young woman. i grew up in st. louis and i grew up in kansas. in st. louis you can look at all black community. in kansas i grew up in all white communities. what they had in common is we did believe in the myth that america was a great democracy. we did believe that myth for better or for worse. but when i go back to those communities now no one believes that. and i think that we are lost and you know, we've lost our children. we don't know where we are. and -- kilter. i was think about that and thinking about american centrism. if we can a pretty nice on that with our movement, you know we can use the social crisis to transform how people think about

what democracy is. and organize people around america the great begin an effort to build its democracy and organizing all of americans around the. because middle-class white affluent people are lost, too. they don't know where they are. the poor commuters are lost. and i think we could make it sexy and i think we are and i'm excited about the possibility. i really am. i really am. and i just wanted -- [applause] -- to share those thoughts. i just want to thank you. >> thank you, pam. thank you. [applause] >> hello, all. my question is what to independent government about education reform? and institutions are failing to teach our students that have become an increasing epidemic. many students and myself feel oppressed as element and a politic. that's the thing i have in mind.

>> thank you. [applause] >> does anyone want to speak to the? >> i think the definition of independent is independent the. for someone to speak a map of a movement that supposed to represent us all as independents. we can have ideas on education reform or racial reform that is something that lines the movement. if you have a movement that is the voting rights as they relate to the individual, it has to be but one thing, the right of the individual to vote and be treated equally in the process. and then that in turn believe having representatives who can come and decide issues like education. >> the issue of education, i know best from new york city, has become and it's terrible because millions of children whose lives are impacted, have become one of the most partisan political footballs in closed primaries in which the teachers

union and play a dominant role and can defeat any democratic candidate and the city council, vast majority democrats who even even utters the word charter schools or political reform will be defeated in a close primary. we've got to do something about that. [applause] >> in arizona again against the to what's going on throughout the rest of the country but overwhelmingly the public in arizona thinks you should spend more money on education and it should be reform. with one part in arizona thinks that you shouldn't spend any extra money effect they want to spend less money on education at another party that doesn't want any reform. and so effectively the public can't get what they want to they can't get the proposal that allows them to have both. >> i just want to echo a little bit i guess what chad said. i think heart of what we are talking about is at the end of

the day education is again one of those things that government basically ends up controlling antigovernment becomes defined by the people that are collected in those positions. and so how do we broaden that so that you get people in those positions who really care about, you know the things are happening in education and the achievement gaps are so widening and the fight is over whether going to do charter or public. you've got to have people that really end up caring about students and really want to do the reforms that are necessary, but you have to get the institution out of your way. and you need people there that can do that. [applause] >> my name is betty eastland. there are about 43 million people in this country that are considered disabled, and but on

disability. almost half that are on disability due to mental illnesses. but we don't have a voice in any party anywhere. we have no one that represents us. i'm not asking for representation. i'm asking when are we going to be brought to the table to represent ourselves? where is our voice? [applause] i don't think the people are capable of representing us. i heard a phrase earlier today called behavioral health. my behavior is not the problem. [applause] i think we really need to start thinking about this as a global problem, a health problem period. and we need to really talk about and we need to listen to people who are dealing with these issues, jenny with the realities of the stigma that leave us jobless, that leave us out of the educational system that leave us having our children taken away at much higher rates

for much less than other people. and so i will have my voice heard whatever it will be heard. thank you. [applause] >> just to maybe offer a comment on that. i think that what you were just racing and what you are raising about the whole set of women's issues, i know that you are concerned with in bringing out in your campaign, there just is these are issues. -- these are issues. these are what human life is about. and we have a political system that has lost the capacity to respond to humanity in human ways. [applause] and what we are trying to do in

bringing about reform is to create a system that can do that. and that's what this movement stands for. that's what its fundamental principles are come and so i very much appreciate your statement. thank you. [applause] >> that was so eloquent. when only one person represents you, you get this sort of winner-take-all where dangers perspectives or minority opinions of those were in the minority have a hard time getting representation and millions and millions and millions of people can lose out from that pic and if you crack that opened to the more people representing you and 20% to record each group of five or something, then you crack that wall. and some have to have that conversation but thank you for those remarks. >> i am here from atlanta, georgia, today and i am active

in the georgia independent voters. so many of us will go back home where it's just a few of us to collaborate on initiative for political reform. what is one action item that you suggest that we do and don't in our grassroots organizing, what is your call to action for those of us who were in the audience? [applause] >> does anybody want to speak to that? >> i will say very quickly every state has its own rules and structures that can be examined and almost a toolkit to examine them and that something we should work on john. for instance, georgia does have runoff elections in november so that an independent can run strong and no one will ever call them explode because if you put in a quote-unquote spoiler role there's a runoff. so think about running for something. so certain states have different rules.

