Third Party & Independents Archives

David, while I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, you, in my opnion, fail to poitn out the one fatal flaw in your argument; that the majoritiy of Americans seem to think the problem is with the other party, not their own.

While most people are disillusioned with the government, they still vote along party lines and, like you said, continue to reinstall failed representatives/leaders into office. Even on this site we are witness to people who honestly believe it is either the Demcorats who have screwed up the country, or the Republicans.

Partisanship seems to be a basic function of humanity. We so easily divide ourselves among arbitrary groups that we are just used to the idea of “us” being right and “them” being wrong.

I believe we should vote out incumbants, but who will replace them? The way our system works now, the only way anyone can become elected into high office is by being a corrupt lap-dog to some special interest group or corporate sponsor.

We are in more trouble than mere incombant-bashing will fix. We actually have no choice in who governs us. That is a sad state of affaris!

Mike Falino said: “that the majoritiy of Americans seem to think the problem is with the other party, not their own.”

Not sure where you got that opinion. October 2009 poll shows:

Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.


According to the poll, 53 percent have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, with 41 percent holding an unfavorable view. The survey indicates that favorable ratings for the Democrats have dropped 5 points since February, with the Republican number slipping 3 points.

Poll after poll on this question show Republicans losing out to Democrats as a party on favorability. But, there is only a margin of error difference from the Democratic Party being viewed negatively or neutrally. I don’t think there is any doubt that if the health care reform does not pass, and it I doubt it will, Democrats will have lost that 4% margin of favorability, in which case, BOTH PARTIES will be viewed by the majority as the problem.

Mike, I can’t share your dismal and depressing view that we have no choice. As long as we have our vote, we have a choice. We can choose to vote for independents, for third party candidates, and for challengers to incumbents even if they are from the same party. We have many choices. We only need to exercise our right to remove those from office who are ineffective in answering our and the nation’s need for solutions.

Seriously, if I felt as you say, that we have no choice over who governs us, I will find it very difficult to remain in America. There are so many other excellent democracies functioning in the world, and except for the inordinate delays in getting a passport, going elsewhere is a piece of cake.

Perhaps i’m just being melodramatic—not intentionally though—but I do believe that Americans do not have the collective will to change the way things are.

While I agree with voting out incumbants, I actually feel that the only way to send a message is to not vote at all. Not one person, but imagine what would happen if almost nobody voted. The problem is that people do still vote, and they continue to vote for either their own party, or, like you suggest, to vote out incumbants. But where is the realy choice? Can you point to any politician and honestly say he or she would be better than anyone else?

Bush was leaving and we had a choice between Obama and McCain. It turns out that Obama (and the democrats in general) are no better than Republicans at solving any real problem in a meaningful way. Sure McCain probably would have launched an invasion of Iran, and banned abortion, but aside from that it turns out he may not have been any worse than Obama is turning out to be. I didn’t vote for Obama because I thougth he would completely fix the country, i voted for him because McCain was a terrifying prospect, especially with Palin right behind him.

As for going to another country, last time I checked, quiting was frowned upon. I love what my country is supposed to be but am sickened by what it is. Should i just up and leave?

I might if Palin gets elected president, but that’d be understandible.

Mike Falino said: “but I do believe that Americans do not have the collective will to change the way things are. “

That has certainly been true up to this point since the 1970’s. No argument from me there, Mike.

But, the Loyalists believed the Colonialists lacked the resources and ability to overthrow the King of England, too. And a majority thought putting a person on the Moon in the 20th century was impossible until Jack Kennedy was elected. And my parents believed Civil Rights would not occur in their lifetimes. But, it did.

All actions great and small, begin with an idea and sharing that idea with others. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that if enough people earnestly share the anti-incumbent concept, the American people can and will change our government for the better and the benefit of the people and nation going forward. How steep a price we will pay for having not done this sooner, is the only unanswered question in my mind.

D.a.n, a WB participant awhile back, used to argue that the longer we delay, the higher the price will have to be paid for real change, and that real change would come either by our efforts now, or by consequential circumstances as a result of inaction. And it was a sound argument.

We can choose not to wait for things to get so bad that a revolution or protracted repeat of the Great Depression become the necessary price to pay for change. And we can choose to convince others of the same.

And the good news is, it won’t require a majority of Americans to vote out incumbents to achieve the desired result. If 35% of the electorate votes anti-incumbent, it will so destabilize the predictability of elections for incumbents in both parties, and so threaten the certainty of reelection enjoyed by most incumbents, that they will, in response, begin to placate those 35% of anti-incumbent voters by putting the nation and voter’s demands for solutions into top priority slots.

Most incumbent races are won by far less than a 35% margin. 35% of voters voting anti-incumbent will be more than enough. And that is far easier to achieve than trying to get a majority to do the same.

Simply getting most of the Independent voters to vote anti-incumbent will achieve the 35% momentum needed. It is not impossible, at all. People just have to come to grips with how desperate things are getting, and accepting that, they will have the motivation to vote anti-incumbent.

David, this is exactly the convincing argument that has changed my mind over time. I find myself in strong agreement with the points you make, and feeling slightly silly at not truly understanding them before now, and so I look forward to developing my thoughts further in the next few days.

David, this is exactly the convincing argument that has changed my mind over time. I find myself in strong agreement with the points you make, and feeling slightly silly at not truly understanding them before now, and so I look forward to developing my thoughts further in the next few days.

Please do not vote for Republicans or third party candidates who have no real chance of winning. That’s how we ended up with Bush.

I’m heartbroken over the loss of the public option, but the simple truth is that the votes were never there. The currently proposed plan will ensure an additional 36 million and reduce rescission. If you look at 538.com, you’ll see that many families will pay 50% less than they would under the current plan.

Democrats fought the good fight and lost. I would have liked to have seen Obama be more engaged, but I’m not sure it would have been the right strategy or changed anything. It may have made things worse.

We need to (grudgingly)support this bill, and then amend it to make it better. There will likely not be a chance to get this ball rolling again in our lifetimes.

If only we’d had one more true democrat.

Max,

We need 10 more congress members interested in the needs of the people. Period. Regardless of political, corporate or religious affiliation.

I’ll go along with that. Unfortunately, it does seem like one party is being completely obstructionist.

In my opinion, an effort to vote out incumbents will produce only marginal and temporary benefits, if that. The Republicans successfully used the ploy in the 1994 “Contract for America, election in which they pledged term limits. After winning, they promptly forgot about the term limit thing.

