Third Party & Independents: Archives

I think Andrew Jackson would go right along with you since he ran on a platform including a policy of rotation:

http://www.earlyrepublic.net/jksn-bio.htm
As far as I’m concerned, it couldn’t possibly hurt.

Posted by: Loren at November 16, 2005 06:12 PM

David,
You know that I’m 100% for VOID.
Our politicians have ignored the TRUE OWNERS of this country for WAY to long. They have lined they’re pockets with PAC money and passed laws that favor them. Meanwhile guess who’s picking up the tab? They’ve raised taxes and spent. Lowered taxes and spent. And spent, and spent, and………
And all the while they have been creating and promoting class envy, political division, racisism, miniority classes that ‘need special protection’. All to keep the voters blind to what they’re really up to. SCREWING THE TAXPAYERS!
I’m happy to see an organization like Void come along. It’s past time that WE THE PEOPLE take OUR government back. The president and Congreess are OUR EMPLOYEES and need to be reminded of this in the worst way.
There are 435 Congresstional seats and 33-34 Senate seats that are up for relection in 2006. If only 1/4 of these seats are won by the challenger, just think of the shock wave that would go through Washington.
I have often said, but will say it again, I agree with Ross Parot on only one thing.
WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THIS COUNRTY! And it’s time that WE THE OWNERS repossess OUR country from the politicians and special intrest.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 16, 2005 06:21 PM

It’s the right thing to do to peacefully restore a fair balance of power between government and The People.
It makes more sense than anything anyone else is proposing.
What we’ve been doing ain’t working, is it ?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2005 07:02 PM

This is a process that begins with one person at a time making an informed conscious decision in the voting booth.

Optimism abounds because there are upwards of 100 million age eligible people available to vote in 2006 who did not vote in 2004, a large percentage of which will now be armed with information, a better understanding of the problems facing our nation and, most importantly, a reason to do so.

Posted by: steve smith at November 16, 2005 07:29 PM

Nice Fantasy. Unfortunately, the Corporations will never allow this to happen. I suggest you bow to reality and vote Democrat, the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, you will be responsible for putting another Republican Warmonger in office like last time.

Posted by: Aldous at November 16, 2005 07:55 PM

Don’t simply go after incumbents. Go after screw-ups. If they happen to be one and the same, then kick out that incumbent. Isn’t that the point of Democracy? You need both the carrot and the stick.

That said, we have plenty of incumbents that deserve it at the moment. Feel free to go after them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 08:49 PM

I have to agree with Stephen here. If you vote out all incumbents, what happens when you vote against the one guy who ‘got it’ and voted in the one guy who was 180 degrees the opposite. He now is on his way to Washington with the assurance that you voted for HIS policies even though they may be the exact opposite of yours.

What happens then?

The best way is to hold your officials accountable. Find out what they vote for and stand for and hold them to it. But most importantly, don’t make your decision based on how much your politician can get you or your state from Washington.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2005 09:10 PM

I agree with Stephen Doughberty and Rhinehold.
Go after screw ups.

That’s all incumbents !

Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2005 09:19 PM

Rhinehold and Stephen, that would be fine, if it could be done. But, it can’t.

If VOID supporters picked and chose which incumbents are the good guys and which ones aren’t, 98% of the incumbents would be reelected again. The reason is very simple, every incumbent has a war chest provided by their party, special interests, lobbyists, and rich donors with which to hire pundits, PR firms, and advertising to create the illusion in their own district that they are the good guy.

Nope, won’t work. Think about it. How many millions of voters do you know admit their vote last election was the wrong one? Consequently, if it weren’t for an organization like VOID, all that would happen is a few Republican seats might be traded in for Democrat seats, but most incumbents remain pulling the strings against the people, and for their donors, special interests, lobbyists, and their political party.

If you wish to remain loyalist to your party, that’s fine. We encourage loyal Democrats to vote for Democratic Challengers, and GOP loyalists to vote for GOP challengers. Not a problem.

But, if politicians are going to be forced to put solving the major issues most Americans believe need to be solved, it will only happen if their political careers are threatened if they don’t. And the only way to threaten that 98% incumbency win rate at election time, is if more and more Americans join the Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy bandwagon. Without that, nothing substantial changes about our corrupt, unresponsive, and grid locked political system.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2005 09:39 PM

There’s an anti-incumbent sentiment, and it’s growing, because the people know this is a peaceful, responsible way to oust irresponsible government. The old way ain’t working and we’re running out of time.

And if the people choose to do so, what’s wrong with that?
They will simply be doing the one simple thing they should have been doing all along.

For all that agree, please vist VOIDnow.org

Rhinehold,
The people will know who to keep and who to oust as soon as the new incumbents implement transparency. Then we’ll know who is responsible and who isn’t. But, currently, all we know is that they are all irresponsible, evidenced by a thoroughly screwed up government, that pays no mind to The People, but only to their big money donors (their puppeteers).

I’ve got a question for Stephen and Rhinehold.
If incumbents are irresponsible and unaccountable, shouldn’t they be ousted ?
Tell which of them are not irresponsible and unaccountable ?
Because I can’t tell.
They all look irresponsibe, except for a two or three, and they, amazingly, aren’t outraged with the rampant corruption. None of them feel compelled to police their own ranks. Thus, they’re all complicit. The only solution is to vote out all incumbents. As many as possible, because they are so entrenched in partisan warfare, so consumed with generating campaign funds, and so beholding to their big money donors, that they are absolutely worthless to the American People.

And, I hope all third parties and independents paying attention. If they miss this unusual opportunity, they will miss their chance to finally have a voice in government.

The incumbents, up to now have been cleverly blocking access to the third parties and independents. What the people now need are more choices. The incumbents have been working hard to limit our choices to them only. The People need more choices now, because they are catching on. The People are starting to see that the incumbents are just taking turns being irresponsible and unaccountable, and ignoring the many problems facing the nation. The incumbents are threatening the future and security of the nation.

People don’t have to abandon their parties.
They just need to rethink the logic of always voting for incumbents. 98% of incumbents retain their seats in Congress because they are bought- and-paid-for, and their big money donors like it that way. They don’t answer to the people. They answer to their big money donors and special interests. What good is that? What hope do middle-to-lower-income-class individuals have to have a voice in government when 59% of all wealth in the nation is owned by only 5%, a few with vast wealth and power that control government.

The bottom line is that incumbents in the federal government are irresponsible and unaccountable, and The People should be responsible, and vote them out, and vote for anyone else that understands that their career will also be very short if they are also irresponsible and unaccountable.

That’s simply the way it’s supposed to work.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2005 09:44 PM

Nice Fantasy. Unfortunately, the Corporations will never allow this to happen. I suggest you bow to reality and vote Democrat, the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, you will be responsible for putting another Republican Warmonger in office like last time.

Posted by: Aldous at November 16, 2005 07:55 PM

That’s what the politicians and special intrest hope you’ll do. Vote for the party you think is the less of the two evils. And if you really feel that it comes down to the lesser of the two evils, nows your chance to join in something that’s working to change the situation.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 16, 2005 09:52 PM

The corporation’s won’t have squat to say once incumbents are no longer bought-and-paid-for.

Voting for one party or the other is a waste of time. It doesn’t matter which party it is.
Too many incumbents are bought-and-paid-for.

The growing anti-incumbent sentiment will create an unusual opportunity for all third parties and independents.

That’s exactly what The People need: more choices

We need people in office that are not bought-and-paid-for and realize they’ll career is over if they continue to do what those before them did.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2005 10:00 PM

David,
As one who thinks “Outside the Box” I applaud you speaking out on behalf of VOID. While citizens like Rosa Parks would be proud at our society has learned to rebel peacefully, I feel that without a clear cut vision no group can gather the political power necessary to bring about change without crossing that line of being civil. Having debated you before on issues like the national debt, I do support the removal of those incumbents that are “Dead Weight” on our political system. However, we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. Therefore, please allow me to propose a question to you and every American. Given the opportunity to learn from history and build a world that the Establishment and Youth of the 60’s could ever dream of what legacy do you want the Children of the 22nd Century to know about the political freewill of us living in the 21st Century about understanding the gift of Nature given to us by those Citizens of the 20th Century?

With Electromagnetic Energy and Bio-based Material the “Limited World Argument” of the 60’s is now being changed globally to an economy that will have no limitation as we search for a sustainable way of life. In creating a vision that includes and foresees every Human on Earth becoming economically viable and financially independent that can be supported by our elected officials and business leaders. That said; take the issue of energy over the next 100 years. How much energy will be required just here in America to be independent? Designing and building the foundation toward that goal over the next 10-20 years would be good for our national security. So what do “We the Consumers” want from “I the Corporation” and how best can we use our societal tools to achieve the goals that we will set for ourselves just because it is the right thing to do?

IMO and only in my opinion, I believe that a blueprint can be found somewhere in the middle between what we want and what is possible given the limitation of Humans which will lead to solving many of the problems that have plagued Humanity‘s Civilization. What makes Americans different is that it is the way that we look at society over time. 40 some years ago JFK asked what not your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. That was answered by the Youth by making it so that we are here to serve society. However, today our society needs to ask just how is our government and societal tools are serving us. What is in our collective inherent best interest? What will it take to fulfill the Laws of the Land and promote all Americans common defense and general welfare?

By coming up with a collective political stance on what needs to be done to secure America’s future as well as our Allies accompanied by your drive to remove those incumbents that believe personal Rapitalism over our national interests is ok and should send a clear message that all voters can get behind. Good Luck, and you have ny vote on the idea.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 16, 2005 10:16 PM

Henry Schlatman,
That is exactly how the incumbents continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable.
They’ve brainwashed us all to think we need one candidate, or one party, or one platform.
Nonsense. To see clearly, we need to take off our partisan blinders for a moment.
I used to be Republican.
But no more. I’m now completely non-partisan.
Unfortunately, I was seduced for years into the petty partisan warfare, which distracted me from the fact that incumbents from both parties are just taking turns using and abusing The People.
It’s really like a tremendous weight lifted off of me.
Incumbents hope to keep us divided so that a majority will never exist to oust the irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents.

Besides, could you please name 20 responsible incumbents in the House or Senate? Can you name 50? Can you name 100?
Even if you can, that’s not even one fourth of them.

The problem is there are too many that are irresponsible and unaccountable, have eliminated all transparency to determine who is or isn’t, will not police their own ranks, and will not reform themselves.

That’s the voters job now.

The voters simply need to do what they were supposed to be doing all along.

And if the voters don’t, then will simply repeat history (again).

But, if the do, we will make history, and for once, not repeat history, the hard way.

But, the way it’s going now, if we don’t peacefully restore a balance of power between government and The People soon, it won’t matter.

It’s like the difference between a meteor and a meteorite.
It won’t make any difference if it’s big enough.

We’re running out of time, and it may be too late already. Anyone that doesn’t believe that needs to start doing some research and calculations.

We need fiscal responsibility now.
We’re dying a death of a thousand cuts.

These many pressing problems, growing in number and severity, can potentially result in an economic melt-down that will change life as we now know it.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2005 10:41 PM

Stephen,

“Go after screw-ups.”

And who counts as a screw-up? Is it just the politicians who breaks the law? Or is it the politicians who say nothing when they know their peer has broken the law? Is it just the politician who takes bribes (legal or otherwise)? Or is it the politicians who say nothing when they know their peer has taken bribes? Is it the politician who votes for pork? Or is it only the politician who writes pork into a bill?

Name one incumbent who hasn’t used the system to his or her benefit at the expense of the American people.

Rhinehold,

“…what happens when you vote against the one guy who ‘got it’…”

And who is that? Which incumbent politician goes to bat for the American people with both hands, versus making a good show of it while using sleight of hand to get what they want? Which incumbent isn’t screwing over the people, or allowing their peers to do so? I don’t know of any, at least not on the national level. Admittedly there are some good ones out there, but that’s only relative to their peers. The system is dysfunctional and those who use the system are tainted by that dysfunction.

“The best way is to hold your officials accountable.”

And how can we do that, when we don’t know WHY they voted for what they voted for? There’s too little transparency and too many secrets. There’s too many complicated bills that most citizens don’t take the time to understand before they form an opinion on it, if they form an opinion on it at all.

Most Americans would love for that to change, so that they could actually understand what was going on and trust what they understand to be true. But that’s not going to happen while the incumbents remain, because the incumbents as a whole benefit too much from the status quo to change things. Only by changing the status quo can we, the voters, change American politics for the better.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 16, 2005 11:00 PM

Aldous said….

“Nice Fantasy. Unfortunately, the Corporations will never allow this to happen. I suggest you bow to reality and vote Democrat, the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, you will be responsible for putting another Republican Warmonger in office like last time.”

Aldous, VOID will not be an overnight success story but yes, it will be a success story.

The reality you mention is the precise reason that we are where we are today, too many people are voting for what they consider the lesser of two evils.

Until the main party politicians demonstrate that they are acting on behalf of their constituants instead of satisfying special interests, etc., voting the non-incumbant is the best direction.

Posted by: steve smith at November 16, 2005 11:11 PM

Henry, thank you for the vote of support for the idea.

For me, the bottom line is our future is at stake in light of serious and dangerous problems in our nation going unresolved, year after year, election cycle after election cycle.

If politicians had the American people’s interest first, our borders would be well on the way to being non-porous by now. If conservative fiscal philosophy really drove the Republican Party, we would have a zero deficit now, or soon, instead of facing over 11 Trillion dollars national debt before the end of this decade. If education were really an issue for Democrats, they would have come up with their own version of No Child Left Behind when they were the majority.

We are running out of time on some these problems and if don’t effectively and efficiently deal with them soon, it won’t matter what platform, philosophy or ideology our country desires. It will just be too late.

Politicians live for reelection. That is why they give in to special interests, lobbyists, and big dollar campaign donors. Voters must play the same hard ball with politicians that lobbyists, donors, and special interests do. Solve our nation’s problems or don’t look to us for reelection. If VOID can organize and motivate just 10% of America’s previously non-voting eligible voters to show up in 2008, positive change will occur, the political landscape will begin to change, the campaign and more important, the governing agenda will change, and if 20% show up voting out incumbents in 2010, nearly all politicians in Congress will have gotten the message, because the will recognize where this movement is going, and will try to stop it in the only way they can, by solving America’s problems instead of creating them or paying lip service to them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2005 11:59 PM

Loren, Ron B. Steve S., D.a.n, Stephanie, Henry, I look forward to seeing you all and working with you all over at VOIDnow.Org. You are the founding folks who can help carry the message from sea to shining sea.

I appreciate those who say that VOIDnow.Org has a great idea. But, in the end that means little if folks such as yourselves don’t pick up the cause and carry it with them to work, to family outings, to their favorite blogs, to their neighbors, and their fellow Americans. If VOID isn’t carried convincingly to the ears of 75 million voters by 2010, it will have been just another great idea lost in blog archives on outdated servers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 17, 2005 12:07 AM

D.A.N.,
Welcome to political freedom of self-thought. See like David and many other Americans who grew up in the late 80’s and early 70’s, I can remember the great societal battles and the lines in the sand that were drawn by both sides. I also am aware of Our Elders at the time forcing all sides of society to accept the “Issue of Governing” and declaring that our political Agenda would be driven be the Beast of Nature “I the Corporation.” Hardball Politics that took President Reagan to get a grasp on. So have a little faith.

Aldous,
The debate between Labor and Management in our society is about to be put in the rear seat for the time has come for “We the Consumers” to show our Elders and Parents just what it takes to build a Rightous World. Given that the Democratic and Republican Parties have followed a flawed plan and America is as in as good of shape that we are, do you even want to imagine what will happen when Today’s Youth figure out how to use our societal tools properly?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 01:43 AM

David,
With the political unrest in the country and the need to change directions I have a feeling that VOID.org can work with other political groups to study and understand why some Senators and Representatives usually are found to be right in their vote on the issues they vote on. Although I have no knowledge of how to exactly do that, does it not make good Common Sense to profile those elected officials that vote for “We the People regardless of their political party?

The reason that I bring this up is because of the Independent Representative and Senator. Check out their voting records over the last 5-10 years and see if you don’t see a pattern. While every issue has its own twist isn’t the job of our elected officials to vote for what is in the inherent best interest of all citizens and not on party lines? It is for that reason I state that “We the People” need to have a political debate over the future.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 02:03 AM

Nice Fantasy. Unfortunately, the Corporations will never allow this to happen. I suggest you bow to reality and vote Democrat, the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, you will be responsible for putting another Republican Warmonger in office like last time.

Thank you, Aldous, for highlighting the biggest flaw with today’s political system. We don’t vote FOR candidates anymore — we vote AGAINST candidates. Because of our two-party system, most people are voting out of fear — fear of what happens when the “other guy” wins.

It’s time we stop voting in fear. If you really, truly believe that the incumbent is doing a GREAT job, then, by all means, vote for him. But we have to get out of this party-lever mentality, and start demanding politicians who are worth voting for.

America seems to be in “vote for the incumbent by default” mode. The burden of proof is entirely on the challenger. Let’s change that. Let’s put the burden of proof on the incumbent. Unless they do an OUTSTANDING job (which I don’t think any politician today is doing), VOTE THEM OUT! Try the next guy!

But remember, there’s still room for party loyalty in the anti-incumbent movement. We’ll send an even greater message to the politicians if we vote the incumbents out in their own party primaries! That way, Aldous, you don’t have to support any Republican Warmongers. You can just call for new Democrats to replace the old ones.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 17, 2005 07:11 AM

I dont think anti-incumbancy is the best solution to underperformance by politicians.

I think doing away with political parties altogether is. Ban them. We would vote for people, not democrats or republicans. No National fund raising and no comprehensive political strategies. No fanning the flames of hate among the public. No brainwashing. The brightest and boldest leaders might be tempted to participate, not the slickest.

It may not be possible. But it would solve a lot of what is wrong with politics.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 17, 2005 08:39 AM

Schwamp,

I agree that getting rid of political parties would be the ideal solution, but, quite frankly, it’s not possible today. Neither major party would support such a move.

Anti-incumbancy, on the other hand, has the advantage of not requiring party support. And, if it works, it may weaken the political parties enough to make other reforms, like the one you speak of, possible.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 17, 2005 09:16 AM

Both my parents were Republican which was a rarity in South Georgia, or just the South, when I was growing up in the 50’s and early 60’s. They taught all 9 of their youngins the Conservitive Republican idealology. The first Presidential election I paid attention to was in 1960. I supported Nixon even though I turned 14 that year and couldn’t vote. I supported Goldwater in 64. I still wasn’t old enough to vote (we still had to be 21 to vote then) but was old enough to be drafted.
When I first registered to vote in 1967 I registered as a Republican. In my first Presidential in 68 I voted a straight Republican ticket. But I had a hard time doing it.
You see, back in 60 as I was reading and listening to what the canidates had to say I couldn’t see a dimes difference between the two parties. When I asked my Daddy about it he took the party line stand, and being a kid I excepted it. In 64, except for on how they’d run the war in Vietnam, neither Goldwater, or Johnson were really saying anything much different. It was the same in 68. In 1970 I made my break from the Republican Party because I could no longer support it.
I’ve gone through all that to say, there wasn’t a dimes difference between the two parties when I was a kid. And with the exception of Reagen the gap hasn’t opened any in the last 45 years. If anything it’s closed.
Look at what Geroge Bush said to get elected, and reelected. Now, what’s he doing? Take a long NONPARTICIAN LOOK. Can you see ANY difference between his policies and the Democrats policies? If you can tell me what it is. But do it without the usual politics. In other words, without the ‘He lied’ ‘No he didn’t’ ‘He’s and idiot’ ‘No he isnt’ crap. If you’ll take a nonpartisin look I know you’ll find that BOTH parties are screwing us.
This is why we need to send the message to Washington that “WE AINT GOING TO TAKE IT NO MORE”.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 17, 2005 09:36 AM

Schwamp,

Do away with political parties altogether?
Ban them? I like that idea sort of, but it
violates the law. So, the next best approach
is to reduce the influence of their incumbents.

