printable in how much an individual owes. for constitutional region -- constitutional reasons and state reasons, we got into this with the community property where we had to move away from individual filing will stop you had in new zealand to rates and individual filing. it got you to the right answer and you don't have to worry about what your spouses making. if you did not have all these benefits going through the tax code, yes. i don't see us having that kind of reform because we are not going to eliminate these benefits. it's just not going to get to that level. >> i do want to come back and make some basic points about what the irs is proposing to do.

to have identification and allow taxpayers to secure transactions with the irs and do things that are not going to mars. there are things people are saying here that is quite powerful. 10 years ago, if you invested in these communication abilities that did not handle the incoming information and tax return information rapidly enough to do it, i think that is something that is dramatically different. the service is handling its data in a really impressive way. a flip phone would be a step up with some of the things we are dealing with.

we can make that kind of stuff. but i think as everyone has pointed out, it's a series of investments. i think nina and david know the thing that's going to come online in the viewer a 2017, you never know what it is, so we have learned that and we have a lot of small moving parts. but we can do this basic transformation. what was it? >> asked followers. -- fast followers. when i was talking about engagement, part of the way you get it is you can actually understand the connection

between what is on your return and what is causing the outcome. i believe it needed to be as broad and wide scale -- it would not be the 86 act even if we could do that, but i do think there are places where we have got multiple objectives, multiple credits basically aimed at education. and there may be places where you can preserve the policy objective with some of the complexities taxpayers face. we administer whatever is there, but i believe there are opportunities to look at places where there are multiple credits. >> i agree with you totally. there are lots of things that need to be done to eliminate unnecessary complexity without compromising policy objectives

and that should be a priority of reform. all i was trying to say is you are not going to get to the return free filing under any of that. >> unless you are in korea. >> thank you for coming, especially rosemary, for all these years of service. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> news from boston this afternoon at dzhokhar tsarnaev was convicted on all 30 charges today in the boston marathon bombing by a federal jury and now must decide whether the 21-year-old former college student should be executed. the bombing on april 15 2013, killed three spectators and wounded more than 260 others. so, guilty on all 30 counts. here on c-span and c-span radio for the next 15 minutes or so, we going to open up our phone lines and hear your thoughts on the outcome of these are my of trial and what the punishment should be. you can give us a call at the

numbers on your screen. you can also join us on facebook and we will read some posts momentarily. on twitter as well -- the verdict read this afternoon verdicts in all 30 counts, shortly after 2:00 eastern in the federal courtroom in boston, after the announcement of the verdict, we heard from a number of members of the victims families and the governor, we will show you those comments momentarily. let's take a look at some of the thoughts from people -- looking at rick who said --

from jeree -- host: we mentioned the governor of massachusetts, charlie baker -- a tweak here from cbs with some of what the governor had to say. i am not surprised by the verdict, he said. here's a little of what he said to reporters and then we will get to your calls will stop -- your calls. >> i heard the news and the reaction was thinking back over the course of this trial, the images and stories about what actually happened i could not

help but imagine what it would have been like for those family members reliving and very graphic detail one of the most and in many cases, believe the most -- probably the most horrible moment of their lives. because of that, those are the primary people i was thinking about today. i am certainly glad the verdict is in, certainly based on everything i saw. i think it is up to the jury to make the decision about what happens next. host: that is some of what massachusetts governor, charlie baker, had to say about the 30 guilty count against dzhokhar tsarnaev at the federal courthouse in boston. what are your thoughts on the outcome today? let's go to hannibal in hollywood, florida on the democrats line. caller: i think this is one of the most tragic things in american history and i think he

really color really should get the death penalty. host: here is rudy and washington d.c., also on the democrats line. what did you think about the news on the guilty verdicts? caller: this is rudy from washington, north carolina. i think the verdict was good. i agree, however, i would not incarcerate him in this country. send him back to where he was, otherwise we will be paying for what he did. host: realistically, if they incarcerated him here, where would that be. they probably would not send them to another country. caller: send him to leavenworth, but i say send him back to his country. why should we pay for him? why should we pay for him for the next 30 years? host: those bombings at the boston marathon, almost two years ago to the date, it's

april 15, what they call patriots' day the day of the boston marathon in boston on that day. the verdict announced today, all 30 counts -- here is what reuters -- the jury find dzhokhar tsarnaev guilty in all 30 counts against him. from "the boston globe" -- what happens next in the marathon bombing trial? they write host: back to your calls -- minneapolis, on the independent line, this is robert.

caller: i'm calling on behalf of a lot of people. i think whether he is guilty or not guilty, they should do a body chemistry test to find out if the gmo's and his body have changed his body chemistry said he is not thinking properly. i think a lot of people that have been convicted of a lot of things, maybe it is something to do with their chemistry in their body with the gmo's in it. i think they should do a body check on everybody who is arrested and find out if that has anything to do with it. host: here is john on the republican line. what do you think of the verdict? caller: i'm very pleased with the verdict. i hope he gets the death penalty , which should be carried out as soon as possible. i don't believe in feeding these

people who have no right to live beyond a reasonable point. it should be an appeal based on some innocence, not because of some technicality. i don't like to spend taxpayer money on a lost cause. cut the losses and put him to death. host: his brother was killed in a shootout with police a couple of days later. the associated press writes in a bid to save him from a death sentence, his defense attorney argued dzhokhar tsarnaev fell under the influence of his radicalized brother who was 26 and died when he was shot by police and run over by his brother during a chaotic it away attempt. they say if it were not for him it would not have happened. that is what she told the jury during the closing arguments.

jonathan is next up in tacoma, washington on the democrats line. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: of course, the verdict was just. guilty, obviously. what i don't understand is there should be no complication on the punishment. he should get the ultimate punishment. they came over here and made a terrorist act on the united states. that should be automatic. that's all i'd like to say. host: sioux city iowa -- sioux city, iowa. good afternoon. caller: i just want to say as far as the verdict, being found guilty, that was just and right will stop no argument against that at all.

this is an example of how people can respond to crimes that have been committed by american policymakers with illegal wars and supporting wars in other countries that do have an effect on muslim populations in other countries and how it can psychologically have an effect on how people view americans and killing people in other countries is not something that is not going to go by unnoticed. i'm not saying he was right, but it is something americans should take into consideration -- that these events are not random and they have causes and reasons and that is something that should be taken into account and policies need to be changed as far as our involvement in other countries to avoid these type of reactions in our country, to keep our american citizens safe.

host: the associated press points out that the prosecution portrayed the tsarnaev brothers as ethnic chechens who moved to russia more than a decade as full partners in a plan to punish the u.s. for wars in muslim countries. lectures and videos were found on both of their computers. the defense argued tamerlan sent it to his younger brother. your thoughts on the verdict this afternoon? caller: i was happy that it was guilty and like the general men who called a couple of minutes ago, it a waste of taxpayer dollars. we need to go ahead and give him the death penalty. host: here is patrick in

huntington beach, california. caller: my concern is if he gets the death penalty, they won't ever execute him. it bothers me in the sense that we don't look at why he did it. if they are doing it to be a martyr, they should spend the rest of their life in prison, not even guantanamo bay has places like a resort. if they do it because they want to cause damage to americans they should executed -- they should execute him immediately. it seems he's going to -- there's a story in the new york times about a boston poll. most boston residents prefer a life term over the death penalty.