It seems, to me, that the real issue is the overwhelming power of vested interests. According to Opensecrets.org., in 2008, vested interests employed a virtual army of lobbyists (15,000) and spent an astounding 3.30 billion on lobbying efforts. It is not simply that politicians can be directly influenced by political contributions, but that the public debate on policy can be distorted to the ends of the vested interests. The MSM seems unable or unwilling to counter the propaganda with objective information and analysis. No wonder that the recent health care public debate has been so juvenile in the MSM. Death panels took precedence over coverage of the actual substantive proposals. The public has no clue as to the actual health care reform issues being considered or alternatives. That is exactly how the vested interests want it. The same goes for financial regulatory reform.

It seems to me that if one wants an effective government responsive to the needs of the public, then it will be necessary to limit the influence of vested interests. That is, unfortunately, not likely. In fact, a pending Supreme Court case on limitations of corporate political contributions may even make the situation worse.

The only other alternative, as far as I can see, is to support independent public interest policy and lobbying efforts and to develop a Congressional office comparable to the CBO on general policy development. I believe that DR proposed such an office in a past blog entry.

Until politicians are held to the fire of an informed public, then there will be little progress in creating an effective legislature. Today, the public is conflicted by mis-information, misleading information and outright lies. That is a problem of education. It will not be solved by wholesale voting out of incumbents. They will only be replaced by new clones beholding to the same special interests.

Rich, your commentary misses the key point. In 1994, it was the GOP leading the voters. The anti-incumbent movement is exactly the opposite, the voters leading the parties where the voters want to go.

It is a difference hard for some folks to appreciate, because their view of politics is rigid with the Parties framing the debate and policy agenda, instead of the voters.

It didn’t get much press coverage, but, the 2009 elections conducted these last few months were decidedly anti-incumbent. Four Democrats have already announced they won’t be running for reelection because they acknowledge the anti-incumbent sentiment in their own districts is too overwhelming to even consider spending their time and money overcoming.

There is a threshold at which point both the political parties will be forced to recognize a new political reality, that reelection for their incumbents depends upon independent voters receiving concrete, sound, and cost effective solutions pass through the Congress and White House to solve national problems for voters.

That threshold of anti-incumbent voting behavior may occur at 25% of incumbent races lost, or 35% lost. But, such numbers of unpredictability regarding incumbent odds of reelection will force incumbents to reevaluate their priorities in favor of the anti-incumbent voters.

We have witnessed in no uncertain terms that when 90% and more of Congressional incumbents on average, win reelection, election after election, change for the better in Congress is not forthcoming, and the nation’s challenges only mount.

We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. We, the voters, can change what we do on election day, and with enough of us doing this thing, there is no question that ever greater numbers of Congress persons will have no choice but to reassess legislative priorities in deference to the anti-incumbent voters whose numbers grow in proportion to the disapproval of Congressional performance and policy.

Rich said: “It seems to me that if one wants an effective government responsive to the needs of the public, then it will be necessary to limit the influence of vested interests. That is, unfortunately, not likely.”

Limiting the influence of wealthy special interest lobbyists and campaign donors is entirely possible. But, not by legislation. It is accomplished by making the anti-incumbent threat more important to reelection than those other vested interests, in the minds of incumbents.

The voters can force elected representatives to realign their priorities, by demonstrating at the polls, that anti-incumbent voter disapproval of Congress is a greater force in determining reelection outcomes, than are the wealthy special interests. When money ceases to be able to squash the anti-incumbent voting block effect, the politicians will, without question, limit the influence of the monied interests in favor of the winning the approval of the anti-incumbent voters.

“The anti-incumbent movement is exactly the opposite, the voters leading the parties where the voters want to go.”

Where exactly do the voters want to go? If you know of some consensus as to what the voters really want, other than platitudes like more effective governance, better health care, lower taxes, getting things done, etc. please share them. I think that you will find little actual consensus when push comes to shove on the details. In fact, I think that you will find that the general public is depressingly ignorant of the issues and policy options. In my opinion, there is no voter led anti-incumbent platform that would make any policy sense.

My main point is that our political, social and cultural system has become captive to highly financed vested interests. Special interests control and frame the debate. Not just in Congress but in the main stream media. Do you really believe that the general public understands the issues involved in the health care or financial reform debates? In the absence of a reasonably informed public, I don’t see how an anti-incumbent movement would result in any significant benefit. It would still be subject to control by special interests.

I think that the only reform of value would be to limit the influence of special interests and/or counter them with objective, independent well distributed information. With an informed public, we have a chance for change. Simply revolving the actors in the political play will have little lasting impact. In fact, it may lead to chaos.

Rich asked the absurd question: “Where exactly do the voters want to go? If you know of some consensus as to what the voters really want, other than platitudes like more effective governance, better health care, lower taxes, getting things done, etc. please share them.”

As if good and effective governance wasn’t enough to unify anti-incumbent voters.

Take a look at the 2009 election results, Rich. Overwhelmingly anti-incumbent results across the nation’s elections. The effect won’t be so pronounced in the 2010 mid-term elections due to the plethora of gerrymandered districts. But, the effect will be discernible in the post election results, I can assure you, as I have assured they would be in 2006 and 2008 elections.

4 Democrats have already yielded to the ant-incumbent sentiment announcing they won’t seek reelection in 2010, acknowledging the 2009 election results in Democratically held conservative districts.

Why would you think an anti-incumbent grass roots movement would require anything more than disapproval of governance? Are you confusing anti-incumbent consensus with a political party? I could accept your argument and question if we were discussing the formation of a third party, which indeed would require a consensus of platform policy issues.

But, the topic under discussion is anti-incumbent voting block of the electorate growing, which, requires NOTHING more in the way of consensus than disappointment and disfavor of the current Congress and government’s results.

David,

It is not enough to simply desire to throw the bums out. You have to elect a replacement. There’s the rub. Where do you think that they will come from? The same pool with the same results.

Again, I contend that simply spouting platitudes about good governance ad nauseum doesn’t cut it. What are the specific policy alternatives? What’s the meat of the anti-incumbent movement?

Rich said: “It is not enough to simply desire to throw the bums out. You have to elect a replacement. There’s the rub. Where do you think that they will come from?”

Yes, Rich, it IS enough to just ‘throw the bums out’. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend. Incumbents want to be reelected. If sufficient numbers of voters are voting out incumbents and voting for challengers due to disapproval of Congress’ governance, then, incumbents, wanting to be reelected, will change their governance in an effort to appeal to those voters threatening to vote for a challenger instead.