I keep asking naysayers to please name 20 responsible incumbents in the House or Senate? Can you name 50? Can you name 100?
Even if you can, that’s not even one fourth of them.

NOBODY can, because there aren’t enough.
Who cares if a very few out of 435 irresponsible incumbents get ousted ? That’s the unfortunate price they pay for not being more vocal and more active to police their own ranks, and not standing out as one of the few honest incumbents.

When we have the requested transparency, then we will know who to keep and who to oust. It will also be easier when politicians police their own ranks. They, currently, all just look the other way. I heard John McCain say himself (yesterday on NPR) that he’s done that. But, he went on to say he needs to be more patient? I don’t think so. He needs to not look the other way. There’s already too much looking the other way. Corruption and big money in government make it rotten to the core.

Please see the many Benefits And Reasons
and logic for voting for non-incumbents (any party you like…just non-incumbent).

But, many ask, so you vote out incumbents? Then what? It’s simple. Implement some obvious changes to ensure transparency, and start to resolve the serious problems facing the nation that a majority of Americans already agree upon, and stop (bass ackwardly) refusing to tackle serious problems for fear of risking re-election.

Voting out irresponsible government is simply using your right to vote responsibly to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. What’s wrong with simply doing what’s right ? Who’s to say The People are not within their rights to do just that ? For all those that think it’s a bad idea, they perhaps should also carefully consider the alternative outcome. The fiscal and moral bankruptcy of the federal government, that continues to grow and grow to nightmare proportions, is not getting better. It is getting worse. Inflation will be the first signs of trouble. China reported yesterday that they are beginning to invest elsewhere because they are afraid their investment in the U.$. debt will be eaten away by inflation. It’s a catch 22. If the incumbents can’t borrow, they’ll print more money to avoid defaulting on over $1 billion due daily to just pay interest on the $8 Trillion National Debt. This could easily snowball out of control. Voting out incumbents could immediately and peacefully force government to start being fiscally responsible and accountable.

The incumbents will not reform themselves.

And, those they simply keep saying, “Oh, No, Oh my, Oh my…you must try find out which incumbents to keep and which to vote out.”

Well, we’ve tried that !
It ain’t workin !
Been there, done that !
It’s a waste of time, without first making a fundamental change to make sure government is transparent, responsible, and accountable. I’m no longer a Republican, and I’m not going to waste my time trying to be a Democrat either. I’m tired of that game. It’s merely the status quo. The status quo is the foe. Incumbents are the status quo. From now on, I’m completely non-partisan. I’m no longer going to allow myself to be seduced into the petty, distracting, destructive, time-wasting, brainwashing, partisan warfare. Both parties are guilty of it, and cleverly seduce people to participate in it, so that it divides the people, so that a majority can never exist to see that the problem is the incumbents themselves (regardless of party) that just take turns gettin’ theirs, votin’ on pork-barrel, graft, corruption, makin’ backroom deals, and ignoring The People and the nations’ serious issues, because the incumbents are so entrenched in self-serving activities, such as raising campaign funds (wink wink, no reason those offices are so highly coveted), answering to their big money donors.

Also, if anyone can name 10, 20, 50, or even 100 (not even one fourth of Congress) transparent, responsible, accountable incumbents, please list them here, and we will be happy to show how 98 % of them are irresponsible and unaccoutable.

After all, this is your Congress:
_______________________________________
7 have been arrested for fraud;
19 have been accused of writing bad checks;
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses;
3 have done time for assault;
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit;
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges;
8 have been arrested for shoplifting;
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits;
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year;
_________________________________________

Want to see more?
Here’s an excellent example of what your illustrious Congress has been doing.
Just look at these extremely difficult decisions they make daily….
Here’s an example of the tough choices Congress has been making:
[] Hmmm, let’s see…vote for Pork-Barrel or FEMA ?
[] Hmmm, vote themselves raises or give raises to troops in active duty ?
[] vote for $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame or more armor for humvees ?
[] vote for $150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga. or secure the nation’s borders (which Al-Qaeda is infiltrating) ?
[] vote for $250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] vote for $250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] $775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.) or shore up Social Security and Medicare ?
[] $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation or improve public education ?
[] $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage or prosecute investor/stock fraud ?
[] $5000 for gold embossed cards for Air Force One or bullet proof vests for troops in Iraq ?
What to see more? Just visit cagw.org
They have thousands of examples by almost every single incumbent in Congress.
_____________________________________________

So, please, if you can, demostrate how the incumbents are responsible. Is continually plundering Social Security responsible.
What about the way the incumbents continue to ignore all of the following for fear of risking re-election (something is bass ackwards here):

[01] there’s an $8 trillion National Debt (that would take 127 years to pay down by paying $1 billion per day; that’s the daily interest);
[02] Social Security and Medicare are still being plundered;
[03] entitlements are facing future shortfalls;
[04] we are facing energy vulnerabilities, and possibly energy shortages;
[05] pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole (which tax payers will get the bill for; just like the S&L bail-out);
[06] falling wages due to globalization (or global pillage);
[07] an aging population that will cut spending and grow poorer as they enter retirement;
[08] 77 million baby boomers that will soon start drawing benefits;
[09] a ridiculous tax system that wastes hundreds of billions in paperwork alone, and neither party wants to fix it because they like the way they’ve perverted it because it benefits them mostly; and there’s nothing transparent about this tax system; the complexity was by design to hide the abuses;
[10] increasingly unaffordable and unreliable healthcare;
[11] declining quality and increasing cost of public eduction;
[12] government is arrogant and alienates our allies;
[13] government started a war on bad information;
[14] an arrogant President that has the gall to call the “Minute Men” vigilantes, and pretends to care about security while Al Qaeda and thousands of illegal aliens cross the borders daily;
[15] pandering and promising more and more entitlements, creating a population that is increasingly and pathetically dependent on government;
[16] Corporatism, Corpocrisy, and insufficient and/or selective law enforcement to discourage investment/stock fraud;
[17] legal plunder: perversion of the laws to do the very things the laws were supposed to prevent (e.g. selective application of the law, abuse of eminent domain laws, arresting and executing innocent people, repeated release of repeat offenders of violent crimes and child molestation crimes, pardons for felons, etc.);
[18] both main parties won’t address election reform and election fraud; hell, we’ve got illegal aliens voting in our elections;
[19] both main parties are blocking access of 3rd parties and independents to ballots, debates, and the democratic process;
[20] both main parties refuse to be transparent and above board; they both refuse to stop being sneaky; otherwise both would pass a “ONE PURPOSE PER BILL” law and a “BALANCED BUDGET” law; instead, they like to hide huge amounts of pork, graft, bribes, and waste in BILLs that are thousands of pages long, and nobody can figure why anyone voted for or against any BILL;
[21] and an irresponsible and unaccountable government, that doles out pardons even when the politicians are caught and convicted of fraud, theft, and other miscellaneous felonies (even when some of them pled guilty);
[22] constant over-complication (by design) to reduce transparency and accountability;
[23] fiscal irresponsibility that is going to lead to inflation and more economic instability; especially if countries buying that debt (which is turning into a catch-22) start getting nervous about all that debt, and the falling dollar;
[24] fiscal & moral irresponsibility that is endangering the future and security of the nation;
_____________________________________________

The idea behind http://VOIDnow.org is the right thing to do. It feels right because it is most simple, logical, non-partisan, inexpensive, safe, peaceful, and responsible way to peacefully force government responsible too.
Other approaches aren’t working, and don’t have the one important thing this idea has: Peaceful Force

It has the necessary force to balance power between government and The People, not simply shift it, or strip government of all power to get anything done.

And, who can say, if The People so choose, they are not within their rights (while they still have the right to vote)?
Who can say they are wrong for doing the right thing ?
Who can deny what we’ve been doin’ ain’t workin’ ?
Who can say they have a better, more responsible plan ?
Who can deny that it will get the attention of the politicians ?
Who can deny that it will give government an incentive to police their own ranks ?
Who can argue against doing what we should have been doing all along ?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 09:44 AM

Neither major party would support such a move.

They are that powerful to prevent other parties to come to power or protect themselves from being dissolved, but they aren’t powerful enough to stop the VOID nonsense?

I propose three things that will immediately fix the problem. I would rather we spend our energy on these fixes because the problems will STILL exist if we just start voting everyone out without regard to what their ability or standing is.

1) Allow states to place term limits on their congresscritters. Yes, someone is suggesting that it would be ‘unconstitutional’ but that is utter bullcrap. Of all of the things that SHOULD be unconstitutional, this is one that is patently not. It is up to the states to determine who and how their states are represented and can place limites on any of their representatives.

2) Educate the populace. Right now voters are not being educated, they’re being preached to. And the person with the best ‘pulpit speech’ is going to win every time. It’s time to set up some organization that is non-partisan and represents the issues fairly and accurately.

3) Eliminate excessive limites to ballot acess and allow any third party candidate who has a mathematical possibility to be elected president to be allowed into the debates. Constantly telling people that their vote will be thrown away unless they vote for one of the two major parties is assinine, as is blocking people from the debates, a simple airing of the candidate’s views, because a group of people picked by the two major parties don’t feel that those candidates ‘have a chance’. How are they to have a chance unless their views are heard in the same forum as everyone else’s?

So, yeah, vote out everyone, the guys you elect will implement the platform they ran on, and you voted them to implement, and then you’ll complain that they did just as they said they were going to do and vote them out, etc. Do you really think anyone is going to be able to ‘get your point’? If 30% of those elected do what you want and you vote them out, what does that tell the next guy you just voted in?

IMO, this is just another example of people trying to use the ignorance of the voting public instead of trying to end it and it disgusts me to no end.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 17, 2005 09:59 AM

I propose three things that will immediately fix the problem. I would rather we spend our energy on these fixes because the problems will STILL exist if we just start voting everyone out without regard to what their ability or standing is.

Rhinehold, it’s not rocket science. It’s more important that politicians have the right attitude. Special skills are not as important. Special skills are worthless if the incumbents are corrupt.

1) Allow states to place term limits on their congresscritters. Yes, someone is suggesting that it would be ‘unconstitutional’ but that is utter bullcrap. Of all of the things that SHOULD be unconstitutional, this is one that is patently not. It is up to the states to determine who and how their states are represented and can place limites on any of their representatives.

With the simple idea of http://VOIDnow.org , term limits are not even needed.

2) Educate the populace. Right now voters are not being educated, they’re being preached to. And the person with the best ‘pulpit speech’ is going to win every time. It’s time to set up some organization that is non-partisan and represents the issues fairly and accurately.

I agree with this. That’s what VOIDnow.org is doing. That’s what my web-site is doing. VOIDnow.org is non-partisan. We’re not focusing merely on platform issues, because we realize that none of that is relevant, until those in government are transparent, responsible, and accountable.

3) Eliminate excessive limites to ballot acess and allow any third party candidate who has a mathematical possibility to be elected president to be allowed into the debates. Constantly telling people that their vote will be thrown away unless they vote for one of the two major parties is assinine, as is blocking people from the debates, a simple airing of the candidate’s views, because a group of people picked by the two major parties don’t feel that those candidates ‘have a chance’. How are they to have a chance unless their views are heard in the same forum as everyone else’s?

I agree with this. Blocking access to ballots is illegal. All third parties and independents need to unite to remove these barriers.

So, yeah, vote out everyone, the guys you elect will implement the platform they ran on, and you voted them to implement, and then you’ll complain that they did just as they said they were going to do and vote them out, etc. Do you really think anyone is going to be able to ‘get your point’? If 30% of those elected do what you want and you vote them out, what does that tell the next guy you just voted in?

Yes, if they want to keep their seats. The voters must keep voting them out until they create more transparency and solve problems they currently ignore. It’s that simple. But, I understand what you’re saying. It’s difficult to get people to remove their partisan blinders. It’s difficult to undo deeply institutionalized corruption. It’s difficult to incent politicians to be honest. But, is that any reason to accept it and never strive to be better ?

IMO, this is just another example of people trying to use the ignorance of the voting public instead of trying to end it and it disgusts me to no end.

You’re entitled to your opinion. IMO, those that refuse to see that most of the incumbents are irresponsible and unaccountable, and want to keep doing it the same way, are brainwashed, and refuse to remove their partisan blinders to see that the simple, correct, honest solution has been right under their nose all along. Oust irresponsible government. But, don’t feel too badly. I used to be brainwashed too. Now, I’m non-partisan, and unbeholding to any party. I no longer have to try to make excuses for the rampant irresponsibility and unaccountability of the incumbents.

Also, I still challenge anyone to list the responsible politicians here.
We will then list how each one of them (except a very few) isn’t.
Just look at what all of Congress has voted on (above), and tell us the incumbents are responsible.
Just look at all the problems they ignore, and tell us the incumbents are responsible.

Incumbents are the problem.
This also helps to demostrate how the U.S. government is FOR SALE and rotten to the core:
UNFAIR INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 10:20 AM

Rhinehold,

I agree with all three of your points, and yet I still support the VOID movement. Here’s why:

1) Allow states to place term limits on their congresscritters.

I agree entirely. But how do you propose we make that happen? We can’t do that; we need our representatives to do it for us (as they’re the ones who make the laws). But, with so many long-standing incumbents in office, it’s against their best interest to do this for us.

How do YOU propose we accomplish your #1?

2) Educate the populace. Right now voters are not being educated, they’re being preached to. And the person with the best ‘pulpit speech’ is going to win every time. It’s time to set up some organization that is non-partisan and represents the issues fairly and accurately.

WHO should educate the voters? The voters haven’t shown a willingness to educate themselves. And setting up an organization to do it costs money, and with money comes political influence. The Democrats and Republicans both claim to be “educating the voters” already.

How do YOU propose we educate the voters?

3) Eliminate excessive limites to ballot acess and allow any third party candidate who has a mathematical possibility to be elected president to be allowed into the debates.

Currently, that would require Democrats and Republicans to vote to make that happen. But, of course, it is against their best interests to do so.

Constantly telling people that their vote will be thrown away unless they vote for one of the two major parties is assinine….

But our government isn’t telling the people this — the major parties are. Are you suggesting we limit freedom of speech so that this viewpoint can no longer be expressed?

They are that powerful to prevent other parties to come to power or protect themselves from being dissolved, but they aren’t powerful enough to stop the VOID nonsense?

Running a campaign for a candidate takes money. Running a thousand candidates takes a thousand times more money. Only a large political party can gather that much money. But VOID doesn’t have to run a thousand campaigns for a thousand candidates. It’s ONE CAMPAIGN, ONE STRATEGY, that can apply to ANY ELECTION, ANYWHERE. And the usual “throwing your vote away” nonsense can’t compete, because you can still vote entirely main-party and support it.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 17, 2005 11:00 AM

Rhinehold’s comments do bring up a good question, though…

David, d.a.n., etc.:

Do you support institutionalizing the VOID principle — in other words, do you support term limits?

Personally, I support consecutive term limits in ALL elected positions, especially Congressional ones. For every 2 terms spent in office, you must spend 1 term out of office. Let’s get these guys out of Washington every once in a while, and get them back in touch with reality.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 17, 2005 11:04 AM

Does the VOID principle really address the root causes - i.e. special interests/lobbyists? Slowly and indirectly at best.

A follow-up to McCain-Feingold with more teeth would be a good next step. Vote out any incumbent who balks or who uses the free speech nonsense argument.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 17, 2005 11:53 AM

Rob Cottrell,

Yes, absolutely.
Yes, I would support term limits.
And, I agree wholeheartedly with the point you make:

Let’s get these guys out of Washington every once in a while, and get them back in touch with reality.

Will incumbents ever vote for term limits?
Will incumbents ever vote for campaign finance reform?
Will incumbents ever vote for election reform?
Will incumbents and their parties stop illegally blocking access to the 3rd parties?
Will incumbents reform themselves?

That’s highly unlikely, and we may never live long enough to see it.

The People can peacefully enforce term limits, with nothing more than the one simple thing they’ve had along: their vote

But, also, the voters must learn to use their vote the way it was originally intended, and not be seduced into the distracting, petty, bickering on less substantive, silly issues. There is an education hurdle here. But, fortunately, it’s very simple, just, and fair. We must focus on making government more transparent. Transparency is a big key in discouraging the politicians from being the bought-and-paid-for puppets of some that abuse vast wealth and power.

If and third parties, independents, and The People can all admit that government is failing us (as evidenced above by the long list of things incumbents are doing wrong or not doing at all), remove their partisan blinders for a moment, and agree that the incumbents, the status quo, are the foe, are too irresponsible and unaccountable, we can turn things around.

The simple merits of the goal of VOIDnow.org, once communicated to most, can sell itself, because it’s fair, just, simple, and the one responsible thing we, The People, were supposed to be doing all along.

Even if The People fail to ever restore a fair balance of power between government and The People, I think I will always retain the belief that it is the most just, simple, easy, quick, safe, inexpensive, non-partisan, peaceful, understandable, communicable, and most responsible action to peacefully force a balance of power (not simply shift it or strip power to accomplish anything) between government and the people, and peacefully force government to be transparent, responsible, and accountable too.

We can ignore history and repeat it (again, the hard way).
Or, we can learn from it, do the smart and responsible thing, and make history.

There’s nothing preventing The People from doing this if they so choose.
The People simply need to understand that political skills are irrelevant (it’s not rocket science), if those incumbents that wield them are corrupt, irresponsible, unaccountable, so entrenched in cleverly distracting partisan warfare, so consumed and beholding to their big money donors, that those incumbents threaten the future and security of the nation.

We don’t have forever.
We are not invincible.
The consequences of decades of irresponsibility are catching up to us.
We are dying a death of a thousand cuts.
The incumbents don’t care, because they have got theirs, many are wealthy by virtue of only one or two terms in government, and they won’t feel the consequences of their irresponsibility, like 90% of the rest of Americans will.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 11:55 AM

Good points by all,
On term limits the local and state political stance should be to empower the Citizens and the government by educating both sides on the exact role of how “We the People” are suppose to govern. Having been politically active in the early 90’s, I can tell you that this is the easiest way to bring about positive change in your community.