look at what your primary system, but we do need to come up with that focus to make it easy for people to do. >> i also think you don't need to know in the sense of go knock on 10 doors and ask that question to 10 people come and go to a local meeting and engage. i really think that in some ways the environment in which that question is going to be answered is much bigger than rob and i and all of us. it's got to be and engaged local dialogue. and you can lead that. >> the thing that i would say is you have to start by speaking out. you have to start by being engaged, by talking to friends i talk about the things that you care about. what you will find as you begin to do that is to find other like-minded people. i defined as other like-minded people you start to find other like-minded groups.

at the end of the day in any type of initiative process is going to have to be a couple mice on a local basis but the journey of a thousand steps begins with one. the one great thing that i really do believe still exist in this country is our ability to create change. it's much more likely in a state where you have initiative and referendum process. i think 30 state to do with an initiative and referendum process you have the ability for the peoples voice to rise above the legislative and the political voice. but again it starts with organizing getting involved, talking to other people whether that's knocking on doors or through social media. >> may be one of the suggestion since we are all giving suggestions is, let's start a chapter of jackie stewart's politics for the people book club in georgia and have you be the chief organizer of it. [applause]

>> yes? >> thank you. good evening here i am actually and i agree that clean air water and clean for our basic fundamental important things. so let's just say recently as a picture my last two recent facebook posts says partnerships for independent power and it says sign a letter to stop the keystone pipeline. and i looked at both of them juxtaposing themselves and then i saw a bridge. on the issue of how can we make independent power a hot topic? it's what is our stance on independents from oil gas nuclear, and how can we emerge

these issues? because on the forefront of wanting to so desperately conserve our resources, we are out there. we are knocking on doors getting signatures from people where let's get 1000 people in front of the governor's mansion to just shout and say we are angry. let's get 300,000 people in new york city just to show them that we have a voice and we are angry. yet we still have to lobby and argue with them. with these people who don't care. so we have to get to the root of the problem. if we can actually elect people who care, the we don't have to spend so much time chasing them around sabotaging their political, social arena until they say we care. a lot of times they don't. >> that's right. >> i think that top two is a step in the right direction because if we can reform how we

actually elect our leaders, then we can actually work with people who care about the issue. so i'm thinking independent power for independent power. [applause] >> yes. >> my name is freddie. i'm from oregon. i go to university of oregon, and i worked with the independent voters of oregon on proposition 90 campaign. dr. fulani said something this work that i've been thinking about. she made a statement about getting rid of them if that people can make a difference just by voting. and i would cut like to build on top of that. and say that if people think that they can make a difference simply by showing up twice a

year and checking a box, it's never going to happen. all of the major changes to all of the major reforms that have been passed in the history of this country have passed because the people of gotten together and fought for it. [applause] >> the gentleman, the second from the income he spoke earlier about the difference between president obama and candidate obama. and i personally believe that president obama, or candidate obama was the right guy at the right time. but the difference between the two people shows us that no matter who you put in place, they are to some degree corruptible a system in place. [applause] and the problem with candidate obama and president obama come

inand so many other dichotomies like that, is that the people that got him there once they got into they said okay, we've done it we got in there, he will do the right thing and it will be okay. we didn't stick around. we didn't hold his feet to the fire. and the squeaky wheel got the reason and the squeaky wheel in this condition happened to be the tea party. and that whole side of the argument. they were louder than us and that has significantly affected the direction of the obama administration. and my fear is that a lot of what we've been talking about here today is you know, setting things up so that people can show up to times a year check a box and hope it works. if these types of reforms passed, it's going to be because

of this. because of people showing up in getting together and making it happen. but if we pass the reform would put the right people in place and they don't stay on top of them, they will get corrupted by the system. there is no reform that we can pass they can create a hands-free democracy. so that's what i would like to say. [applause] >> we need to stay involved. >> i would simply say that i think the difference between being constrained and being corrupted, for one. and i think what it shows is that, like most things nothing happens in a vacuum. and so i think it was a step forward having elected obama or

those who voted having made that choice, but then you elected him into a constrained process. and so whatever changes could occur had to occur within that structure. and i think what people were trying to do with this movement is to ensure that the process doesn't remain a vacuum and that you can open that up and change it throughout. >> let me take a second and scored the last two speakers have said. i think it's important, is that on 70 so i forgot her exact words, but i will paraphrase. it won't be as eloquent but the activities of the american people self organizing to take their democracy back is transformative in and of itself. we can't go to sleep after that but that might wake us up. [applause]

>> i think i want to move on. i'm going to run this discussion and help 4:30 p.m., so the folks were at the mike backs are the speakers and will close off after you. and which side am i up to? you, okay. >> my name is sarah fireable and i'm up here from kentucky. i just want to say first off like i just caution alienating the tea party the republican part of the democrat party because as a republican i'm just as disenfranchised as you all living in the county were only democrats run. and later decided within the primary and i don't have a voice to the. and unicode just don't alienate people to that extent it is nobody else's fault except the american people. we are the one who got in the situation in the first place. okay and second company to question about the proposition 14. i did some research on it. i'm nervous.