This is not rocket science, Rich. Voters can control governance, if they choose to exercise the original intent of the vote, to remove King George’s from power when the voters are dissatisfied with the results of the King’s rule.

You may contend what you wish, Rich. But, you have yet to set forth a single persuasive or logical argument invalidating the premises of this article and my comments in reply to yours.

Mr. Remer writes; “…then you have an obligation to vote for a challenger in 2010, instead of your current representative, regardless of what you think of them.

What a simplistic and illogical statement. He follows by writing…”The power in a democracy ultimately rests with the voting public. If the voting public won’t act responsibly on election day, then neither will their representatives.”

Somehow, Mr. Remer believes it is responsible voting to throw out the incumbent in favor of “anyone” else.

No thanks. I am an informed voter and very much like and approve of my congressperson. I know exactly where he stands and how he votes. Simply because he can’t convince all the others in congress to vote his way is not a sign of ineffectiveness as Mr. Remer appears to suggest.

With the voting public divided on so many issues, both social and political, there is absolutely no way of electing a bunch of like-thinking individuals. It’s silly to even suggest that we should simply throw them all out.

If I ran my company in the fashion recommended by Mr. Remer I should consider firing all my employees just to get rid of the bad apples. I am smarter than that Mr. Remer. And so are most American’s.

Royal Flush, thank you for chiming in and again demonstrating your ability to ignore the reality of the public’s disapproval of Congress, and your gift for choosing to perpetuate what isn’t working.

Voting for incumbents who are demonstrably INEFFECTIVE in passing problem solving legislation is what is illogical and simplistic. And the reality is that a vast majority of Americans disapprove of Congress’s actions and current incumbents of both parties are failing to remedy this reality.

Yet, you would illogically and simplistically advocate doing the same thing, voting for incumbents who have failed to meet the nation’s needs, while expecting a different result. That’s nuts~!

Voters disapproving of Congress while voting the same Congress people back in office who created the disapproval amongst voters, is why our nation’s deficits, debt, foreign entanglements, and failing infrastructure continue to worsen and threaten America’s future.

Thank you also for demonstrating a lack of understanding between government and private business. If they were the same, they would have one all encompassing name for both. This too demonstrates your comments lack of appreciation for the differing objectives, responsibilities, and means between a business and government.

One must really work hard to ignore blatant facts of history like social services belonging to the realm of government, and vocational pursuits belonging largely to the private sector of business. Try running a military, fire department, or police jurisdiction on a for profit basis. No, just kidding, do NOT try that at home. It will be doomed to fail, as history amply demonstrates across multiple cultures and nations. It is not an accident that social services fall in the province of not for profit government, and for profit endeavors fall into the province of private sector business, you know. Well, I guess you don’t by your comments. But, true, nonetheless.

I do appreciate however, the opportunity to drive the simple point home, yet again.

Rich writes; “I think that the only reform of value would be to limit the influence of special interests and/or counter them with objective, independent well distributed information. With an informed public, we have a chance for change. Simply revolving the actors in the political play will have little lasting impact. In fact, it may lead to chaos.”

I would agree with this statement. I do wonder however just what “special interest” means to Rich and others.

Christians have special interest…those desiring same-sex marriage have special interest…those favoring big labor have special interest…those who oppose or favor oil, nuclear, and green energy all have special interest. The list is unending.

Can one elected person truly and effectively represent all of these special interest? Hardly. And therefore, we elect a representative who supposedly represents the majority view. Majority views will differ between districts and states.

I am sorry Mr. Remer, but the unity you desire is not possible in this world. Special interests were represented during the contentious debate on our very own constitution and has continued to this very day.

Great things have been accomplished in this country by our government when a majority of voters were attracted to the ideas of politicians who were able to convince enough of them to vote them into office. A vote for “anybody” but the incumbent signals defeat and/or stupidity.

Your very welcome Mr. Remer and I am pleased that you like my “chiming”.

Apparently Mr. Remer believes that voting for “anyone else” is the answer.

Let’s examine Mr. Remer’s proposal for just a moment. Election of a congressperson or a senator begins with primaries or caucuses. The major political parties put up candidates to run for office. If the party endorses an incumbent we should not vote for him or her. If the party endorses a new-comer we should vote for him or her. Either way we are voting for the party candidate.

Both parties can not endorse an incumbent. Therefore, we must vote for the non-incumbent of either party. The bumper sticker reads…vote R or D because they are not the incumbent. Wow…what a great reason to vote for an individual. One doesn’t need to understand what the non-incumbent belives or how they will vote on issues. The fact that they are the non-incumbent is apparently enough for Mr. Remer.

Mr. Remer writes; “Voting for incumbents who are demonstrably INEFFECTIVE in passing problem solving legislation is what is illogical and simplistic.”

Voting for a candidate simply because he/she is not currently holding office is the logical and complex position according to Mr. Remer. His reasoning seems to be that the non-incumbent is preferable because they have not yet proven to be; “demonstrably INEFFECTIVE in passing problem solving legislation.” And we should vote for them in the “hope” that they will be different.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

I will continue to examine the positions of the candidates I vote for and take into account what they believe. I refuse to make my vote meaningless by just being negative.

Royal Flush said: “I am sorry Mr. Remer, but the unity you desire is not possible in this world. Special interests were represented during the contentious debate on our very own constitution and has continued to this very day.”

No need to apologize for the reading deficiency evident in your comment. I understand that you failed to read my comments for understanding and recognize my reference to “wealthy special interests”, which is a very small subset of the total interest groups. And that you read into my comments words which were not there, as in an objection to special interests in general.

But, special interests must acquire the status of being majority interests in a functional democracy to rule over the population by legislation. When special interests acquire legislation without the consent of the majority and without constitutional mandate, then democracy is not the word to be ascribed to that government.

Royal Flush wrote: “The fact that they are the non-incumbent is apparently enough for Mr. Remer.”

Bingo! Now you are on the precipice of enlightenment, Royal Flush. If the objective is shed public disapproval of Congress, then refusing to vote the same Congress people back into office who created such disapproval of Congress, is the only logical choice.

Republicans can vote for a Republican challenger, and Democrats can vote for a Democratic challenger. That is what the Primaries and Caucuses are for, to present a choice to Party members. One does not need to cross parties in most cases to vote for a challenger instead of an incumbent.

