May 27, 2005
Supreme Ballot Access
Recently the US Supreme Court ruled against the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma in their Ballot Access suit. The court overturned a unanimous 10th Circuit Court of Appeals finding in favor of the Libertarian Party. The court ruled that the state of Oklahoma does not have to allow members of other parties to vote in its primary.
While Richard Winger of Ballot Access News found the decision ironic, because Justice Thomas wrote the majority decision while paying very little attention to oral arguments and Justice Rehnquist signed the decision after being absent for those same arguments, there is actually some positive coming from the decision.
As Richard Winger wrote:
Two of the Justices who voted to uphold the law, Justices O'Connor and Breyer, wrote separately to say that state laws that make it difficult for minor parties and independents to get on the ballot may very well be unconstitutional. O'Connor wrote that if all the election laws of Oklahoma that impact on minor parties had been brought into the case at the first stage, the decision might well have been different. This is the first time Justice O'Connor has expressed any sympathy or interest in minor party ballot access problems.The 3 dissenting justices (Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg) also were critical of state election laws that make it difficult for minor parties and independent candidates to get on the ballot or otherwise carry out successful election campaigns. Therefore, an actual majority of the court (the 2 concurrers, and the 3 dissenters) have now expressed support for attempts to strike down restrictive ballot access laws. This is the first time a majority of the Court has been sympathetic to minor parties since 1992.
The US Supreme Court also refused to hear Ralph Nader's ballot access case against Oregon, Kucera v Bradbury. So while there appears to be some movement on the court for equal access for minority parties, the current unsympathetic atmosphere still exists. So much that it is being noticed by countries around the world at the time we are trying to promote democracy for other oppressed cultures.
Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered the front-runner in the Iran presidential election next month, is quoted as saying, "There is only a veneer of democracy in the United States. Election laws are so complicated that people have no choice but to vote for one of the candidates who are with one of the two parties."
Maybe some day soon, enough people in THIS country will be aware of the oppressive environment we live under and will help move us towards a more open political atmosphere. Then we won't have same level of rhetoric we have to put up with now. We won't be winning elections by tearing your opponent down but by building yourself up against more than one opponent. We will be brought ideas, not divisiveness. We will once again be led, by men of ideals, and not pushed by mobs of partisans...
But, as Steve Martin might say, .... "Naaaaaaaah..."
Posted by Rhinehold at May 27, 2005 02:23 PMWho controls the State House and Governorship in Oklahoma?
Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2005 03:05 PM| Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered the
| front-runner in the Iran presidential election
| next month, is quoted as saying, “There is
| only a veneer of democracy in the United
| States. Election laws are so complicated that
| people have no choice but to vote for one of
| the candidates who are with one of the two parties.
How perceptive. He’s exactly right.
That’s why we need more choices, fewer barriers to getting candidates on ballots, campaign/finance reform, and an Approval Voting System that would reduce or eliminate many of the negatives in the current system.
But, it’s really futile to simply replace one irresponsible, arrogant elitist with another, without first forcing government to be responsible and accountable. Otherwise, they just keep taking turns at plundering the nation, and voters just continue to empower them to do so.
However, there is one way simple thing voters could do to get the attention of the irresponsible, unaccountable, arrogant, plundering government. Rather than resign to apathy and despair, simply do one simple thing that is: easy to understand, easy to do, wisely uses their vote, and costs* nothing:
[X] VOTE only for NON-incumbents and NON-main-party candidates.
NO exceptions. Repeatedly , EVERY election,
UNTIL things drastically improve (UNTIL 9 Point Plan is implemented, and some problems are solved.
____________________________________________________
* the right to vote is not really free; many
have died and suffered to secure your right to vote.
_____________________________________________________
In my opinion, we sorely need a 3 or 4 party system in this country. If states like Oklahoma keep parties other than Republicans and Democrats off the ballot they suppress democracy. I would say however that we need viable, responsible additional parties so there should be laws/rules in place to prevent “fly by night” parties from cropping up everywhere. I am not classifying the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma in any way.
Posted by: steve smith at May 27, 2005 03:53 PMWhat’s wrong with ‘fly by night’ parties? Are their views too dangerous to have a voice in the political process?
Why not have everyone’s views in the debate and let the people decide? If they can’t get funding or votes, they won’t win.
But, the real problem is the electorate being told that the ‘X’ party is ‘unviable’ and voting for them is throwing your vote away. I think that more people would vote for a thirt party if they were allowed into debates and their views made known. At the very least, the two ‘big’ parties would have to support or oppose those views and would have to debate on the merit of their ideals, not simply trash their opponents, which is the case now.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 27, 2005 04:02 PMI don’t advocate electing idiots to any office. If we knock down the barriers that are keeping people off the ballots, we’ll have lots of great choices.