However, we need to keep in mind that those citizens we elect to Washington have to play on the World Stage. Therefore to answer D.A.N.; I would say that Senators Biphen and Senator Hagel make a formal team of Leadership that could be used as a bar. Others meet that bar, but time does not permit me to do a role call. BTW, which Senator or Representatives do you think represent America First?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 12:02 PM

McCain-Feingold failed.
It was a good idea, except it relied on incumbents to vote for it.
Sorry, but we’ve been there and done that.

When has corrupt government ever reformed itself ?

Given time, the incumbents can pervert any law, rule, process, or procedure to do the very things it was supposed to prevent.

Recent eminent domain laws are a good example of legal plunder. See cagw.org for thousands of examples of legal plunder. Pork-Barrel, graft, and backroom deals, and many things we never see, are examples of legal plunder.

We don’t have any more time to keep playing games with these irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents.

Seriously, why do you suppose no one can provide a list of 10, 20, 50, or even 100 (less than one fourth) responsible incumbents.

Because there are not that many.
I have watched them all.
There are only a few, and they too (by their own admission) look the other way.

The system is broken.
It has been perverted almost as badly as the U.$. tax system (which benefits who?).

But, I really know that it is difficult to overcome long held beliefs, no matter how illogical they are.
I did it for 47 years.
One day, when I finally questioned the lack of progress, removed my partisan blinders, and overcame my brainwashing of 47 years, it was finally clear to me that most incumbents (regardless of party) were not at all concerned with the future and security of the nation.

Not at all. And I find it disgusting beyond description.

I know it’s difficult. I can only hope that The People will consider, for a moment, the problem, and the fair and just solution, and realize no solution will ever work without force.

I support VOIDnow.org and my web-site also supports the goal, because, it is the most fair and just thing to do, that we should have been doing all along, and has the necessary peaceful force required to make it happen. And, it provides the incentive to incent politicians to police their own ranks. And, if that’s not enough, the next thing will be to start a movement to also recall irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 12:16 PM

Also, the first thing that VOID.org should support is a voting system that ensures that every legal vote is counted. Without mastering this primary principle of democacy installed into the Laws of the Land that govern our current voting systems than all bets are off on fixing the system.

Athough there has been several discussions on this subject, a sound voting system must be designed to the standard of “One Person, One Vote” accountablility while still keeping the voters choice private. A hard job for some serious tech heads, but I know with a little hard thinking and debating on what we know to be right, a hard design will allow us to reproduce an equal and fair national standard and system. For a piece of paper marked with a few names on it is not that hard to ensure a correct count.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 12:19 PM

There are two huge problems with term limits. First is the extremely important argument that term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment to bring about. Does anyone really believe in this political environment that the votes of the public and the states are there to bring term limits about?

Second, is the valid argument that term limits do not address the root cause of mediocrity and maligned alleigances to special interests, big dollar donors, and the power of the political parties to redefine a politician’s priorities, even though that politician wanted to serve the nation’s needs.

Look, most politicians ran for office with the desire to improve America and solve her problems. But, when they are new in Congress, they have no power. The incumbents hold the power of committee assignments (where the nations problems are at least discussed), staff resources, access to information, and access to the floor of Congress. Any freshman politician must first bow down to the power of the incumbents, prove their loyalty to the incumbent’s corrupt ties to special interests, big dollar donors, political party power structure, and lobbyist ties, before that freshman politician is given access to the kind of power that is needed to make changes and solve problems.

But, by the time they have acquired the power to make changes, they have been conditioned and brainwashed by the process of too long appeasing the incumbents and demonstrating their loyalty to them: they are no longer the freshman politician who wanted to solve America’s problems first and foremost. They have become cogs in the power machine developed over centuries by the political parties and incumbents who control and manage it for the benefit of themselves and their political careers, their special interest and campaign donors and the lobbyists who threaten withdrawal of support as a form of blackmail.

Everyone underestimates the power of incumbents. Their money comes from hugely powerful special interests who will cough 100’s of billions of dollars up to defeat any term limits move, since term limits would threaten special interest’s hold on long term incumbents.

The only potential power capable of rivaling that of special interest individuals and groups, the power brokers of America, is the voters. And I am not talking about the majority of voters. Just a small percentage of those who previously thought their vote would not make a difference. If 20% of previously non-voting Americans show up and cast their ballot for the challenger, any challenger, for 2 or 3 election cycles in a row, election results will no longer be predictable, incumbents will no longer be assured of reelection, and the challengers will be emboldened to stand up to the power of incumbents, and surviving incumbents will recognize the wisdom of yielding to the demands of these anti-incumbent voters to solve America’s problems first, then play honor debts to special interests afterward.

It really is the only way to weaken and break the chains of bondage which special interests have over incumbents and the political machinery of this country.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 17, 2005 12:35 PM

David,

I actually agree with the thing about term limits.
Term limits alone won’t solve the problem.
Even with term limits, there still would be no power to hold politicians accountable.

Henry Schlatman,
I can only name one Senator that might, in my opinion (maybe) meet the bar: John McCain .
But, even McCain has, by his own admission, looked the other way, and tolerated things that shouldn’t be tolerated.

See, no one can name but a mere few incumbents.
And, I’m not prepared to defend McCain ,
because if he is unseated, it’s the unfortunate price of looking the other way.
And, all of them have voted on pork-barrel.

P.S. ONE PURPOSE PER BILL is needed and would provide some much needed transparency. I personally won’t vote for anyone who rejects ONE PURPOSE PER BILL , and continues to create huge 10000 page pork-laden bills, that prevent The People from seeing why anyone voted for or against the BILL. That’s a simple thing. But, regardless of the simplicity, Congress won’t do it. They won’t do a lot of things, because they are, as a whole, simply too corrupt.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 01:00 PM

You know, it could be that strange disease that afflicts many politicians shortly after being elected: jelly-brain disease.

For some reason, they forget all of their promises (“read my lips”) and morals soon after being elected.

Why is that ?

But then, perhaps it is just a question of what the definition of “is” really is ?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 01:03 PM

Henry, there is enough transparency and accountability in our elections to not pose a serious threat to an anti-incumbency movement at the polls over a 3 or 4 election cycles.

I agree we need more, but, that would distract and detract from the non-partisan all-partisan goal and mission of VOID, which is simple, and MUST REMAIN simple: Keep voting them out of office until the problems the majority of Americans agree need to be solved are in fact, solved.

The special interests and major parties most effective weapon to keep voters divided and weak, is complication and diversity of opinion, issues, and projected outcomes. VOID must not allow itself to be vulnerable to that age old ploy of divide and conquer.

There is a reason our nation’s voters are split the way they are. With half or more of voters believing their vote won’t make a difference, and the other half divided evenly between Republican and Democrat. That reason is that it creates this sweet spot for incumbents where 92 to 98% incumbency election rate is assured. They don’t want the people to have power, voter power is a threat to their incumbency.

VOID can and should become the recurring nightmare of every incumbent politician and I have lived long enough to know that the status quo is the foe, and they will use every trick and argument imaginable including trying to complicate the agenda of VOID supporters. Complexity is VOID’s achille’s heel.

A simple mission, a simple plan, and a simple message, is the power and strength of the Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy movement that can and will empower voters to take back control of government; and put politicians on notice that they have a new boss, and their political careers depend on acknowledging and serving that new boss, the majority of American voters and the issues they agree as a majority need to be resolved.

The status quo is the foe. Anti-incumbent voters shall be the new champions of democracy in America. I have seen dozens of articles this last week on anti-incumbent sentiment and election results (google anti-incumbent). Pa. voters revoked a pay raise their representatives gave themselves in the dark of the night when they thought voters weren’t watching. We have had enough of this incumbency bullshit that pays lip service to America’s problems but in the end, only manages to add to them, rather than solve them.

Peace, security, prosperity, and freedom! Those are the goals. Are we at peace? Are we secure? Can all of nation’s children look forward to prosperity? Can even most of them? Are we not less free today than we were 10 years ago? In fact, is our government not waging a war on our freedoms in the name of fear and terrorism?

No, incumbents have long forgotten what the goals are. And they have long forgotten that it was the people who they were hired to represent, not the special interests, big dollar campaign donors, and their political parties. 20% of previously non-voting and previously partisan voters turning out to vote for the challenger and against the incumbents is all that it will take restore democracy and fidelity in the relationship between politicians and the American people again. 20% is all it will take bring peace, security, prosperity, and freedom back to the forefront as the goals of government loved and demanded by the American people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 17, 2005 01:09 PM

David,
You are right, but you also exposed the A-Heel (sorry can’t spell the word) of both major parties. The push and pull between private business and government can be redirected to debate on how can “We the People” use our societal tools properly in the future to acheive the stated goals of the American Society?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 01:19 PM

Everyone who has posted on this debate:

No one has mentioned that in order to make VOID work, you have to get a whole bunch of people to the polls who don’t go regularly. If one accepts the premise that to vote incumbents out, one has to believe that there will be voters, not corporations, not special interests, not parties, but voters who want to keep the incumbent in office. How do you propose to over come that obstacle.

Second, in relation to voters, in a given presidential election year, roughly 45-50% of the registered voters in this country routinely abdicate their sovereign power by not voting. How does VOID intend to overcome this apathy and inertia?

I beleive strongly in the rights of groups like VOID to undertake their mission and I wish them succeess. But like most anti-incumbent movements, there is a fundamental failure to understand what is at the heart of the matter. So let’s debunk a few myths.

1. Corporations are no more wedded to incumbents than you are, they are wedded to power. Whoever holds the power of legislation will garner the attention of corporations (and other interest groups). If you don’t believe me, look up data at the Federal Election Commission (www.fec.gov) or Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) to see what the breakdown of PAC giving was when the Democrats controlled Congress and when the Republicans controlled Congress, you will find that the party in power always got more PAC money—it is a matter of access. The reason big business is interested in power is taht they are interested in staying in business. Legislatures have a nasty habit of legislating laws that hurt business or at least businesses will perceive an injury.

2. Every few decades an anti-incumbent fever rides through the nation. The last was in 1994 when the GOP came to power. Prior to that was in 1974, when a big Democratic boost came in. What VOID is proposing is nothing new and nothing that would not happen throught natural political evolution. But what is not understood is how the very structure of the constitution favors our current results.

Congress is responsible for a vast array of legislation and issues. So much power have we placed in the hands of Congress over so much of our national and societal lives, that Congressmen cannot become informed legislator without some help. Their staffs can only do so much, thus members of Congress—of both parties—rely upon the ranks of lobbyists to provide them with information. Lobbyists can afford to specialize, to learn more than anyone else. They then educate Congress.

3. Every interest, by definition is special—to someone or some group. VOID is a special interest group—with a specific mission—one that they care about and will advocate. The term special interest is a pejorative term used to describe one’s enemies. But just as a Republican may call big labor a special interest and a Democrat may call big business a special interest makes neither wrong. Both sides are right. Finally, just because you are a political independent or third party doesn’t mean you are not a special interest.

4. Congress does listen to voters, it is just that on 99% of issues, most voters just don’t give a damn. It is a rare voter with disparate interests that drive them to contact their member of Congress on more than one issue. If you don’t think Congress cares about voters, how do you explain the tendency of Members of Congress to spend twice as much time in their districts than in Washington, DC? The typical Washington week for a member of Congress begins on Tuesday morning and ends Thursday night, for at best 3 full days in Washington. When you factor in that Congress only meets about 35-40 weeks a year, you can start doing the math.

In summary, I think VOID has an admirable mission for which I wish them luck. But first you need to understand that the very nature, the very structure of our Congress is one that tolerates, indeed, encourages both Members and Voters to care only on specific interests leaving the other issues to those who care about those issues. It is human nature.

Posted by: Matt Johnston at November 17, 2005 02:22 PM

Matt Johnston

No one has mentioned that in order to make VOID work, you have to get a whole bunch of people to the polls who don’t go regularly. If one accepts the premise that to vote incumbents out, one has to believe that there will be voters, not corporations, not special interests, not parties, but voters who want to keep the incumbent in office. How do you propose to over come that obstacle.

How right you are, the voters have to go vote. The corporations, special intrest, and parties ALL want statis quoe.
The way to get over the obstacle is through voter education. The voters NEED TO KNOW that their vote counts. And that THEY can make a difference. This has been discussed over on the VOID website.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 17, 2005 02:31 PM

I posted this in the comments of one of the articles on the VOID website. But it’s worth repeating.

If we can force our elected officials to address the real problems facing this country, everyone one of us will have diffenent ideas of how to solve them.
But if these problems are being addressed, solutions can be reached that will be acceptable to most of us. The soultions will have things that we don’t care for. And they will have things that we do like. This is called compromise, something that has been lost with all the fighting between the major parties.
I would rather have soulutions that has some compromises in them than to have the REAL problems of this country go unsolved like they’re doing now.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 17, 2005 02:45 PM

Matt Johnston,
You are absolutely correct. That has not escaped us. That’s why all 3rd parties and independents should be paying close attention. If they miss this opportunity, they may miss their last chance to finally have a voice in government, and give the people more choices at the polls.

David R. Remer,
You certainly have a way with words. And, you are so absolutely correct. I wish I had recognized the truth sooner.
While I feel foolish, I also now completely understand the difficulty of reaching people that are not programmed to receive.
When I did remove my blinders (not too long ago), it was really refreshing too. It didn’t happen all at once. The enlightening continued, and still is. It takes time to undo the programming. And, I suppose some never can overcome the programming.

But, I can now see how, so cleverly, incumbents manipulate and control and divide the voters so that a majority can never exist to hold the incumbents responsible and accountable.
You have to admit, that the incumbents are very clever, and their tactics are very effective.

It’s amazing how easily incumbents have cleverly seduced their supporters to viciously attack the other side, while incumbents on both sides sit back and take it easy, and the voters amazingly like programmed zombies, return to the polls and vote the incumbents back into office, ironically, empowering the incumbents to continue to keep The People stuck in a circular sort of thought and behaviour. Thus, there’s no reason for incumbents to do any real work when they don’t have to. That’s why they spend most of their time raising money. And, there’s no mystery where a lot of the money go is there ? There’s no mystery why those seats in government are so coveted and prized is there? And, there’s no mystery why our serious problems continue to grow in number and severity.

Thus, many things are now appearing to me in a completely new light. And, I no longer have to wiggle and squirm and comprimise my values to defend a party (as I once did) that doesn’t give a damn about the nation. The do not care about The People. Of course, they say they care, but their actions speak louder, as they try to perpetuate the partisan warfare by portraying the other party the root of our problems. But, it is both of them. It is the incumbents. That’s why it doesn’t seem to matter who we vote for. That’s why it seems we are consistently terrible judges of character at every election. And, depending on who wins, we all run about saying things like:
(1) How could anyone vote for that person ?
(2) Gee wiz, how could anyone vote for a [PartyOfYourChoice] ?
(3) Anyone that voted for [PoliticianOfYourChoice] is a idiot !
(4) The [PartyOfChoice] is the problem, and their supporters !
(5) The problem with [PartyOfChice] is that they are [PoliticalLeaningOfChoice].

And, there are numerous analogies of the same type of corruption by those that govern or run companies.
Like the old saying goes: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Look at failing companies top heavy with lazy executives.
Look at any organization, and see which are the worst managed, and why?
The reasons are always the similar.
Look at the rampant stock and investor fraud.
Look at the Pennsylvania Senate that sneakily tried to vote themselves a raise at 3:00 AM.

Then, look at the best managed governments and companies. They usually have one thing in common. Transparency.

Now, look at the federal government, and see all the sneaky ways they used to hide what is going on (like 10000 page pork-laden bills).

The truth is that The People must never ignore government, because it invites abouse.
The truth is that The People have ignored incumbents for too long already.
The People need to now be responsible and do the responsible thing, possibly the only thing that can peacefully make government be responsible too. Simply vote responsibly, for someone who is responsible and accountable….and that is not incumbents is it? If incumbents are responsible, then why can’t anyone list at least one 20, 50, or 100 ? It’s because there are hardly any, and the few that are OK are also guilty of looking the other way. The system is too dysfunctional, and the incumbents will not reform themselves.

Ron Brown,
That’s an excellent conclusion.
A majority of Americans already agree on many problems and solution (for many problems), but the incumbents ignore them. The lazy incumbents are too busy fillin’ their own pockets, and trying to make everyone think they’re doing very important, serious work for The People. PLEASE !

Thus, these many very serious problems continue to grow in number and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 03:01 PM

Matt Johnston,

I read all of what you wrote (every word).
That’s very well written.
You make some good points.

But, not any that would justify resigning to the futility of not striving for better, more transparent, more responsible and accountable government.

The goal we are promoting is not a one-shot vote-out-incumbents.
The goal is to teach voters to continue to do it until government is responsible, and a balance of power is achieved, and some transparencies are added to make it easier for the People to see what’s going on (such as ONE PURPOSE PER BILL).

You may be right about the final outcome.
No one knows for certain.
But, what we can be fairly certain of is that doing nothing will guarantee that we all learn the hard way (again).
The many serious problems facing the nation will eventually be resolved.
But will it be the hard, painful way,
or the smart, peaceful, least painful, most responsible way ?

If The People succeed, they will simply be doing what they were supposed to do all along. That’s how the people are supposed to vote. Vote for responsible government, and vote out irresponsible government.

The People have forgotten the basics.
We’re merely trying to remind them of this.
We don’t have a party, or a candidate.
Unlike others in the past, we’re completely non-partisan. The goal is simple, and just, and fair, and quite simply the right thing to do.

Whether enough of The People ever decide to oust the irresponsible and unaccountable government, is yet to be seen.

But, if they do, it will be history in the making.

And, while history often repeats itself,
sometimes, history is created too.

Thank you for wishes of luck.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 03:36 PM

D.A.N.

I am not encouraging anyone to resign themselves to the status quo. I am an unabashed believer is the American Republic.

I was merely attempting to point out that much of the invective against incumbents is based on criticisms that are a function of the system rather than individuals.

Posted by: Matt Johnston at November 17, 2005 04:53 PM

Matt Johnston,

Thank you. I did not mean to offend, or say you personally are resigning to futility, because you yourself wished us luck.

Regarding your reference to the system…that is very perceptive of you actually to realize that much of the problem is the system.

In fact, above, I stated that the system was dyfunctional. So, well meaning newly elected politicians are also soon consumed by the system of corruption.

All I would point out is, that many before the newcomers (many incumbents), are responsible for perverting the system. So, it comes back to the incumbents, because the keep perverting the rules and laws to over-complicate things with the same purpose in mind…to make things less transparent, so that they can be abused.

Transparency is important to reducing corruption.

A very good place to start would be
ONE PURPOSE PER BILL. One of the first steps to start simplifying government is by allowing ONLY ONE purpose per bill (i.e. only one or more items that are necessary for the one purpose of the one bill). This will cut out the pork-barrel and graft that sneak into huge bills, in which pork-barrel consisting of numerous unrelated items is hidden within thousands of pages that few (if anyone, much less voters) reads or scrutinizes. This will allow voters to easily see how politicians voted. This will increase transparency, which will lead to more accountability, and responsibility. Currently, it’s nearly impossible to know why a politician voted for or against a bill. Perhaps, this lack-of-transparency is by design? It’s certainly become a popular vehicle for hiding excessive pork-barrel, graft, bribes, and waste.