It is illogical to disapprove of a person’s performance yet approve of their continuing to perform in that manner. Which is what a vote for an incumbent is when the voter disapproves of the performance in Congress. At the very least, their incumbent is responsible for being ineffective in IMPROVING the rating of Congress by the voter, and that is justification enough to vote them out. No one wants to hire an ineffective person. That is illogical and counter-productive.

The only reason, and it is illogical, to vote for an incumbent when one disapproves of Congress’ performance, is blind party loyalty which, neither works in one’s own self-interest, nor that of the nation as a whole. Republicans doubling of the national debt in 8 years is evidence enough of this.

Royal Flush, it is sad that your comments cannot seem to grasp the big picture on this topic. I will attempt to make it as simple as possible.

If incumbents from both parties are forced to believe their reelection depends more on the anti-incumbent voters than on their wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists, then those and future politicians will seek legislation that will appease the anti-incumbent voters. If the one unifying issue amongst ant-incumbent voters is their demand for responsible and cost effective government in return for their tax dollars and vote, then that is PRECISELY what politicians will deliver out of their own self-interest in being reelected.

The logic is impeccable and sound. The Reasoning simple enough for an 8th grader. If your replies still reflect an inability to grasp this concept, well, that speaks for itself, I guess.

I wonder what Mr. Remer’s comments immediately above have to do with his endorsing voting for “anybody” but the incumbent? He writes that I have a “reading deficiency”. Perhaps…but I am smart enough to not vote blindly for someone simply because they are not an incumbent. Most of the writers above approve of and endorse a more informed electorate. I agree with them and not Mr. Remer.

I have noticed from Mr. Remer’s writings that he uses his keyboard to diminish the intelligence of those which whom he disagrees. Unable to support his contention that voting for an unknown incumbent is better than voting for an incumbent with whom you agree, he chooses to demean my ability to comprehend. I will not resort to such impulses, regardless of how strong they may be. I believe Mr. Remer does not have any reading deficiency and is very intelligent. He is simply mistaken.

Mr. Remer writes; “If the one unifying issue amongst ant-incumbent voters is their demand for responsible and cost effective government in return for their tax dollars and vote, then that is PRECISELY what politicians will deliver out of their own self-interest in being reelected.”

And how would one know that the “anyone else” they are voting for espouses those views?

To advance Mr. Remer’s ridiculous position to its end point we must continue to elect “anyone else” until congress receives 100% approval by the electorate. In his imaginary world Mr. Remer believes that some future congress will be in agreement on everything. That would require that all American’s agree on everything.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

Royal Flush, your comment reflects an absolute dearth of education and understanding of logic, when you ask: “And how would one know that the “anyone else” they are voting for espouses those views? “

Doesn’t matter, what the anyone else from YOUR PARTY holds as views. The objective is to change the governance of Congress which anti-incumbent voters disapprove of.

But, by all means, Royal Flush, vote for your incumbent who is responsible for this Congress’s results, if you approve of this Congress’ results. If you DON’T approve of this Congress’ results, then YOUR CONGRESSMAN has been INEFFECTIVE in changing those results you don’t approve of. If it makes sense to YOU to vote for an ineffective Congress person, then you prove my point about your comment lacking any understanding or education in logic.

Royal Flush said: “but I am smart enough to not vote blindly for someone simply because they are not an incumbent.”

But, you argue that it is smart to vote to keep the very incumbents responsible for the Congress a voter disapproves of. If you want to brag that this is smart, well, OK. Appreciate your candor on the matter.

Silly…Silly…Silly. Voters are smart enough to know that one congressperson can’t control the entire body. I ask, when will the public approve of congress by 100% as Mr. Remer believes is possible?

Royal Flush, silly, is holding the belief that your Congressman is great and all the rest are responsible for bad governance. Not only silly, illogical, but, results in the kind of Congress we experience today with massive national debt, unnecesssary wars, total failures in oversight and regulation, and a Recession and potential financial sector meltdown not seen since the Great Depression. It takes far more than one to create this kind of governance. In fact, it takes a majority to fashion this kind of horrible governance.

But, that simple logical fact would escape, wouldn’t it? Not surprising in light of your previous comments on the matter.

You also seem to be implying by your argument a defense for party line voting. The many immoral, by Republican standards, and unethical, illegal, and reprehensible acts committed by Republicans over the last decade in Congress from gay searching in public toilets to driving up debt for bridges to nowhere, to absconding with tax payer dollars for personal benefit in complete violation of the laws, all stand testament to the fact that party line voting IN NO WAY assures good candidates. More than 40% of Republicans now admit GW Bush was not a good president overall.

But, you seem to be attempting to argue party line voting is preferable to throwing the bums out who are responsible for bad governance through ineffectiveness or, outright advocacy of bad policy.

You do realize the logical box that paints you in, right? Perhaps not.

That argument leads one to arguing that Democrats should vote for their Party regardless of how bad their representative’s policy decisions are. Is that really the argument you want to try to make, Royal Flush? That regardless of how bad policy and Congress gets, party line voters should still vote to reelect their party’s incumbents, Democrats as well as Republicans?

That would make your reasoning the source of the problem and as far away from a solution to bad governance as a person in America could possibly get.

RF,

In simplest logical terms:

Premise 1:
In our political system, the only Congress persons YOU as a voter can hold responsible with your vote for governance, is YOUR OWN representative. You may not vote for or against other’s representatives.

Premise 2:
The only means by which voters have to enforce good governance from the U.S. Congress, is by granting, redirecting, or withholding their vote for their district’s representative.

Conclusion:
The only means by which ANY voter may hold the U.S. Congress responsible for their actions, is with their vote for their OWN representative. A vote to reelect their Representative is a defacto vote of approval for Congress continuing as it has. A vote against their own Representative is a defacto vote of disapproval for Congress and its performance.

This is true, because there is NO provision for voters holding other people’s representatives responsible for actions in Congress.

To vote for an incumbent is to vote for more of the same, whether one intends that effect, or not. Which is why Congress’ performance has been eroding for decades. No anti-incumbent consensus amongst voters.

The logic is impeccable, RF, and cannot be refuted in premise or conclusion, by the rules of logic. The premises are true. The conclusion follows as a result of the premises.

Your arguments are part of the problem, not the solution.

Mr. Remer writes; “Royal Flush, silly, is holding the belief that your Congressman is great and all the rest are responsible for bad governance.”

Now Mr. Remer believes he is capable of reading my mind. I never said that. Talk about being reading challenged. What I did say in case Mr. Remer is interested, is that I will continue to vote for my congressperson as I agree with his political views. Is that really so difficult to understand. Mr. Remer would have me vote for an unknown just to be negative. That’s silly. I vote for “the person” not against the office.