The funny thing is though, just about anyone could do better than what we have now. If our current government is so responsible and accountable, why can’t they solve any problems, or do anything as quickly and efficiently as they vote themselves raises?
This country has some very pressing problems, and not only is government not resolving these problems, they are making many of them worse. Maybe it’s because they spend all their time bickering about filibusters, and other petty partisan politics, finding ways to hide more pork-barrel in another 10,000 page bill, and voting raises for themselves.
You have to start to wonder if they’re good for anything or provide any net benefit to society.
Some changes are needed.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2005 04:14 PMWhat’s wrong with ‘fly by night’ parties? Are their views too dangerous to have a voice in the political process?
“Fly by night” is obviously a poor choice of words. What my intent is to say that a party irrespective of it’s views has to be at least registered and officially recognized to be on the ballot and, by a deadline.
I just don’t want to see the day before an election a group trying to get themselves on the ballot. This I believe would be very disruptive and unfair to all the other “duly registered” parties.
Posted by: steve smith at May 27, 2005 04:36 PMIn my opinion, we sorely need a 3 or 4 party system in this country.
I dunno… When you’re up to your neck in horse sh*t and bull sh*t, can you really get out by piling on dog sh*t and cat sh*t?
I say we get rid of political parties entirely. If people want to stand together on a common platform, that’s fine, but get rid of party affiliations on ballots, government-funded primaries, and party levers. If you want to vote for Bob for office X, vote for Bob. But let’s stop voting for “whoever the Republicans are running” for office X.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 27, 2005 04:38 PMRhinehold, you are singing my song, man. Great article, and logic.
Acquiring and keeping power by the 2 major parties have completely replaced exercising just and equitible power for the benefit of the nation. We have the national debt to prove it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2005 04:39 PMRob,
World record use of the well placed asteris in a single post when used with animal names.
Getting rid of political parties and just vote for Bob is an interesting concept. Probably workable for sure. It has a tremendous economic down side however in that large cities would lose the convention money.
The media would have a very hard time reporting results on election night. Coloring in states would go away, the electoral college would go away. You may want to think that one through a bit more.
Posted by: steve smith at May 27, 2005 05:13 PMSteve,
Conventions wouldn’t go away, and neither would the electoral college. Remember, Washington was elected via the college with no party affiliation!
I guess I should be more clear. Political parties WON’T go away (unless you outlaw them, which would be un-American). We just need to de-codify them in law, and stop supporting the concept at the polls. The Reds and the Blues would still have their conventions, and would still nominate their candidates, but they wouldn’t have (D) or (R) after their names on the ballot. If you wanted to vote party lines, you would have to know enough about each candidate to know which party he or she stands for.
Right now, most people pay attention to the presidencial race, gubenatorial races, senatorial races, and maybe congressional representative races. That’s pretty much it. If you get rid of the “just pull the big lever” option for everyone else, you’d get a lot more 3rd party/independent people in minor offices and making names for themselves. That would eventually “trickle up” into the higher ranks of government.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 27, 2005 05:26 PMRob Cottrell wrote:
I say we get rid of political parties entirely. If people want to stand together on a common platform, that’s fine, but get rid of party affiliations on ballots, government-funded primaries, and party levers. If you want to vote for Bob for office X, vote for Bob. But let’s stop voting for “whoever the Republicans are running” for office X.
Rob, Steve, that’s music to my eyeballs…
Yes, vote on people, not parties, not incumbents, and not main-party candidates.
And if they still don’t work out, vote them out…don’t simply replace them with another arrogant partitsan elitist with the most money and ill-gotten campaign funds. In fact, start voting them all out, until they start acting responsibly, and finally get the message that it’s no longer business-as-usual (i.e. plunder the tax payers).
Let’s also knock down the barriers that prevent people from getting on the ballots, and get more choices on the ballots, and start resolving some of the very serious problems facing this nation…time is running out. We’ve got to make everything transparent and hard to hide crooked behavior, which will lead to responsibility and accountability. It’s futile to hope for improvement until politicians begin to police their own ranks (something that is currently totally lacking…they all look the other way while they fill up their pockets and cut secret deals, and pile on more pork-barrel).
If anyone thinks the politicians are doing a good job (or even just OK), take a look at some of their handywork:
Pressing Problems Facing the United States … … .