There are other many such simple simplifications that could greatly increase transparency and reduce cost.

Also, we are not all just about criticizing.
We offer lots of different solutions for consideration too. For example, here’s a few ideas to to start with.

We do understand all too well the psychology of people and politics. Things take a long, long, time. It’s hard to convince people to overcome their partisan convictions. It’s hard for them to change years and decades of programming. But, someone always has to take the first step. Every giant leap in civilization starts with one small step. We’ve tried everything else. We may be reaching the point now, if we don’t get some fiscal and moral responsibility within the federal government soon, it may not matter.

That’s not just fear mongering or ravings of a lunatic. That’s what many economists and many in government are warning of.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-14-fiscal-hurricane-cover_x.htm

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 05:13 PM

Matt,
You are right in the way you view the way our government works, but do you know why it is designed in this manner? For that knowledge and wisdom holds the master keys to the Societal Locks placed upon our system by our Elders so that we would learn what is right.

Although I will not explain why nor will I even attempt to take sides limited to just my personal beliefs, I do believe that the Founding Fathers got it right when they agreed that our societal issues should be debated in public as well as the Halls of Congress until that which is known to be unalienable Right based on Knowledge and Common Sense. By exposing Americans and others to how they used “Cardinal Knowledge of Law” to discover what was right is one of the best things that our genration could do.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 05:14 PM

Schwamp & Rob Cottrell,

“I agree that getting rid of political parties would be the ideal solution, but, quite frankly, it’s not possible today. Neither major party would support such a move.”

It would also seriously conflict with the right of peacable assembly. It’s not political parties in and of themselves, that’s the problem. The problem is when the priorities and welfare of your political party comes before the priorities and welfare of the people, which is what we’re experiencing today. Political parties need to be re-prioritized certainly, but that doesn’t mean they can or should be eliminated.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 17, 2005 05:34 PM

Stephanie,
You bring up a good point about political parties and how over the natural course of Human Events it has been necessary to change the political atmosphere by erecting a new political party. Due to the way our system is designed, this path is made with many snares and traps for good reason. However, their is a common thread that creates the society which we live in and although we have never been able to capitalize on it before who is to say it is wrong to show the American Public what it has been taught by society since the 70’s as the right thing to do.

By holding firm on those principlies that make Americans who we are and what our goals are as a society than both/all political parties must come to meet our standards or risk being replaced. For regardless of who you are the laws that we live by must be used so that their words and actions are seen to be right by those not yet born. Or that is at least the point we aspire to as a generation.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 05:52 PM

Interesting poll results…

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 4-7. Figures are registered voters..

Q. “What is your preference for the outcome of the 2006 congressional elections : a congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?”

Controlled by Republicans 37%
Controlled by Democrats 48%
Unsure 15%

Q. “In the 2006 election for US Congress, do you feel that your representative deserves to be reelected, or do you think it is time to give a new person a chance?”

Deserves to be reelected 37%
Give new person a chance 51%
Unsure 12%

In a related poll conducted by Diageo/Hotline Poll Oct 12-16, we see the following :

Q. “Thinking about the next election for US Congress, do you think you will vote to reelect your member of Congress, will you consider voting for someone else, or do you think you will vote to replace your current member of Congress?”

Vote to reelect member 31%
Consider someone else 28%
Vote to replace member 19%
Unsure 22%

IMO these poll results lend support and credibility to the voidnow.org mission.

Posted by: steve smith at November 17, 2005 06:22 PM

Henry Schlatman,
Do you think it’s possilbe that incumbents (not all) and many in positions of power within government, cleverly use the partisan warfare and other clever tactics to primarily to distract voters from more substantive issues, and divert attention away from themselves (the incumbents) ?
That is, I susepct it’s really a very clever way to use The People, to seduce them into a circular pattern of thought and action.
It certainly seems that way, and it seems very effective.
I’m sure many politicians would deny it.
But, the idea is thousands of years old.
I’m not talking about some vast conspiracy theory.
But, there are always some that want to control others. The are not always beneficial to society. They don’t always lead. Often, many of them merely live off the hard work of others. They are users. You can find such users all throughout society, all professions, all walks of life. But, government is where many gravitate to.
Some do it and kid themselves all along the way by telling themselves they’re doing good work for the people.
Some, however, I think know what what it is, but they will never admit it.

Still, regardless of the psychologies of people and politics, and the history of how some things came to be, we still have an fiscally and morally corrupt government that is threatening the future and security of the nation. We’ve got to address it, and soon, or it won’t matter to many people for a long time.

It’s like the difference between a meteor, and a meteorite. If it’s big enough, it doesn’t matter what you call it.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 06:26 PM

D.A.N.,
Although it would take me a fews months of ome serious searching, the Founding Fathers and those “Powers-to-Be of our nation really are trying hard to do what is right given their directive some years back. It is however, the method of how and why this happens that needs to be re-taught to the American People.

Take President Bushes proposal to change social security for example. While the problem is apparent and needs our attention, we see that his idea did not stand up through the election promise to the Halls of Congress. The reasons might be few or many, but we see that although his idea changed the way we look at SS it was not strong enough to move the bench mark forward so that it withstood becoming a law from a bill.

If VOID.org or any group is going to effect this way of doing business than they are either crazy or they have to come up with a platform that raises the political bar in this country. President Lincoln recognized this when he took on slavery in our society. MLK recognized it when he organized the Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s. Even Presidents Reagan and Clinton knew the power that a vision with a workable solution for all Americans to better themselve and others carries. Therefore, if VOID is going to make a difference than the standard that we establish for what makes a good elected official better be right regardless or it will not work.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 07:01 PM

Stephanie,

It would also seriously conflict with the right of peacable assembly. It’s not political parties in and of themselves, that’s the problem. The problem is when the priorities and welfare of your political party comes before the priorities and welfare of the people, which is what we’re experiencing today. Political parties need to be re-prioritized certainly, but that doesn’t mean they can or should be eliminated.

I don’t think that political parties should be made illegal or anything. I just think that they should be deinstitutionalized. As an independent, my tax dollars shouldn’t be spent helping the Republicans or Democrats decide who they’re going to run for president. If a party wants to hold a primary, that’s fine, but they shouldn’t be getting public money to do it.

Party levers shouldn’t exist. Ballots shouldn’t list party affiliations. If a voter wants to support a political party, they should have to take the time to learn who’s running for that party before they get to the voting booth.

No party should automatically get on the ballot anywhere. The Republican and Democratic candidates for president should have to jump through the same hoops that the Green party, Libertarian party, Reform party, and independents have to.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 17, 2005 07:04 PM

Henry Schlatman

If VOID.org or any group is going to effect this way of doing business than they are either crazy ……

I reckon we’re ALL crazy then. Because ALL of ue think that WE can change the way of doing business in DC. But we also realize that it’s going to take the help of the rest of the country as well.
This is one reason this post was made. To let everyone know what that VOID exist and why.
While I don’t agree with the left very often this is ONE issue that I COMPLETELY agree on with those on the left that are with VOID.
VOID is one place where ALL political idealolgy has been put aside for a just and past due cause.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 17, 2005 07:26 PM

I don’t think that political parties should be made illegal or anything. I just think that they should be deinstitutionalized. As an independent, my tax dollars shouldn’t be spent helping the Republicans or Democrats decide who they’re going to run for president. If a party wants to hold a primary, that’s fine, but they shouldn’t be getting public money to do it.

Party levers shouldn’t exist. Ballots shouldn’t list party affiliations. If a voter wants to support a political party, they should have to take the time to learn who’s running for that party before they get to the voting booth.

No party should automatically get on the ballot anywhere. The Republican and Democratic candidates for president should have to jump through the same hoops that the Green party, Libertarian party, Reform party, and independents have to.

Rob Cottrell, I agree with you 1000% about that. Me, now an independent too, I don’t like tax dollars going to the status quo.

I’m non-partisan, and will remain that way, because no party can always represent what is just and fair for everyone. You seem to have figured that out.

Like others, I wish I had figured it out sooner.
Oh well. Better late than never.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2005 08:19 PM

Rob, I couldn’t agree with you more on the Federal Elections Commission’s iron clad hold on the two party election system with entry hurdles set so high as to preclude all but the wealthiest of challengers. There is a reason Ross Perot has been the only threatening challenge to the 2 party system, and that reason was his billionaire status.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 17, 2005 08:20 PM

This is a terrific thread because the implications that non-incumbent voting is not a new idea and occurs every decade or so, that VOID will have to have a variety of platforms to address various problems, that people will have to get to the polls and, that the present system with a variety of changes and/or improvements is a viable alternative are arguably valid assertions.

The exciting thing is that while many of these things have been suggested and tried before, the current effort is organized by a single individual with a staff of seven and is already growing in support and working in earnest toward the common goal.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that http://www.poliwatch.org/void/ has only been on line since October 16th or so.

Posted by: steve smith at November 17, 2005 09:02 PM

Ron,
Crazy like a fox or just plum crazy the best thing my Dad ever taught me was the ability and knowledge of playing the political game of life based on being right. The trick of the game is to be right by who’s standard. It is that reasoning and logic that leads me to lend thought to “We the Consumers.” By using this realm of being right than we all can work together in the inherent best interest of “I the Consumer.”

Invoking the same rights of our elders & Youth of the 60’s, the natural course of Human Events lend themselve so that the Children of the 70’s can use their voice as the society to tell what they have learned about the Right/Wrong argument created by the creation of “The Welfare State” vs, “I the Corporation” for that is our right as our generation becomes the next Establishment of America.

Although I understand that I go over the head of many of you with this ideology, but remember the name of the game is money and that is the political leverage which accompanies assuming the voice of the Consumer in Nature. It shifts the fundamental cornerstones of our civilization. Does any respectful CEO want to say that they don’t care about the consumer? How many Stockholders would like to see every Human a potentail customer? And most important of all is how are “We the People” going to deal with the State of Affairs left to us by the Youth of the 60’s?

While a long hard list of things need to be address as a society, we need to look at the solutions which brings about investing in our own best inherent interest which is the consumer. Do we not do it already? Yet, the consumer has no societal voice in our government. It is always “I think this is what they want.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 10:50 PM

What would happen if voters in 2006, 2008 and even 2010 surprised the pundits, statisticians, and political parties with an unpredictably organized dumping of incumbents?

My head would explode.

David, I really like the job Senator Boxer is doing. If she keeps doing a good job, I’ll vote for her again. On the other hand, I’m going to organize an anybody-but-Feinstein campaign. She’s U-S-E-L-E-S-S.

Voting out all incumbents is simple-minded nonsense. The real solution is to encourage people to follow politics and cast well-informed votes.

…the other solution I’ll throw out here is to only allow well-informed people to vote.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 18, 2005 06:11 AM

AP,

…the other solution I’ll throw out here is to only allow well-informed people to vote.

The problem with banning any group from voting is who sets the bar, and who makes the judgements. It’s too much of an opportunity for abuse of power by those in charge.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 18, 2005 11:09 AM

AP,
Ok you stated that Senator Boxer is doing a good job and that Feinstein is useless. Now, can you list the reason (s) which you established that can back up your claim?

See the Left/Right uses these splits to offset their critics so if VOID.org wants to make and maintain an impact than we are going to need a standard where all elected officials and those running for office are judged equally regardless of party. Nevertheless, the same old standards used by many pollsters can not stand.

Honesty, speaking truthfully based on all the facts, and the ability to play the political game in real time so that the right vote can be made by the Individual who was/will be elected to represent all Americans inherent best interest are just the first few question that needs to be asked and answered. Anyone care to add to the list?

BTW, the education of the general public is important, but do not even forget to educate our elected officials in our local, state, and federal government. For I can tell you first hand that many (actually the vast majority) of your elected officials, lawyers, and civil workers do not comprehend nor can master the keys to the Laws on which this great Nation was founded upon.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 18, 2005 11:56 AM

One more thing. Can anybody help me find the correct set of words that can give me access to the documents and speechs given by our “Establishment” Leaders back in the Early 70’s (71-74)when they laid out the plan for America’s future?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 18, 2005 12:03 PM

AP,
It’s not nonsense, when most incumbents are irresponsible and unaccountable.
Please name 10, 20, 50, or a 100 that are responsible and accountable.
And, who has time to research them.
The people can already see they are irresponsibe and unaccountable. Most of them. That’s why it makes perfect sense.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 18, 2005 12:13 PM

AP
…the other solution I’ll throw out here is to only allow well-informed people to vote.

That’s was done at one time. Then the Civil Rights movement changed all that. I wouldn’t want to go back to that kind of system.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2005 01:24 PM

D.A.N.
I gave you Biphen and Hagel and I would add Edwards, McCian, and Graham as being the extreme to my list of elected officials that at least try to serve the inherent best interest of America. Now can you and others list what your standards would be for “The More Perfect” elected official?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 18, 2005 03:08 PM

AP said: “The real solution is to encourage people to follow politics and cast well-informed votes.”

Billions of dollars and work hours have been poured into that approach, AP, and look where it has got us. Too complex. VOID is simple, in mission, simple in message, and simple to execute. That is what has you worried, is it not?

You are a loyal Democrat who believes in your party do or die just as loyal Republicans believe in their party. VOID does not hope to secure your support. We have a saying on our web page, “The Status Quo is the Foe”.

So, forgive us if we don’t just pack up and go home because we don’t have your unqualified support for restoring accountability and responsibility to government by moving against incumbents who are responsible for the government we now have.

Cheers!
David

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 18, 2005 04:03 PM

Henry Schlatman
If these guys are trying to serve the best intrest of America then why aint they raising holy hell over the way the rest of the idiots in DC are doing things. I hear them talking but I don’t see any action out of them.
The ‘More Perfect’ elected official is one that will address the real problems that face America. And keep doing it regardless of what the rest are doing.
They would make sure that bills are introduced every time Congress is in session that will address the problems of this country.
They will vote against ANY budget that isn’t balanced.
They wiil work to payoff the national debt.
They will vote against ALL pork laden bills.
They will work to secure our borders.
They will work to get election finance reform.
They will work to better the educational system.
They will work to make sure that our Military is second to none. Peace through might.
Will these work, or do you need more?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2005 04:07 PM

Man, the doctor needs to release me to go back to work.
I’ve got way to much time on my hands.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2005 04:10 PM

Ron,
It is a start and one that they would agree needs to be done; however, and this is the big one it takes more than a handful of voices to get over the roar of The Status Quo. That is why were VOID draws the line and holds it is so important.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 18, 2005 04:14 PM

How do you Void-er’s expect to accomplish your goal if you cannot trust the fairness and accuracy of your elections?
Please take a moment to look at the links I just put up in the blue column in the “The Case against Computer-Based Voting Systems” thread, and then tell me you feel very confident that what you are attempting to do might not in actuality be nothing but a waste of time. In my opinion, our whole voting system is gradually being rigged across this entire country.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 18, 2005 04:31 PM

Henry Schlatman,

Some people say we need to research our politicians. Well, I do that. And I don’t like what I see. That’s a good idea though. Research them. And then list the good ones (if you can find any). Also, the results of their irresponsibility and unaccountability is there for all to see.

OK, let’s see….

Who is Biphen?
Do you mean Joseph Biden?
I don’t know of any Senator or Representative by the name of Biphen. I thought you mispelled it, but you spelled it that way twice.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Joe Biden,
I don’t care for Joe Biden too much. He likes the lime light, and likes to grand stand, and he also fuels the partisan warfare. Joseph Biden is a lawyer too. When he ran for Democratic presidential candidate, Joseph R. Biden, a U.S. (Senator of Delaware), was driven from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden’s withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.

So, you see why I don’t like Biden.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Chuck Hagel: he reported a financial stake worth $1 million to $5 million in the privately held firm. But he did not report the company’s underlying assets, choosing instead to cite his holdings as an “excepted investment fund,” and therefore exempt from detailed disclosure rules.

When questioned by The Hill, several disclosure law experts said financial institutions set up in the same fashion as the McCarthy Group Inc. do not appear to meet the definition of an “excepted investment fund,” — at least as the committee had defined the category until Monday.

Hagel has not been accused of any legal or ethical violation and his staff denies that there has been any wrongdoing.

William Canfield, a former Senate Ethics Committee staffer, said the committee originally intended an “excepted investment fund,” an exemption to cover mutual funds that buy or sell thousands of different holdings over the course of a year.

Hagel, who was reelected last November by a lopsided majority, declined to comment on the ethics filing matter.

So, I’m not too impressed with that either.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
John McCain:
OK, of all of them, McCain is probably the most honest, but I still have a problem with him too, which exemplifies the problem with the system, and lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. McCain has voted on pork-barrel too. One of his pet pork-barrel projects was $1 million for the brown tree snake in Guam. I’m sure it’s important, but should it be sneaked into a defense appropriations bill? And, shouldn’t we first make sure our troops and humvees have body armour? Why should troops have to buy their own armour? Also, I heard McCain admit to looking the other way. While it seems to bother McCain some, too many don’t have any trouble looking the other way.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Lindsey Graham:
Well, Lindsey Graham is like a lot of other incumbents. Graham said that he worried that America today was vulnerable to a new generation of demagogues who would come in and “push all the buttons” on “9/11, terrorism, Guantanamo, and the like” and try and wreck the system of checks and balances that characterize America’s style of democracy.
Well, I’m sorry, but Lindsey Graham seems to like the status quo. He wants to keep things the same. He doesn’t see that the real problem is himself and other incumbents. And, like all the rest, they all look the other way. The only thing they worry about is losing power.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Chet Edwards? Surely you’re not talking about John Edwards are you? If so, I’ve got nothing good to say about John Edwards, who got wealthy from ridiculously large personal injury law suits.
Chet Edwards (Representative from Texas)?
Is that who you mean?
I don’t know Henry, but are you sure you know a lot about these people, if you’re not even sure of their names?
OK, here’s a problem I have not just with Chet Edwards, but all in government. They’re essentially all FOR SALE. Congressman Chet Edwards (TX-17) announced today (15/10/2005) that he has $781,649 in the bank for his 2006 re-election effort and has received over $259,000 in contributions during third quarter of 2005. During the same period in 2003, Edwards reported $381,000 in the bank.

Here’s another thing that bothered me about Chet Edwards: Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards worked hard to find an airline seat from Houston to Washington for the session of the House to consider the Schiavo affair. Normally a faithful follower of the Democratic line, he supported the Republican bill interposing federal court jurisdiction.

This is another example of the problem in federal government.

And check this out:
www.chetedwards.com/contribute.htm
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

Henry, you ask what should the standard be?
There’s only one standard.

Honesty and Integrity.
Transparency and equal enforcement of the laws can help guarantee it. I hope we don’t see any more pardons like Clinton did (for felons that even pled guilty). That’s a slap in the face of the judge, judicial system, and the people that sat on the jury.

