• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Bend in the River, 1974

OHC

deep green blue collar rainbow
Location
Little Beirut
Pronouns
they/she
In 1974, the novelist and psychedelic evangelist Ken Kesey got a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities to run an event he called the Bend in the River Council. This was an experiment in state-level direct democracy: town meetings across Oregon would elect a slate of 100 or so delegates who'd meet for a four-day conference in Bend. After taking in a lecture series, the delegates would come up with a menu of policy proposals on the issues of the day, which would then be presented to voters in a "Media Referendum" via newspapers and radio broadcasts.

The conference took place in July, at the height of Watergate, and its recommendations (see below) definitely captured a certain zeitgeist. Featured lecturers included Arcosanti founder Paolo Soleri, alternative medicine guru Andrew Weil, David Brower of the Sierra Club, and Wayne Morse. Morse was then running for his old Senate seat, which he'd lost six years earlier; he apparently gave the best-received speech of the event, an incendiary attack on Nixon which referred to the Council as a result of the American people's estrangement from an increasingly undemocratic federal government. It was one of his last public appearances: he died on the campaign trail several weeks later.

There is, of course, a reason I've had to learn all of this from historic newspaper databases rather than from a book. The Bend in the River Council didn't make much of a splash. I only found out about it in the first place from a throwaway line in an article about the poet Walt Curtis, who was a delegate. Kesey and his fellow organizers received 4,822 ballots back in the weeks after the conference, which is not a particularly impressive showing. (One actual accomplishment of the conference seems to have been encouraging conversation between people from different socioeconomic and regional backgrounds. Not all the delegates were hippies - a lot were farmers adamant about preventing the construction of suburbs on good agricultural land, and two interviewed by the Oregonian were real estate developers who bucked their tribe by supporting Tom McCall's land use laws. I will say though that communicating across political divides is something Kesey was always pretty good at so I'm not sure that's evidence of a broad constituency for any of this stuff absent his personal charisma and ego.)

So this thread isn't a "WI all these ideas became law," because that was never going to happen. I'm posting this less as a scenario in itself (although it could be fun to speculate on Morse living long enough to return to the Senate as an even more radical gadfly) and more as a sort of resource for radical ideas that were being floated in 1974. Particularly fascinating is the "Law and Community" question about electronic data privacy and ownership, which is almost chronauseatingly ahead of its time. These folks were thinking about people's rights over their personal digital information before the internet existed!

Here's the ballot:

bend in the river.png

I still haven't found a tabulation of the results, but apparently the self-selected electorate voted 78% to 17% in favor of amnesty for draft resisters, 86% to 7% in favor of the elected energy commission, and 92% to 4% in favor of the electronic data veto.
 
Last edited:
Just passing through while looking for documentation of Bend in the River. My recollection is that it was outlined during Stewart Brand's promotional tour for CoEvolution Quarterly, during a guest lecture at OSU, among other places. There may have been mention of it in the first issue. I carried ideas from that event for a decade, including one about a tech-based scheme for instant referenda, pre-dating the internet: TV and telephone. The two-way cable TV project. When I see some of the methods in use now for gauging community interest, I think back to this one and wonder if it influenced later thinking. I also wonder what it takes to get people to participate in what might be called direct democracy.

I recall one bit of criticism about the scheme, that it was open to manipulation, in that there was no way of vetting participants. I suppose folks thought this straw polling scheme didn't need to be particularly rigorous.

I didn't attend a conference, and have no recollection of whether I joined in the vote.
 
Just passing through while looking for documentation of Bend in the River. My recollection is that it was outlined during Stewart Brand's promotional tour for CoEvolution Quarterly, during a guest lecture at OSU, among other places. There may have been mention of it in the first issue. I carried ideas from that event for a decade, including one about a tech-based scheme for instant referenda, pre-dating the internet: TV and telephone. The two-way cable TV project. When I see some of the methods in use now for gauging community interest, I think back to this one and wonder if it influenced later thinking. I also wonder what it takes to get people to participate in what might be called direct democracy.

I recall one bit of criticism about the scheme, that it was open to manipulation, in that there was no way of vetting participants. I suppose folks thought this straw polling scheme didn't need to be particularly rigorous.

I didn't attend a conference, and have no recollection of whether I joined in the vote.

Thanks, @Rust ! (Sorry for the late response, I was taking a break from the forum.) Might I ask what else you've found on BITR? I saw nothing online except contemporary newspaper reports; I eventually had to go to the U of O archives and they graciously scanned a few hundred pages worth of material for me, so I have a lot more info now than I did when I posted this. Don't recall anything about Brand's talks being mentioned but I can check again.

Did you ever work on a polling system of that nature? It seems like it was an idea in common currency at the time - other folks in the AH community have pointed out that Stafford Beer intended something similar as part of his CyberSyn project in Allende's Chile.

The methods Kesey and co used did have a lot of holes in them, you're right - which partially explains the low rate of participation. (I think the biggest factor for the flop was that they tried to run the whole thing with a fraction of the money they initially budgeted for.) Just for one example, the newsprint ballots - clipped out and mailed in loose - jammed postal sorting machines and caused mail delays across the state, to the point that BITR earned a reprimand from the Postal Service.
 
Back
Top