You’d think that $2 trillion a year could accomplish something !
The list grows longer every year.
The long list of problems, beyond a shadow of a doubt, reveals a nation in trouble. Why couldn’t Nader get on the ballots in all states? What’s the barrier? How dare two main parties block others from the ballots? When 90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money, then we have a serious problem. We have an elitist and arrogant government, that continually works to hold onto power by continually and gradually wrestingly power away from the people. That’s what our two party system, and rules, and barriers have created.
I don’t know about the rest of ya’ll, but there’s no doubt in my mind, we’re gettin’ reamed, thoroughly.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2005 05:29 PM“Let’s also knock down the barriers that prevent people from getting on the ballots, and get more choices on the ballots….”
Ballots? Who needs ballots? We didn’t have pre-printed ballots when Washington was elected. People just wrote “George Washington” on a piece of paper and stuck it in the “President” bucket.
Get rid of the ballots, and you get rid of the 2-party control.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 27, 2005 05:39 PMWell, if it’s all computerized, paper ballots are not needed. Also, write-ins are allowed aren’t they? However, a paper-trail should always exist for verification, recounts, etc. Each voter should also receive a copy of their vote with a unique random number that is printed in ascending order in the news paper and/or internet. That will allow for verification while remaining anonymous.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2005 06:06 PMIn a 2 party system there are 2 sides to an issue. Actually more than 2 but the system mandates that it be narrowe3d to 2 for voting purposes. This of course brings about “deals”. Somebody always owes somebody else.
If we just vote for people each who have run on their own ideals/platform you now can have a single issue with 3, 4 or 5 alternatives. This is “too many cooks in the kitchen”. How does anything get resolved and, in a reasonable time frame.
Posted by: steve smith at May 27, 2005 06:30 PMsteve, same way as now, compromise and coalitions. The difference with more parties is that no one has the ability to shut all the others down or out.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2005 06:40 PMHmmmm…..nothing gets done now. So, what can be worse.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2005 07:06 PM… . the list of problems just grows and grows, and nothing ever gets resolved, and we all stand around (like the politicians) arguing about the solution (which will never happen), and nothing ever happens, no problems are ever solved. All we have to look forward to is perpetual incompetent, plundering, zealous, increasingly oppressive government.
Perhaps the human species is just stupid.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2005 07:11 PM…. Perhaps the human species is just too stupid, and deserves to become extinct.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2005 07:13 PM…. because, you know what will be the final blow for the human species? Themselves.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2005 07:16 PMWow! The “liberal” judges support third parties and the “conservative” judges are against them. That just flies in the face of all the rhetoric I saw here in the middle column last year. It’s no surprise to me, but it must come as a deep shock to you guys. :)
Who do I email to express my support for third parties in Oklahoma? What’s being done to change the law? Can I help?
I really agree with this idea and most of the thread.
Get rid of single lever voting, remove all the d’s, r’s, I’s, Green’s ect. from the ballots.
You can still have political conventions, you can put your party symbol back on after you are elected, you just can’t use it in advertizing or in the debates before the elections.
Force voters to know who and what they are voting for, people could vote for ideas and find out later which party they came from if they were to stupid to know beforehand.
Do away with any corperate donations and pac.’s of any kind, everything used must come from private donations written on a personal check.
Rather than give a big advantage to Rep.’s, limit donations to $200 per person and make it a 5yr. felony for cheating(both the person writeing the check, and those cashing it).
Standardize voting rules nationally.
Everyone wishing to vote must register 30 days in advance and show proper I.D. with the same standard everywhere for what that should be.
Free air time for everyone running and limit that to pbs( people can watch bugs “doing it” after the election ).
I have lots more but dont want to write a mini-book.
Posted by: Beagle at May 28, 2005 02:15 PMBeagle,
Great Ideas. Have you seen: Solution Hunters ?
I’ve been studying there site. They have a lot of great ideas for the many problems facing the nation, election reform, etc.
They’re just missing the one thing: peaceful force required to make it happen.
The Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and wealthy & well funded politicians are never going to reform government themselves.
Rob wrote “The Reds and the Blues would still have their conventions, and would still nominate their candidates, but they wouldn’t have (D) or (R) after their names on the ballot. If you wanted to vote party lines, you would have to know enough about each candidate to know which party he or she stands for”.
Presently the general rule (although it has provision for exception) is for the electoral college to cast it’s votes for the winning party candidate of a state. With 4 candidates running let’s say, and the electoral votes are cast for the winning candidate in each state will you not have a myriad of mathmatical possibilities when totalling the electoral votes. In theory a candidate who wins only a very few large states can win the election.