despite this cities immersion in a trial replaying horrific details of the boston marathon bombing, the vast majority say in a new poll that if dzhokhar tsarnaev, the admitted bomber found guilty, he should be sent to prison for life and not condemned to death. that was conducted by the public station in boston. there is benton harbor, michigan. good afternoon. caller: yes, yes -- we have debated and debated for decades about what to do with people who commit horrible crimes. we have prisons stuffed full of people. the best way to do it is by elimination. he is a dangerous person so he didn't mind killing people, so wipe his behind out and have it

over with. host: georgie is next up on the independent line in seattle. you are on the air. caller: i kind of understand people who want to kill other people -- i know everyone is upset, but killing back doesn't make it better for we know if you have the death penalty, it goes through such a long line of court procedures and all kinds of repeals and all of that. it is not an easy process. i am really upset with the people in this country that don't know the fellow. they don't know what's going on most of the time but one to react by killing. i don't think that is an appropriate response. host: irene is next in orlando

florida, on the democrats line. caller: normally, i don't support the death penalty, but this time, i do. this is not a kid who is going to change will stop i don't want my taxpayer money to take care of him for the rest of his life. he should be executed. host: two dillon next in oakmark, illinois. caller: i just want to say i'm really upset by the way we portray muslims, even though someone may be of a certain faith, that doesn't mean all muslims are bad. i know a lot of upset person -- i'm not excusing what he did but i'm very upset how we take one muslim and blame the rest because 99% of all muslims are

peaceful people. host: do you think the trial made that situation worse? caller: i do because you portray one guy, you don't portray muslims in a good light. you get one muslim kid who may or may not have been in his right and's or not, but that's not what muslims are like, just like one christian who shoots of a walgreens, that -- you don't blame the kkk. it's just unfair. host: let's get one more call here in wisconsin on the democrats line will stop -- democrats line. caller: i think they should execute all terrorist. we have to send a message that we are not going to tolerate them. he devastated the country.

that is as bad as 9/11. that's my comments. host: we appreciate your comments. more tomorrow on "washington journal" tomorrow. >> during this month c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in the student can documentary competition. it's an annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues that affect the nation. students are asked to create a documentary based on the theme the three branches and you to demonstrate how policy, law and action by one of the three branches of government has affected them or the community. these are our second prize winners. their entries focused on japanese internment during world

war ii. >> we interrupt this program to bring you a special news bulletin the japanese attacked pearl harbor, hawaii, by air. >> the japanese have attacked pearl harbor, hawaii, from the air. >> hostilities of this kind would mean the president would ask congress for a declaration of war. >> with this news reporter didn't know was that the u.s. would not declare war on powers, but their own citizens. pearl harbor was armed a mere two months ago and the u.s. government is deciding how to respond to the issue. for the last two months japanese americans have been a feeling the immediate effects of the attacks hawaii. animosity toward japanese is increasing and president

roosevelt just issued an executive order that authorizes the deportation of 110,000 japanese-americans to internment camps. >> that was the most ethical heart -- for people raised in the united dates then to be told we cannot trust you. you have done nothing wrong, but just in case, we are going to put you in concentration camps. >> and the government, we were of two minds -- and the idiots up there are the ones in control. their thought was if we don't run them out, they are going to send the messages back to japan and we will be in trouble. most of the civilian population except on the east coast were ambivalent about the whole thing.

>> my usual friends weren't talking to me. i went down a long hallway and i was wondering what's wrong with me. those people who walked with me they were called jack lovers. >> they were just two of the thousands of families uprooted and shipped to various internment camps. the conditions in the camp are indecent cramped, unventilated and exposed to the elements. and they are often horribly unsanitary. >> i was five years old when my family was in the way from our home and put into concentration camps. >> this is where japanese-americans were essentially incarcerated for the

remainder of world war ii. >> we had barracks and the top was all open, down to 120 feet down there. >> we passed out bags. we found out they were body bags . they dumped straw in the middle of each camp, each lock and we filled our own mattress. >> mostly young people and old people got very sick. the death rate in the camps were very high. these were military style accommodations, and they had a room about half size with what they called a latrine or bathroom. there were 16 toilets and there were eight of them back-to-back

stop 27 inches apart -- if you sat like this, if you touch the person next to you, the person had to sit like that. no doors, no stalls. >> i am roger's wife, mary. i have a personal experience and i have three brothers in the service. i had a brother who was a tailgunner and he was shot down in okinawa. he never survived. my mother always claimed all the japanese. she despise them because they took her son and i don't know -- 30 years later, we were down at the beach. i felt very uncomfortable. i said mom, what's wrong.

she said he might be washed up on the beach. i said we need to go back to sunnyvale? and she said yes, right now. it hit her in different ways that it had a lot of. >> iron number my mother saying she could not understand why we were taken from our homes. we had done nothing with any proof -- there was never any indication a japanese-american or even a japanese immigrant like my grandparents had artistic hated in any espionage. my father and mother had to be careful with where they stopped to get gas, where they stopped at grocery stores and in some cases, they were not allowed in. >> the government is a great propaganda machine. when i was in high school, as you go upstairs, you turn right

or left and there's a wall. then there's another wall. each of those walls was a japanese with a bayonet. and the baby will stop that was the kind of propaganda in one example. they caricatured the japanese so they appeared more like simians than humans. you have to remember that culturally, they were pretty much the same. they came here as small children so for all intents and purposes, they were american. >> even after the intern americans were allowed to go home, they felt the effects of the executive order and would feel it for years to come. >> you know that is there. the down, how to reach it.

