Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,
You have many good points.
The problem is the complacency of the average American. That’s what allows and breeds corruption in government.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the cycle I’ve spoken of so often is inevitable.
Despite the simplicity of voting out the irresponsible and unaccountable, Americans will most likely never unite to vote them out.
Government is really a reflection of the people…all fiscally and morally corrupt.
It will most likely get much worse before it gets better, and all of it will take many years to transpire.
Despite the few, like yourselves, that see a theoretical way out of all this, the majority doesn’t have a clue about what you’re talking about.
So, the best thing to do is prepare for the inevitable. Invest, save, and spend carefully in the coming 5 to 10 years. Be ready to shift gears quickly. Things are heating up now, and there are good places to invest now, but in 2009 to 2011, it will most likely take another big down-turn (worse than 1999-2002, and lasting much longer). Be ready to unload early, like those that did so early 1999, and early 1929.

d.a.n, Thank you. You may be proved right. But, abandoning ship should be a last possible perceived choice of action. In nature, all is inherently good. Introduce homo sapiens into the picture, and good only comes with belief, hope, and effort. I am preparing to raise my daughter elsewhere, but, making that move is not warranted until 2 of those 3 requisites for good are gone for me. My belief, like yours is waning. But, I still have hope and effort in reserve.

Someone once said something similar to: hope leads to belief, and acting on belief creates reality. I still have hope!

David,

Do you make yard signs? ;-) I think we need yard signs to make this effort more widely known. They seemed pretty darned important during the last presidential election (based on the frequency with which they were stolen).

All kidding aside, I support this idea 100%.

Thanks, Stephanie, I already have the yard sign and bumper sticker slogan. And a website for the outreach is underway. Details coming soon.

A majority of Americans want…

David, that sounds a lot like the conservative DLC wing of the Democratic Party (except for pulling out of Iraq, of course)… And I’m sure some Republican will tell you it sounds like the liberal Rockefeller wing of their party.

A challenge to the entrenched system usually coalesces around one or two issues that mainstream voters are passionate about — like the Republican Party’s rise on the anti-slavery issue — and that’s where you have a hard road ahead of you. One or both of the two major parties give at least lip service to every issue you listed.

AP, but, that is one of the key differences about what is happening today. You are right, in the past such efforts hinged upon one or two central issues. But, half the eligible voters in this country don’t vote, and a large majority of those have lost faith in the two major political parties. Amongst the middle and swing voters, there are a host of issues which the GOP disappoints on, and the Democrats have no unified or credible plan to address.

Bypassing political party affiliation and going to the polls NOT to vote for a candidate, but, against an incumbent, requires no faith or hope that the candidate will win, nor care or concern about their political party. All that is required by voters, (and which creates a vastly larger common interest among voters of all party and non-party affiliations) is a belief: If a significant number of incumbents are ousted, incoming freshman will get the message that their careers in politics depend directly upon addressing the many majority issues of the American people at large. No greater or more profound a message at the polls could ever be delivered by the voting population and the positive rewards from that action would be reaped for many election cycles, before incumbents would need a reminder.

David,

Good points in your piece.

Voting for the non-incumbant is a very interesting concept. I have several concerns with that concept ;

1. What if the incumbant is doing a great job?
2. The incumbant might be running unopposed.
3. What about government positions that are by appointment?
4. Will people interpret this to mean vote for the opposing party of the incumbant or, does this mean to vote for other than the incumbant even if the candidate is of the same party?

I would like to add to the concept the further constraint of time. Shorten the terms of everyone so that there is even more opportunity to change things.

David,
What a great article. I do agree that blind loyalty to parties has done so much more bad than good. I’m ever the pessimist and don’t see things really changing, but do what I can to instigate change.

I have been of the belief for a long time that if a politician isn’t doing a good job vote them out of office regardless of party. And I’m all for voting this current crop of incumbants out.
However I have a sneaking feeling that most of the liberials supporting this antiincumbant movement just want the Democrats in power. And once this happens they will loose all intrest in getting rid of incumbants that don’t do their jobs.

Steve in answer to your questions.
1.Keep him/her in office.
2.They win by default.
3.If it’s not a life time possition then hopefully the new President will get rid of them. If it’s lifetime, then we’re screwed until they retire or die.
4.Unfortunately yes, Not necessarily.

I am convinced that the only thing that voters will demand above all else is to maintain our standard of living. If the dire economic consequences David and d.a.n. often foresee do indeed become reality, the only way to maintain our standard of living will be through aggression. The seeds for which have already been planted.

You folks who talk about moving out of the country - that may not be in the best interest of your progeny.

Ron Brown,

It has occurred to me that the “vote out the incumbant” for want of a better description, could be a “vote for the other party” movement in disquise.

Methinks that some of the complexities of the plan (considerations, exclusions and the like) will not be understood by large segments of the voting population. Campaign activities will (or could be) intentionally designed to confuse the less educated or informed.

“They have to join a 3rd party or independent group first, then get their friends and family to join, and they in their turn, to get others to join, if any 3rd party or independent group is going to have any competitive position…”

Well, this is the problem, isn’t it? There’s no short-term electoral payoff for this. So you vote Green (or Libertarian), and, say, a Republican (or Democrat) stays in office. You’ve just incurred a serious short-term loss and no real benefit. To make matters worse, the long-term benefit is (at best) unknowable. It makes more strategic sense to vote for the ideologically-closest major party.

The Lincoln story is instructive. Lincoln and the Republicans were able to take advantage of the crumbling Whig coalition. The Whigs became fatally divided over slavery, and the Republicans were able to bring the anti-slavery Whigs to their banner, where, most importantly, they were able to achieve electoral success, which provided a payoff for voting Republican.

Only the very ideologically dedicated will continue voting for a minor party when those parties continually get completely shut out of the government. Most mere mortals want to see some benefit from their vote choice, and “fighting the good fight” really doesn’t seem to be enough.

Winner-take-all systems with single-member districts and a national office (i.e. President) always generate 2 party systems, at least on the national level.

Either a 3rd party needs to be able to fracture an existing party coalition, or some sort of proportional representation systems needs to be implemented.

David:

You know what happened to Ralph Nader. He said that Republicans and Democrats are both bad, and that we should vote for him. What did he accomplish? He put the most incompetent guy in office and we are all suffering.

Voting out incumbents may be a good slogan. But it places government out there in neverland. Most of us want the government to stand for something.