Now to the quote, “if you want to vote party lines you will have to know enough about each candidate to know which party he or she stands for.”
I think that this asks for an intellectual/analytical level of a voter to exceed the “norm”. If all eligible voters had to know the issues you would have chaos at the polls. Also there would be “trick” methods introduced when constructing the ballot, etc. Writing names on pieces of paper and sticking them in the bucket, getting rid of ballots, etc. (which I hope is an exaggerated statement) IMO is foolhardy.
Just as a criminal has the right to a speedy trial, etc., a candidate and his supporters have the right to a speedy election decision.
I think that this asks for an intellectual/analytical level of a voter to exceed the “norm”. If all eligible voters had to know the issues you would have chaos at the polls.
I’m almost absolutely sure that’s why our founding fathers didn’t want to make everyone eligible to vote.
AP,
Yes, we’d have chaos if everyone tried to decide everything. We don’t all have time to study the issues sufficiently to make intelligent decisions. However, when there is grid-lock, and it’s not an issue of a rights violation, decisions could automatically be presented to the people as a referendum vote. Some states are doing this already.
A Representative government is best, because people that do the job everyday have more time to carefully analyze issues and make wiser decisions (in theory anyway; if not influenced by greed, power, and arrogance).
Also, a government can not be a pure democracy, because the majority will violate the minorities.
Government needs a balance of these things:
(1) democracy
(2) representation
(3) laws and enforcement to protect human and civil rights
(4) and transparency to guarantee responsibility and accountability
If the recipe is missing any of these ingredients, it is doomed to repeat history.
Currently, there are problems in all four categories. In (1) above, third parties are being denied ballot access. In (2), the government does not truly represent people; they sell influence and pander. In (3), laws are not enforced, or perverted to plunder tax payers. In (4), a lack of transparency hides from the people what is really happening, and great falsehoods are perpetuated on very important decisions.
Actually, they should be prioritized as follows:
(1) transparency to guarantee responsibility and accountability
(2) laws and enforcement to protect human and civil rights
(3) democracy
(4) representation
And, voters should must to be more involved; not just once every four-to-six years. This might occur if voters feel like their vote makes any difference whatsoever.
I think that this asks for an intellectual/analytical level of a voter to exceed the “norm”. If all eligible voters had to know the issues you would have chaos at the polls.
Anyone who doesn’t take the time to know the issues doesn’t have any business voting in the first place! Personally, I refuse to pull party levers. If, for example, I don’t know who the candidates are for town dogcatcher, or what they stand for, I don’t vote for any of them. I only vote in races that I’m informed enough to vote in.
Writing names on pieces of paper and sticking them in the bucket, getting rid of ballots, etc. (which I hope is an exaggerated statement) IMO is foolhardy.
It was an example of a method that was used in the past. Of course we’d want to update it, but there is no logical reason why a given office should be limited to a handful of candidates. It shouldn’t take a certain amount of money or sponsors or signatures or anything else to become a candidate. If my mother wanted to run for President, she should be able to fill out a form, send it in, and be on the list.
I’m in favor of home-printed “vote tickets”, as follows: Each candidate registers for a Candidate ID number. You go to that candidate’s website and print out a “ticket” for that candidate, with their name and ID number barcoded. (They could also be handed out at campaign rallies, or even mass-mailed to potential supporters.) Take the ticket to the polls, and scan it into an electronic voting machine. Once you’ve scanned all the tickets for the candidates you want to vote for, push a SUBMIT button that prints out an official ballot encoded with your choices, that gets stored in case of recounts.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2005 02:23 PMRob Cottrell wrote: It was an example of a method that was used in the past. Of course we’d want to update it, but there is no logical reason why a given office should be limited to a handful of candidates.
Exactly. But the two main parties are preventing and/or making it very difficult for other candidates to get on ballots. This is serious problem. What we’re left with is only a semblance of a democratic voting system. Such trends can be seen in the past. The first steps to totalitarianism and control by a few is the diminishment of the democratic and legislative branches. Who thinks we have a sufficiently responsible and accountable:
(1)Executive Branch (with over two million employees that are neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), or
(2)Congress (a relatively smaller and less powerful group of 435 with a couple of hundred thousand employees) ?.
With touch-screens and computers, just type in a name or select if from a list. This speeds up the counting process, because no one has to handle the ballot again.
Also, every ballot should have a unique number on it, all votes are published with each corresponding number, and voters can verify their own vote while remaining anonymous.