But then, I study issues and my candidate and make an informed decision. It’s a shame some would vote for “anyone but the incumbent” in the false belief that it might do some good. That’s fairytale thinking.

Mr. Remer gave me a compliment by writing; “You do realize the logical box that paints you in, right?” Yes…that’s what I have been saying.

He then goes on to rehash Republican sins and implies that I am a party line voter. How many times do I have to write that I vote for the man/woman with whom I most agree. I could care less about party labels.

Mr. Remer would apparently have me throw away my common sense, my ethical sense and my duty to vote for the candidate I deem best suited for office. Instead, he proposes I vote for “anyone but the incumbent”. Hell, I might as well stand back and throw a dart at the ballot. Do you need a dart Mr. Remer?

OH, well…none are so blind as those who refuse to see. Mr. Remer continues to urge us to throw out all incumbents in the blind hope that the new congress, chosen by dart throwing, will somehow be better.

Sorry, but my sense of responsible voting requires thought, understanding, and knowledge. Throw your darts Mr. Remer…who cares.

Royal Flush wrote: “I have noticed from Mr. Remer’s writings that he uses his keyboard to diminish the intelligence of those which whom he disagrees.”

I assess the logic and reasonableness of others comments. If you believe that reflects upon your intelligence, then I am not responsible for your assessment of the reflection of your own comments on your own intelligence, since that extrapolation is entirely of your own creation.

Royal Flush writes: “OH, well…none are so blind as those who refuse to see. Mr. Remer continues to urge us to throw out all incumbents in the blind hope that the new congress, chosen by dart throwing, will somehow be better.”

It OBVIOUSLY never occurs to Royal Flush that if the incumbents are flushed from Congress by voters, that their Freshman replacements will take the message from their election and the predecessors loss, that the voters will not reelect these Freshman either if the voters disapprove of the performance of Congress. Which of course means that the Freshman replacements would, wanting to be reelected, work more earnestly to provide voters with what they want, a Congress they can approve of which solves more problems than it creates.

Thank you for playing, RF and another opportunity to demonstrate the weakness of argument in your comments. I can strongly recommend picking up a logic 101 book and studying it. Not only will such an endeavor improve a person’s comments persuasive capacity, but, their decisions in their life will become more enlightened as Adam Smith defined it in Theory of Moral Sentiment.

Acting against one’s self-interest for the interests of a minority of others is precisely the relationship that now exists between voters and their representatives. The representatives represent their wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists, all the while, duping the public into acting against their own self-interest by perpetuating the actions of their representative, through reelection.

The people have the potential to change this relationship by voting out incumbents. The politicians have absolutely NO DESIRE to change this relationship, which partly explains why America has such a declining K-12 educational system. Voters are more easily duped when undereducated.

David

We have responded to some of your ideas on our posting. But let me add an additional observation.

You advocate that we get rid of special interests so that the government can give the people what they want. You are advocating a type of redistribution. Isn’t that just another type of vested interest? If ten people are on an island and six of them decide to rob the other four, it doesn’t make it just because it is the will of the majority. The majority is also a vested interest if their goal is to take from others.

BTW - throw out all the incumbents if you want. Of course, that will mean both Houses of Congress come under Republican control. If that is what you want, that is fine with us.

DR
Again throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are a great many Dems trying best to get a good health care delivery package through. Many of them are incumbants and have worked for it for years. Your approach is like Stalin’s approach to criminal justice,just arrest them all to make sure you get the bad guys.
There is a danger that the obvious difficulty of the Senate in particular to get anything done could lead to a failed state is real. There are two reasons for this. The biggest is the Republican Party.Throw THEM out if you want change and take Lieborman also. The second is the structural impediment of the filibuster. It is just a matter courage to change the latter. The nuclear option or just letting the Rep pigs filibuster. Let the fat bastards stand there and explain why Americans do not deserve a decent health care system ,on their feet,with no breaks for hours at a time. The filibuster is un-democratic. It is a tyranny of the minority. It was NEVER an intention of the Founders. For great measures the Constitution calls for a super-majority, not for everyday housekeeping like closure.
Am I worried that getting rid of it could be damageing when the Reps hold the majority? Not really. If the Dems can actually implement the Party policies for the American people it will be a long,long time before that is even a remote possibility and we have many important things to accomplish. The only valid critcism you seem to be able to make is that the Dems and BHO have been too timid. I concur. Time to kick ass and take names.

DR
I have to add,I am also pretty bitter about the health care plan that will eventually pass. It represents a far less than ideal change, a lost opportunity. However it will save lives and money. It is also quite likely to be improved in the future just as SS and Medicare were improved. That is why it has near universal support from those that have worked for comprehensive reform for 40 years. Blame those that blocked a better measure, not those that did their best and stand ready to try again.

Sadly, I think this issue speaks to the millionaire’s club in the Senate. If noone but millionaire’s can get elected, is it no wonder that the Senate cannot override corporate influence?

bills

How will it save money? I haven’t heard any proposals that will save money overall. The best of them manage only to move money, raise taxes or take money out of medicare to pay for other priorities.

David, Royal Flush and others,

I think both of you are wrong to think that the anti-incumbency movement is merely about throwing all incumbents out in a single election. It will take many cycles of replacing freshmen with other freshmen before they finally get the idea. Most of my politics are left of center, but I have never voted to reelect my representative even though I agree with her on most of the issues. I don’t approve of the shenanigans that has transpired in Congress and I do not want to condone it either by voting to reelect my representative who gained her position through nepotism. However, I don’t blindly vote for challengers. I take the time to research them and figure out if their positions match my own. If I cannot find a suitable challenger to vote for, I write in the name of my state senator who I do approve of (and I do approve with the job the Massachusetts State Senate is doing). That way, hopefully Representative Tsongas will get the message in the form of a reduced margin of victory and buckle down and implement many needed reforms.

Christine
It would save considerrably more with a robust public option,alas,at least according to the CBO. As is the coverage for approx 30 million will give them the option of reguler care and preventive services thus helping to keep them out of emergency rooms ,the most expensive treatment options. There are also provisions and incentives for negotiating prices built in,not only for Medicare but also for private carriers. If the private carriers want to stay in business they had better negotiate with providers as they will no longer be able to cost shift to the consumers by denying coverage. An additional savings should be a reduction of legal and administrative cost linked to the latter by both carriers and providers.As I recall there is also an attempt to identify procedures that actually work as opposed to those that are ineffective but quite profitable for the providers.At least I hope that was left in by the so called moderates.
Perhaps there are others out there that can add something more. We,as a country, are paying far more for health care than the rest of the developed world and getting less. Saving money ought to be like shooting fish in a barrel given the political will.