Regardless of what you and others say, there IS a philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans believe in self-reliance and Democrats believe in community.

You may disagree. And you can probably offer examples to contradict what I said. These examples exist because neither party sticks to its principles all the time. When this happens members complain (Republicans are complaining about Miers; Democrats are having a tiff between liberals and moderates).

If you are conservative you should vote for conservative Republican members. If you are liberal you should vote for a liberal Democratic member. As a liberal, that’s what I plan to do.

There is no principle involved in always voting for non-incumbents.

I’m with Paul. I’m not one for cutting off my nose to spite my face. The plain truth is, my liberal principles automatically negate my ever voting for a Republican.

I recently became active in the Center for Voting and Democracy— “it’s the system, stupid”, as Perot essentially said. Changing the electoral system is a movement that every third party activist and independent can become active in. A component of the movement, would be as you suggested— vote out the incumbant (if the race qualifies for such) until a different system is implemented, such as Proportional Representation. I believe Instant Runoff Voting (ranked votes among candidates) is easier to get than PR, however, at first. http://www.fairvote.org.

David, I agree with the premise, but would add a couple of qualifiers. I sincerely believe that the government has been hijacked by the political apparatus within the two parties. It has been that way for many years to a degree, but within the last 5 years the intensity by which party loyalty is demanded has increased such that moderate voices in both parties have been quieted. There was a time, when moderation and stridency in both political parties were calibrated based on the “People’s” wishes. Economic and security issues typically charted both parties’ platforms. Now, it appears that the focus has been moved away from representing the people and to the preservation of power. The DNC, The RNC and other party based interest groups are almost entirely focused on maintaining power versus governing responsibly.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, there was very little between the candidates that truly differentiated them. Despite sometimes frightening similarities in their personal history, (including the fact they were distant cousins) Kerry to me was simply saying he could be a better Republican that Bush. Bush was throwing the fear card up that if you voted for Kerry, you would die. Policy differences were not that significant. Both wanted lower taxes, better security, good health care, education, etc. etc. It was more a discussion of competence versus principle that any substantive policy or mission difference.

The political machine in Washington is well-oiled (financed) and is positioned to maintain power indefinitely (incumbency). It really doesn’t matter who holds the leadership, the people still get short shrift from the government’s actions. Has health care gotten better or worse in the last 30 years? Has the security of the country gotten better or worse in the last 30 years? Has education improved? Has poverty diminished materially? I think the general answer to the question is no. I believe we are being gamed by a party apparatus that is totally focused on remaining or keeping power versus providing material improvements for the people in the country.

I believe we have to bring a new generation of politicians forward (much like Cincinnatus left his farm to go fight for Rome) that don’t plan on making public service their life’s work, but go to Washington or to the statehouse to achieve a set of goals that postively affect the people they represent. By abject loyalty to their district, county, state, whatever, and a visible skepticism towards party fealty, the new politician would be an independent, focused on accurately representing their constituent’s views on policy.

It will take a long time, but if we can see a growth of independent politicians such as Bernie Sanders multiply in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, then the stranglehold of the party apparatus will weaken and we can get much closer to representative government than we are today.

So, find a decent person that is objective and free of party loyalty and recommend, suggest, cajole them into running for mayor, state representative or senate, governor, congress and even the White House.

I really think this is the correct approach but I think it will be a hard row to pull. I am that independent voter. I voted for the various third party candidates until the first time Mr. Bush ran for President. I foolishly believed him when he said that he would listen and bring both parties together.—NOT—- So this last election I did everything I could to turn the tied against Mr. Bush, who by the way is excellent at propaganda and fear tactics. I paid for a sign that I put in front of my house, an anyone but Bush sign, and then a fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, sign. I worked at the Democratic headquarters, went to rallys, registered voters etc. Oh, I also gave a bunch of money-the first ever. The result—NM went for GB but the county I was working in voted against Mr. Bush. There were many independent voters in my county who were getting active for the first time. I can guarantee that they are still out there. Independents must join with all the third parties out there with the goal to change the course our country is on. I for one believe that our foreign policy has led us to this state and must change. The high profits in oil has led to our dependency on its use and the lack of research for alternatives. Even now it seems as if the powers that be are using Ketrina as a stepping stone to drilling in Alaska. Why don’t we have more oil refineries? Because it is not cost effective. When does profit overshadow National Security. Because that is what happened. It has been well known what would happen if that magnitude of hurrican struct, yet no refining capabilities were build else where. Our government in its zeal to protect its citizens is selective as to where it puts its attentiion. It is obvious that the stress is on protecting profits and not citizens. It is time for people to join and get others to join and keep voting those out of office who do not deliver services which our taxes and, I repeat our taxes, should be paying for. If we voted this way both parties would understand that they would be out of office with the next election if Congressional or Presidential Power was misused.

Great comments and questions, all. Thank you.

Steve Smith,
“1. What if the incumbant is doing a great job?”

If the incumbent is doing a great job, he/she is a minority in Government and can’t get much good done anyway. Vote ‘em out in 2006. Vote ‘em back in 2008 if they take the pledge to put the American people back in control government through their representatives. Leaving incumbents in, changes nothing. And if you change nothing, then you must be pleased with current government and nothing would sway your vote, anyway.

“2. The incumbant might be running unopposed.”

Take advantage of write in, candidates. An unopposed candidate who wins against Mickey Mouse who garners 35% of the vote, will communicate volumes to that incumbent about how to keep their incumbency in the next election cycle when they likely will be opposed in light of Mickey Mouse’s previous performance.

“3. What about government positions that are by appointment?”

All appointments are made by someone voted into office. Hold the appointers responsible if they are incumbents.

“4. Will people interpret this to mean vote for the opposing party of the incumbant or, does this mean to vote for other than the incumbant even if the candidate is of the same party?”

Dem’s and Rep’s who are dissatisfied with current gov’t. but loyal to their party, have absolutely no obligation to vote for the opposition party while remaining a supporter of this movement. The write in candidate Mickey Mouse, is a serious and valuable tool in communicating to incumbents, incoming freshman, and the statisticians who will read the bones after the election. Dem’s can vote for Dem. Mickey Mouse, and Rep. can vote for a conservative Mickey Mouse.