A separate process, having nothing to do with the voting records, is the identity verification; this can be verified via current procedures (e.g. drivers license), but it lends itself to massive voter fraud. A better verification system would be via biometrics.
Instead of carrying identity cards around (that can be lost or falsified), all people will record their identies using 2 or 3+ biometrics (e.g. iris-scan, finger-print scans, height, etc.). Databases could verify identity within seconds (faster than paying for something by credit card).
“Anyone who doesn’t take the time to know the issues doesn’t have any business voting in the first place! Personally, I refuse to pull party levers. If, for example, I don’t know who the candidates are for town dogcatcher, or what they stand for, I don’t vote for any of them. I only vote in races that I’m informed enough to vote in.”
During elections large groups of people take for granted what their religious leader says, what their organized labor leadership says, what some retired military group says, etc. and vote that way. They take for granted that that person or group has done the necessary research to guide them in their decision.
If you think for even a fleeting second that there are more people who vote as you do, from an informed position than who vote a lambs being led to the slaughter you had better order a double of whatever you are drinking.
Someone mentioned electronic voting, getting the needed information through a website, still another suggestion is touch screens and compters, iris scans, finger print scans, etc.
Then we have the infamous “[X] VOTE only for NON-incumbents and NON-main-party candidates.
NO exceptions. Repeatedly , EVERY election,
UNTIL things drastically improve (UNTIL 9 Point Plan is implemented, and some problems are solved”.
Why not just have “Wheel of Fortune” with candidate names on the wheel. Pat Sajac and Vanna White will add some excitement to the proceedings.
Posted by: steve smith at June 1, 2005 05:34 PMWheel of Fortune? That’s an excellent idea. It could be another reality show. I had not thought of that one. That’s the only thing that may truly get most Americans to participate.
By the way…if voters did start VOTING only for NON-incumbents and NON-main-party candidates,
NO exceptions, Repeatedly, EVERY election,
UNTIL things drastically improve (UNTIL 9 Point Plan is implemented, and some problems are solved), do you think Congress and the Executive Branch would change ?
…And what’s wrong with using touch-screens and computers for voting. They’re already doing it and it’s unanomously faster and more accurate. The identify verification is the problem.
And the other pressing problem, the subject of this topic is that the two main parties are restricting access of third parties on the ballots.
Why couldn’t Nader get on the ballots in all states?
There appears to be too many hoops to jump through to get on a ballot.
And the write-in ballot is OK with me, regardless of whether its on paper or a touch-screen.
And, if you would, seriously, tell me something….
If you believe government is irresponsible and unaccountable (as I and many others do), what would you recommend that would change that ?
And what would you recommend to knock down the barriers restricing non-main-party candidates on the ballots?
Posted by: d.a.n at June 1, 2005 05:55 PMNo, Steve, I don’t think that the average voter takes the time to become informed. The political parties count encourage ignorance. Their biggest selling point is that you don’t have to learn the issues — just pull the big lever. That’s why I want to get rid of the big lever! So lazy voters will stay home, and other voters will become more informed.
Wheel of Fortune? That has promise. I’ve often thought that public office should be handled more like jury duty:
Dear Mr. Steve Smith:
You have been selected for Presidential duty for the 2008-2012 term. Please report to Washington D.C. no later than January 20, 2009, for inauguration.
Sincerely,
Uncle Sam
After all, who was it who said that anyone who desires public office should be ineligble for it?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2005 06:09 PMI do not know (not that I have to say it) what the process is to get a third party on the ballot. My knowledge of Federal regulations, requirements, etc. to do so is non-existent. My first reaction is to disagree that the two main parties are restricting access to third parties on the ballot.
If Ralph Nader has been getting on the ballot in several states for years, is the problem at the state rather than the federal level? Also, unless I am incorrect a voter can “write in” a candidate of their choosing. If enough people were to do this, would it not be a “back door” way to have a third party on the ballot?
In truth I personally believe than everything possible should be done to have a multi party political system.
I accept the appointment to be President for the 2008-2012 period under the following conditions :
A. Countries that annoy me will be bombed ASAP
B. Households without weapons will be issued one
C. Immigration into the US will cease immediately
D. There will be a panel of FREC’s who will
decide which religions will be recognized
E. Immediate withdrawal from the UN
F. Contributions will be in small bills in a
plain envelope
G. Stem Cell research will get federal funding
H. Abortion will be illegal except under certain
conditions (rape, incest, etc.) Said another
way I am Pro Life.
I. Some form of socialized medicine will be
developed so that nobody goes without medical
care.
J. Social Security will remain in it’s present
format.