>> to learn more about our competition and watch all of the videos go to c-span.org and click on student cam. tell us what you think about issue on facebook and twitter. >> each night this week, conversations with a few new members of congress. >> as a result, i try to stay disciplined in my message. i try to stay between the hashmarks. i understand i represent everyone and i represent not only the republican side, but i represent the democrat side, the tea party side, the union side -- i represent everyone in montana and i think if we take that value set forward, congress represents america. to truly articulate the values and needs and desires of your district, but the purpose is to

make america better. >> five newest members of congress talk about their careers and personal lives and share insight about how things work on capitol hill. join us for the conversation >> also tonight, a with venture capitalist on her efforts to help for rent drug dealers and gang members become successful entrepreneurs. he is now in silicon valley recruiting prisoners to enjoy them. here is a preview. >> living in the article it is where i live now, i was invited on a texas prison visit. i was invited by a jp morgan executive. i was like, no thanks. why would i see that? but she convinced me that some of the greatest underdogs in america, and some of the best redemption stories come from

behind prison walls. i accepted the invitation. i've lived in texas. i was 26 years old. i thought that i was going on some kind of zoo to her -- tour. instead what i thought was human beings who had screwed up. not all of them, but many of them take ownership for what they have done. i could see that they were hungry for another chance in life, but they did not necessarily know where to go. the only thing they had seen modeled in their neighborhoods where drug dealers and gang leaders. speaking with them and wearing my venture capital hat, i realized right there that i was not speaking with aspiring entrepreneurs, but proven entrepreneurs.

realizing that so many of these the drug dealers and gang, their organizations are run by bosses and they have boards of directors. [laughter] they have serious management skills and understand failed distribution and marketing. the one thing they suck that was risk management strategies because they got busted. >> watch the entire conversation beginning at 9:30 p.m. eastern. tonight, more tv in primetime. our focus is national security issues. it gets underway at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. on c-span3, more american history tv tonight. we will wrap up coverage of a civil war symposium with the discussions of battles of sailor's creek. that starts at 8:00 eastern as well on c-span3. next up here, a look at efforts

to change the american election process and the future of the independence movement. speakers include the attorney who helped pass open primaries in california, plus political consultants from around the country. independence movement leader jacqueline caeli moderates. it is two hours and five minutes. >> i had the pleasure of introducing our distinguished panel here. let's welcome back to the state called johnson. -- stage paul johnson. [applause] next is rob richie. he is the executive director of fair since its founding in 1992 which is a national nonprofit that advocates for nonpartisan redistricting reform.

and establishing a national popular vote for president. he is an inspiring and out looking advocate are very important political reforms europe --. really great. [applause] next to rob is a dear friend and colleague, michael hardy. he is an attorney, since 1988. he is a leader in the movement for social and criminal justice for many many decades. he is the 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 is chad peace, from california. he is an attorney and the president of independent voter

context media llc. he was one of the leaders in movers and shakers of the behind-the-scenes architect of the successful effort to pass top to, our open primaries in california. [applause] we thank him for that. he is the national legal strategist for and partisanship.org -- and partisanship.org, and bringing a very important lawsuit in the state of new jersey. he is also the managing editor of ipn -- ibn. [applause] the final two gentlemen at the end are homeboys. [applause]

so to speak. [laughter] harry is counsel to independent.org and has conducted landmark litigation 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 consider the issue of nonpartisan elections for the first time. he is also a legal advisor to end partisanship new jersey litigation. he won dismissal of a lawsuit that trying to dismantle south carolina's open primary system. harry crisci. -- kresky. [applause] last but not least, john updike is the president of open primaries, founded in 2014 after

being incubated for many years. and advocates for open and nonpartisan systems and participates in the building of state, local, and national primaries coalition. he was formerly the director of development for independent voting.org. we have been around the world together and continue to do so. [applause] ok, welcome. thank you all for being here. and joining in this conversation. here is where i want to start. why should the american people care about political reform? put in a slightly different way, what is going on? what is the state of play and affairs that makes it the case that the american people should focus on concern themselves and become involved in issues of political reform?

open it up to the group. >> i don't mind starting. i think they are concerned about political reform if you look at voters. and everyone in the back here me -- hear me? ok. they are concerned. look at voter registration. a large segment of the population is giving up on the two-party system. three no organized effort whatsoever. they have become disgusted with what they see. they are disconnecting and disassociating. the reason that they should be concerned about architectural reform or structural reef or -- reform because as those voices leave the party, we are leading a more distilled ideological needs inside of both of them, that now is increasingly insisting on not compromising with the other side. that is having an effect on congressional states and the

ability to get people who have different points of views to sit down and work together for the common good. the concept of equal this number --we are losing it. >> i think what the mayor says and what we heard this morning, underscores the point that grounded in the fact that the way elected officials are behaving is not just personal quirks and characteristics. it is incentives that are flowing from the current rules we have. some people rise above that, but the general pattern of behavior is grounded in structures and rules that they are responding to within those rules. and acting in a certain way. if we don't change we will see the same behavior.

we are in a time of necessary change when we have had certain regimes and facts about the american people that have been evolving and changing. but we have old rules and structures. and they don't mesh together. if we don't change enough and modernized rules we are just going to get into a cycle of problems, that are bad for the country. >> one of the interesting experiences in the wake of the oregon campaign or top 2 was that open primaries did a set of focus groups. we got shellacked in the election. we got just under 33% of the vote. yet, in these groups, six out of 10 democrats and republicans and

seven out of 10 independence said, we want the top two open primary system. my first reaction was perplexing. we just had an election on that and we lost. here we are revealing the depth of support for these fundamental structural reforms. in a series of conversations and thinking about this, part of what occurred to me was that people care deeply about reforms. what they want to make sure is in some ways the "we." they want to see a fighting, real diverse coalition of people committed to making it happen. i think our challenge is not promoting political reform. i think our challenge is promoting ourselves, promoting the movement. showing the american people that they can trust, they can trust that we can move forward on that. because they want it.

[applause] >> if i can explain where i'm coming from, a successful effort in california, we changed with a fundamentally different approach. what people did not understand in california we started more than a year before the election doing nothing other than voter education. it is not about us. it's about the way we elect our representatives. if you put it in a historical context, we had direct primaries to get the selection process out of the back room. where we have gotten today, we got to a process where we had 10% political participation across the country. we have 50% of 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 those political parties.

you don't have to run able. -- run up whole -- run a poll. you don't have to talk to people. just walk into a restaurant. everybody recognizes it. the parties are not serving us. the fundamental thing we have to do is not a promotion of ourselves. i respectfully disagree. it is to educate the people around us. this is not about independent voters. it is about all of us, and having a system that represents every individual voter. that's, not members of the democrat party not members of the republican party not independence. it's everybody. the right to vote derives from citizenship, not from joining a political party. it is that principle that we should be promoting. [applause] >> i would say that the american people have to care about political reform. we are being locked out, left out, killed, denied, and given nothing. we have a generation of people

essentially that are going to be worse off than the generation before them, in so many ways. if you look at that -- in new york city, for instance, 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 versus board of education. you look at jobs, the unemployment rate. people were talking about earlier today, the wealth gap. all of that on some level becomes a function of government. when government is defined as two parties, then you have to begin to look at the structural issues there and say, what is happening, and how come people are not allowed to participate? i think we have to figure out, there is a way for you to participate, and we are going to show you how. [applause]