There is nothing more powerful that dissatisfied Democrats and Republicans can do in 2006 than to vote the incumbent out, in the primaries, or for a write in candidate. The message they will send to their party will be the most potent message they could ever send to their party, about putting the people’s majority agendas and priorities first.

“I would like to add to the concept the further constraint of time. Shorten the terms of everyone so that there is even more opportunity to change things.”

Won’t happen as long as incumbents continue to get a free ride while protecting the status quo.

Dennis, great points. In many primaries, voting anti-incumbent will send the most resounding message to the party of your choice. It will also threaten the hell out of the party machinery, precisely because it will throw their statistical prediction models for how to get a candidate elected completely off balance for awhile. In other words, the fear of voters will be instilled back into the hearts and minds of the political party machinists.

This idea of rendering pollsters prediction models out of whack is truly the great power of an anti-incumbent movement. What party will want to face an unknown, unpredictable abyss in the next election cycle even if they won the last one against a challenger who surprisingly did 10 or 15 times better in the polls than their models predicted, because of the anti-incumbent movement?

In facing the unknown, the known will rule decision making. And the anti-incumbency movement will dictate that to get reelected, incumbents can no longer put special interests, lobbyists, and campaign donors issues above those shared by the majority of their constituents.

Ron Brown offers the key counter spin to this movement. The old canard that the other party will take advantage, and they are the only bad guys in this game.

The anti-incumbent movement recognizes that both parties currently put political ideology above the the real issues shared by a majority of Americans. And that is the corruption the anti-incumbency vote will address. The majority of Americans don’t care about the intellectual merits of supply sided or social responsibility models of economics. They want job security and to see the deficits ended which threaten the work lives of their children.

Both Rep. and Dem. incumbents are responsible for the mess this country is in. Voting out the incumbents is the only way Americans are going to get their agenda to move forward and their national problems solved.

David,

Thanks for the answers to my questions. I am not well informed on voting procedures nationwide so I wonder if “write in” candidates being part of the vote for non-incumbant procedure is permissible in all states.

Also, since there are likely to be many aspects of the non-incumbant voting activity which are presently unknown, can you see the need to have nationwide sweeping revisions to the voting regulations in order to make the movement feasible?

Adrienne, this is one of those deals where if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Voting incumbents back in changes nothing in government. I recognize party loyalists will largely not buy into this anti-incumbency movement. But, you know what? It won’t matter. Less than 50% of eligible voters in this country belong to the D or R parties and vote for them.

The anti-incumbency movement appeals to the other 50%, and if just one third of them show up to vote anti-incumbency, the numbers indicate an earthshaking number of incumbents will not be reelected. When this movement takes off, and the American poltiical landscape has changed, forcing politicians and the machinery that elects them to put the nation’s and people’s problems first, and solving them first, then those who remained loyal to their incumbents will have been irrelevant. If they don’t mind being irrelevant, that’s fine. Change is coming, whether loyalists want to see it happen or not. They are not the folks this movement needs to appeal to or reach. It is those eligible voters who have lost faith in the two major parties, that can and eventually will, change American politics and government to become problem solvers, not the problem.

Steve said:

“I am not well informed on voting procedures nationwide so I wonder if “write in” candidates being part of the vote for non-incumbant procedure is permissible in all states.”

No, not in all states or jurisdictions. But, write ins are permitted in enough to make the difference. The nuts and bolts of how to address non-write in jurisdictions will likely boil down to simply voting for the opposition candidate. But since this movement appeals to those disenchanted with the performance of the two major parties, that is not a problem.

“Also, since there are likely to be many aspects of the non-incumbant voting activity which are presently unknown, can you see the need to have nationwide sweeping revisions to the voting regulations in order to make the movement feasible?”

NO ! Nationwide sweeping revisions to the voting regulations is not going to happen as long as incumbents remain in office. That is the immense power of the anti-incumbency vote, it does not in anyway rely upon incumbents to achieve its goals.

David, you’ve done a real good job here. Thank you for that. And I’ll definitely want to see that site when you have it up and running.

One thing I’d like to address that you skimmed over….

steve smith, this is for you.

“1. What if the incumbant is doing a great job?”

Define that, please. Many incumbants do one or two (or a few more) good things that look great on their “resume” when it comes time for re-election, but that doesn’t mean they’re doing a “great job”.

For instance, I’m “represented” by Russ Feingold. He’s done some positive things with his position. And he’s done some things I truly respect, like refusing each and every raise since he’s been in office. In many ways he does represent my area, with his concern for farmers and union laborers. He’s also had the gumption to stand up to both the President and people within his own party. And yet, despite all the positive things that can be said for him, his response to letters from his constituents equates with a form rejection…meaning that he very politely says “I don’t care what you think, I get to decide this on my own.” Which is the same attitude I’ve gotten from all my representatives, irregardless of their party affiliation or whether they should (as per their platform) agree with me or not. I have a Democrat as a Senator and a Republican as a Representative and no matter what I write to them about their responses are almost identical. That’s one of the major things that disturbs me so much about the two-party system.

By typical political measurements, Feingold is doing “a great job” for my area…and yet he’s still a career politician that is more concerned about re-election than satisfying the needs of his constituents or truly fixing this country’s problems.

David,

The percentage of eligible voters who actually do vote is somewhere around 40% according to the last figures I saw. That figure, based on recent voting results is roughly divided 50-50 by (D) and (R).

If I am wrong about the % it doesn’t really matter in the point I am trying to make.

If the impact/success of the non-incumbant voting movement is at all dependent upon the % of eligible voters who do not vote, can we expect a positive impact.

People presently do not vote for a reason. IMO that reason has less to do with who the candidates are and more to do with motivation, opportunity, priority, cncern, etc.

Realistically, what can be done to get the non-voters to the polls. To date, every single method tried has failed.

steve smith,

“Realistically, what can be done to get the non-voters to the polls. To date, every single method tried has failed.”

Thus the reason to try new methods, methods that might motivate them into action.

One of the most trying questions I have a tendency to ask people is…

When they complain about the direction our country is going, I ask “Well, did you vote?”

When the answer is “no,” then I point out how they left the decision as to which direction this country should go up to somebody else. I’ve gotten at least 12 people that I know of for sure to become active voters.

Many of those voted for Kerry, and even told me they would. I shrugged and said, “I don’t care who you vote for as long as you vote.” It showwed them that I cared more about their participation then “getting my guy in” and it worked to activate them into voter status. If you are concerned with people not voting, talk to those people you know, find out who the non-voters are, and motivate them personally to vote. If time and convience are a problem, find a way to help them to the polls.