K. Supreme Court Judges shall share my views as a
condition of appointment
I find it hard to reconcile these statements:
“A. Countries that annoy me will be bombed ASAP”
“B. Households without weapons will be issued one”
…
“Said another way I am Pro Life.”
Bombing other countries can hardly be considered a “Pro Life” act. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that you’re Pro-Unborn-Life-That-Hasn’t-Pissed-You-Off-Yet?
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 2, 2005 10:08 AMIt’s scary though. For some, it’s not a joke. It’s truly what some realy want?
Posted by: d.a.n at June 2, 2005 10:14 AMBallot access differs from state to state. Some allow write-ins, some don’t. Some make it easy for third parties to get on the ballot, and some don’t.
The major parties play these to their advantage in each state. The Democrats, for example, will try to restrict third-party access in Blue States (to avoid spoiler votes), while encouraging it in Red States (to “spoil” the opposition). Republicans nationwide were against letting Perot on the ballot in 1992, but were happy to put Nader on the ballot in 2000.
Nader wanted on the ballot in 2004. He had supporters in every state. But he couldn’t get on the ballot in every state.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 2, 2005 10:15 AMThe biggest problem with current write-in options is that it legitimizes some candidates while trivializing others. When you go to the polls, you choose between “these guys on the ballot who might actually get elected” or “some guy you write in who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell”. Being on the ballot legitimizes your campaign. Major party candidates don’t have to worry about getting on the ballot — they are already there by virtue of their party. Others have to waste effort on signature collection that could otherwise be spent campaigning.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 2, 2005 10:21 AMThis is a serious problem. It belongs on the top 20 pressing problems facing the nation.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 2, 2005 10:21 AMdecisions could automatically be presented to the people as a referendum vote. Some states are doing this already.
To their detriment. More than 80% of California’s budget is permanently locked in because of referendum votes that make it illegal to underfund the initiative. There’s no leeway for solving budget crises.
We all agree that most people don’t take the time to study the issues - certainly not boring-as-hell issues about funding the state penal system. Putting the unwashed masses in direct control of the federal government’s purse strings is an idiotic idea. That’s why we have representatives whose sole job is to sort that stuff out with the help of well-funded accounting offices and experts.
Others have to waste effort on signature collection…
I’d call that verifying your constituency. If you can only get 15 signatures, you’re just wasting taxpayer’s time and money.
Rob Cottrell,
Thanks for enlightening me with respect to the 3rd party and write-in ballot issues. Your multiple posts were extremely informative and, has allowed me to see and appreciate quite clearly the gravity of the situation. It obviously is a source of great frustration to advocates of a multiple party ststem. Myself among them.
Included in my A thru K points are some that I honestly support as written. These are C, G, H, I and J.
“A. Countries that annoy me will be bombed ASAP”
This is an exaggeration of the fact that I
truly have a very agressive opinion of how
to deal with issues of conflict. I think it
should be done while sparing the innocent of
the war (assuming you can identify them)
using every reasonable effort. Collateral
damage is and always will be a product of
war.
” B. Households without weapons will be issued one”
I am not naive enough to believe that “the
right to bear arms” included automatic
weapons, grenades, other implements of death
that are available today.
It is my belief however that every citizen
having met all the requirements including a
background check and properly registers a
weapon should have the right to own a simple
hand gun, rifle, cross bow, etc. provided
that none can fire more than 6 or 8
projectiles in a single clip.
“D. There will be a panel of FREC’s who will
decide which religions will be recognized
E. Immediate withdrawal from the UN
F. Contributions will be in small bills in a
plain envelope
D, E and F were just fillers.
“K. Supreme Court Judges shall share my views as a condition of appointment”
I do think that there should be a panel
assembled with representatives from all
political parties. To help guard against some
views not being represented, there should be
“at large” vacancies on the panel. This panel
will interview all candidates for the Supreme
Court and a majority vote would be needed for
appointment.
I’d prefer to only present things for a referendum vote when Congress is in grid-lock due to a minority filibuster, or some other abused rule, or whatever reason Congress is too dysfunctional to do their job. It’s a fail-over/disaster-recovery procedure.
Otherwise, I agree that professionals that study and investigate issues daily, should represent the voters, and will do a better job. I am wholeheartedly in favor of a representative government, with a safety mechanism to avoid grid-lock do to abuses or incompetence of government to do their job.
The government can not be a pure democracy. It must be a democracy constrained by laws. Some laws are damn near absolutes that should never be violated.