Today, honest and integrity is severely lacking in the federal government. And, it is never enough to ask them to be more honest. Force is always required. Only the voters can peacefully (or not so peacefully) force government to be more responsible and accountable. The voters have the force of their vote, if they simply remember how to use it wisely. What good is any politician’s skill if he is corrupt.

Does the following appear like a responsible and accountable government ?
____OUR U.$. CONGRESS__________________________
7 that have been arrested for fraud;
19 have been accused of writing bad checks;
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses;
3 have done time for assault;
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit;
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges;
8 have been arrested for shoplifting;
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits;
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year;

And here’s some more examples of what our illustrious Congress has been doing, and some of the difficult decisions they make daily:
[] Here’s an example of the tough choices Congress has been making:
[] Hmmm, let’s see…vote for Pork-Barrel orFEMA ?
[] Hmmm, vote themselves raises or give raises to troops in active duty ?
[] vote for $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame or more armor for humvees ?
[] vote for $150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga. or secure the nation’s borders (which Al-Qaeda is infiltrating) ?
[] vote for $250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] vote for $250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] $775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.) or shore up Social Security and Medicare ?
[] $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation or improve public education ?
[] $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage or prosecute investor/stock fraud ?
[] $5000 for gold embossed cards for Air Force One or bullet proof vests for troops in Iraq ?
What to see more? Just visit http://www.cagw.org
They have thousands of examples by almost every single incumbent in Congress.
______________________________________________

But, I understand all too well, how and why someone would defend the politicians, or refuse to believe there’s anything that can be done about it, or even want to believe they’re doing a great job.

I can understand, because I used to be one of them, until I took off my partisan blinders, and refused to participate in the distracting (by design) petty partisan warfare any longer, while our many serious problems continue to be ignored, and continue to grow in number and serverity.

Henry,
I don’t know if VOID will work.
But, it’s simply what The People should do, because government, as a whole, as one entity, is irresponsible and unaccountable, and the proof of it is staggering, and would fill volumes. But, no one can list even 10, 20, 50, or 100 good, responsible, accountable politicians in the U.S. government, because there simply aren’t that many. And, if there are a few, they’re lookin’ the other way, by there own admission. And every single one of them has voted for pork barrel. And they consistent refuse to address term limits, campaign finance, election fraud, a perverted tax system. Why? Because all these things benefit them. That’s why.

There are two things I am sure of:
(1) Government will not reform itself. The voters have the power to peacefully, simply, and responsibly force government to be responsible and accountable too.
(2) Most (maybe all) of our many problems will all be solved someday. The question is: Will it be the hard way (again)? Or, will it be the peaceful, smart, responsible way?

The logic of it is simple and pure and honest.
It’s not some vast conspiracy.
It’s simply that the people should expect government to be more transparent, responsible, and accountable.
_______________________________________

Adrienne,
I agree that voting fraud is a serious issue. But, election fraud is also another symptom of the deeper core problem in government. Corruption. And Gerrymandering is equally corrupt and abused. The problem is really a law enforcement issue. But, we can’t get proper law enforcement until we get honest, responible, and accountable government. There is too much election fraud because it isn’t prosecuted. When’s the last time you heard of someone going to jail for voter fraud? Personally, I think there’s a good solution for that and some other identity related issues, but that’s for another discussion.

___________________________________________

David R. Remer,
Excellent response to A.P.
I’m intrigued how (1)some people say, good idea…you go! And, (2)some say good idea, but good luck. And (3)some say, what a stupid idea, and do what ever they can to discourage the idea.
I can understand the first two types, but the 3rd type reveals something altogether different, doesn’t it? What is it? Fear, disgust, or just a nasty disposition?
A.P. probably realizes the Democrats stand a good chance to get their turn next at being irresponsible and unaccountable, and he’s not about to take off his partisan blinders now (naybe never). He likes to make fun of me for voting for Bush. Well, if I had it to do over, I would have voted for Nader. But, I was still wearing my partisan blinders back then, so my vision and reasoning were severely impaired. It’s so refreshing to be free of them now.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 18, 2005 05:30 PM

Adrienne, how do you expect fair and honest voting to occur as long as the tricky dickey incumbents who control corrupt party machinery remain in office?

The root of almost all of America’s political and government problems rest at the feet of incumbents and the voters who keep voting them back in office regardless of how bad things get.

Want to fix voting corruption?, get rid of incumbents who refuse to legislate and enforce fair and accurate voting in America. They all pay lip service, but, little changes. That says it all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 18, 2005 06:59 PM

David.
Do you or antbody else remember exactly how our parents did this same move back in the 70’s? I am just at the age that I am a little to young to remember names.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 18, 2005 07:06 PM

David,
Classic Catch-22, is it not?
We can’t trust the votes until we get election reform and we won’t get election reform until the Republican’s release their stranglehold on power — because they’re certainly not interested in doing anything about the issue. All the votes that are in question have done nothing but benefit them and their goals, so why should they?

To me it seems an issue of putting the cart before the horse to even begin trying to vote out incumbents, until America can be sure that elections are as fair and accountable as possible. Therefore, it seems much more important to first throw the Republicans out of power since they’re the ones who are so hostile towards any mention of reform.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 18, 2005 07:48 PM

Henry, there’s never been a move like this in recent history. Because there’s never been such a broad and generalized disappointment and distrust of the major parties before like exists today. In the past, as in 1994, there has been broad party switching based on the assumption that one party was going to be substantially better than another.

But, even in the 1960’s during the trust no one over 30 era, the broad base of voters were still aligned with either Democrats or Republicans and supported their incumbents if not switching parties.

What is happening today is a watershed moment in history, when political parties no longer hold out a credible promise of running government in a responsible, transparent, accountable, and efficient manner. The None Of The Above (NOTA) crowd is growing by leaps and bounds and so far, voter apathy has kept pace with that sentiment.

That is VOID’s cue to take the stage, and offer a productive and hopeful alternative to either not voting or voting for one of the parties which have proven they create more problems than they solve.
Voting Out Incumbents for Democracy offers a way to force politicians of all parties to realign themselves with American common folk and their agenda of saving America’s future by addressing the very issues that threaten it. Border security and security from foreign attack, ending deficit spending and growth of government, halting the out of control health care costs, and providing a safety net for workers and retirees that is both affordable and sustainable while insuring decent quality of life standards for those who have spent their lives working, are disabled, or temporarily displaced or unemployed.

If voters bounce incumbents out without regard for party, I guarandamntee you, their replacements and the remaining incumbents will make bi-partisanship and even multi-partisanship a mainstay of government again. Nothing so motivates a politician like the prospect of reelection. And if the only assurance of reelection is putting the American people’s agenda and interests first, well out ahead of individual interests, campaign donor interests, and lobbying interests, then politicians will indeed put America and Americans first on their priority list.

The ball in is our court, the voters and non-voters alike, to unite, lock arms and grow our numbers so large in our anti-incumbent voting block, that politicians have no choice but to yield to the voter’s demands for solutions to the problems facing us, our children, and our nation’s future. Screw partisanship. Partisanship IS extremist and keeps us on a merry go round which steps not one inch forward toward a brighter future of freedom, peace, security, and prosperity.

When politicians give up hope of reelection due to their old corrupt ways, they will look to new ways, and the new ways will be far more centrist, moderate, and multi-partisan than what we are witnessing today. When anti-incumbency becomes the rule instead of the exception, then politicians will quit playing the divide and conquer game of the two party system against the American people and voters. Then they will have no choice but to run government and pass laws that have wide acceptance by a majority of Americans and voters, and democracy will be restored to this great land and its future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 18, 2005 08:08 PM

Adrienne, some of the longest lasting and corrupt voting practices in the 20th century hailed from the Democratic Party. This is not a Republican problem. It is one shared by both parties who use and abuse their major party power position on the Federal Elections Commission and their absolute refusal to even contemplate election reform when they are in the majority.

An anti-incumbent groundswell is the only way to break that stranglehold both parties have on the American election system. It is absurd to conduct elections on work days. It is absurd to try to herd 150 million people into voting booths in a 16 hour period on one single day. It is absurd that America has only two viable political parties who absolutely cherish their divide and render impotent approach to the American voters. Both parties are responsible. Not just the Republicans.
That is why VOID is non-partisan in that it supports no political parties, and all-partisan, in that it invites all voters join the VOID movement to restore their party to one of being trustworthy, responsible, and dedicated to the interests of all Americans, not just their special interest groups.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 18, 2005 08:22 PM

d.a.n.

A.P. probably realizes the Democrats stand a good chance to get their turn next at being irresponsible and unaccountable, and he’s not about to take off his partisan blinders now (naybe never). He likes to make fun of me for voting for Bush. Well, if I had it to do over, I would have voted for Nader. But, I was still wearing my partisan blinders back then, so my vision and reasoning were severely impaired. It’s so refreshing to be free of them now.

We cann’t get everyone to join us d.a.n. Some are going to insist on keeping the partisan blinders on.
But there are a whole heap of folks out there that are starting to see the major parties for what they are. Some of these are Republicans, some are Democrats. But ALL of them are getting feed up with the status quo.
These are the ones that we have the best chance of reaching.
Don’t feel bad about voting for Bush though. Of what was availible he was the least of the evils. This doesn’t mean that he is qualified for the job. Unfortunantly we haven’t had a truely qualified Presidential canidate for more elecetions than I care to remember.
I just hope that someone comes along before 2008 that IS qualified. Of all the names I’ve heard tossed around for BOTH parties I haven’t heard one that I’d want to vote for. Haven’t heard any for 3rd party or independents.
I was talking to my preacher the other day about politics. He told me that for the last few elections he “held my nose and voted.” That’s a sad commentary on the state of our current political climate.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 18, 2005 09:17 PM

Adrienne,
Yes, it (voting fraud) is a Catch-22 sort of.
However, there is one consolation.
The voting fraud is probably not widespread enough to change too many outcomes.
But, this problem, and many other election problems need to be addressed.

Adrienne, above you wrote:

…we won’t get election reform until the Republican’s release their stranglehold on power…

You know, it wasn’t too long ago that I was saying the same things about Democrats (having been a former Republican, but now non-partisan). So, I should be more understanding about others that still have loyalties to one party or the other.

All I’d like to say is that the problem with irresponsible government is not because of one party or the other. It’s both of them. But, I too once thought the problem was the liberal, wimpy Democrats. Yep. I was one of those. I’m slow, but after 47 years, and it occurred to me that both sides (almost all of them, and most incumbents) are the problem. They sometimes even appear to be fueling the petty partisan bickering. What better tactic can distract the people from more important issues, and seduce them into a circular pattern of thought and action, while the voters never realize it, and voters even return to the polls to (ironically) vote them back into office. You have to admit, it is very clever and effective. And, it’s not just one party or the other doing it. And, not all politicians fuel it. But, almost all look the other way, because it benefits them, and helps them retain power.

The founding fathers worked hard to try to design a government with checks and balances, but they overlooked one very important ingredient that all things require (not just government, but businesses, and other organizations): transparency

What people (not just Americans) need to be taught, and need to learn, and everyone needs to understand, and must never forget, is a few important truths about human psychology and the dynamics of government and politics.

[01] Positions in government, by virtue of the power they wield, create opportunities for abuse, and only transparency and law enforcement can prevent it.
[02] Some people within government are always striving to take advantage of their power to profit themselves.
[03] Some people gravitate to politics, because they recognize the opportunities.
[04] Government is always trying to grow more corrupt, irresponsible, and unaccountable.
[05] Government will never reform itself. Government must always be forced to reform. Sometimes that can be done peacefully, and sometimes it can’t.
[06] Some in government will always abuse power. You know the saying: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[07] Some in government will try to use clever distractions to shift attention, blame, and responsibility
[08] Some in government will try to pervert the laws, rules, and procedures to reduce transparency and make it difficult for the people to see what is really going on. The 10,000 page pork-laden BILLs are an excellent example of that, and makes it impossible to know why anyone voted for or against the BILL. There’s a simple solution (e.g. ONE PURPOSE PER BILL), but they’ll never do it unless forced to do it. Same way with lots of other things. See number [05] above. That’s why they won’t address election fraud, campaign finance, term limits, cut spending and borrowing, stop growing government, etc.
[09] Some in government want to make it so it is very difficult for any one to challenge them. That’s why 98% of incumbents get re-elected. And, their big money donors help to ensure their incumbency.
[10] Some in government are expert at clouding and obsuring the issues, changing the subject, over-complicating, avoiding questions and answers, shifting blame & responsibility, fueling petty partisan warfare, and cleverly distracting the people from the truth. Some provide no net benefit to society. They are essentially parasites. You’ve seen them. They grandstand, look important, and jump on every opportunity to make their presence felt. They use all of the clever tactics (above and many others not listed) to retain their positions of power.
[11] Some in government look the other way. “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” —Albert Einstein
[12] Some in government are panderers, promise much, and deliver little. They perpetuate the “great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else” — by Frederic Bastiat 1848
[13] Government has no power, except that which the voters grant them. Thus, 49% of the problem is the voters that are complacent, apathetic, brainwashed, and/or resigned to futility. But, the voters can not ever afford to ignore government, because it invites abuse. And, the voters must be careful that they do not let themselves be seduced into participation in the petty partisan warfare, because it is divisive, and prevents a majority from ever existing that realizes what the real problem is. It’s not because they (the voters) are consistently poor choices of character, and seems as though how they vote matters not. The problem is the politicians. They cleverly use divisive tactics to keep the people trapped in a circular pattern of thought and behavior. It is very clever and very effective.
[13] In the last stages of tyranny, the government will pervert the laws to do the very things the laws were supposed to prevent. This is legal plunder. The recent rise of abuse of eminent domain laws is perfect example. But, also consider the insufficient or selective law enforcement; wealth re-distribution, plundered entitlement systems, Gerrymandering to manipulate votes based on geographical boundaries, too many greedy, corrupt, and parasitic ambulance chasers, and idiotic juries allowing astronomical judgments for personal injury litigation with million$ and billion$ going to lawyers, etc.); identity theft (the fastest growing crime in the U.S.); no reliable form of identification (e.g. iris and/or finger-print and/or voice-print, and/or hand-print, etc.); releasing repeat offenders to repeat crimes of rape, child molestation, murder, etc.); pardons by presidents to release convicted criminals; violation or insufficient protection of basic rights (e.g. discrimination, and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.), and execution and incarceration of innocent people;

________________________________________
Ron Brown,
Yes, you are right ofcourse.
Yes, that’s funny (and sad) what your preacher said. That brings up a interesting point. Why does it seem like our choices stink? Could it be because many decent people want no part of something they see as corrupt, perverted, and dishonest ?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 18, 2005 10:10 PM

David and D.a.n.,
I understand what you guys are saying and I agree — but only up to a certain point.
The truth is, I would never wish to see a hard-working and people-oriented incumbent like Rep. John Conyers be thrown out of office. The man has consistently fought for the voting rights of American’s, both as a civil rights activist, and ever since 2000, when so many dark clouds of suspicion have gathered over the accuracy of our election system.
As you both well know, I am unabashedly liberal (indeed I am very happy with my personal philosophy) and I think that certain men like Mr. Conyers, or women like Barbara Boxer actually deserve to be considered an asset to this country, rather than a target of anger or scorn — a designation that I agree so many other politicians richly deserve. In fact, I happen to think it’s pretty foolish to belittle wisdom and experience, or simply dismiss the kind of purposeful dedication such people have shown to the American people.
As I’ve said before, I think that if politicians are doing a good job and have proven themselves to be hard working, honest, and capable, then I feel they deserve not only our respect and gratitude, but the chance to remain right where they are. And I am certain that others who are newly elected to Congress are no doubt very glad to have someone there when they arrive who can and will serve as their guides to holding elected office.

Don’t worry, I don’t expect to have either of you agree with me!
;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 18, 2005 11:23 PM

Adrienne,
That’s fine. We’re just here for spirited debate. We may never agree, and that is fine.

Regarding John Conyers…
Do you think he pursued the election fraud in Ohio vigorously enough?

And, then there’s always the big money for campaign finance, which none in Congress will adequately address or reform:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00004029&cycle=2004
____________________________________________
EXERPT:
Cliff Arnebeck, the attorney who is said to be filing a suit with the Ohio Supreme court this week to have the Ohio election results completely set aside, has spoken recently with Clint Curtis and has asked him to come to Ohio immediately to testify in regards to possible vote fraud in Election 2004.

Curtis is the Florida computer programmer who gained national attention this week after The BRAD BLOG revealed his stunning affidavit claiming that he was asked by Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) to create a “vote-rigging software prototype” while an employee at Yang Enterprises, Inc. in Oviedo, FL (Feeney’s home district) back in October of 2000.
_______________________________________________

I know voting fraud is something you care about.
Was anyone ever held responsible and accountable for all of this voter fraud ? Or, was it just more looking the other way ? There were investigations, but were they earnest ?

Adrienne,
I won’t argue that there may be a few people in the federal government that are not bad. But, even John Conyers knows of corruption that he’s not sharing. They all look the other way. The system is so dysfunctional, it’s simply standard operating procedure (SOP). Even John Conyers has voted for pork-barrel. And, none of them, including John Conyers, will address election campaign finance reform, term limits, etc.

The problem is that “looking the other way” is the simply the way it has become, the way it is.

Therefore, all of them, every single one of them, are guilty. They all witness corruption, and they all look the other way. They all vote for pork. They all refuse to address any type of reform. They all continue to ignore serious issues, and I personally don’t think John Conyers adequately investigated the election fraud problems.

I actually agree with you that hard working, honest, and capable politicians should get to keep their seats. I just haven’t seen any yet. A very few come close, but they all have engaged in questionable campaign finance, vote for pork-barrel, and ignore our many pressing problems, and refuse to address reforms.

So, it is unfortunate if some lose their seat.
That’s the price they pay for looking the other way. But don’t worry. They’ll be alright. Many are quite wealthy and have superior benefits, by virtue of only a few terms in office.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 19, 2005 12:12 AM

Rob Cotrell,

“I just think that they should be deinstitutionalized.”

You raised very valid points, and I agree completely. Unfortunately, none of that is going to happen while we retain our incumbents, as they’ve proven themselves completely unwilling to change those unfair advantages they’ve given themselves.

“The Republican and Democratic candidates for president should have to jump through the same hoops that the Green party, Libertarian party, Reform party, and independents have to.”

Here I must disagree, however. I think we should make it easier for all those who want to run to get on the ballot, because those hoops block choices from the American people. If that means longer ballots, so be it.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 19, 2005 01:17 AM

Adrienne,

“In my opinion, our whole voting system is gradually being rigged across this entire country.”

And how do you hope to solve that problem without getting those who are “rigging” it out of office. I know you lean very strongly to the Left. Do you realize that your party does it too!!? If this site isn’t enough just google Wisconsin election fraud and you’ll find a wealth of information that incriminates your party as well.

Fair elections, whether it be election fraud or blocking third party and independent candidates, aren’t going to happen while those who are in power are desperately fighting to ensure they maintain it.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 19, 2005 01:36 AM

Stephanie,
Yes, the blocking of access to third parties and independents is quite revealing, when you consider who is behind it. Incumbents will do anything to retain power. So, that is just one of the many things incumbents do to retain their power.