Many people I’ve talked to consider themselves too poorly informed to make an appropriate choice. This method is so easy as to make that irrelevant. You don’t like the way things are going, vote for a non-incumbant…if you don’t know who the incumbants are just vote for Mickey Mouse!

When I went to school had rules which applied to our school elections. Why can we get rules which govern elections starting with caps in every category of election activity. I cannot understand how this would conflict with freedom of speech. The last time I heard freedom of speech meant you can say what you want as long as it is not slanderous or threatening to others. It has been extended to mean you can say something over and over and over—this is unfair competition and favors the rich—not freedom of speech. If the number of ads you could place were limited that would mean that they might actually have to say something. Also we could make the person running actually talk on the ads and ask that that person stand behind what he/she says. As of now, it is just a big PR campaign and packaging on candidates done by speech writers and polsters. I don’t suppose we could ever get candidates to do their own speech writing for the campaign.

I may have the names wrong but I watched a debate between two Brits (Sullivan and Brown?) and it was a no holds barred type of debate-done without notes -at least it looked like it—You had no doubt as to the position of these two men. It would be great to have a debate that was really a debate of ideas so that citizens could see how the candidates can think on their feet (or sitting) and deal with pressure.

Steve, my guess is, and I am sure there is polling data to support this, that non-voters primarily don’t vote because of the belief that their vote won’t make a difference. The anti-incumbency movement holds out motivation since their vote against the incumbent could make an earthshaking difference in American politics.

David
“The anti-incumbency movement appeals to the other 50%, and if just one third of them show up to vote anti-incumbency, the numbers indicate an earthshaking number of incumbents will not be reelected.”

Well, more power to you, but that’s an awful lot of people who currently don’t care about voting you’ll have to convince to go register and vote.

“When this movement takes off, and the American poltiical landscape has changed, forcing politicians and the machinery that elects them to put the nation’s and people’s problems first, and solving them first, then those who remained loyal to their incumbents will have been irrelevant.”

When and if the movement takes off, you will at some point have to address ideology. Is it toward the left or right that this goal will facilitate?

“If they don’t mind being irrelevant, that’s fine.”

In my opinion, Liberalism will never be irrelevant. In fact, I feel it is this mindset that America was founded upon and that has made this country great.

“Change is coming, whether loyalists want to see it happen or not. They are not the folks this movement needs to appeal to or reach. It is those eligible voters who have lost faith in the two major parties, that can and eventually will, change American politics and government to become problem solvers, not the problem.”

Well, I think change is good, and problem solving is terrific. Personally I’m hoping my former party finds a way to get back to their core principles, because they used to fight relentlessly for change and to solve America’s problems. Until they do, I will not volunteer my time or give them my money in order to see them elected. And I will continue to vote for the Green Party at the state and local level, because I think the idea of having viable third parties in this country is an extremely worthy goal.

fiddle faddle, that is one of the factors that draws me to watch the British House of Commons sessions with the Prime Minister, on C-Span. That give and take between contemporaneously makes for must sharper focus on issues and quicker minds of politicians, who must think on their feet before the cameras in a debate environment.

Stephanie, I have contributed to Russ Feingold’s campaigns, though I live in Texas, and my regard for him as a Senator ranks up there with my regard for McCain. But, I would end their incumbency in the Senate in a heartbeat if it means that we can raise the standards of all the other politicians to approximate those of Feingold and McCain. A sacrifice with unending benefits for years to come, is how I look at voting them out, despite the fact that I think they are among the best.

Adrienne said: “When and if the movement takes off, you will at some point have to address ideology. Is it toward the left or right that this goal will facilitate?”

This movement does not care about ideology. It cares about ending the deficits with the least pain for the greatest majority of Americans, present and future. It doesn’t care about ideology when 20,000 American casualties in Iraq will become 40,000 if nothing is done to get our troops out of there. It doesn’t care about ideology when America’s schools are failing to prepare our children for the work force in India and China which they will have to compete against. It doesn’t care about ideology on the war on terrorism as long as our borders remain wide open to anyone with a vile of biological agents or toxins to dump into our water supply or food chain.

This movement wants results, and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about ideology. Ideology results in government by finger pointing which almost completely fails to solve problems.

David:
“This movement wants results, and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about ideology. Ideology results in government by finger pointing which almost completely fails to solve problems.”

I’m all for results, still, there is always ideology behind what ideas and methods should be used in order to solve those problems, isn’t there?

David,

“I have contributed to Russ Feingold’s campaigns, though I live in Texas…”

Okay, now THAT bothers me. Why should somebody be able to contribute to a campaign for a representative that won’t be representing them? Why should you be allowed to contribute to Feingold’s campaign at all? He’s supposed to be representing this area, not you. That’s the idea behind direct representation.

With outside contributions he’s beholding to outside forces…which explains why he might think so little of the views of his own constituency, which is part of the problem of our government in general.

Adrienne,

“…there is always ideology behind what ideas and methods should be used in order to solve those problems…”

Not when ensuring re-election to your comfy post is more important than your ideology or results. How many people have backed down from their ideology to support what their party (those who contribute the most funds to re-election bids) wanted? Many, many people have done it.

Stephanie, as a Senator, he does represent me in Texas with every vote he casts on national policy and legislation. But he won’t get my vote or money in 2006, I am anti-incumbent all the way now.

Stephanie:
“Not when ensuring re-election to your comfy post is more important than your ideology or results.”

When that is the case, it becomes more than obvious that such leaders deserve to be voted out. And I have no problem with that. I do however, have a problem with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I fear that without a clear idea of what kinds of solutions people will accept as result of voting out all the incumbents, you may be setting up people who have never voted in their lives for a big let down, because though you might succeed in making the two major parties lose, there will be no set plans, and yes, no ideology to rally around afterward.
In my opinion all ideas intended to solve problems must start with some kind of ideology that everyone can agree upon if good, tangible results are to be expected. Otherwise it might just lead to either nothing happening, or further chaos.

“How many people have backed down from their ideology to support what their party (those who contribute the most funds to re-election bids) wanted? Many, many people have done it.”