>> i found the panel discussion this morning both very helpful and very painful, because there is not just a need for cultural change but really since the 1960's, there has been a huge cultural change in this country. but the political system is still operating as if none of that happened. we elect the first black president with a new coalition and low and behold for the next eight years it is politics as usual. americans are unhappy. americans want things. our political system simply doesn't allow changes that are actually happening on the ground, among the american people, to manifest themselves in government and in politics. something has got to give. [applause]

jacqueline salit: let me see if i can tie together some of what was said here in this first go around, and see if we can push in a little harder on this. paul says, one of these things driving the country towards political reform is the mass exodus of americans from the two parties, creating this huge new group of independents. that is leaving the parties in a situation where they are more controlled by narrow interest, by organized interests. given the power the parties have, that is setting up a dangerous situation. chad, you are talking about the importance of an overarching political principle, tied to the history of this country. including all of the difficulties we have had in fully realizing it, but namely

that every american should have the right to participate in a political process without being required to join a political organization, and that is the premise we operate from. michael, you talked about what is actually happening to people in this country as a result of the decaying and corrupt political system, that we need to reform the system because of those things that are going on. so, i hear these things. and i embrace all of them. this raises the question for me, are we tying these things together enough? do we have to tie them together, from a organizing point of view, from a political point of view from a coalition-building point of view? how do we connect these things? connecting, does connecting them make the movement more powerful? i would be interested in hearing your thoughts. >> i think it does, jackie.

if i may, i think two, maybe three, no, i guess four years ago, you and dr. newman did one of your talk sessions at this conference. the point dr. newman made during that discussion, you know, out of all the things we could organize around, democracy and in a way, politics and reform, is one of the most difficult. there are so many sexy issues out there to organize around. but politics is a difficult one. 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. so i think, when you think about that, then connected to the tradition -- at least of

progress in this country -- i come out of a movement that is deeply engaged in social justice. we believe in the traditions of dr. king, so we just came out of the celebration of 50 years of selma. of course, selma -- i think the gentleman, i forget which state -- he quoted johnson 's speech when he decided they would move in the congress. congress, by the way, did not want to pass a voting rights act, to vote to pass it by saying that our cause is just, the time is now, we shall overcome. 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 felt yes, this is a reform we need. and they felt they could be a part of it. and we got the reforms.

as difficult as it may be, we have to have the courage to do the things that may be necessary to make this kind of reform sexy to the american people. [applause] >> that story was a perfect segue into why we cannot disconnect all this. it was only a year before the civil rights act that the supreme court said you cannot preclude someone from voting in the democratic party on the -- primary on the basis of race. it was one year before the civil rights act. what the court recognized there, the only meaningful avenue of participation was to the democratic party at that time. so the effect on governance, what it does and is doing in california right now is the top two is forcing accountability across a broader spectrum of people. we have just as many democrats and republicans in the california legislature today because the change was not about

party. it was about who they are accountable to. when you start the first phase of the project, now they are accountable to african-americans, and now in 2014 they are accountable to everyone. you get legislators that are acting in the best interest. of each other. i don't think you can disconnect the legal apparatus from the legislative apparatus, to the real-world facts on the ground. today, i think we have a serious situation. frankly, it's not that the representatives don't want to listen to us. it's because they cannot. the moment they acted everybody's best -- act in everybody's best interest, they get primaried. >> one of the interesting things helping to tie all this together, the actions of the parties themselves. for the past 20 years, the parties have engaged in an assault on states that have open primaries, to convince the court that they are private associations and should have the right to prevent people who have

not signed on the dotted line and joined them to participate in primary elections. if they are private associations, why isn't the state funding -- why is the state funding and paying for their primaries? second, a fascinating case argued in the supreme court, out of arizona. all good things and bad things come out of arizona. [laughter] arizona's state legislator sued a redistricting commission that had been established by a referendum to remedy the horrendous gerrymandering that takes place in arizona and elsewhere. state legislator sued the commission. the supreme court agreed, to hear the case and the state legislature took the position that because the constitution said only the legislature can decide matters pertaining to congressional elections, not people.

what ties this together, hopefully, people will begin to see that this is a matter of sovereignty. if people do not govern, if that is not the source of power, if the legislature can say, issues that go directly to the people can be nullified by the courts or the legislature, then the very fundamental's of democracy are called into question, and that is what can tie all this together. [applause] >> if i can add onto that, the importance of that discussion is at the core. if you look at the case law, how it developed in democratic party v. jones, the state of california tried to open up a partisan-based system, and the court said that the state cannot infringe on the right of a private political party and for -- force them to accept

independent voters into their primary. what's interesting about the case harry and i are working on in new jersey is that 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 set, we are going to reject -- said, we are going to reject this party based on the argument that the political parties have exclusive rights to the election process. it is a very interesting development, and we are going to get decisions on each side of the aisle across the country. that is an important point. they really replace themselves from the will of the voters. >> there is a history of people being mobilized around these issues. often tied to new developments with candidates and politics. in 1912, teddy roosevelt who had been a republican president, ran as a third-party candidate bull moose party.

actually came in second and it really shook up politics and a lot of ways. brought a lot of issues associated with the progressive era in, and it was not an accident that we changed the constitution a few years ahead. direct election of senators. that is a process issue. we had not been able to elect senators before. women's suffrage. the 1860's was a tumultuous time, but also the rise of a new party, with abraham lincoln. out of that, we have process issues including the 14th, 13th, 15th amendment, african-american suffrage. many of the constitutional amendments have been about suffrage. process issues can rise to that level. it also is often associated with candidates and people, independents, their parties. -- third parties. our founding cochair was john anderson, who ran for president in 1980 and was a representative

of a republican party that left him and change direction with ronald reagan. he ran, had an important place in the discussion, and i think we need people like them on the ballot. a conversation we need to have when we get to what the reform needs to be to achieve the ideals we want, is that we have to make the general election in november representative and matter, and we need to make our representative assemblies representative and matter. that means rescuing the general election, along with the primary election. [applause] >> one thing i think about about your question of connections, i think about washington. george washington adhesive leaving office warning the , country, don't let there the

official connectors. stay connected yourself. don't let there be parties, and about four and a half hours after they were parties, and we had a partisan election in 1800. 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 has been so overdetermined by how the democrats connect people, and how the republicans connect people. and they do it in this very sophisticated, slick way that plays off mutual benefits but also antagonism. it is very pernicious. so part of what i'm personally very excited about, this movement, this conference, is the opportunity to connect in ways that do not mean we have to fit together perfectly, or smooth over things or end any disagreement.

i love connecting in ways that do not result are disagreements, but use them creatively. it is so important, and that is what this movement is doing. [applause] >> early on chad and john had a slight disagreement. i would say that i think they are both right. here's why i think they are both right. chad is talking about, really, all politics is local. people make a decision because of how politics affects them personally. knowing that you are empowered or not being empowered under a grant system has a big effect on how people vote. but make no mistake, people giving money from the outside or being involved from the outside can have an effect as well. in our case in arizona, the koch brothers spent $2 million at the end of our election. we were up about 70%, and that money had a detrimental impact on our ability to be successful,

because they raised about -- doubt, adn the doubt was just enough. afterwards, we found the public still supported the measure by and large, but the doubt caused them to vote against it. what john was talking about, the connection about the national party, the national group, the parties really came about because of national politics national political leaders trying to create grassroots organizations. as a modern technique, a modern device at the time to try to expand their influence. if we are going to be successful as a group, if we are going to be successful moving this effort forward, we definitely have to have a national base that talks about why it's important from a national standpoint to get other players engaged in a national level, to take part and help 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 a campaign in illinois? the only answer is because what unifies us is what is happening in our congress today,, was -- what is happening in our national political level. oftentimes the efforts to move these open primary systems forward are focus on the legislative process. we need to focus them on the dysfunction happening nationally, and why they should matter to them from an economic standpoint a job standpoint as , well as from a national defense standpoint. >> i would just add, again circling back to the mayor's point. i also think at the end of the day, you ask, can we make reform popular with the american people? i think people in general become excited about things they can really, truly participate in.

