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 unacc