That’s why the incumbents need to go.
They are the status quo, and the status quo is the foe.

And there is no way anyone can adequately defend any incumbent. I have, as of yet, been unable to get anyone to list 10, 20, 50, or even 100 honest politicians that deserve to keep their seats, that they covet and prize so dearly.

[X] No one can give me that list of incumbents, because it does not exist.
[X] No one can deny that I can decimate 99% of the incumbents on that list with only what we know, much less the things we not know about.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents vote for pork-barrel, graft and waste (while some of our troops need armor and medical attention).
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents continue to grow government ever larger to nightmare proportions.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents ignore tackling tough issues for fear of risking re-election.
[X] No one can deny that most incumbents fuel the partisan warfare that prevents a majority from ever existing to hold them accountable.
[X] No one can deny that most incumbents create and enjoy perk$ for themselves, paid by tax payers, that are superior to those received by the tax payers (such as their cu$hy multi-million dollar pen$ion$).
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents have and continue to plunder Social Security.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents pretend to care about the National Debt, but continue to grow it ever larger.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents pretend to care about National Security, but they have let us down, and continue to do nothing to secure the wide-open borders that are trespassed by thousands daily, and refuse to enforce the laws to punish those that illegally employ illegal aliens.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents are too consumed with raising money for their campaign war chests for re-election.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents are FOR SALE (some more than others). That’s how they retain their seats.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents are too beholding to their big money donors, that ensure their incumbency.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents reject transparency and simplifications (such as ONE PURPOSE PER BILL) that would let The people see what is really going on.
[X] No one can deny that most incumbents voted for the war in Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, World War II, etc.
[X] No one can deny that government is fiscally irresponsible and unaccountable, and often morally bankrupt too.
[X] No one can deny that all incumbents have all seen unethical (sometimes illegal) activity, and looked the other way.

That’s why none of the incumbents deserve to retain their cu$hy, coveted, highly prized seats.
That’s the price the incumbents should pay for looking the other way.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 19, 2005 10:51 AM

D.a.n.:
“Regarding John Conyers…
Do you think he pursued the election fraud in Ohio vigorously enough?”

I think John Conyers has done and is still doing an amazing job pursuing solutions to the many problems surrounding our elections.
Take a look at all the many letters he’s written and all the House Judiciary Committee work this man has put into the issue of election reform.
As you may realize (or not), this subject has been something I’ve been keeping my eye on for quite some time (and you may also have noted that I often get ridiculed for it here in WB, too). In my honest opinion, the problem isn’t that Mr. Conyer’s (and a few other members, Democrats for the most part) haven’t been making every effort to produce results, it’s that there has been a concerted effort by Republican’s (both in Congress and all over the country) to thwart any and all efforts that are made to address the many problems that need fixing.
Like I said before, this is probably due to the fact that all these problems, discrepancies and inaccuracies have been, and still are, working so well in their favor.

PS. Sorry Stephanie, but I never read anything written by Michele Malkin. I did google the topic as you suggested however, and it seems obvious that there are some problems in that one county in Wisconsin. I feel they rightfully deserve looking into, indeed, I think all problems that arise with voting need looking into. That being said, the number of problems, suspicious activities, and obvious discrepancies that have been found all over Ohio, as well as Florida, seem to be much more grave and serious a problem to be dealt, with because the past two presidential elections actually hinged upon them.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 19, 2005 04:52 PM

Congress had the authority and capacity to secure our borders after 9/11. They didn’t. Congress had the authority and the capacity and responsibility to probe and investigate the premises for invading Iraq BEFORE the invasion, they way they are now doing, but they DID NOT. Congress had the authority and the capacity to halt deficit spending in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and they have chosen NOT TO! Congress has the authority and the capacity to investigate and hold accountable all federal politicians, companies doing business with tax payer dollars, and companies like Adelphia, Enron, and others whose corruption has hurt our economy, our political system and stolen from the tax payers. But, they act only after the fact and then only if the media and public cry out loug enough.

This is not the Congress America needs to move toward a future of peace, prosperity, and security. Removing the incumbents has holds out the only practical hope of putting in place a Congress that can and WILL deliver that kind of future for America and her children to come.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 19, 2005 07:17 PM

Adrienne,

“I never read anything written by Michele Malkin.”

That’s okay. I don’t claim to be familiar with blogs other than this one, so I’ve no idea which are credible or not. I’ve just recently ventured onto Lisa Renee’s, which is has been a pleasure, but other than that I stumbled onto Watchblog and have yet to find anything the least bit comparable.

As for the Wisconsin situation, the reason it’s been such a problem is not just because it happened, but because Democrats have actively thwarted efforts to fix the problem. Not to mention, that it could have affected the turn-out as well.

From the Journal Sentinel (linked above):

“In Wisconsin, Democrat John Kerry topped President Bush last year by about 11,000 votes, one of the narrowest margins in the U.S. Had a larger state, such as Ohio, gone Democratic, it could have prompted a Florida-style recount that would have exposed the flaws identified by the Journal Sentinel review, which prompted a state audit and criminal investigation.”

Now, if you’re a resident of Ohio, I can understand your focus on that, as I am a resident of Wisconsin. However, if you’re not, then it seems your belittling of the voter fraud in Wisconsin is based more on partisanship than anything else.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 19, 2005 07:38 PM

Stephanie:
“Now, if you’re a resident of Ohio, I can understand your focus on that, as I am a resident of Wisconsin. However, if you’re not, then it seems your belittling of the voter fraud in Wisconsin is based more on partisanship than anything else.”

I’m a resident of Northern California — where we are now suddenly faced with the threat of having to vote on easily hackable Diebold touch-screen machines.
My focus has been on places like Ohio and Florida not to belittle voting fraud (from either side) that occurs in other states, but because those two seem to have the most severe problems from one end to the other.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 19, 2005 08:28 PM

Adrienne,

That’s fine. I know you’ve followed the election fraud thing, and I agree completely that it needs to be investigated. But, I personally am not satisfied with the investigation. I don’t think any of them (not based on what they say or write, but based on what they do) are serious about election reform and election fraud, any more than they are serious about election campaign finance reform, tax reform, or any kind of reform that will limit their power.

Regarding John Conyers, I have seen a lot of what he has written. I agree with some of what he writes.
I’m not trying to make him look like a bad person. So he writes a lot of letters. Still, I don’t agree with some of his actions, and actions speak louder than words.
The fact is, he votes for pork-barrel, and he wastes tax payer’s time and money, and I’ll provide an example of it.
He is also one of the many in D.C. so entrenched in partisan warfare, that he will use and abuse tax payer money to do it. That’s why he won porker-award in May-2003.
Also, John Conyers has voted for a lot of pork-barrel (just like all the rest of the incumbents). How could Congress persons vote on pork-barrel when some troops go without armor and medical care?

So, John Conyers is not really that different from the rest. He too votes for pork-barrel, and he too is fiscally irresponsible, and the proof of it is public record. For example, look at this waste of tax payers money. After it was all done and said, and most agree, it was a waste of tax payers time and money, and it was partisan motivated. It simply exemplifies what is wrong in D.C.:
_______________________________
(Washington, D.C.) — Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Senator Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), and Representatives John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) its May 2003 Porkers of the Month for their criticism of President George W. Bush’s trip to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the coast of California.
Rep. Conyers’ 2001 Congressional government waste vote rating: 15 percent;
GAO investigation into President Bush’s trip to the USS Abraham Lincoln: “Does not pass a cost-benefit test;” For their hypocritical stance against President Bush’s aircraft carrier landing, Sen. Robert Byrd, and Representatives John Conyers and Henry Waxman are Porkers of the Month for the month of May 2003….
Read the rest of it here: www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_05162003b
____________________________________________
Here’s another example of what is wrong. Most of these incumbents don’t even show up to vote.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. has missed more votes in the first seven months of this year (2003) than any other House lawmaker except U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt.
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Rep. John Conyers’ voting record finished the year with the third-worst voting record in Congress.
The Detroit Democrat missed one out of every five votes in 2003, or 138 of 677 possible votes, according to records compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Observer Publications.
____________________________________________
And here’s a couple things John Conyers voted on, which I disagree with, but perhaps someone could explain it:
[NO] Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
[YES] Supports reparations for slavery. (Aug 2001)
[NO] Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
[NO] Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
[NO] Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
[NO] Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
[NO] Voted NO on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)
[NO] Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
[NO] Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
[YES] Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
[NO] Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
[NO] Voted NO on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)

____________________________________________
So, you see. That’s why no one can give me a list of even 10, 20, 50, or even 218 (half of those in Congress) much less half, that is fiscally and morally irresponsible. Because the list simply does not exist.
The proof is there for all to see.
In all fairness, John Conyers is not the worst, but he’s worse than many, when it comes to pork-barrel (with a pork-barrel grade of 15%), wasting tax payer’s time and money, and simply bothering to show up to vote.

The fiscal and moral bankruptcy of Congress, as a whole, is there for all to see.
It’s disturbing to hear people overlooking these things. Obviously, our standards for what Congress persons should strive for have sunk pretty low.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 19, 2005 10:52 PM

D.A.N.
While I understand your anger over the way many of our elected officials vote on a Bill that comes up, but have you ever looked at the reaons that they have voted for against a Bill that has a name?

The reasons may seem strange at times on the surface; however, given their area of representation, exact wording of the Bill, Common Inherent Interests, and other factors are the mark that we need to start judging our elected officials. Which begins with “Are they clearly and transparantly representing “All” their “Citizenary” equally and fairly?

Although they have always said that politics is a dirty job, the next mark that IMO should be addressed is Knowledge of Subject Matter. For it has been my understanding that most staff members inform to many of our elected officials on how to vote. Selected info hand picked by even the most sincere person does/should not relieve our elected officials from the duty of having a working knowledge of the Bill that they vote on. A few less fund raisers and maybe a few study dinners would be adviced. However, I do want them to stay independent from the party in thinking.

That is why Senator Biphen and Hagel came to mind so quickly the other day. And while we can’t have “More Perfect” representatives overnight, I do believe that VOID.org can begin to educate the public and maybe some future Representatives and Senators what it really takes to be considered at least par in the 21st Century Halls of Congress.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 20, 2005 06:05 AM

It’s not nonsense, when most incumbents are irresponsible and unaccountable. Please name 10, 20, 50, or a 100 that are responsible and accountable. And, who has time to research them.

d.a.n, at the national level, there are only three representatives plus the President you need to keep track of. I don’t think that’s too much to ask of an American citizen.

VOID is simple, in mission, simple in message, and simple to execute.

David, you’re advocating an approach just as simplistic — and just as wrong — as voting the party line every time.

What you’re essentially saying is that you don’t trust Americans to make a well-informed vote. You may be surprised to learn that lot of us do.

You can write me off as partisan if you want but the fact is, I vote for the candidate that best represents me based on the issues I think are important. That’s what democracy is all about. Your scheme is not democracy and is anathema to a well-informed electorate.

You could make the argument that we don’t have a well-informed electorate, but keeping them ignorant by advocating a VOID party line vote is not the solution.

Your VOID scheme is a plan to foster ignorance, not create an informed electorate.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 20, 2005 09:52 AM

Henry,

I certainly hope we can help educate people that the level of irresponsibility is so bad, that it’s pratically expected, and even seen as acceptable.

Regarding BILLs, that process has been so perverted, no one knows why anyone voted for or against a 10,000 page, pork-laden BILL, which is why we need ONE PURPOSE PER BILL .

The reason is because it has been (by design) over-complicated for the purpose of reducing transparency.

BTW, don’t you mean Senator Joe Biden ?
Do you know why Biden, in embarrassment, ended his presidential campaign (for multiple instances of plagiarism)? Also, just like the rest of the incumbents, Joe Biden votes for pork-barrel and waste. I know people make mistakes, but some of these people (like Joe Biden) keep making them, and most everyone seems to just accept it.
_________________________________________
For not recognizing a failed government enterprise when they see it and expecting taxpayers to indefinitely bail out Amtrak, CAGW names Sen. Joseph Biden and Sen. Fritz Hollings its January 2002 Porkers of the Month.
( www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth_Jan02 )
_________________________________________

Voting out incumbents seems extreme to some people, but, if the people choosed to do it, they will actually be doing the most peaceful, and responsible thing they can do to peacefully force government to be more transparent, responsible, and accountable.

But, I realize it’s a tough sell, because many just think it is impossible, despite it’s simplicity and the fact that it is completely justifiable. Some people think it’s a good idea, but many people still despair and have resigned to the futility that it’s impossible to reform government. Many believe it must simply run its course, and we must simply learn the hard way (again). Some believe it’s simply the fatal tendency of human kind. And, some people don’t like the idea at all. Not only do they think it’s impossilbe (or do they?), they work at trying to discourage the idea. I suspect those people (like I once was) are still blinded by their partisan blinders, and refuse to believe their party can do any wrong. Those people refuse to see that the incumbents, as a whole, as one entity, are failing The People miserably, and refuse to see the staggering evidence of it. But, for those that believe it is actually the most responsible thing to do, and feel like it’s the thing we should have been doing all along, didn’t arrive at that conclusion overnight. Many are former members of various parties. But, they finally realized that none of that was working, because of certain laws and fatal tendencies of human kind. Government, without transparency and law enforcement, is continuously growing more corrupt. And, the problem is magnified when voters become dissaffected, and feel it’s futile to even vote. Subsequently, the corruption grows worse. The arrogance and greed of those in government grows worse. Without an unabated watchful eye on government, it always grows corrupt. That’s just the way it is. And, we have descended to a level now in which government is becoming detrimental to society. And, government attempts to grow ever larger daily. If allowed to continue, it would finally end with intolerable oppression, and the cycle would start all over.

Thus, the goal is to peacefully avoid a repeat of history. Those that ignore it will live to repeat it. But, to also ignore the tendencies of people and government will also cause a repeat of history. It’s not enough to simply expect government to be responsible.

Only transparency and law enforcement can reduce and control the corruption that is always there, always trying to find opportunities to grow and flourish. Just like surveillance systems discourage crime, transparency and consequences (i.e. law enforcement) can discourage corruption.

Thus, one of the goals, immediately after peacefully and forcefully getting the attention of those in government, is to demand some basic changes to increase transparency (such as ONE PURPOSE PER BILL). Then election campaign finance reform. Then election reform and an end to election fraud. Then tax reform. Then an end to continued plundering of Social Security. Then a reduction in the size of government. And a few other things too ( see list of ideas ). Then, start working on this nation’s most serious problems, now. Or be voted out (or recalled), repeatedly, every election, until there is sufficient transparency to force government to be responsible and accountable.
It’s the most simple and responsible way for the voters to make government responsible too.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 20, 2005 10:24 AM

A.P.

The point is that the problem is widespread. It permeates all of government (especially incumbents). Over half are too irresponsible and unaccountable. We have allowed it for too long to grow too corrupt. You can believe otherwise, but like I’ve asked many times, please name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 218 (half of the 435 in Congress) that are responsible and accountable. Prove it. Give me some names, and let me demonstrate their irresponsibility.
If you can’t give me 218 names (at least half of Congress), then how can you say government is responsible and accountable? If you can’t say government is responsible and accountable, how can you justify the status quo? Why are you so set on discouraging the idea? Especially if you believe it is so impossible? Why do you call voting out irresponsible incumbents fostering ignorance and too simplistic? And, how is asking voters to vote out irresponsible government not trusting them? Why conclude we don’t want a well-informed electorate? In fact, what we’re saying is more informative than you’re conclusions (all non-sequiturs) and perpetuation of the status quo, and your arguments are very weak. What are you afraid of? Why so vehemently oppose the idea? Are you that happy and satisfied with the irresponsibility and unaccountability of government as it is now? Don’t you think some of these politicians need to go?
Especially, if over half of them are proven to be irresponsible and unaccountable?

Even some of the most honest are still guilty of substantial pork-barrel, waste, corruption, and looking the other way. It’s all too easy to demonstrate by their own actions, by their voting records, how they vote, by how many don’t even show up to vote, the countless unethical things they do, their entrenchment in partisan warfare, their waste of tax payers money and time, their unaccountability, and their arrogance.

The corruption is actually all quite natural.
That’s what government does.
If allowed, government always grows corrupt. It is simply always growing more corrupt.
If allowed too grow too corrupt for too long, as we now have, the more difficult it is to reform it, and the more severe and painful the eventual correction will be. To believe otherwise is to ignore history and human psychology.

Yes, A.P., you are clearly partisan, and there’s no doubt about it. But, that’s OK. I used to be the same way. I don’t expect to change your mind or anyone’s for that matter. All we can do is give people the facts, and hope they can deduce a logical conclusion. But, it’s difficult until you remove your partisan blinders. The people can keep doing what they’ve been doing (ironically, empowering those that use and abuse them), and learn the hard way (again), or we can do the smart, peaceful, responsible thing, to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too (again), and restore a balance of power between government and the people (not simply shift it, or strip government of power to accomplish anything), by simply doing the one simple, responsible thing we all should have been doing all along to keep this from happening in the first place. Either way, eventually, someday, it will happen. It’s not a matter of IF. It’s just a matter of WHEN, and HOW ?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 20, 2005 11:07 AM

AP, the point you miss is that 1/3 of those registered to vote, aren’t represented by either the Dem or Rep. parties, they register as independent or 3rd party supporters. And the half of the eligible voters who don’t vote, are mostly not represented or motivated to vote for Dem’s and Rep’s.

VOID is not for folks like you who are loyal to your big tent party and choose to support the psuedo-2 party system. VOID is out to unite the 1/3 registereds and 1/2 eligible but non-voting citizens to exercise a voting choice as a powerful constituent block against the status quo who failed to represent them or motivate them in the first place.

So, no, it is not undemocratic at all. It is VERY democratic. VOID gives them something to VOTE FOR! Specifically, removing incumbents who are responsible for corruption and political alleigance to big money, big lobbies, and big political parties.

VOID is not out to convert you. VOID is offering those who chose NOTA before, a choice to vote FOR someone in the future and further their own interests by replacing incumbents with politicians who will recognize VOID voters matter to their political careers and VOID voters demand that America’s problems be solved, and incumbents will not get their vote, only challengers will get their vote, until America’s problems are solved on a multi-partisan basis and in ways reflecting majority public assent by the people.

You see, Dem and Rep voters only makeup 1/3 of the potential voters in this country. VOID only has to reach less than 1/3 of eligible voters to become a power to be reckoned with by politicians because they will tilt races all across the country in favor of either Dem, Rep. or other candidate who is a challenger. That is power the likes of which will scare the hell out of the Rep. and Dem. parties, though it shouldn’t. All it means is greater voter participation and more Americans speaking up at the polls. I.E. more democracy.

Interesting how you deliberately tried to portray VOID as the opposite of democracy, when VOID’s goal is get eligible voters out to the polls with their own voting block interests represented. Though I expect this kind of sophistry from the Democrats and Republicans these days.