Yeah, for a long time I felt rather guilty and complicit in this by always going along with the Dem’s even when I realized that they were moving ever further and further away from what I really believe in — classic old-school liberalism. But then, I finally reached my BS threshold where I simply couldn’t take the spinelessness of moving ever to the right any longer. Problem is, while I feel personally better by not having to go along with everything they do, I still wish they could find a way to find their spine again.

d.a.n, Thank you. You may be proved right. But, abandoning ship should be a last possible perceived choice of action. In nature, all is inherently good. Introduce homo sapiens into the picture, and good only comes with belief, hope, and effort. I am preparing to raise my daughter elsewhere, but, making that move is not warranted until 2 of those 3 requisites for good are gone for me. My belief, like yours is waning. But, I still have hope and effort in reserve.

Someone once said something similar to: hope leads to belief, and acting on belief creates reality. I still have hope!

David,

I’m trying to hold on. I haven’t given up yet and probably never will.

Heck, my web-site is dedicated to nothing but voting for non-incumbents (plus a few suggested solutions).

I just don’t know how to get this idea across to others. It seems like a great idea, because it doesn’t shift the balance of power drastically.

And, it focuses on the top 10 (no-brainer, uncontentious, obvious, etc.) problems facing the nation.

It seems like a no-brainer.

Oh well. Those that ignore history (like most Americans that don’t even know where North America is, much less the other major continents), are doomed to repeat it.

We’re most likely up against a historical cycle, that includes (generally speaking) an uneducated, complacent, population. We are in the era of moral and fiscal bankruptcy.

But, if anyone has some ideas on how to spread this message, I’ll do my best to help.

David
I agree that BOTH parties are the bad guys in this. Both parties are corupt and need to taken clean out of power.
I hope that the Democrats won’t take advantage of the antiincumbant movement to gain control. But I’m afraid they will. I’m sure the Republicans would do the same if the Democrats had control.
After all, the only thing that matters to either of them is POWER!

David,

You and I have very different ideas of representative government. Why should Feingold listen to me if you’re footing his advertising bill? As long as he gets elected, he has more reason to make you happy in Texas, then he has to make me happy here in Wisconsin, which means that Texas now has more representation then Wisconsin does, since I’m not funding the campaign for your Senator.

While I realize this model is too simplistic to actually show how it works, it does seem totally unfair that while the guy who ran against Feingold was recruiting funds locally, Feingold was going national. No wonder Feingold had more money. And, as is typical, money won out on election day. To me, it’s just one more reason to be dissatisfied with the system, including the money = free speech portion of our system.

Adrienne,

“…there will be no set plans, and yes, no ideology to rally around afterward…”

The people who do get elected will have an ideology. Okay, lets say the incumbent is a Democrat (in your area), but you don’t like him, so you vote Green. A bunch of other people, who usually don’t vote, vote out the incumbent by splitting their votes between the Republican candidate, the Green candidate and the Libertarian candidate. If your area typically goes Democrat, and the people choose based on what they want, you’re most likely to get either the Green or the Libertarian (depending on why they like Democrats) and you still don’t have to deal with the big bad Republican.

While the voter (and the voting movement) may have not had any particular ideology in mind, the Green and the Libertarian candidate sure did, and they enjoyed the boost by our movement without having to convince us of anything in particular other than “I’m not the bonzo who’s been slacking off in office.” So this person, whom you didn’t vote for for ideological purposes, gets to muck around awhile, knowing the whole time that if he wants to stay in he better do his job. So, now comes the ideology, because you, as his constituent, get to be one voice of many telling him what his job is, what he has to do to get your vote next time around. And if he doesn’t do his job, if he just mucks around, then HE’S the incumbent and gets booted out. Then, you can feel free to vote for the Democrat again, because he would no longer BE the crumby incumbant who didn’t do his job. Then your Democrat will know that if he wants to keep his post, he better do his job as determined by his constituents.

“In my opinion all ideas intended to solve problems must start with some kind of ideology that everyone can agree upon if good, tangible results are to be expected.”

Voting out incumbants does start with a kind of ideology that many people (getting everyone to agree the sun is coming up tomorrow isn’t going to happen, let alone getting everyone to agree on a single ideology that affects our nation) can agree upon. That ideology is that our current government (both major parties) are corrupt and the only way they’re going to change is if we punish the individuals on mass for wallowing in the corruption of the system, instead of fixing the system.

“Problem is, while I feel personally better by not having to go along with everything they do, I still wish they could find a way to find their spine again.”

I cannot personally empathize with you very much here. As you may recall, we tend towards opposite ends of the ideological spectrum on most if not all issues. However, I can share with you this little bit.

I was taught a very simplistic way of looking at politics. You voted Republican if you were interested in sound military strategy and Corporate security. You voted Democrat if you were interested in sound public schools and aiding the poor and defenseless. It’s been a rude shock to my system these last few years, seeing both Bush and Doyle shatter those childish notions into oblivion, leaving the Democrats with fringe rights movements and the Republicans with greed and me with neither one worthy of my support.

Ron Brown,

“I hope that the Democrats won’t take advantage of the antiincumbant movement to gain control. But I’m afraid they will.”

But even if they do, it would only work to make this movement stronger. When the Democrats mess up, as they surely will, then all the disillusioned Democrats who currently think all our woes rest on the heads of the greedy Republicans will discover that ***omigosh*** their side is corrupt too! Then, they’ll join the movement and we’ll be ready for some real solid change.

We just have to make sure that the currently dissatisfied Republicans don’t forget what the current administration and Congress has done for us.

I would love to vote for a third party candidate, but it seems to me that all the third party’s out there focus on the executive election where they don’t stand a chance. For a third party to actually make something out of themselves they would have to focus more on local politics. What would of happened if Nader would have first started with running for govenor or even mayor? It would be great to see a state become a voting block for a third party and possible, but for now I think I’ll stick with the status quo when it comes to national elections.

Stephanie
Only a DIED IN THE WOOL Republican or Democrat doesn’t relize that their party is corrupt.
These are the ones that would vote for their parties canidate even if the guy told them that he was Jack the Ripper, Jessie James, and Al Capone all rolled into one, and going to screw them over like they’ve never been.
But if the Dems did get control I would hope that their corruption would cause the ones that arn’t died in the wool who blindly voted for them to wakeup and smell the coffee.
I’m also hoping that the same will be true of those who voted for this crop of incumbants regardless of party affilitation.

d.a.n, I have an all black cat, named coffee. Not a particularly bright cat, as cats go. Lovable though. Anyway, Coffee has since a kitten, for two years now tried persistently to get past and through a door in our hall that leads to our upstairs. Coffee has all his life, made a daily routine of pushing on, jumping on, climbing on, that door to get through it. The door is latched with a simple wire hook. Three weeks ago, Coffee discovered that by jumping up, hitting the wire hook with his paw on an upward swipe, he could knock the latch off, push on the door, and it would open.