Warped Reality said: “I think both of you are wrong to think that the anti-incumbency movement is merely about throwing all incumbents out in a single election.”

Quite Right. In one election is a sociological impossibility. Throwing all of them out is another impossibility, statistically. The objective promoted in comments here and at Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, is to have several elections back to back remove increasing percentages of incumbents to the extent that only 50% of incumbents are reelected.

The effect this would have on remaining incumbents and Freshman would be profound, as their reelection odds in their next bid for reelection would amount to a coin toss, and incumbents absolutely demand better odds than that given the amount of time and money at stake in running a reelection bid. Insurance for getting reelected would be sought in the form of appealing to the growing anti-incumbent voting block on the one demand that is common amongst them all, their disapproval of Congressional performance hinging on items like fiscal responsibility, effective oversight and regulation which prevents or mitigates economic roller coasters, and of course stability in wages and quality of life issues. These are items pollsters say are common amongst independent voters with both Left and Right leanings.

Warped Reality said: “It will take many cycles of replacing freshmen with other freshmen before they finally get the idea.”

Quite right, which is what I have said and written at VOID and here for several years. The good news is the growth of the independent registered voter block and anti-incumbent mood amongst them has been evident in the elections of 2006, 2008, and 2009, with no signs of abatement. How much is many is open to interpretation. My estimate is when the current average of 90 plus percent reelection rate for incumbents is reduced to 65%, we will see major priority shifting amongst members in Congress, and if and when it approaches 50%, nearly all Congress persons will have restructured their priorities putting appeasement of this anti-incumbent voting block at the very top of their priority list.

Warped Reality said: “However, I don’t blindly vote for challengers.”

That is wise. No one should vote for a candidate either because of their party affiliation alone or because of their challenger status alone. There are extreme cases where the challenger is such a nut case or worse, criminal or traitorous in intent, that voting for one’s incumbent would be the more prudent choice.

But, given the extreme negative consequences of pursuing the current status quo in Congress, it would be prudent only in the extreme circumstances of the challenger being a real nut case or traitor to the American Constitution and ideals. Making this occurrence rare, indeed. Our candidate filters in place are woefully inadequate, but, still fairly effective in screening out real nut cases and traitors, especially at the federal level of Congressional races, though not guaranteed. Trafficant, Blogojevich, and Dick Cheney come to mind as examples of failures to screen effectively the nut cases and criminal elements from public office.

bills, the fact that there are worthy provisions in the current version of the Senate bill, doesn’t erase the horrible provisions and inadequacies within it.

I am not without hope, however, though it is waning. The Conference Committee has very wide latitude to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions, and the politics of health care reform will change when both Houses are faced with a final bill for passage in an election year, which leaves some room for hope that the bill is not dead, and will be fashioned with substantial improvements on the current Senate version, while keeping its strengths over the House version.

bills said:

There are a great many Dems trying best to get a good health care delivery package through. Many of them are incumbants and have worked for it for years. Your approach is like Stalin’s approach to criminal justice,just arrest them all to make sure you get the bad guys.

There comes a point on the brink of national economic failure when, to use your word, “trying”, is no longer good enough, bills. We are at that point in our history. As I said previously, it is a sociological and statistical impossibility that the anti-incumbent movement would remove ALL incumbents in one election. Ergo, your analogy with Stalin’s purge is completely over the top as a practical matter, and a cheap debate trick aimed at emotively charging the point to be debated. There is a vast difference between Stalin, a dictator purging government, and voters in a democracy expressing their disapproval of Congress with the only effective voice granted them under Constitutional Law, their vote on election day.

If you want to go ballistic with your analogies, intelligent, rational debate is not what you seek, and is a waste of my time. Hysterical arguments don’t win debates, bills. They weaken the debater’s premises and annihilate their conclusions.

But, thank you for demonstrating the truth of the matter, that party loyalists are the source of the problem with a failed Congress, and the challenge to independent and anti-incumbent voters to overcome.

The reality remains stubbornly intact. The only means available to voters to address the failed workings of a Congress they disapprove of, is withholding their vote from those in that Congress seeking reelection. There is just no getting around that fundamental reality our nation faces as our nation moves ever closer to the brink of having its economic and social back broken by incompetent, irresponsible, and ineffective Congressional actions.

Christine said: “You advocate that we get rid of special interests so that the government can give the people what they want.”

Completely FALSE statement, Christine. I advocate repeatedly for voters to elevate their disapproval of Congressional results as a priority in the minds of Congressional representatives to that equal or superior to those of minority wealthy special interests and lobbyists.

Perhaps you just misread what I have stated. I have never argued for doing away with special interests. Anti-incumbent voters are a special interest inasmuch as they use their vote to express their disapproval of Congressional results, instead of just swearing at C-Span or CNN broadcasting of political news, which achieves absolutely nothing at all except provide fodder for disparate polls depending on the special interest of the pollster.

We’ve witnessed, with HC, the Corpocracy at it’s best. Seems I recall Congress buying some votes for Bush’s Stimulus bill on the order of about $125M? A few weeks ago the House bought off the Louisana. lady Rep. for $300M. Therefore, it would seem the Senate can buy a few votes, using your tax dollars of course, to get something on HC passed for Obama to sign and potentially save his political career so that he may run in 2012.
It’s been kinda like a bunch of gunslingers that can’t shoot straight. The druggies promised to kick in $80B and support some kind of HC plan. Then they immediately set about raising drug prices to more than offset the $80B. But, Congress turned on them and asked for a drug re-importation program. Bad blood there! Then Tiger agreed to pay $80M to stay marrried another 7 years. Oops, sorry for the digression. When in Congress Obama had proposed a similar bill and voted for funds to support it. But, a couple of days ago he came out against drug re-importation.
A shot of Nexium in Spain cost $34 and in the U.S. $424. Globalization and free trade at it’s finest. Where is the WTO when we need them? Insult to injury is the fact that most of the ingredients for so-called U.S. drugs come from China and India. It was only recently that China slid some tainted drug ingredient past the FDA. And, the FDA, spurred on by the lobbyists, is saying re-importing drugs will kill some of us, not safe, etc.
Why would you want a HC bill or any kind of bill pushed through like this? I would just like this government to do nothing until we can form some kind of a political movement and reform government before it’s entirely to late. Otherwise, the pain and suffering will be immense.
My favorite subject so let’s get to it.
David wrote:
Premise 1:
In our political system, the only Congress persons YOU as a voter can hold responsible with your vote for governance, is YOUR OWN representative. You may not vote for or against other’s representatives.
Premise 2:
The only means by which voters have to enforce good governance from the U.S. Congress, is by granting, redirecting, or withholding their vote for their district’s representative
(and)
This is true, because there is NO provision for voters holding other people’s representatives responsible for actions in Congress. End quote

Let’s agree that for us to ever have a congress, a government that is for We The People we must have; (1) a means whereby the money influence is removed or severely restricted, and (2) free elections sans the money influence. Right up front this tells you that you want get any of this from the Corpocracy. This government will not, can not reform itself. Surely, everyone understands that is a fact.