i think part of the connecting that has to go on is the connecting that has always gone, 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 the 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 that if you can imagine what it would mean somehow, if you 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 the people are so passionate about that the idea that they cannot participate in a meaningful way is something that they are going to go hit the barricades on, metaphorically. practically, how do you bring organizations forever to make -- together to make that kind of social justice movement happen which would make everything happening in the courts, in the, in the discovery rooms, in the concept rooms, all come together to bring the kind of opportunity for change that the american people need. [applause] >> let me ask the question, to build off of what you are saying and also to refer to a comment that rob made at the beginning, when we talked about the importance of modernizing

the electoral system. i want to ask all of you a question about, this is maybe 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, concepts. that are at the core of what we are doing. i'm thinking about the issue of choice. michael, when you talk about voting being a social justice concern. it seems to me that part of what you are raising and that is not just having the right to vote and being able to exercise that vote, but having meaningful choices along the way. now, the question of choice in my opinion gets reduced to a set of low-level -- we need to have more candidates on the taoist, -- valid -- ballot, or

whatever. not to make an argument against having a bunch of candidates that is actually one of the strength of the top two primary system. it lets the voters choose the two finalists. maybe this is a philosophical question, more than anything else. what is choice? what is choice? how do we think about that? how do we think about that politically? how do we think about that legally? how do we think about that inspirationally? what is it, what is it now? >> we had a national election in the midst of times when we have a lot of problems on the table. about 36% of eligible voters felt their vote was worth casting and went out and did it. 64% did not. of course, a lot of people were not registered in the first place. that's another problem. but that was the lowest turnout in a midterm election since 1942.

in the primary elections open primaries and close primaries alike, we have the lowest turnout ever in more than half of our states. the sense of choice feeling -- choice being that people feel there is a meaningful reason to participate, that the choice they make matters to their lives. it's not just a matter of having a mix of candidates, though that is essential to what we need as part of the mechanism of our reform. it also means they have to believe that it matters. the choice has to have meaning for impact, and quite literally it has to be more than one. i have been kind of alluding to mechanisms without saying things, but i will use as an example of what i think is a

meaningful choice. the state of maine, i knows and people from maine here, next year we will vote on whether to have ranked first voting in the november election. they had a series of elections for governor where they have choices, more than two people running. the last 11 races for governor only two were won with more than half the votes. there has been an up with a strong third-party movement there, that with different rules they would have had more winners, but of course angus king won as governor and later as senator. that puts stress on a system with they can only vote for one, so a movement has come up for ranked choice voting. if my first choice finishes last, my ballot goes to my second choice. if my first choice is a weak candidate, my ballot is to go to the second choice. so that candidates have more incentive to talk to more people. they not only need your first choice, but they need your second choice. with that statutory change, we

have expanded the opportunities for voters to consider different choices, and for the candidates it create a whole new incentive where they have to treat everyone as a swing voter, because everyone can have a first and second choice. this shows how mechanisms can connect to meeting and choice. -- meaning and choice. [applause] >> i will try to address what i see as a philosophical kind of choice question. in my mind at least, the problem with a choice -- and americans have lots of choices. you go to the supermarket and have 37 different kinds of cerea l. the problem with choice is as we have been led to understand it it relates to the american people as consumers. the political process does that. with the consultants, the ads, the primaries. but americans rarely have the opportunity, and have been

disorganized from the choice or the creative activity of what kind of a political process 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? so maybe we have to revisit the issue of choice, and transformed -- transform choice or change choice into the activity of people working to create something new together. [applause] >> in light of mr. johnson's observation, maybe i stepped over a crack that was not quite there. what i meant, was that we have to resist the danger of becoming another choice, another partisan affiliation.

that this is somehow independents versus democrats versus republicans. in terms of choice, why i say it is grounded in education is that we need to understand there is a difference between this republican, that republican. there is a difference between your party affiliation, and the choice should be whether the voter or the person representing the voter is looking at individuals for what they represent, not just a party affiliation. >> i find it so interesting. we don't represent just independents. we represent the majority of people having a choice. you have 435 districts in congress today. 400 of them arguably are not competitive, meeting the decision is made in 400 of 435 in the primary, where the majority of voters have no choice whatsoever when you get to the general election. this is about giving more voters a choice in the system.

today, it has become effectively a tyrannical system. it is a system where a small group of interests can go and control lever the majority party -- whoever 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 that you want people to i guess learn that they have some choices. so it makes me think of harriet tubman. i mean, harriet tubman said, "i could have freed 1000 more slaves, had they known that they were slaves." you could say the same thing about all these voters, locked out in different ways, refusing to join any party because they feel like it is not a choice. we have to somehow convert that. to say, you know what, there's an underground railroad that can take you to the homeland. [applause]

and we have got to build that, and make it happen. [applause] >> all right. something else i wanted to ask you about. this comes off of a comment joan made on the panel this morning where she referenced very briefly, she was referencing some dialogs she and i have been having over the last year about what she termed "panic" in the progressive movement. she was saying and she referenced this earlier, a concern of hers is that progressive minded people are panicked. that causes people to act in defensive kinds of ways. one of the issues that we had

found over the years is that some of the strongest opposition to democracy reform particularly with respect to the primary system itself comes from progressives. comes from people who are at least historically, politically associated with being pro-democracy. and in the forefront of opening up political justice. at least in the most recent time, they have been against some of these kinds of initiatives. that bring more voters in. i would be interested to know what each of you think about maybe some of your experiences have been, how you might account for that. also, ask that in part, as a

progressive myself, i'm concerned about this session with -- position within the progressive movement. i would like to find ways to impact on that. and to bring them along. in this democracy movement. i was interested to hear how you see that and how you feel about that. >> is the goal -- if the goal of open primaries is to bring up and people together. in arizona, we had opposition from the democratic party and republican party. [laughter] the one area they could agree on. here is what is interesting. in arizona we didn't have a single roll off. they're all republican. the legislature is overwhelmingly republican. it is a very tough for a through them. that, you'll find the interest groups with -- would prefer to have a magnified voice.