anyway but wasn't it also one of the most expensive primaries in recent years? and how come are y'all planning on putting any kind of you know, methods in place to stop it from the whoever buys the most media went? because that's what we've got right now. i don't seek and even though california, and like the ability sick and it's not going to work the same in every state. each state has different political culture. but what's the next step to ensure that the people are being heard and not just to send 5% are low information voters, so they're just going to click the button for the think they hurt the most, you know. are y'all planning on making the next step or anything like that? >> i think that's a good question. you can't disassociate what's happened in politics with what's happened in the media. so when the report on california's new partisan system

being not increasing voter turnout, they fail to report that ever else in the country it's actually dropped off and california is stuck on little bit more. when you talk about more money being involved in elections to talk about in the context if you more embedded elections and more votes met him of course you to spend more money because there's more voters at play. so the talk within the parsing context. the one thing i think i find fascinating about california's primary that most people have no idea. we now have the largest block caucus initiative california. because three black people got elected who did not have the democratic party endorsement. so guess who has an educated us don't have the largest black caucus, the democratic party and immediate within the talking parts -- talking points to the democratic party. >> arizona doesn't have an open primary. we didn't pass one and we have a single largest collection in terms of spending ever last year as well. why?

dark money rules the dark money rules have changed the game in terms of money that's going to be spent. we're going to try initiatives to curb it but i will tell you the supreme court kind of left that one pretty clear. you're going to see a lot more money being spent so the question that you ought to ask is would you rather that a lot of money be able to influence a system to raise partisan primary system where they can have a much greater influence of moving the candidate towards the extreme or one where every voter gets to vote in every election ask i feel much safer with the latter. [applause] >> one last point on just come it's not in use, use in about a dozen cities, minneapolis and oakland and portland maine several cities. one consistent thread is candidates are spending the most for me or are losing. they are running like a more traditional campaign and the scrap your candidate who will

openly when is someone who does more of a grassroots campaign where it turns out that during the second and third choices which you really need to win in a competitive race you don't win with a 30-second tv ad to get to make some finish what people say you are not my first choice but you've done something, you listen or do something about you. hey, there's a magic answer to money and politics record but there are ways to reduce its impact and that seems to be one. [applause] >> my name is william. i'm from brooklyn, new york, and i have two quick questions. one is i actually move forward with about initiatives and legislative initiatives. i'm wondering if it is a possibility of our combining top two -- [inaudible] and the of the question i have is senator chuck schumer of new york has come out in favor of

open primaries of some sort and i would appreciate your comments on those, both of those questions. >> sure. spend i don't mind addressing and because earlier i mentioned the need to simply. i don't suggest that top two has to be the ultimate decision but i think we should have other systems that are tried and that we see if they work. our lawsuit and with oral argument on tuesday, effect when a great amicus brief explained different systems. i think what we need at the core is a discussion about the electoral process itself, and to into that discussion knowing that none of us have the right answers, the resolution because frankly, very few solutions have even been tried, so how would we know? >> and as a result like the louisiana system which everyone goes to the november ballot, you could use a right choice about in that november ballot and then if it was multi-seek, if it's a

legislature you would have more than one person winning if it's like say electing people to the state legislature rather than one c., you might have three and then if you take about a third of the vote to win. everyone with a a rank choice bout the that's a statutory change, sort of example an example of how they ought to be put together spent on the question about the chuck schumer campaign that judgment as to yes senator schumer wrote an editorial was published in "the new york times" during the summer which came out very very vocally and strongly in support of top two open primaries anthony never said another word. [laughter] so we decided in our new york operation decided, well let's remind them that this is the position that he took. so there's been a campaign that's been run in new york, now over the last several months, where thousands and thousands of new yorkers are signing on to a

letter to senator schumer calling on him not only to leave the effort to bring top to open primaries to new york but now in particular to the democratic party make the decision to open its presidential primaries in new york to all independent voters and something that senator schumer is actually in a position to do because the party to do that without having to go through the legislature or any such thing. how many signatures have been -- >> just over 7000. >> over 7000 signatures. and people can sign at the open primaries table. so pleased you on your way out the the open primary table, he would just raise your hand. [inaudible] yes, thank you very much. there's been a series of meetings with members of the congressional delegation from new york to push them thank you, to push them to follow the lead of their senior democrat leader with regard to the

transcendent issue. so we continue to push that issue from the bottom up. >> greg dorsey baltimore maryland, the so the question is inspired by the acronym committee for a unified independent party. so my question is as we try to define the future of the independent movement and i would like an opinion on from everybody, including you, jackie are we to think of it as defining a new third party that will have policy a platform? ..