Good government requires:
(1) transparency to guarantee responsibility and accountability
(2) laws and enforcement to protect human and civil rights
(3) democracy
(4) representation
Much more can be derived from those fundamentals. Such as a representative government, democracy constrained by laws, inalienable rights, and unrestricted ballot access for all citizens for candidacy of public offices.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 2, 2005 11:19 AMRob Cotrell wrote:
Dear Mr. Steve Smith:
You have been selected for Presidential duty for the 2008-2012 term. Please report to Washington D.C. no later than January 20, 2009, for inauguration.
Sincerely,
Uncle Sam
That was the gist of a neat short sci-fi story I read many years ago. The President was picked by a computer and everybody crossed their fingers that it wouldn’t be them. I actually found a valid point in the tale: No one who wants to be President should be allowed to be President. It is rare to find a true leader and our system, no matter what the mechanics (e-ballot, paper, etc…), doesn’t allow a decent person to reach a national position without being corrupted by process or result.
The other side of the coin is the gullibility of the masses. The wealthy and powerful are wealthy and powerful for a reason. They are smart, they are lucky (maybe just by birthright), and they are persistent (a euphamism). They use that wealth and power to their best advantage in manipulation of political outcomes via manipulation of public opinion. Now they are entrenching themselves in the courts, which are generally not subject to elections and other term limits.
I would posit that our only hope is the birth of a great leader who can overcome the 2-party oligarchy. Perot almost succeeded, but was too looney. Nader is trying, but too extremist and single focused. We can’t hope to change the election process and time is running out before the voting machines are completely rigged.
Still, my fingers are crossed. Probably a Democrat will be elected next and the rightest slide will be stopped for a few years, but then what? Then who?
Posted by: Dave at June 2, 2005 11:25 AMI’d prefer to only present things for a referendum vote when Congress is in grid-lock …
Technically, the government is never gridlocked. That’s just poetic license, so your referendum would never get called.
The process always moves forward, but not necessarily in the way, or with the speed, any one particular group wants it to.
AP wrote: Technically, the government is never gridlocked. That’s just poetic license, so your referendum would never get called.Yes, grid-lock does exist. Poetic? That’s only because some people are too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan bickering.
AP wrote: The process always moves forward, but not necessarily in the way, or with the speed, any one particular group wants it to.Not really. It moves forward in the cycle. But, as for moving toward improvement, it is really moving backwards. Unless you don’t think history will most likely repeat itself? One thing is for sure…being seduced into and distracted by partisan bickering isn’t accomplishing anything. In fact, it is wasting time. Posted by: d.a.n at June 2, 2005 12:56 PM
Dave wrote: I would posit that our only hope is the birth of a great leader who can overcome the 2-party oligarchy. Perot almost succeeded, but was too looney. Nader is trying, but too extremist and single focused. We can’t hope to change the election process and time is running out before the voting machines are completely rigged._______________________Still, my fingers are crossed. Probably a Democrat will be elected next and the rightest slide will be stopped for a few years, but then what? Then who?
Excellent question !
Only voters can make it happen. Voters must peacefully force government to be transparent, which leads to responsibility, which leads to accountability, which leads to solutions for our many pressing problems that are growing worse every day, despite the $2 trillion per year thrown at the problems, and an $8 trillion National Debt to show for it.
If disaffected voters keep idly doing nothing, engage in partisan bickering, ignore government, continue to become increasingly dependent on government, become increasingly fiscally, financially, and morally bankrupt, and ignore the truly pressing problems, what do you think the outcome will be?
Just read your History book.
It will tell you the answers.
Just change the names and dates and places.
Dave, great comments. They mirror my thinking exactly re: Perot, Nader, etc.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2005 01:21 PMYes, grid-lock does exist.
Really… How about an example.
But, as for moving toward improvement, it is really moving backwards.
Ah, I see. Like people who say government is gridlocked, you too are speaking in Zen-like metaphores.
To paraphrase myself, “The process always moves forward, but not necessarily in the way, or with the speed, d.a.n and his One Simple Idea(tm) wants it to.”
Filibusters are grid-lock. Duh !
Are things getting better or worse?
Yes. Problems are not being solved fast enough.
And part of the problem are some people that are all too fond of petty, stupid, paraphrasing, and labeling.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 3, 2005 11:30 AMThanks David, d.a.n. ;
d.a.n. wrote: Filibusters are grid-lock.You make that sound like a bad thing… Considering that under Bush43 nearly the entire income of the Federal Government now goes towards paying off the newly engorged national debt I’d say we can only win with gridlock. Posted by: Dave at June 3, 2005 12:36 PM
Dave,
I think grid-lock is indicative of a more serious problem: a dysfuncitonal, corrupt, arrogant, and irresponsible Congress.