i don't see interest troops as necessarily evil. i think all of our interest groups, including mine, come in conflict with common interests. it is a natural thing that happens. their concern is losing control in the power structures that they understand. it is a natural instinct. they have been in those parties for a long time. they have loyalties and friendships within those parties. they are so based in it that to get them to step outside of it is difficult. the only success i have found, if you go and talk to a hispanic elected official who wins in a -- hispanic district, because the district is gerrymandered to convince that person to go to an open primaries very difficult. but if you go to the people who elect him and say, are you winning anything? how are you doing on education or health care? how are you doing on poverty reforms?

we have bills that are anti-hispanic, anti-black, anti-gay. what are you winning? the answer becomes a very different answer. the progressives, the people when they start looking in our state at what the are losing because of close to system, it is an easy change. but not for the groups that represent them. their power comes to them from the power of -- that is in place in the parties today. [applause] >> one of the attitudes that i've come across frequently when engaging with other progressives and democrats is a philosophy that has been expanded -- ex pounded over the last couple of years within the democratic party and progressives are both.

mainly the demographics are mainly in our favor. the country is becoming more people of color, younger, more immigrants, more latinos. we simply have to wait here, and they will come to us. speaking as a progressive, i think that is such a problematic politics. that is -- plays right into the hands of the far right wing. it leaves people paralyzed, in a position where they have to advocate against structural reforms. and against changing the system. the underlying message is if we just wait for the country to become 2% more latinos, then we will start winning elections, is keep the system to same. keep it rate. it will work in our favor in a couple more elections that is such a bad politic for

progressives. to say we know it is raised and we want to keep it that way because eventually it will help us. that drives me crazy. we have to challenge it. [applause] >> we don't realize that that right wing, left wing, up wing don wing, is part of the aim that will never be successful. if we view this as a movement for progressives or the right, i have very close ties to a lot of adamant libertarians. what is my message? that the ultimate right to vote derives from the individual. you should look at candidates from the individual. it is a democrat message, libertarian message, republican. i think we shouldn't look at it as this is somebody's movement

to get there. this is about all of us and how do we have a better way for us to come together and form a government that revolves -- resolved natural differences within all of us. [applause] >> in terms of the panic issue i think that -- i don't care what you say, a lot of people -- you can criticize barack obama. but there are millions of people, in particular african-americans, who felt like their world changed when barack obama was elected. he's not going to have another opportunity to run again. this nation has been different as a result of barack's election . now the question is, as we approach 2016, how do you avoid

not being completely marginalized? because at the end of the day and you guys who are much more expert in this part of it and i am, i the end of the day we would not have had barack obama but for the open primaries that existed, had a closed primary system he never would have won the election in 2008. so, it's that with any progress, and i firmly believed it was -- i certainly think it created a new foundation for where we can go as a nation in terms of forming a more perfect union -- i think we really have to think about how we make these things work. we will have some sort of choice and 2016. americans will be electing a new president. i think we knew -- have to make

sure that all of the voices 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 up on that choices of the choice be a key point. some of the proposals have moved quickly without necessarily bringing together people beforehand to say, are we actually putting the reform on the ballot that can bring us all together. moving forward in arizona 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 this proposal bring you in? specifically on the top two primary, there are different ways of doing it. before one takes one approach, look at a way that might bring

as many people as possible. there are different approaches. one example is louisiana. their model has put everyone on the alley in november. -- alex in november. everyone gets that. whoever wins, you have the majority runoff afterwards. it is one that put everyone on the november ballot, so it doesn't feel like it takes something away. those kinds of conversations, the right time to have them is when you are making a proposal. you never get everyone, but you might get more people by bringing people in early. [applause] >> harry? >> i think a challenge to the left in this country is to be most concerned about outcomes and more -- less concerned about outcomes and more concerned about democracy. i think a big problem for the

left, and i think americans understand this, the left does not trust the american people. they are afraid that without guidance or control of the party that things that the left considers important like safety net, despite the fact that the safety net doesn't keep people very safe -- might be taken away. but i think the obsession with outcomes keeps us on the defensive. he keeps of luck down and doesn't give the american people the opportunity to express their decency, to express their passions and concerns for fairness and everybody. on the beaches at normandy, you didn't know whether the guy standing next to you is democrat or republican. it did not matter. we have to really give up wanting to control outcomes and

invite the american people as a whole into the process of deciding what kind of a country they want. [applause] >> one of the dangers, from our experience, is once you are successful with an initiative after work just started you just created a new legal situation for yourself. there are people in this room was spent a lot of independent money defending the system, which we believe is an enormous process of getting them to think of alex's in terms of people and not parties. one of the dangers in bringing a lot of people to the room will have an idea of how to construct something is you construct something that can be challenged politically, because somebody like the koch brothers can challenge a small part of it. they will find the weakest part. after he passed, you can go to the courtroom and they will challenge just a small part and find the weakest link.

part of it is understanding from the front that you have to be disciplined, to not look for the best possible answer. you have to look at the possible answer you can sell to the people, that you can resist opposition from somebody like the koch brothers. or whoever it is opposing it. when that is narrow enough, you can defend it in the courtroom. luckily we defended top 2 against three different lawsuits. one is still ongoing. there is a long process before we get efforts passed in other states that are bulletproof from all the different opposition that is coming. >> i think that is spot on. the very first issue we have to look at is legal issues. directed had the u.s. and state constitutional muster is. we had seven lawsuits on our record. the second thing is, you need to pull - - poll.

the last time we had libertarians opposed to us, what is interesting is our group and their group was genuinely disliked the existing system. we both believed it should be nonpartisan. but we got into the weeds on the exact detail of how it works. i'm not sure how to completely pull out of that, but i do know that when you start dividing up your majority, you are no longer a majority. [applause] jacqueline salit: let's open it up to the floor. we can have lights and microphones in the front. and by youtube, and offer comment or question to the -- i invite you to offer comment or question to the panelists.

we'll start over here. >> hello. i'm from florida. i'm running for u.s. senate in 2016. [applause] i actually came here today because i'm going to run as an independent. i came because we need a support system behind us, strong enough to help us. some of us do strategize. i like a lot of the people -- i believe in ordinary people. that is what this country was told on. that is the reality of it. people are hungry out here. they want layman terms, they are open to ideas, but i think the way we present it to them makes a difference. they have to feel a part of who we are. i connected with the libertarian party also, because in florida for charlie crist to come out of

the republican side to the independent site and get 28% of the votes in a swing state. i'm asking you all, i know i need your support. law wife, across the war dashboard. this is about a movement. i would like to know, where else can we go as candidates and independents. democrats and republicans don't allow us to come in for training. they blackball is in the media for anything. any suggestions as to what we can do? and anyone who wants to help me, please give me your card. [applause] >> a brief word on that. it is great that you are running and great you are raising the issues. here is a 15 second training. we will do it right now. when you run for office, you have to make clear that you are running for office as