When I came in from getting the mail a couple weeks ago and then went upstairs to find Coffee sprawled on my bed, I was incredibly impressed by Coffee’s lifelong persistence and tenacity. The wife and daughter and I agreed to leave the door open from this point on. Coffee is now a delightful inspiration to us all.

Rob Brown, Stephanie pretty much covered my reply. The party loyalists are not going to be influenced by what we are trying to do here. Democrats may well try to take advantage. Republicans will certainly seek to find other advantages, afterall, anti-incumbency will work against powerful Democrats as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rep.’s aided our movement in Democratic districts, and vice versa.

But, they are not the folks who are controlling this movement and they are completely irrelevant to the succuess of an anti incumbent grass roots movement in 2006 and 2008. Their only role is to become very afraid of the movement and their advisors after the ballots are tallied, and show incumbents are rapidly losing control of their incumbency.

Stephanie, you have the option to BOTH vote and contribute to Feingold’s campaign or not. I, in Texas, have only the option of making a dollar contribution.

I am absolutely committed to equal voice, meaning contributions allowed ONLY from individuals, and capped at an amount which modest working folks could afford, like $250, and all other contributions outlawed. This insures freedom of political speech through donations which is equal and fair for virtually all Americans.

That said, my contribution does not cancel out your vote. I can’t vote for or against the federal Senatorial candidates in your state, as it should be. I would think it would be a much bigger problem if I were able to contribute to your State Senator’s race from Texas, as opposed to your federal Senatorial race.

The Constitution and rulings of the S.Court, have established 1st Amendment protection for money as speech. However, they have also established that is perfectly legal to limit excesses of money contribution which in reality results in some having more free speech than others. Hence, my call for limiting campaign contributions to an amount virtually all working Americans can afford, thus insuring an equal potential volume of political speech for virtually all Americans in federal races.

David,

It’s mostly how much money affects politics that bothers me, not your personal contribution. In the larger picture, what the DNC contributes to Feingold makes anything either of can do seem like piddly winks.

As for the non-incumbant movement… I just have to take a step back for a moment of recollection. When I started on Watchblog this idea was totally d.a.n.’s baby. You were against it and so was I. Now…

When people say things simply can’t change they just don’t know how wrong they are.

Stephanie, we agree entirely on this aspect of the money contribution issue.

And you are so right in your last reflections. This corruption and abuse of power will not stand, change is coming. Whether anti-incumbency or some other wind carries the seeds of change, is yet to be seen. But, it is coming, and it will be dramatic if not sudden.

David,

Thank you for that story about your cat, Coffee. I’ll try keep that lesson in mind.

Whether anti-incumbency or some other wind carries the seeds of change, is yet to be seen. But, it is coming, and it will be dramatic if not sudden.

Yes, I think something is coming too. But, I think it is at least 4 years away. However, our energy vulnerabilities and the high cost of energy may shorten that a year or so.

But, there’s growing evidence and a small handful of economists now that are predicting a significant recession or depression starting around 2009. The reasons they give are almost all rooted in the federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility, the growing national debt (about $8 trillion), the growing personal debt nationwide (about $32 billion), plundered entitlement systems, pensions $1.6 trillion in the hole, military spending, an aging population stressing the entitelment systems, probable inflation, some real-estate bubbles in some regions of the country, increasing competition & globalization, further decreases in manufacturing, more corporations moving operations overseas, an abundance of cheap labor abroad, falling incomes, a shrinking middle-income class, increasingly unaffordable & unreliable healthcare, increasingly costly and declining quality of public education, enormous pork barrel & waste as government continues to grow to nightmare proportions, higher taxes that are most likely to result from dwindling tax revenues as the economy declines and deficits grow ever larger, the government grows more corrupt, and the voters become increasingly apathetic and resigned to the futility to do anything about it.

And, then there’s always the unexpected, like a few hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attackes, war, etc.

We’ve always had problems, but they’re now becoming too numerous and severe.

20% of Americans have essentially no net worth (i.e. debt). If the economy takes a significant down-turn, that’s going to be a lot of unhappy people. 80% of Americans only have about 5% of all wealth. The middle income class is shrinking.

I hate to always sound like chicken-little, but those are all real, serious, and important issues that government seems to be ignoring, because politicians won’t make tough decisions for fear of risking re-election, and the voters essentially tolerate it, or have resigned to the futility of trying to figure out some way to change it.

But, one thing is certain. Change is coming. It’s inevitable. And, the way things are going, most are not going to like the change that is coming.

That’s mostly what I have said, d.a.n, nearly verbatim, across a number of articles since 2003.

Hope is essential. We have to hope Americans will do the “right thing,” because Americans have to do the right some thing or else…

Since I don’t foresee an out for my family, I have to hope America finds a way to clean itself up.

A couple of days ago, I decided I had enough with my town’s newspaper, and that I’d ignore them from now on.. Shall we do the same with our incumbents? If people not active in the two major parties continue to become more disgusted with corruption in at least the state and federal levels, I would think this would be an achievable next step.

Especially, since both parties just take turns at gettin’ theirs, peddlin’ influence, and being irresponsible and unaccountable.

It used to beleive the Democrats were the problem. Now, I see that both parties are the problem.

And the 2nd part of the problem is getting people to see that, and not allow themselves to be seduced into the petty partisan bickering that cleverly distracts voters with unimportant issues, while politicians ignore the truly substantive issues facing the nation.

For a politician, it’s a hell of a system.
The voters even empower the politicians to be irresponsible and unaccountable. Hell, why not vote yourself a raise whenever you please ?

And, even if you get caught, even convicted, you can rely on a pardon (like Clinton pardoned numerous felons, including Dan Rostenkowski (who plead guilty)).