Only a 3rd party, supported by populists, centrists, moderates, Tea partiers, Independents, etc can wage a political battle to enact government reform. However, it will be a totally wasted effort if one bunch of people simply replace another bunch of people, expecting something more than what we have for a government now. If we have one more bite at the apple let’s try and get it right this time.

A 3rd party with a couple of new wrinkles is highly recommended. The party must be founded in a couple of laws that, once the party is set in motion it runs on automatic, can never be co-opted by special interest or the money influence.

Just look at what one social issue, HC, did to the Democratic machine. The first, primary, primo, only goal of a 3rd party should be reform of government. The party’s agenda should solely target reform, void of any social issues. The social issues can be sorted out after reform is achieved. Unless reform is achieved social issues are pipe dreams anyway.

Politicians must be held accountable for their actions, or inactions as the case may be. A 3rd party should authorize it’s members to provide oversight for elected/appointed officials who themselves are members of this 3rd party. Membership oversight would provide members a vote, up or down, for any such official who fails to pursue the Party agenda. If an errant official receives less than 60% favorable vote he/she would be rejected from the Party. Here invalidates David’s Premise #1. Members can vote for or against politicians/appointees regardless of status or geography.

The first order of priority for this 3rd party is the abolish/amend Corporate Personhood law and abolish Money Is Free Speech law. When that is accomplished the second priority is to provide clean elections.

All campaign donations must flow to the IRS. The IRS accounts for the donations and schedules bulk deliveries to the FEC. This breaks the audit trail for the donations. The FEC plans for and disburses, on some rational schedule, bulk donations to individual political parties. Disbursement is based on some rational criteria such as the number of viable candidates in each party. This system provides for clean elections and can not be co-opted by corrupting influences.

At this point the politicians, in this 3rd party have no option but to look to their constituents for support, lest they get voted down at some point. They can go against the party line as long as they have communicated well with the national party members and gain their support. The party would make heavy use of the Internet where several mini cspans would be going on at any given time of day. Communications up and down and plenty of it.

An uncorruptible party. Politicians held accountable. Clean and free elections. Government reform can be achieved. Reforms gained can be maintained year over year.

Check it out. www.republicsentry.com.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

You know, for those that say we should scrap this health bill and start over, I suggest they should forestall their Christmas recess and work through the Holidays, or perhaps they are simply full of hot air.

I have a job. I’ll be working on Christmas eve and the day after Christmas, and if I have undone paperwork even Christmas day. I’m so sick of “professionals” thinking they deserve time off for their “hard” work. Professional and hard work seem these days to be antithetical.

Frankly, I don’t understand why there is such a national holiday as Christmas in the first place. If there truly is a constitutional wall between religion and government then Christmas holidays for government employees should be abolished.

I also don’t see any need for government offices to be closed on Sunday. Where is the justification and constitutionality for that? Why is Sunday, a day of religious observance, honored by government? It makes no sense if we truly believe in separation of religion and government.

Since our schools are partly funded by government they also should not close for any religious reasons.

Those who wish to remove God from our government should insist that God’s name be removed from our money, pledge of allegiance, halls of congress, federal cemeteries with religious symbols, etc.

There should be no tax exemption for religious organizations or charities.

Other than that…Merry Christmas to everyone.

Royal Flush,

I don’t understand why there is such a national holiday as Christmas in the first place. If there truly is a constitutional wall between religion and government then Christmas holidays for government employees should be abolished.

That’s why Christmas was not a national holiday until 1870. Today, it’s the secular rituals of gift giving and decorating trees that are technically observed by the government, not the religious celebration of the Birth of Christ.

Also, God was not a part of the Peldge of Allegiance until 1954. The motto of the USA was E Pluribus Unum until 1956 when Congress changed it to “In God We Trust”.

Unfortunately, social conservatives are intent on eroding the protections of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution, and this trend seems likely to continue if liberals ever lose their majority in Congress.

Of course, Christmas itself may have derived from Sol Invictus, a Roman celebration after Winter Solstice celebrating the return of the Sun.

WP writes; “That’s why Christmas was not a national holiday until 1870. Today, it’s the secular rituals of gift giving and decorating trees that are technically observed by the government, not the religious celebration of the Birth of Christ.”

HO…HO…HO…really, what a lame explanation of CHRISTmas. Makes one wonder who WR believes this CHRIST is in the named national holiday.

If Sen. Nelson happened to be a member of the Republic Sentry Party he probably would not have taken the sweet heart deal for his vote. But, if he did he would assuredly be subjected to an up/down vote by the national party membership. Thus, this term would be his last.

Royal Flush demonstrates the incapacity of those on the Right to distinguish between religion and government. Perhaps this explains why those on the Right are so insistent on pouring billions of tax dollars into those Religious Governments like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They just love theocracies, and hate America’s separation of church and state.

No need to respond to the hyperbole displayed by Mr. Remer’s words above. I just consider the source.

But, you did just respond, Royal Flush. Which only points out the intrinsic contradictory nature of your comments.

2010? Ping - Pong! Out with the old, in with the new, all on the Corporate dole. What a waste of human energy and capital. A failed experienment incessantly repeated es bigtime stupalo. Like que guapo stupalo! IMO.

Otherwise,we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Free Trade = A whining Corpocracy that demands a level (harmonized) playing field.