The filibuster is abused equally by both sides. It doesn’t really protect or help anything. It only appears that way at times to some. It’s relative.
I personally think it’s a dumb rule. I want the majority to rule, but be constrained by laws that protect civil and human rights. A pure democracy can never survive. A representative government is best. However, a minority shouldn’t be able to obstruct the majority UNLESS the majority is violating civil and human rights.
Otherwise, what do we need any of them for?
Nothing would be better than a dysfunctional, fat, bloated, do-nothing, apathetic, complacent government, that can’t solve any problems, because petty partisan politics prevent even good things from being passed for the mere purpose of irritating the opposite party.
d.a.n. said: Nothing would be better than a dysfunctional, fat, bloated, do-nothing, apathetic, complacent government, that can’t solve any problems, because petty partisan politics prevent even good things from being passed for the mere purpose of irritating the opposite party.Don’t forget they only get a small budget.
But, I partially disagree about the filibuster. Something must be in place to protect against the whims of a one party majority of both legislative branches and the executive. Otherwise, we get what we just got. Screwed, with the laws being changed to serve just them.
Posted by: Dave at June 3, 2005 03:21 PMThe Constitution and laws are what protect our civil and human rights.
How is voting on judges abusing anyone’s civil or human rights? That’s why the filibuster has been used recently; to block votes on circuit judges.
So, what we have is this. If the minority feels strongly opposed to something, they can filibuster and obstruct the voting process, despite the fact that the bill or appointment would pass based on a strict majority vote, if it were not for the filibuster.
That’s sounds like a broken/dysfunctional system to me. It just doesn’t make sense to me, and the proof is in the fact that both parties have abused it, and sometimes, it was used and abused to block important things as such as civil rights laws.
So, the things they choose to filibuster is interesting. Too bad they don’t ever feel as strongly about raise taxpayers taxes or voting themselves raises.
I’m not really that concerned about the filibuster though. It’s a symptom of a more serious problem, and the filibuster will become irrelevant when the more fundamental reforms occur. And reforms will someday occur. It would be nice though if we could skip step (1) and (2) of the 3rd cycle that’s about to occur again:
(1) oppression, totalitarianism
(2) courage, responsibility, revolution and/or civil war
(3) liberty, abundance
(4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
(5) apathy, dependency, fiscal and moral bankruptcy
(6) return to step (1)
However, more on topic…
There’s something very wrong and dangerous with the main-parties creating barriers to third parties trying to get on voting ballots. How is it Nader can get on the ballot in some states, and not others? There’s something very un-American about this. And where in the constitution are such restrictions allowed?
Rhinehold wrote:
…current unsympathetic atmosphere still exists. So much that it is being noticed by countries around the world at the time we are trying to promote democracy for other oppressed cultures.
This is bad; very bad. Where’s the outrage? Thank you for giving this problem some illimination.
Rhinehold wrote:
Maybe some day soon, enough people in THIS country will be aware of the oppressive environment we live under and will help move us towards a more open political atmosphere. Then we won’t have same level of rhetoric we have to put up with now. We won’t be winning elections by tearing your opponent down but by building yourself up against more than one opponent. We will be brought ideas, not divisiveness. We will once again be led, by men of ideals, and not pushed by mobs of partisans…
I am aware of it, and it concerns me. We have a significant imbalance of power. Government is so vast and entangled in everything now, inflicting and heaping system upon system onto us, and we all sense the futility and inevitability of it all.
It strongly resembles a virus, that replicates everywhere it can (creating and duplicating departments, commisions, agencies, committees, offices, etc., with 2+ million employees in the executive branch (that are neither seen nor heard as they throttle our freedoms and prosperity), and a relatively much smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees), growing and growing, ignoring faster growing executive branch, too busy trying to get elected and find ways to hide more pork-barrel and graft in the lastest 10,000 page bill.
I hope your right. Perhaps after the people have been futilely inflicted with so many systems and abuses, that it spurs them to eventually realize the one simple thing they can do to fix it. Or we can all complacently sit idly by and wait for it to all finally end where it all began.
It may be inevitable, since we have so many pressing problems now culiminating all at the same time. We may be near the final meltdown, and return to step (1):
(1) oppression, totalitarianism
(2) courage, responsibility, revolution and/or civil war
(3) liberty, abundance
(4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
(5) apathy, dependency, fiscal and moral bankruptcy, return to step (1)