Today, in Dallas, there was a story that an attorney, Bob Jarvis, who is showing favoritism to the son of a District Attorney. The D.A.’s 17 year old son shot a pellet/BB gun and hit a small child on a play ground. He was arrested, and released. Eight months later, the father of the girl that was shot is wondering why the boy has not been charged yet. This is the sort of thing that goes on in government all the time in the current era of irresponsibility and accountability. Many judges and lawyers are in league with corrupt government, and show favoritism to those with power and/or money.
Also, Dallas had a budget to get some streets fixed.

Also, recently, the Dallas Mayor’s (Laura Miller) street was in relatively good shape, and near the bottom of the list, her street somehow got repaired before many other streets near the top of the list, that were in much more need of repairs.

Thus the laws and government have become so perverted, that they violate the very laws and commit crimes they were originally supposed to prevent.

And, on another occassion, Dallas had corrupt police that were planting fake (chaulk) cocaine on people and properties. Many people were adversely affected. The police chief was fired, but he then sued the city. Hell, he’ll probably end up getting awarded million$.

And, even though the media sometimes airs a bit of this dirt, there are rarely any consequences for this corruption.

I think the U.S. is on a serious downhill slide of morals and responsibility. The entire nation consists of individuals. The nation is the sum of its parts. The problem is with us, all individuals (at least, the majority). This generation, in my opinion, is not as good as the generation before it (e.g. those born in the 20’s and 30’s). The previous generation were better parents, stronger, tougher, and more reliable. It’s a cycle we’ve seen before.

But, I fear that the period of decline for this current cycle will last for quite some time and be deeper than some expect. Will we emerge from the next down-turn better than before ? Maybe, but it seems that hardship is what creates the caliber of the previous generation. Things most likely can’t get better until they get much worse, for quite a while, after much hardship.

Damn good points brought up, now if we could only get the rest of the US to understand..

“A customer suggestion”: that watchblog.com get an adwords account if it has money to do so— I use it for my hobby’s website— it is at adwords.google.com. Thanks; this idea of course also applies to individuals’ political sites.

Hope is essential. We have to hope Americans will do the “right thing,” because Americans have to do the right some thing or else…

Since I don’t foresee an out for my family, I have to hope America finds a way to clean itself up.

Stephanie,
As David said, hope is the only logical thing to do. Giving up will never solve anything. Despite my belief that the nation can’t get better until it first faces much hardship and pain, I hang on to the hope that the people may someday use their vote wisely to regain a balance of power (not simply shift it) between government and the people. And, start recalls too, to remove corrupt politicians. So, I agree completely with the idea of voting for non-incumbents. This is an excellent opportunity for third parties and independents, if they would promote that message too. As for the weak argument that some use that good politicians will be punished too…well, big deal. That’s the price they pay for not policing their own ranks better. Besides, there are very few (if any) that have been fiscally responsible by not voting on some pork-barrel or waste of some kind. We need to see government as one entity, and stop falling for the clever tactic that leaves us with only a limited choice between two main-party politicians, that simply take turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.

As for the future, economic cycles exist.
A down-turn will occur eventually. It is inevitable. It’s not a matter of if. It’s just a matter of when.
And there’s also the question of how severe.

Some economists are predicting a severe down-turn around 2009. No one knows the future, but its not hard to predict that crappin’ in your own nest will eventually fill up your nest with crap.

To prepare for the next significant down-turn, the following is recommended:
(1) If you have some capital to risk, invest it now, but be ready to bail early (like those that bailed early in 1999, before the big decline that followed from 2000 to 2002); timing is critical;
(2) Own your home free and clear (if possible). It may be wise to downsize to a smaller home if necessary, if necessary.
(3) Don’t owe on assets you don’t want to lose. Try to get out of debt on those assets.
(4) Be prepared for potentially high inflation. Determine which investments can weather a recession/depression; (a) low-end real-estate/apartments will be in high demand, when foreclosures skyrocket (as always happens in recessions/depressions); (b) some foreign investments and currencies may be a good place for a small percentage of assets (in case the U.$. dollar becomes increasingly worthless); but not in countries that have been investing heavily in the U.$. National Debt;
(5) Be prepared to move, if necessary; some regions of the country may be harder hit than others;
(6) learn another language; this can be a valuable asset;
(7) learn new skills;

d.a.n.,

1) We’re a young family and our capital is very limited…month to month limited. That’s not going to change until one of our various small-time enterprises actually makes money.

2) We just bought our home two years ago. It’s going to take awhile. Not thirty years, but awhile.

3) Again, time in necessary there.

4) Inflation is a definite risk. Fortunately, contractual payments will actually seem a lot less with inflation involved. Since, I don’t think they can raise interest payments on fixed contracts even if serious inflation occurs.

5) We’re kind of stubborn about making where we are as good as we can, versus abandoning one place to flock to another where we’ve no roots and no network. Besides if we stay put we should still be able to enforce our “squatter’s rights.”

6) We’re working on that, though my husband has been talents there then I.

7) Always…hard times acomin’ or not. :-)

Thank you for the advice, but we’ve been through this before. ;-)

Also recommended:

1) Have a store of non-perishable foodstuff… stuff your family likes to eat.

2) Have a store of water as well, or at least know where you can get a good easily cleanable supply.

3) Grow a garden where possible.

4) Learn to can, hunt, fish, and “live off the land,” as well as other basic survival skills.

5) Make plans with extended family and friends to communicate and share one another’s skills if something drastic does occur.

Yes, if it gets really bad.
My mother and father were born in 1931 & 1932 (during the Great Depression). My mother’s young parents were born in 1910 & 1912.
When my mother was 6, she remembers a long, grand camping vacation in the mountains in Colorado (at least, she thought it was a vacation).
As a child, and still, she loves the outdoors.
However, the fact was that her mother, and father, and herself, were homeless. Her father had a job that only paid a few pennies per hour. All they had was an old Model-T, clothes, a tent, and some cooking utensils. They pitched a tent, set up camp, and lived in the mountians for many months.
It wasn’t until much later, that she learned it wasn’t merely a vacation. They were homeless.

Hopefully, it won’t get that bad, but it’s getting hard to see how we’re going to avoid a significant recession, when the consequences of so much National Debt, and ignored problems, finally catches up with us.

The sad part is that those currently in control, with vast wealth and power, won’t be those that suffer the most. It will be the poor and the former-middle-income-class.

The only consolation, is that it will likely yield a new generation, with courage, morals, and a sense of responsibility.

d.a.n.,

“The only consolation, is that it will likely yield a new generation, with courage, morals, and a sense of responsibility.”