Anyone who tries to give previously non-voting 3rd party or independent voters a meaningful choice at the ballot box and reason to vote, is painted as undemocratic by you and I suspect many other Republicans and Democrats as we continue to grow our numbers. Your sophistry however, is just validation of our cause and need for it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 20, 2005 06:58 PM

D.A.N.
Yes, I did mispell Senatr Biden. Don’t ask me why, but I assoc. his name with a ph. And while I do not support every thing he does or says, at least he has the balls to stand up for his votig record. Like I said, the way VOID,org can make a difference is establishing a solid foundation for the argument that will naturally follow on exactly what does make a good (Par) Elected Officials. To this end, them representing all the citizens in their area equally and fairly as well as a inherent best national security interests is paramount. However, just saying honesty and transparency is not enough. I want to know if they know and understand how to be ruthless when playing the game of politics. Being right and doing what is right may not always put you in the best spot light; however, IMO the long run will show that by doing so you help our Nation and Society grow up.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 20, 2005 08:21 PM

Henry,

It’s probably safe to say no one supports everything any elected official does or says.

You’re right. Just saying transparency is not enough. It must be enforced. There must be consequences. But, these days, even if they get caught red handed (and/or even plead guilty), they get a presidential pardon (like all the 100+ felons Clinton pardoned). Thus, they’re unaccountable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton’s_Pardons_List

Posted by: d.a.n at November 20, 2005 09:02 PM

The American people are fed up right now and that is bad news for the incumbents of both parties. They may have a little tougher time - the Republicans especially because there are more of them. But realistically the incumbents have the edge - because of redistricting, name recognition, the ability to do little favours for constituents, and most of all the ability to raise money. Money corrupts the system. Nobody gets elected without big money. Nobody gets big money without selling out. Throw the incumbents out - nothing really changes - because money still holds the reins. So pick the lessor of two evils (read Democrats in most cases) and hope for the best.

Posted by: Ray G. at November 20, 2005 09:30 PM

Ray G.
No, the best thing that VOID.org can do for the average American Citizen and this country is push for what is right by the common standards found in “We the Consumers.” Take either side of the political stance of the Democrats (Labor) and the Republicans (Management) or select to represent “We the Consumers” (Independents) and the solid principle of what is unalienable right for “I the Consumer” who is Human comes into play.

While labor in society has now voice in what products and goods get introduced, some in the Republican party believe it is their right over commerce to tell the “I the Consumer” who are Americans what they can and can not consume. However, well over half the general population can and do relate politics to what happens to them as the consumers who have to pay the bill. Hard Work, Long Hours, and Taxes and maybe you have enough over at the end of the month to invest in yourself. All just for the price of admission for keeping up with the Jones. Therefore, IMO I feel that holding our elected officials to the standard of what they are doing for the inherent best interest of All Consumers just might be what is required to cross political lines with many organizations. For if the consumer can not afford nor will buy what is produced by government and society than what good is it?

That public debate over the rights of our society to reflect that which we have become is our Grandparents revenge on the Youth of the 60’s as now the Children of the 70’s come of age to become “The Establishment” that we grew up teaching what is Right/Wrong. Congress and The Whitehouse needs to catch up with the natural change of evolution in the Laws of the Land in America’s Society. In the 21st Century, the question America needs to answer is whether or not we want to be governed by what we think is right or by what we know to be right? If education is going to account for anything, I just hope that people see the common sense in acknowledging that as a society we are all working to support the needs and wants as well as the desires of every Human Citizen just by our actions or lack there of.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 21, 2005 12:20 AM

AP said: “Your VOID scheme is a plan to foster ignorance, not create an informed electorate.”

I love this line, AP. By definition in your sentence above, informed choice is one which votes for either of the two major party’s incumbents. Anything else is uninformed. So a vote against incumbents is an uninformed vote. That is hilarious!!!! Spoken like a true Republocrat. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2005 02:38 AM

“Throw the incumbents out - nothing really changes - because money still holds the reins. So pick the lessor of two evils (read Democrats in most cases) and hope for the best.”

It’s miserable to think of, but you are most likely correct … except for the Democrats being the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil - we shouldn’t try to parse it. Two faces speaking from the same head say nothing but lies. If the head had three or more faces, we might actually hear an argument rather than the tiresome ‘liberal is opposite of conservative’ garbage.

Making these clowns feel less secure about their jobs just MIGHT compel them to enact some legeslation on behalf of the people for a change … like abolishing all districts, banning corporate money, ect. At least, that is the hope, but as you say, sheep will be sheep because they know that the wolves pluck away at those on the fringe of the herd.

As much as I’d like to believe it’s going to happen, and even though I’m going anti-incumbent myself, I won’t be holding my breath for any sweeping change in the will of the voters. Few as they are, and proud they may be, fearful they are still, and powerless they will remain.

The reality of the matter is that revolution is fast becoming our only hope. If we don’t do it soon, then we set a shamefully heavy burden on our children. I’m sure that you can agree that waiting for our republic to recover from capitalistic greed and oppressive two-party exclusive rule on its own has yet to yield any promising results … in fact, we watch it deteriorate. We are neglecting our responsibilities as Americans, and jeopardizing the freedom of our heirs with our apathy.

Posted by: subverter at November 21, 2005 03:43 AM

Subverter,
It is not so much as the player, but the questions and how they are raised in the Halls of Congress that really matters. “Don’t hate the player, Hate the Game” is a good quote I feel.

What and how “We the People” use our comon sense to use our governmental and societal tools are constitutionally rights that we need to teach our children. It is also a cornerstone of our elected officials to learn and understand the limits within we as a Nation and Society operate so it may be reflected in our goverence and laws.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 21, 2005 03:58 AM

subverter, change will only come about through effort. One person’s anti-incumbent vote will change nothing. 10 million anti-incumbent votes can and will. That’s why it is so important that folks such as yourself who want to have hope, must lock arms with others of similar hopes to exert the effort to create that 10 million votes. VOIDnow.Org is that place, and the time is now, when anti-incumbent sentiment in this country is on the rise.

Let’s give those previously non-voting Americans a positive and hopeful reason to show and vote, locking arms with millions of other anti-incumbent voters to make the changes that are needed in our politics and government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2005 04:13 AM

I love this line, AP. By definition in your sentence above, informed choice is one which votes for either of the two major party’s incumbents.

Not so, David. I’m encouraging people to vote for candidates who represent their viewpoint. I couldn’t care less what party — if any — they represent.

You and d.a.n, on the other hand, are encouraging people to opt out of the democratic process by mindlessly voting against every incumbent good or bad. As I said, it’s as bad as ignorantly voting the party line every time.

If you can’t say government is responsible and accountable, how can you justify the status quo?

I’m doing nothing of the sort. As I said, I’m voting against Feinstein — but not simply because she’s an incumbent and somebody told me incumbents are bad. I’m voting against her because I disagree with her position on some issues that are important to me.

Why do you call voting out irresponsible incumbents fostering ignorance and too simplistic?

By all means, vote out the politicians you don’t agree with. But mindlessly voting the VOID party line is the complete opposite of what our founding fathers envisioned when they created a nation reliant on a well-informed electorate. Political parties are bad enough, but at least they stand for something.

Let’s give those previously non-voting Americans a positive and hopeful reason to show and vote

How is voting AGAINST every encumbent positive? I think you get a more satisfying civic duty warm-fuzzy by voting FOR something or someone you believe in.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 07:36 AM

Here I must disagree, however. I think we should make it easier for all those who want to run to get on the ballot, because those hoops block choices from the American people. If that means longer ballots, so be it.

Actually, Stephanie, I think we’re in total agreement. I’m strongly opposed to obstacles that prevent independents and third-party candidates from getting on the ballot. But, no matter what system you use, there will need to be some sort of registration process, and I’m saying that Rs and Ds shouldn’t get preferential treatment in those processes simply because they’re “major party candidates”.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 21, 2005 08:05 AM

AP asked: “How is voting AGAINST every encumbent positive?”

Read the article. Voting out incumbents is the only way to break the allegiance incumbents have with special interests, political parties, and big donor campaign contributors over and above solving the tough problems America needs solved, like securing our borders against attackers, ending uncontrolled deficit spending by reprioritizing for voters and American tax payers, instead of special interests like Alaskans wanting a multi-million dollar bridge to 500 people when a 5 minute ferry ride for them already exists.

AP, your arguments and criticisms reflect a desire not to see the value of an anti-incumbent movement. VOID does not tell anyone to vote against someone they believe is doing America good. VOID does ask how a few good representatives can possibly do any good when fighting a corrupt system of incumbents who outnumber them on votes by margins of up to 100 to 1? Fiscal policy is a blatant example. The Fiscal conservatives have no power against the corrupt political party politics and special interests. That is why VOID advocates anti-incumbency and if successful, far more good will come of it than is currently being accomplished by hopelessly outnumbered handful of responsible incumbents.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2005 08:19 AM

AP,

You and d.a.n, on the other hand, are encouraging people to opt out of the democratic process by mindlessly voting against every incumbent good or bad. As I said, it’s as bad as ignorantly voting the party line every time.

People are already opting out of the democratic process because they feel that they can’t change anything. What we’re doing is giving them the option to vote for CHANGE itself.

The current system is broken, AP. Yes, some politicians have been able to do good things while working within the system, but, at the same time, they’re strengthening a system that encourages politicians to pay more attention to lobbyists and special interests than to the voters. If you accept that this system is the best we can do, then it makes sense to vote for the “lesser of two evils”. But, if you truly believe that the system can be better, then doesn’t it make sense to change it?

We’re not asking people for “mindless voting”. Everyone in VOID has their own threshold. We vote against incumbents until we begin to see the changes that we believe our country needs. Each of us is looking for a different set of changes. When I see the changes that I want, I will leave VOID and begin to support the new “status quo”. I’m sure David, d.a.n., and others will do the same, as soon as their thresholds are met.

In my own circles, I don’t know too many people who mindlessly vote party line every time. Most people I know DEFAULT to one party or the other, but cross the line in individual campaigns where they find exceptional candidates. All we’re asking (or, at least, all I’m asking) is that we change our DEFAULT vote to an anti-incumbent one. If you find an incumbent that you think is doing a tremendous job, and is actually succeeding in making great improvements (and not just talking about them), then that is who you should vote for. But let’s quit approving mediocrity at the polls, and start demanding results from ALL of our politicians.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 21, 2005 08:40 AM

AP, your arguments and criticisms reflect a desire not to see the value of an anti-incumbent movement.

“Desire” nothing; I don’t see the value at all.

VOID does not tell anyone to vote against someone they believe is doing America good.

Not even if that candidate is an incumbent? I thought that was the whole point.

Fiscal policy is a blatant example. The Fiscal conservatives have no power against the corrupt political party politics and special interests.

Then people should vote for more fiscal conservatives. If you believe that’s the most important issue facing the country, then educate voters about it.

Let me put it this way: If I’m concerned about fiscal responsibility, why would I vote out a fiscal conservative — like Chaffee, for instance — just because he’s an incumbent? What if his opponent is a borrow-and-spend Republican? I just help elect a guy who’s going to make the problem worse.

But I think I get your drift. You have a simple plan for idiots who have chosen not to participate in our democratic process. If they’re too dumb/apathetic to educate themselves about the issues and candidates, then just get them to the polls with a “strategy” that does the least harm — like choosing answer ‘C’ for every question in a multiple choice test.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 09:40 AM

Rob,
Given the following political argument placed before any election board in American Local or State government I wonder what the outcome on the vote would be?

Considering that it is a statistical fact that over half of the citizens do not vote for a verity of reasons and the average population is equally represented by Conservatives, Independents, and Liberals political parties which make up X number of political parties in our area than should not all parties be required to obtain the minimum number of registered voters to get on the ballot? After all who is to say which top two political parties is best suited to represent our Local and State Interests this year or next year‘s election? In voting for a bill that supports a fair and equal race to obtain signatures among all special interest groups supporting the many different political party candidates in the primary races to get on the ballot in November, you and the rest of the council can ensure the citizens you are elected to represent have the very best candidates running for the office regardless of political affiliation. Voting No however, will show the citizenry that the only way a third party can make it is to take out on of the two major politic parties just by the sheer number of citizens you can sign up.

Do you think that one of these days some one should try this argument out?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 21, 2005 09:40 AM

AP, I buy into the plan and I believe in it. Ergo, your argument that it is for idiots is a false argument, for I can assure you, I am many things, but, and idiot is not one of them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2005 09:44 AM

When folks like AP start inferring that folks like me are idiots for things we believe in, the desperation meter goes off the scale in trying to defend their argument. Much like Bush trying now to defend the Iraq war by inferring that critics of the war are unpatriotic. Desperation rarely hides itself well. VOID stands as a real potential threat to both the Democratic and Republican parties corrupt ways of doing business in Congress, and already, with less than a hundred supporters, their supporters have begun with the name calling failing to make a cogent argument against VOID.

Thank you, AP. Your comments are indeed more inspirational than you could guess, and stand as testimony to the power of the idea of Voting Out Incumbents in order to restore responsive, and responsible government and Democracy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2005 09:54 AM

David, you’re “ergo”ing a bit too far. I’m talking about the non-voters you’re trying to bring back to the polls:

Let’s give those previously non-voting Americans a positive and hopeful reason to show and vote

And yes, I think anyone who declines to vote is an idiot.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 10:04 AM

AP, then consider VOID an anti-idiot campaign. Voila! BTW, until VOID, I had no reason to vote for Congressional races in Texas. Hutchison, LaMar Smith, and Cornyn are abominable choices for me. And no Democrat or 3rd Pary candidate has a prayer in hell of defeating them in Texas.

But, with the advent of VOID, I now have someone to go vote for, the challenger, whomever that may be. Not because they will win, but, because my vote added to millions of other anti-incumbent votes across the nation could force Hutchison, Smith, and Cornyn to consider this anti-incumbent trend enough of a threat to their national party, to force them to rethink how they approach their jobs. Voters vs. lobbyists, voters, vs. campaign donors, national voter interests vs. special lobbyist interests.

My anti-incumbent vote statistically added to millions of others who previously saw no reason to vote in their gerrymandered districts insuring incumbency, could suddenly become significant to American politics and induce greater responsibility by remaining incumbents and new freshman to respond to these voters who “should have stayed home” because pollsters called the race in favor of the incumbents before the polls ever opened based on gerrymandering data alone if nothing else.

VOID voters will stop voting anti-incumbent when they see America’s problems being solved. We are not talking about a permanent state of mind. VOID has the seeds of its own demise built in, when government solves more problems than it creates, VOID will go away.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2005 10:54 AM

AP, then consider VOID an anti-idiot campaign. Voila!

As I said, good luck with that.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 09:59 PM

AP,
You say that voting out Incumbents will not work so how do you explain the major shake up in Congress in the 70’s when our parents voted out over half of them? And that was done without a movement.

Although VOID,org may not have the final solution, can you honestly tell me today that the Democrats have a plan to change the way in which our society functions? Or are you like the Republicans promoting more of “Stay the Course?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 22, 2005 12:16 AM

You say that voting out Incumbents will not work

I never said that, Henry.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 22, 2005 09:07 AM

Voting out incumbents may not work.
If not, I fear we will learn the hard way (again).
If not, we may (again) overlook the peaceful approach.
Reform will occur someday.
But what form will it take?
VOID is simply the most peaceful, logical, safe, simple, non-partisan, understandable, communicable, inexpensive, justified, effective, and responsible way to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. Until someone shows me a better way, I think it is the best approach to peacefully force a restoration of the balance of power between government and The People (not simply shift it, or strip government of all power to accomplish anything).

I do not see others in opposition to VOID proposing anything new, except what we’ve already been doing, which ain’t workin is it?

If VOID works, it will be history.
We will accomplish reform peacefully.

Besides, in my honest opinion, I don’t think incumbents deserve to keep their cu$hy, coveted, highly prized seats, because too many of them are irresponsible and unaccountable.

That is why no one can give me a list of at least 218 (half) in Congress that are responsible and accountable. People need to research their voting records. Look at how these people vote. It raises a lot of questions. Also, look at how many don’t even bother to show up to vote. Someone said Rep. John Conyers was a good Rep. Hell, he’s got the next to the worst record for not even showing up to vote ! What good is that?

It’s just absolutely amazing how low the bar is these days.

Perhaps the naysayers are correct.
Perhaps the people will never snap out of their apathy and complacency.
But, if they don’t, it is highly likely we will revisit the past. So, why not consider a peaceful approach? What’s the harm? And, consider the potential benefits. Do we always have to learn the hard way ?

Besides, if voters do choose to vote out incumbents, that’s their choice and their right, and it’s really the simple thing they should have been doing all along (i.e. vote out the irresponsible politicians) to keep us getting here in the first place.

Unfortunately, The People ignored the problem too long. What ever form the solution takes, it will now be more difficult, and more painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 22, 2005 09:29 AM

Let me put it this way: If I’m concerned about fiscal responsibility, why would I vote out a fiscal conservative — like Chaffee, for instance — just because he’s an incumbent?

But look at Congress today. It’s filled with “fiscal conservatives”, yet we’re overspending more today than we ever have before. How many of them claimed to be fiscal conservatives, complained about the pork in the recent transportation bill, and yet voted for it anyway, blaming the problem on someone else? Likewise, how many people voted for the war in Iraq, yet claim to be against it, and are now blaming it on someone else? Everybody claims to be in favor of fair elections, yet we still have voter fraud, gerrymandering, questionable ballot layouts, etc.

It’s not just about what someone stands for (or claims to stand for) — it’s about results. If the people in power are providing good results, then keep them in power. But, if they aren’t, and the whole freakin’ bunch of them is too busy pointing fingers to get anything done, then kick all of their asses out and bring in new people. Tell them, “I don’t care whose fault it was. If it happened on YOUR watch, then YOU will take the fall for it.”

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 22, 2005 03:45 PM

Rob Cottrell,
I agree with you. And, the other thing is, it is completely justified. If not even 218 (half) in Congress can be demonstrated to be responsible and accountable, then the whole bunch, as one team, as one entity, without the ability to police their own ranks, does not deserve to keep their cu$hy, coveted seats.

Look at how low the bar is set.

Study Mike Chaffee’s voting record.
I haven’t yet, but I’ll bet I can find a lot things that raise a lot of questions.
I’ll bet I can find some pork-barrel (because I haven’t found anyone yet that hasn’t voted for pork-barrel and waste), some strange votes, and some other interesting data.

Incumbents are all guilty of voting for pork barrel. Even one of my favorites (McCain) is guilty of pork-barrel and looking the other way (by his own admission).

They’re all (almost all) irresponsible.
They’re all (almost) bought-and-paid for.
They’re all (almost) entrenched in petty partisan warfare, and fuel it too.
They’re all (almost) too beholding to their big money donors. Government should not be FOR SALE.
Tney all look the other way.
They all are fiscally irresponsible.
The proof of is for all to see, isn’t it?
The proof of a lot of their handy work is for all to see.
And, in our bass-ackwards system, they even ignore tackling tough issues for fear of risking re-election.

There is insufficient transparency, responsibility, and accountability.
Government will not reform itself.
Voters can peacefully force reform.
The longer it continues the way it’s going, the more painful and dangerous it will be to bring about reform.