independent to change the way the system works. that you are not putting yourself forward as the alternative to the democrat and republican, but you are running to represent people and people's desire to change the system. >> yes. and the greatest fight, i was on the ballot in 2014. they come with a lot of money and pay everybody off. what happened is, this is an emotional thing. 2016 is going to be nasty. across the board. that is why i understand we need to prepare. my thing is, we have to give this back to americans. i don't -- it it is a candidate over here that is going to do it i think they will do, i will vote for them. i don't vote for parties, ipo for people. that is what i say all the time. i don't hear anybody talking about the women. i don't hear anybody talking about abuse or children. i hear poverty, but all of those

are core issues. those are issues we need to deal with if we are going to motivate people to see what having a choice is about. i'm a fourth generation african-american. my family has been here for 122 years. my grandmother with your it, she was asleep. when i talk to people around the country, people are hurting. and you guys can make a difference, but you have to strategize and feed us the information that we need to take the people is what i'm saying. [applause] >> next. >> my name is jim, i'm proud to be from philly. a quick question for chad. if i hear you, the top two one

necessarily change but it will change because they will be accountable to all people. if you notice a significant change, or do they then go back and caucus? >> not only is it significant, it is beyond expectations. you can spend a day in the capital talk to any legislator of there. they actually go and have a drink together now. they are talking to each other. it has fundamentally changed. i met with several members and it's not a question in their minds. the whole atmosphere in the capital has changed. it has gone to a real government structure and the facts on the ground in california, it's evident. they are dealing with problems instead of focusing on division. [applause]

>> this has been a great discussion. i admire you so much. i could talk about this all night because this is my passion. 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 get you are trying to do something different. how we need to be not about outcomes, how this needs to be a movement that starts from the people. a lot of times, the reform comes about -- the tea party for example was the establishment trying to have a new manipulation of people. i think as we try to create this type of reform, that we spend

time amongst the people and we really help them understand what the issues are and help them create what kind of nonpartisan reform we are going to have. i understand it is a lot easier, i understand it's easier to explain, and i understand it accomplishes a basic purpose but i don't think it's going to bring the people along because nobody trusts each other in this country. everyone is divided and the only way they are going to feel that we are not trying to push our agenda is we have to make them feel like we truly want them to have a voice and have their voice heard and we don't care about the outcome. i think the things rob richie is trying to do, we need to have a serious discussion on things like ranked choice voting.

it will help people understand my vote matters because if i go to the election and i can indicate when i can indicate what my first choice is in my second choice, all of these fringe candidates can make a blurb in the election. these types of things could help people feel like it is their movement. it's important we understand that top two dozen solve everybody's problems. so that people understand what is the best system and we are doing everything we can. [applause] >> i think we are in a fight with two major to radical parties. we welcome in any state at any time any reform, whether it's the top two, the top three

whether it is defending party primaries, -- d funding party primaries, any piece of flesh you take out of them will help move the party forward. [applause] thank you for those remarks. just because it hasn't been said and i just wanted to make sure people in this room know that when paul is talking about the fact that we have congressional elections were 400 of them are decided, because my that you'd we have one person represent each issue and we have a winner take all elections, that's a statutory decision. some are candidate based that can be used in a nonpartisan setting, but we, by statute, we could pass a statute to put everyone in a competitive

election for congress to actually elect the preferred candidate. 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 an and i'm the cofounder of the independent voter project in california. along with chad's dad, i'm the co-author of the top two open primaries in california. first up, i would like to make a comment about what we have seen as a result of the open primaries in california. i work in sacramento and i'm around the legislature every day. i have been associated with the legislative process in california for 40 years. i began as a different representative for an assemblyman in 1974.

the thing that has changed the most is the behavior of legislators. it doesn't make any difference what party they were elected to represent. the first time the top to open primary was held in 2012, the result was a super majority of democrats in both houses. you would think that based on that that 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. willie brown, a well-known african-american former speaker of the house calls telephone you legislature now the most moderate legislature he's has ever seen. -- he has ever seen. i was asked the question last night -- a couple of gentleman from florida asked why did you win in california?

i gave a rather complicated answer but i could have said we were lucky. the fact of the matter is we were lucky. when we started the process of developing an open primary initiative in california, we started in 2006 and we were not on the ballot in 2010. early on in the process, when we were trying to figure out what we were going to do, we did a series of focus groups in the first fortunate thing happened -- we did extensive focus groups and we were not sure when we looked at the results what they meant. what we did is we took the transcripts and tapes from the focus groups and gave them one set to a republican pollster and said look at these and give us an analysis. we took another set and gave them to a democratic holster and

asked for his analysis. what we got back was to completely different politically correct analysis from each of the pollsters. the republican gave us all of the republican answers and the democrat davis all of the democratic answers. what that did for us is we looked at each other and said we have to give up all the political instincts we have developed in the last 40 years as political consultants. we no longer worked with political consultants on the campaign and as we move forward, we took a different perspective. we stopped fighting political parties and concentrated solely on the rights of voters. when you lose, one of the reasons you loses you get caught up in this process of being against the political parties.

when you do that, you start fighting the battle on their terms, on their turf. if you do that, you will lose. having gone through this in california, my advice is the focus has to be on the individual voter. elections are not about political parties. elections are not about candidates. elections are about the rights of individual voters to choose the people they want to represent them. 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. >> could i ask you to wrap it up? >> the political parties across the country determine what day the political primaries are held in each state. that ought to tell you

everything you need to know about where we need to go. [applause] >> thank you to all the panel. i was thinking about the importance of the question you asked about choice. i think it is a profound question. dr. newman used to say those who make the rules rule and there was a paper about that. i think we are involving the american people in the process the rules changing and having the ability to determine how we elect people. certainly it is beyond the simple act of voting, but it is critical to being involved in that process. our movement is trying to get that underway. i think we are doing a good job but i want to add that i agree

with not putting things in terms of the two parties. this issue of choice is a cultural issue. how we have conversations -- one of the things i think is important is that we not frame our discussions so much around issues, but around people's lives and how they live and what is happening to our people in our country. once the issue of gun control and needing to talk about what is happening to the people, not -- the way they frame issues there's a lot of innovative programming i have the great honor of working with the all-stars project and innovative programs and approaches in education. it is so important to get that kind of innovation out into the discussion.

the two parties will not allow for that but we, the people come have to participate in report ideas and including everybody in those conversations, which i think is very important. [applause] >> hi there. i was thinking about a lot of things -- can a social crisis solved democracy? can we make political form popular with the american people? when you ask somebody where they are and they tell you they are lost or they say they don't know where they are or they have lost their mind -- i think americans are lost. i 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, i grew up in an all-black community and i grew up in all-white community. we did believe america was a great democracy. we did believe that for better or for worse. but when i go back to those communities now, no one believes that. i think we are lost and we don't know where we are. i was thinking about that and american centrism and if we could offer to night is on that with our movement, -- we could transform how people think about democracy and organize around america being great again and america building its democracy and organizing all americans around that because middle-class, white, affluent people are lost.