RF,
Pagan elements have been intertwined with Christmas for almost two thousand years. In addition to those Pagan elements, there have been secular rituals that have been added more recently. Rituals such as decorating trees, exchanging gifts, a Santa that goes ho, ho, ho and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer all have roots outside the Christian tradition. Over the years, many have criticized the growing importance of these influences in our culture coupled with the diminishing importance of things more directly related to Christ’s birth such as attending church/mass on Xmas eve and celebrating the salvation that was brought to the world with His birth. Many of the criticisms have originated with the most fundamentalist Christian groups, one example is the Puritan government of seventeenth century Massachusetts.

I don’t care what any particular person does or doesn’t do for Christmas. Or Hanukkah (which ended two days ago) for that matter considering that I’m half-Jewish. I know that I will attend church with my father on Christmas Eve and I’ll attend my mother’s synagogue this coming Saturday. I’ll also engage in a few of the pagan/secular rituals that have been incorporated into Christmas over the years such as unwrapping gifts placed underneath a decorated evergreen tree and watching a video of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

What you or anyone else does is up to you, just don’t make me follow along against my will or force to contribute tax dollars to it. Also, you don’t need to remind me that the etymology of Christmas is the compounding of the words for Christ’s mass. Also, I know plenty regarding Christ and why he is so important to Christians. The Tanakh promised that the Lord would one day send the world a Savior. That promise was fulfilled when Yeshua died on the cross for all our sins. Prophesy says that Yeshua will ultimately return and restore peace and order to this violent and turbulent world.

Lastly, I know this is a few days too late, but I’m saying it anyway.

Happy Hanukkah!

Loren Steffy, a Houston Chronicle business columnist, wrote an excellent summation of what is going on in HC in DC.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/November-home-sales-soar-74-apf-1426453664.html?x=0 Off subject but how low can they go? I’m thinking not much more, Many places out their are at mid to end 2002 prices before the feeding frenzy started..

Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas to you as well Warped. As for atheists…well, have a nice day.

But, you did just respond, Royal Flush. Which only points out the intrinsic contradictory nature of your comments.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 21, 2009 06:00 PM

LOL…Mr. Remer can’t distinguish between a comment concerning the hyperbole contained in his statement and a response to his statement itself. So sad, but not surprising.

A House Rep from Alabama is changing from Dem to Rep. This rep voted against the House HC bill so it’s likely the Dem’s shut off support for his re-election. A great arse saving plan, IMO.

Just like to point out that it was an independent that killed the public option.

Max,

Really? What were those other forty guys behind him doing?

Royal Flush, your comment to Remer violates WB’s central rule, critique the message, not the messenger. Your comment privileges are suspended.

RF
I am living in the Republic of the Philippines these days. The government is roughly pattered on the US. There is a constitutional right to freedom of religious choice. It means little . I had to,in some legal matters involving an adoption,decline to answer government questions involving my faith.I stated that an American, I was uncomfortable with having to answer a state inquiry regarding my faith. My legal advisors recommended that I just tell them I was Catholic. I did not. I am proud to be an American and they respected it. The adoption went through. To get a drivers license one is asked about religion! School prayer is universal,both public and private. They also suffer from a Moslem insurgency of very long duration and for good reason. For the most part, North America has enjoyed freedom from the religious wars that afflicted Europe for 800 years.It is much better that the state stay entiely devorced from religion. That is not the function of a desireable state and should be left to the individual.
BTW, You might want to google the Treaty of Tripoli. Inthat treaty the US goes on record as NOT being a Christian government. It was ratified by congess and is the law of a very lucky country.

DR
Ah yes. The annual blah, blah session about Christmas . Apparently without any regard of the topic. Your forbearance is astounding. Joyful winter solstice to you and yours.

Dr
The bill that passed the Senate is not what I would have wished. It does represent a major improvment. There are many things in it that were put there by individual Senators. This is case dependant as to whether or not the particular provisions are beneficial or not. As Ried put it, if they did not insert something they were interested in they are “not worth their salt” as a representitive of their constituents.This .perhaps easier access than should,was necessesitated by the arcane,undemocratic rule of the Senate tradition of filibuster. Every pro-reform Senator had veto power. What do you expect?Thats all the Dems plus Lieborman and one other “independant”. I hope Joe lives comfortably with his particular 30 pieces of silver. Work to vote him out. Not the hard working and responsible Democrats that have finally,finally, managed to pass an important piece of social legislation,even with its flaws.If you really want to help, vote the Republicans out. Not One vote for reform. If one or two Rep had been willing to buck their corporate masters and do the right thing we would have a clear public option going into House Senate reconcilliations. Blame the responsible.

Royal Flush writes: “A vote for “anybody” but the incumbent signals defeat and/or stupidity.”

Well, if what you suggest is true. Then, what are(if any) the benefits from participating in the election process? What exactly is the point of free elections if they serve no real purpose or result in no real change?

Instead of making any futile attempts to have any input into our Government’s decision making process. The collective should simply GROW UP and learn to trust these old,experienced hands who know what is best for us all. They are wiser and more intelligent.

And besides, the newly elected may lack the experience and knowledge to have any effect.(forgetting the fact that even one lone Congressman can mean the difference to a Bill passing or not passing)

As a country. As a collective. Let’s all go backwards. Let’s go back to the good old days of Kings with their faithfull Nobles and Lords who can “get things done”. Without wasting time listening to the silly,unwarranted lamentation of the common folk.

Apparently, our ever self-sacrificing leaders seem to have an attitude that Democracy,Capitolism and Liberty combined with open and fair debate is just too slow of a process. We have numerous “emergencies” that require immediate action.

In fact, replacing any long term members of Congress during these “Historical Times” may be too risky. We need to play it safe and stick with the tried and true professionals( Left and Right) who have done an outstanding job thus far.Just look at our current state of affairs.What a team. What a team.

And so,I understand your point of view Royal Flush. I understand completely.

Next to an Ant, an Anteater may look like a God. But next to an Ant Hill. That same Anteater may look like food.

There is great power in numbers.

Merry Christmas

Free Elections? Total lobbying for 09 is something like $3.3B. Now, lobbying is a needed and necessary function. Few would disagree with that. But, when you marry lobbying with large corporations making obscene campaign donations and skirting federal law to do so creates THE major problem with so-called free elections. Could easily be changed by routing all donations through the IRS for accounting and block disbursement to the FEC. This cuts the audit trail for the source of the donations. The FEC would distribute funds to parties based on some scheduling criteria.
Yes, we could achieve free elections but it would take a 3rd party to deliver such a reform as the government/corpocracy will not, can not reform itself. While we are in a reform mode why not abolish/modify Corporate Personhood and Money Is Free Speech law to relieve that corrupting influence and repeal law that should never have been on the books in the first place?