If the incumbents lose their cu$hy, coveted seats,
that is unfortunate,
but it is the price they pay
for looking the othey way,
and letting our many pressing problems get too bad.

Yes, the people need results, and they are justified to vote out incumbents if they want to.
It is the peaceful approach.
If we keep going the way we’re going now, the altnernative reform may not be as peaceful, or painless.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 22, 2005 05:21 PM

Rob Cottrell,

“I’m saying that Rs and Ds shouldn’t get preferential treatment in those processes simply because they’re “major party candidates”.”

Then, yes, we are in agreement. :-)

I especially liked this part:

“But, if you truly believe that the system can be better, then doesn’t it make sense to change it?”

And this is great, too!

“But let’s quit approving mediocrity at the polls, and start demanding results from ALL of our politicians.”

And you just can’t be this line:

“Tell them, “I don’t care whose fault it was. If it happened on YOUR watch, then YOU will take the fall for it.”“

In the end, I don’t know of any, single politician who hasn’t botched his or her watch. They are supposed to be representing their constituents while securing this country for our progeny, and they aren’t doing it. Plain and simple, they are NOT doing their jobs.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 22, 2005 08:01 PM

I know a lot of smart, reasonable people, that believe the same thing. They’ve come to the realization that they (themselves, the voter) are either always a very terrible judge of character, or it doesn’t matter how one votes.

They all see that the bar is very low.
It has to be to allow this:
_______________________________________________
Does the following appear like a responsible and accountable government ?
____OUR U.$. CONGRESS__________________________
7 that have been arrested for fraud;
19 have been accused of writing bad checks;
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses;
3 have done time for assault;
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit;
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges;
8 have been arrested for shoplifting;
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits;
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year;
And here’s some more examples of what our illustrious Congress has been doing, and some of the difficult decisions they make daily:
[] Hmmm, let’s see…vote for Pork-Barrel or FEMA ?
[] Hmmm, vote themselves raises or give raises to troops in active duty ?
[] vote for $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame or more armor for humvees ?
[] vote for $150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga. or secure the nation’s borders (which Al-Qaeda is infiltrating) ?
[] vote for $250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] vote for $250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] $775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.) or shore up Social Security and Medicare ?
[] $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation or improve public education ?
[] $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage or prosecute investor/stock fraud ?
[] $5000 for gold embossed cards for Air Force One or bullet proof vests for troops in Iraq ?
What to see more? Just visit http://www.cagw.org
(they have thousands of examples by almost every single incumbent in Congress).
______________________________________________

No wonder it doesn’t seem like it matters who you vote for. Because it’s true. Not unless we start voting out the irresponsible incumbents and start recalls to remove those that continue to be irrepsonsible.

The interesting thing is, if there were any really good, responsible, accountable, and honest politicians in D.C., that refused to look the other way, then they would stand out dramatically (like a light house on the shore) among the current crowd of irresponsible and unaccountable politicians. But they’re not there (certainly not even 218 (half of the 435 in Congress)), and the nation has lost its way. We don’t have any responsible, accountable, honest leadership. That’s why we’ve got to oust those that do nothing, and replace them with some that really care, and don’t want to see this nation continue to decline into ruin. And we need to do it soon, because it’s unlikely this nation can withstand another decade of irresponsible, unaccountable, lazy, corrupt, dysfunctional government.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 22, 2005 08:40 PM

AP,

“If you believe that’s the most important issue facing the country…”

That’s where you miss the point. VOID isn’t about any one, single issue that the government has screwwed up on. It’s about a how slew of issues that our government consistently and adamantly ignores. No single politician has stepped up to the plate to solve these problems. No single politician has put solving these problems above personal or party gain.

As VOID historian/secretary I’ve been compiling a list of problems we wish to be addressed. Here’s a partial sample of that list:
· Secure our borders
· End deficit spending
· Preserve Social Security
· Get out of Iraq, not cut-and-run
· Make our education system the best in the world again
· Reduce spiraling health care costs
· Balance spiraling national trade deficits
· Ease growing poverty
· End partisan warfare
· Make legislation transparent
· Eliminate pork, graft and waste
· Minimize corruption
· Minimize special interest influence
· Ensure each appointee is qualified for their position
· Allow third party and independent candidates to run as equals

It is an innate part of our mission to educate voters about these and other issues. It is an innate part of our mission to educate voters on how they can personally address these problems. We’ve only been doing this for a month, so our educational literature has yet to be developed, but it is forthcoming. The fact that you don’t see the worth of VOID seems to me to be more indicative of your strong allegiance to your party, who btw does very little to educate voters, than of the merit of VOID.

“And yes, I think anyone who declines to vote is an idiot.”

idiot n. 1) (Obs.) a retarded person metally equal or inferior to a child two years old; 2) a very foolish or stupid person
—Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition

I’ll assume, for the moment, that you’re referring to the second definition. I have worked, independently, to activate non-voters in the past (something I don’t recommend for you considering your self-stated opinion here). I’ve found many intelligent, conscientious people amongst them and the reasons for not voting are many.

For some, it is that the numbers are daunting. Thus, an organized effort solves that problem. For some, the corruption seems unsurmountable, and for those the benefits of a strict anti-incumbency movement are very attractive. For some, they feel under-informed, and for them the innate educational aspect of our movement is essential. Some are just lazy, and thus we will do the research and gather the information for them and a strong, active base of volunteers is necessary. And some simply don’t care and for those we have to point out how government affects them.

You assume half the eligible voters in this country are idiots, and yet you continue exerting your own efforts on a system that isn’t working.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
—Albert Einstein

I think, given those options, I’d rather keep my company with the idiots.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 22, 2005 08:47 PM

Stephanie,
Good list !
Maybe, once government is responsible and accountable again, that long list will begin to shrink.
Also, much more transparency in both houses and the executive branch are important.
The executive branck is very bloated too.
It has about a million officials and employees.
The less powerful 435 of Congress have a few hundred thousand employees.
Both are bloated, but the Executive branch is way too bloated, and needs to be downsized.

This may be too detailed, but ONE PURPOSE PER BILL could end pork-barrel and waste, because it would make it difficult (maybe impossible) to sneak in some pork-barrel to a 10,000 page bill. A BILL could contain multiple items, but they would have to be related. There are several benefits. Some people think a line-item-veto is all that is needed, but that would still allow huge 10,000 page BILLs to be created that no one can possibly determine why anyone voted for or against the BILL.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 23, 2005 12:39 AM

d.a.n.

I agree ONE PURPOSE PER BILL would be a good idea, but for me how is less important than what and the what for me is transparency. I don’t really care HOW they make legislation transparent, but I do agree that all legislation should be accessible to the average voter. We should be able to determine WHY our representative voted for something based on it’s apparent merit, or why he or she voted against it. As things stand, we as voters rely way too heavily on what we’re told legislation means without having access to the legislation itself.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 23, 2005 12:52 AM

Sorry AP,
I did not mean to misquote you. Now, would you do me a favor and tell your Democratic Party to get their act together. They just seem to be more understanding on what it takes to make money not just spend it.

Posted by: H at November 23, 2005 07:36 AM

I have worked, independently, to activate non-voters in the past

Me too Stephanie. I’ve been prety successful in getting them to the polls by connecting the dots between an issue they really care about and a candidate or referendum who works for them on that issue… And I usually mention that they’re idiots if they don’t participate.

Tomato/to-maw-to, I guess. Except that if you wrapped our founding fathers in copper wire they’d be spinning fast enough over “VOID voting” to light up Washington DC.

BTW,

void adj. … 4. Ineffective; useless.

You may want to rethink your acronym. It really reinforces the way I percieve your system. Other synonyms that come to mind are vapid, vacuous, and simplistic and mindless, which I’ve already used.

Just something to think about…

BTW again, Democrats have a fine agenda to stop deficit spending. Tell you representatives to support reinstating the pay-as-you-go rule that Democrats used to get the budget under control in the 90s.

Keep on fightin’ the good fight my bruthuz and sistaz! Much love to you all. Peace out. ;)

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 08:29 AM

Tomato/to-maw-to, I guess. Except that if you wrapped our founding fathers in copper wire they’d be spinning fast enough over “VOID voting” to light up Washington DC.

While I disagree with the sentiment, I LOVE the analogy! I’m pretty sure, though, that our Founding Fathers would already be spinning over our current system. Remember, George Washington is the one who set up the 2-term tradition for presidents, and was dead-set against political parties. I think he’d approve of voter-imposed term limits on an ineffective government.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 23, 2005 09:56 AM

A.P.

You completely missed the point. Perhaps your interpretation was too literal, simplistic, and shallow ?

VOID is not only an acronym, but it’s the very well deserved and perfect description of the federal government:
____________________________________________
void
adj.
Containing no matter; empty.
Not occupied; unfilled.
Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
Ineffective; useless.
Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
Games. Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

n.

An empty space.
A vacuum.
An open space or a break in continuity; a gap.
A feeling or state of emptiness, loneliness, or loss.
Games. Absence of cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand: a void in hearts.

v. void·ed, void·ing, voids
v. tr.
To take out (the contents of something); empty.
To excrete (body wastes).
To leave; vacate.
To make void or of no validity; invalidate: issued a new passport and voided the old one.
_________________________________________

Since government is void, voters should
Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy !

Good try though, but remember, things don’t always appear as they seem. Sometimes it’s necessary to try being more open minded and looking a little deeper. Otherwise, one may miss the real meaning of things.

As for voting for Democrats? No thanks.
Been there, done that.
It doesn’t work does it ?
It hasn’t worked.
That’s the status quo, which is the foe.
Take off your partisan blinders, set yourself free, and you will understand.

Has it ever occurred to you that you’ve been seduced into that type of petty participation in the partisan warfare ?

We’ve all done that.
It doesn’t work.
It’s a huge distraction, that serves as a clever way to trick people into a circular pattern of thought and behavoir.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 23, 2005 07:33 PM

AP,

“BTW again, Democrats have a fine agenda to stop deficit spending. Tell you representatives to support reinstating the pay-as-you-go rule that Democrats used to get the budget under control in the 90s.”

Really? Maybe you should tell that to Governor Doyle. You’re on his side, perhaps he’ll listen to you.

*sarcasm intended*

Really, AP, we’ve been over this. I’ve had the misfortune of watching Democrats mess up in my state in a manner ironically similiar to the way Republicans have been messing up on the federal level. I will NOT be fooled by partisan politics again. I’ve seen both sides for their true colors and neither side will have my allegiance until they change their ways.

You’re “rah, rah, Democrats!” attitude is very unconvincing compared to the scandal and fiscal irresponsibility propagated by the Democrats who are currently in charge of my state.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 23, 2005 10:24 PM

AP said: “void adj. … 4. Ineffective; useless.”

Yep, that pretty well sums up Congress of Republicans and Democrats today. Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy is apropos’ response.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 24, 2005 12:51 AM

As for voting for Democrats? No thanks. Been there, done that. It doesn’t work does it ? It hasn’t worked.

Democrats beat fascism, came up with the containment strategy that won the Cold War, engineered a social safety net that keeps tens of millions of Americans above the poverty level, balanced the federal budget, and oversaw the greatest economic expansion in American history. I think we’ve done pretty well.

Your mileage may vary. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at November 24, 2005 09:47 AM

AP,
Having found you a reasonable Human, I have a few serious question to ask you and others that believe in their “Party Almighty.” The reason that I go to that extreme is because of your remarks Democrats beat fascism Does this mean that you will settle for America to change directions only to find that “We, as a Society” have made the same mistakes that our Elders did beck in the 60’s & 70’s? Have we not learned from our parents and yes even our own over endulgent(sp)? No, both political parties have been following bad policies and political activities for over the last 30 years or so and given their action of to date can you tell me you see them changing?

I think you and many others agree that America is headed down the wrong path, correct? That being said, which direction should “We the Society” command Congress and the Whitehouse to take? Given all that is possible do the Children of the 70’s have the courage and the strentgh to fix the “Better World” promised to us by both the Democrat and Republican Leadership. Where is the collective vision for America and Humanity’s Civilization and a plan to get us there? What about our 21st Century Infrastructure? What about “I the Consumer” for it is my unalienable Right to consume, I may have to follow laws, but they should only prevent that which is known to cause harm to me or Society.

And since or better yet because absolute power currupts absolutly, This issue needs to be publicly debated in the Halls of Congress as prescribed by the Laws of the Land. That is unless you support the Republican idea that “Corporations” are best to decide on what you and your Children can and can not consume in our Society? Sorry, but that from the horses mouth.

VOID.org may not be to change the world on their own; however, if the organization is willing to hold our elected incumbents at doing what is Unalienable Right Regardless for all of “We the People” instead of their political party and personal ambitions than maybe enough American Citizens will start to get over this idea of unequality and get on with fixing the problem that is equal and fair to All legal American Citizens and push for real reform throughout Humanity’s Civilization.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 24, 2005 09:40 PM

AP, your comment above reflects so much party bias, it almost appears as if it was authored by a Republican.

Let me respond to your litany of accomplishments by the Democrats:

“Democrats beat fascism,”

Really? I thought it was a World War in which Generals like Patton, MacCarthur, and Halsey along with allies like the British and “Monty” and others were responsible for beating fascism. I know for a fact it was not just Democrats in our armed forces who beat back the fascist globaly threat.

” came up with the containment strategy that won the Cold War,”

Containment? You mean as in giving the Russians the whole of Eastern Europe? We did not contain the Communists. We gave up fighting them in Viet Nam, (thank God), and a little island nation 90 miles off our coast is still communist to this day. Putin is rapidly returning Russia to Authoritarian rule. We never even took the first step to halt Communism in China, And we did not beat the Russians in the cold war, their economy failed through their own mismangement and flawed economic policies. The notion that Democrats did anything right in regard to the Cold War and Communism is preposterous on its face, save for growing the middle class which grew our economy.

“engineered a social safety net that keeps tens of millions of Americans above the poverty level,”

You are mostly right on with this one, save for the fact that Democrats didn’t know when to stop creating safety nets. They ended up building them in places and ways that were inevitably going to erode the foundations of our economy when their dreams of uplifting the quality of life in third world countries began to become a reality. Thanks to Democrats short-sightedness, we now can neither compete with globalization forces, nor can we maintain the quality of life enjoyed by the middle class as wages, pensions, health care benefits and job security are all diminishing. No foresight! A hallmark of Democrats in recent decades.

“balanced the federal budget,”

One year out of how many decades of majority rule by Democrats. That’s like my shooting 30 clips of rounds from my Glock at a target and awarding myself a marksman badge for hitting it once. Too Funny!

“and oversaw the greatest economic expansion in American history.”

I believe Republicans oversaw that expansion as well. But, the expansion was only partly a result of Democratic policies, specifically, those which sanctioned collective bargaining, and those which helped maintain non-workers in the consuming community, as well as quality education increases in the latter half of the last century. But, there was much Democrats failed in regard to looking ahead and insuring that such economic expansion could and would continue.

I could offer much to criticize Republicans for as well in these areas, but, it is your comment as a Democrat with all its arrogance and distorted and biased rewrite of history to favor your party that needed to be responded to. Democrats could have done so much better and so much more, had they only prevented their political struggle with Republicans from becoming their obsession and first and primary priority, leaving the tending of a nation and its future much lower on their list of priorities.

I think we’ve done pretty well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 24, 2005 11:30 PM

AP,

“Your mileage may vary.”

Ah, is that how you explain it. Well, Democrat mileage in Wisconsin is way down.

Environmental protections are down.

School funding is down.

Support to alleviate poverty is down.

Medical assistance is down.

Though, I must admit, some of the Democrats’ mileage is up.

The Wisconsin deficit is up.

Taxes are up.

State fees are up.

Hmm, Democrats in Wisconsin don’t seem to be aware of your mantra. Though, I must admit, I haven’t seen a whole lot of fascists or communists here lately. That’s a plus, I guess.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 25, 2005 02:02 AM

A.P. wrote: Democrats beat fascism.
Well, only in you’re own little world, where, according to your version of history, Democrats all walk on water, and evil Republicans are the root of all the nation’s problems, and didn’t participate in World War. Care to provide some proof that Democrats beat fascism with no help of anyone else (because that would be interesting to read). The truth is, both parties and the entire country pulled together in World War II. And, if Hitler didn’t have such misplaced priorities, Germany could have very easily developed nuclear weapons and superior jet craft and missles that could have led to a completely different outcome. Also, it’s only fair to point out that the U.S. was attempting to take an isolationist stance prior to the war, but it proved to be an impossible policy. Our world is shrinking, and we can not simply look the other way, while allies are being unjustly invaded and oppressed, lest we be next.

A.P. wrote: Democrats came up with the containment strategy that won the Cold War?
You mean in Korea, Vietnam, South America, Central America, Cuba, Peru, etc.? So, I take it you support the action in IRAQ against a brutal, murderous, cruel dictator? And, once again, you ignore the fact that much of what happens is actually bi-partisan. Just like your Republocrats voted to invade Iraq. Right? The truth again, is that it was a bi-partisan decision. It’s interesting that many Democrats try to distance themselves from that fact now.

A.P. wrote: Democrats engineered a social saftey net? Are you talking about Social Security and Medicare? You call that an engineered security net? That’s laughable, seeing how both Democrats and Republicans supported it for the most part. You always ignore the bi-partisanship in most decisions arrived at. Also, who’s responsible for plundering it over the last 5 decades? Did Republicans do that all by themselves? No, of course not. That legal plunder was another irresponsible bi-partisan activity. The fact is, both parties are irresponsible and unaccountable, but you’ll never see it while you’re wearing your partisan blinders.

A.P. wrote: Democrats balanced the federal budget:
Well, here’s the National Debt for the last 45 years. Where is that the budget got balanced? Only if you adjust for inflation, is it even remotely possible to claim the debt didn’t increase. But, then, inflation isn’t anything to brag about either.
__________________________________
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
__________________________________

The fact is, there has not been a single year in the last 45 years that the National Debt didn’t grow larger. Thus, you can never have a balanced budget unless the National Debt stops growing. Also, it was ONLY in the last year of Clinton’s 2nd term that he came close to balancing the budget, but he still failed to do so by $18 billion.

A.P. wrote: Democrats oversaw the greatest economic expansion in American history.
Really? What period was that? From 1992 to 2000? Because, it started falling apart in 1999, at the end of Clintons’ term.

A.P. wrote: I think we’ve done pretty well.
Ummm. Why thank you. You mean all of us? Right? Or, do you mean, Democrats only?
Actually, I think we have all done badly. All of us. And, we need to do much better. We can do much better. And, we’d better start doing it soon, because the current system is in decline, needs reform, needs new direction, and neither Democrats or Republicans have, nor will, deliver it. That longer it continues, the harder and more painful the correction will be. Some people say government is self correcting. I agree with that in a sense. The question is, will that correction we the hard painful way (again)? Or, will it be the smart, peaceful, responsible, least painful way?

A.P. wrote: Your mileage may vary. :)
True, depending on whether a person is, or isn’t wearing their partisan blinders.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 25, 2005 05:26 PM