the poor communities are lost. i think we can make it sexy and i think we are. i really am. [applause] >> my question is what do independents have in mind about education reform question mark many institutions are failing to teach our students and it has become an increasing epidemic stop many students and myself feel pressed -- feel oppressed and development into politics. >> it might be an unconventional answer, but the definition of independent is independent thought. for someone supposed to

visualize the movement, we can't have ideas on education reform or racial reform or something that binds the movement -- if you're going to have a have a movement about voting rights, it has to be about one thing -- the right of the individual to vote and be treated equally in the process and that, in turn, will lead to having representatives who can come together and decide issues like education. >> the issue of education, i know best from new york city. it is really terrible given the millions of children whose lives are impacted -- it has become one of the most partisan political footballs. enclosed primaries in which the teachers union can play a dominant role and can defeat any democratic candidate and the city council, the vast majority of democrats who even understood word charter school will be defeated in the closed primary. we have to do something about

that. [applause] >> arizona -- i can't speak to what is going on in the rest of the country, but overwhelmingly in arizona, they think we should spend more money on education and it should be reformed. we have one party in arizona who think you shouldn't spend any money on education and another party that doesn't want any reform, so the public effectively cannot get what they want. they can get a proposal that allows them to have both. >> i want to act go a little bit of what chad said. part of what we are talking about is at the end of the day education is one of those things that the government ends up controlling and government becomes defined by the people who are elected in those positions, so how do we broaden that so that you get people in

those positions who really care about the things happening in education and the achievement gaps are still widening. you have to have people who end up caring about students. you have to get the institution out of your way and you need the people that can do it. [applause] >> there are about 43 million people in this country considered disabled. almost half that are on disability due to mental illnesses. but we don't have a voice in any party, anywhere. i'm not asking for

representation, i'm asking when we are going to be brought to the table to represent ourselves ? where is our voice? i don't think people are capable of representing us. i heard the phrase earlier today -- cave ural health. my behavior is not the problem. -- behavioral health. we need to think of this as a global problem, a health problem, and we need to talk about it and listen to people who are dealing with these illnesses and dealing with the realities of a stigma that leaves us jobless, leaves us out of the educational system, that leave us having our children taken away at much higher rates for much less than other people. i will have my voice heard wherever it will be heard stop thank you. [applause]

>> just to offer a comment on that, i think what you were just raising and what you were raising about women's issues -- i know you are concerned with bringing that out in your campaign these are not issues. these are what human life is about. we have a political system that has lost the capacity to respond to humanity in human ways. [applause] what we are trying to do in bringing about reform is to create a system that can do that. that is what this movement stands for and what its fundamental principles are so i very much appreciate your statement. thank you. [applause]

that is -- >> that is so eloquent i don't want to add a mechanism on top of that. when only one person record resents you -- when only one person represents you, you get these opinions were those in the minority have a hard time getting representation and millions of people can lose out from that. if you crack that open to more people representing you and allowed 20% to represent each group of five, then you crack the wall. we have to have that conversation. thank you for those remarks. >> i am here from atlanta georgia today and i'm active in the georgia independent voters there. many of us will go back home -- what is one action item you suggest we do at home and what is your call to action for those

of us in the audience? >> every state has its own rules and structures that can be examined and be a toolkit to examine them. that is something we should work on. georgia does have runoff elections in november so that an independent can run strong and no one will call them the spoiler because if they are put in the spoiler role, there is a runoff. think about running. certain states have different rules -- look at your primary system. we need to come up with the toolkit 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 and go to a local meeting and engage. i think the environment in which that question is going to be answered is much bigger than rob and i and all of us. it has to be an engaged, local dialogue, and you can lead that. [applause] >> you have to start by speaking up, being engaged, talking to friends and talking about the things you care about. then you will start to find other like-minded people and like-minded groups. the journey of a thousand steps begins with one. the one great thing i really think exists in this country is

our ability to create change. it's much more likely read have the initiative and referendum process. with the initiative and referendum process, you have the ability of the people to rise above the legislative, that let's start with organizing, getting involved, whether it's knocking on doors or social media. >> may be one other suggestion -- let's start a chapter of kathy stewart's politics for the people book club in georgia and have you be the chief organizer. [applause] >> good evening. i'm ashley. i agree clean-air them a clean water and clean food are a sick

fundamental, important things. let's just say recently, my last two recent facebook posts, it says partnership for independent power and then sign the unity letter to keep -- two defeat the keystone pipeline. then i saw a bridge. on the issue of how can we make independent power a hot topic it is what is our stance on independence from oil, gas, nuclear and how can we merge these issues? on the forefront of wanting to so desperately conserve our resources, we are out there, we are knocking on doors, we are getting signatures from people,

let's get a thousand people to just shout and say we are angry. let's get 300,000 people to just show them that we have a voice and we are angry. yet we still have to lobby and argue with them. we have to get to the root of the problem. if we can elect people who care we don't have to spend so much time chasing people around until they say we care. a lot of times, they don't. i think top two is a step in the right direction because if we can reform how much we actually elect our leaders, we can work with people who care about the issue. independent power for independent power. [applause]

>> my name is freddy and i go to the university of oregon. i work with the independent voters of oregon on the proposition 90 campaign. the doctor said something this morning i have been thinking about -- getting rid of the myth -- i would like to build on top of that and say if people think they can make a difference sibley by showing up twice a year and checking a box, it's never going to happen. all the major changes and reforms that have been passed in the history of this country have asked because the people have gotten together and fought for

it. [applause] the gentleman, the second from the end, he spoke about the different between president obama and candidate obama. i personally believe 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 by the system in place. [applause] the problem with candidate obama and president obama and so many other dichotomies like that is that the all that got him there once they got him there, they say we've done it. he will do the right thing and it will be ok. we didn't stick around and hold his feet to the fire.

this squeaky wheel got degrees and the squeaky wheel in this situation happened to be the tea party. that whole side of the argument. they were louder than us and that is -- that has significantly affected the direction of the obama administration. my fear is that a lot of what we have been talking about here today is setting things up so people can show up two times a year, check a box and hope it works. if these types of reforms pass it's going to be because of this -- people showing up, getting together and making it happen. but if we pass the reform and put the right people in place and we don't stay on top of them, they will get corrupted by the system.

there is no reform we can pass that can create a hands-free democracy. that's what i would like to say. we need to stay involved. [applause] >> i would simply say i think there's a difference between being constrained and being corrupted. i think what it shows is that like most things, nothing happens in a vacuum. i think it was a step forward having elected obama and all of those who voted having made that choice, but then you elected him into a constrained process. whatever changes that could occur had to occur within that structure. what people are trying to do

with this movement is insure that process does not remain a vacuum and you can open it up and change it throughout. >> i want to take a second and underscore with the last two speakers said. i'm 70, so i forgot her exact words -- i will paraphrase it and it will he has eloquent. the activities of the self -- of the people self organizing is transformative in and of itself. we can go to sleep after that, but it might wake us up. >> i think i want to move on to the next speaker. i'm going to run this discussion until 4:30. the folks at the microphone are the speakers and we are the speakers and we're going to close off after you.