It is my hope that we’ll find our way back to that BEFORE greater catastrophe hits. That was my hope after 9/11. It could yet happen, but I fear you’re right that it will take even more of a shock to our collective system to awaken Americans out of their laize-faire attitudes.

Still, I can yet hope and strive for a better future for my children…onward Christian soldier and all that jazz. ;-)

Ok, Ya got me! I really do like this idea.

In the past, I’ve always voted for the man rather than the party. As I’ve aged, I’ve become more liberal and voted Democratic. Now, after several years of Republican rule and seeing how the Dems have changed, I’ve about given up. Why vote at all? Third party can’t win…Republicans and Democrats have both shown their true colors…and I personally don’t like those colors. Politics is a corrupt business. Money rules. Man, I’m really sick of all this stuff. Why vote at all? I’ve always voted and things just continue to get worse.

But ya know what…this idea really does have merit. The more I think about it…the more I like it. Ya got me! I’m in! Spread the word is the name of this game…

YaGotMe, a home base web site for this movement is now online but still under construction, called VOID, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy.

YaGotMe,

Great !. Every time some one else comes on board with this idea, the more hope it gives me (and others) that people care, and realize what you just said (above), because too many (and I unfortunately used to be one of them) are seduced into the petty partisan bickering that distracts the people, while government ignores the important problems facing the nation.

David Remer is a smart guy, and knows that if the people (the voters) do not do this, the people will most likely suffer the consequences of their apathy and complacency, by allowing government to continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable.

The big question is this:
(a) Will the American voters see the necessity of what David Remer recommends in time ? Will they avoid another repeat of history ?
(b) Or, will the American voters ignore this very easy & potentially successful solution, and have to learn the hard way again ?

A few of the many benefits the idea is:
(1) its simplicity (easy to understand and do and it doesn’t even need a party, but 3rd parties and independents could be missing an opportunity to finally have a voice by ignorning this simple idea);
(2) its potential to balance power (not simply shift it or strip power from government);
(3) its potential to peacefully force reform (otherwise, be voted out, or recalled);
(4) it holds all of government (Executive, Legislative, and Senate) responsible, and stops the two main parties from simply takin’ turns, gettin’ theirs, peddlin’ influence, and continuing to be irresponsible and unaccountable;
(5) it creates peer-pressure, and creates an incentive for politicians to start policing their own ranks to keep from getting voted out over and over;
(6) it requires that government start to address and resolve the nation’s most 10 important, least contentious, most no-brainer problems; otherwise, voters keep voting them out and start recalls too to remove the most corrupt politicians;
(7) its will create many more choices at the voting polls; this idea is not centered around any party; it doesn’t care about parties; besides, the two main parties are a large part of the problem, and each are guilty of trying to limit access of third party and independents to voting ballots, debate, and the democratic process;
(8) it might improve the entire attitude of the people, if they saw their government setting a better example; because, it’s quite likely that the example they’ve been setting for the past few decades is not giving Americans any incentive to strive to be more fiscally & morally responsible and accountable; in fact, it’s probably making them more greedy, demanding, and dependent;

Ya got me! I’m in! Spread the word is the name of this game

Thanks David !
I hadn’t seen that site.

dan, it just went online yesterday. I see you were the very first person to leave a comment there. Hopefully, there will be many more.

Just E-mailed it ( www.poliwatch.org/void/ ) to seven people, and lookin’ up some more too. Feel free to use any parts of my page that you might agree with (there’s no copy-rights or licensing). You can write much better, and will state the reasons, benefits, and logic much better than me. I’m an engineer and do great technical documentation, but stink at writing in other categories.

Hopefully, voters are starting to see that both main parties are just takin’ turns being irresponsible and unaccountable, while also limiting voters’ choices by limiting access for third parties and independents to participate in elections, debates, and the democratic process.

Hopefully, voters are starting to see that both main parties are ignoring our pressing problems, for fear of risking re-election.

Hopefully, voters will recognize that this is a peaceful way to force government reform, balance power (not simply shift it) between government and the people, before it’s too late; before we have to learn the hard way.

Thanks, d.a.n. And you quite right about the revolving door of irresponsibility and corruption by both the major parties. They can be forced to responsibility and anti-corruption by voting out their incumbents, until the replacing freshman get the message and take it to heart.

David,

Thanks for the link! Great site. I’m passing it along, too.

Good show, Stephanie.

The solution to this is an election between moderates in both parties in 2008. Mrs. Clinton is much more the moderate (she is very hawkish on Iraq) than the press makes her out to be. Joe Biden is also quite the moderate with adequate foreign policy experience. On the flip side, a John McCain or Rudy Giuliani would be strong candidates. However, everything lies on these candidates making it through their primaries, which (as the US gets more and more restless with polarizing politics) could be likely by 2008.

Clinton and/or Biden ? Yikes !

There are few incumbents that really advocate election reform, term limits, reducing corruption, reducing influence peddling, and responsible and accountable government.

There are few incumbents that haven’t participated in the pork-barrel, waste, graft, pandering, and influence peddling that greases the revolving door of irresponsible and unaccountable government, as each gets theirs, spends much of their time raising vast amounts for re-election, while largley ignoring our many serious problems , growing in number and severity, for fear of risking re-election. Something is bass-ackwards in this increasingly dysfunctional federal government, as it simultaneously grows and grows to nightmare proportions and continues to spend, borrow, and print money which is endangering the nation’s future and security.

There are few incumbents that really think, once elected, can easily be unseated, because the big money backers (a few that abuse vast wealth and power to control corporations and government) like the puppets and predictability they’ve bought-and-paid for (as long as they continue to be puppets).

And, to boot, both main parties are blocking access of 3rd and independents to the ballots, debates, and democratic process, which effectively reduces voters choices (by design) so that voters are left only with two choices, so that they (the two main parties) can simply take turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.

What we (voters) have been doing isn’t working. We need more choices to reduce the predictability and control by some that use and abuse vast power and money to manipulate government.
What the majority of voters need to do is use their votes (while they still have it) more wisely to oust irresponsible and unaccountable, bought-and-paid for government, and restore the balance of power (not merely shift it) between government and the people.

Government won’t reform itself. Only the voters can peacefully force government to reform, by rejecting the two-party partisan bickering and divisiveness cleverly used to distract them from the real work needed to start resolving the many pressing problems that threaten the future and security of the nation.