Third Party & Independents Archives

A Democracy NOT Of The People

Upcoming elections and we are hearing of typical cases of voting fraud. Most involve voting machines and absentee ballots. Why, in 2010, any voter would tolerate voting machines or any method of voting that doesn’t provide a way of protecting against voter fraud is well beyond my comprehension ability. I guess it’s the ‘Vegas Syndrome’ where folks so love to pull the handle, watch the lights and hear the bells. Authorities have been alerted to machine voter fraud in Arizona and authorities are going to send in technicians to ‘check it out’. Voting in Arizona does seem like some sort of a gamble as the techs are working for the SEIU.

Interested parties want to shut the people at large out of the political process and out of government.
Best done through voter fraud, through the Corpocracy, through the government withholding a Constitutional right, the Article V Convention, etc. Lots of ways to deprive the people’s input/participation in government. Young people don’t take the time to read newspapers or keep up with the political scene. It is expected that only about 50% of the voting population will go to the polls this November.

Again, in Arizona the 9th Circuit Court has made it illegal for Arizona officials to determine the legality of a person who shows up at the polls to vote. Hence, illegals may now use the elections system to vote against those that would oppose their being in the country illegally. One article summed up with “But eventually, their decision to eliminate the requirement for documentation will affect us all, including the progressives responsible for the decision, because it eliminates almost all authority over anyone, including criminals, thereby undermining the authority of the very court itself. Anarchy is the inevitable result.” But, never-mind, most want pay attention to the article, the 9th circuit or the illegal’s who come to vote.

Joel Hirschhorn, recommends that voting be mandated by government. I would like to agree with that but if the voter pulls the lever just because it’s the law I’m not sure what improvements would accrue. And, we have a hard time enforcing the law with murders and rapists. I can’t imagine trying to deal with people because they didn’t vote.

Funding for midterm elections is something on the order of $800M for the Dems and $600M for the Reps. It is anticipated that near two billion dollars will be spent on midterms, most coming from corporate PACS, some with foreign influence. Certainly, no reason that the election process last so long or that such sums be expended. However, it is a good way to prevent 3rd party’s from gaining traction in the political fray. Same day Primaries and holding the election period to six months would serve to circumvent the money influence to some degree.

Then there is the withholding of Article V Convention. This, to me, is the most egregious form of shunting the public from their government. Blatant beyond all get out. Denying a Constitutional right spelled out there in the Constitution by the Founder’s. And, people seem to be just fine with it! We are being told to stop clinging to our guns, our religion and our Constitution. That such thinking is outmoded and want get us off this planet to some other blue-green blob in the universe. Well, looking at what it’s done for us over the last 30 years I’m real damn sure I don’t want to go into space with these people.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at October 27, 2010 9:13 PM
Comments
Comment #311427

Let me get this straight; $800 mil for Dems and $600 mil for Repubs? And most of it comes from corporation PACS?

So, how much of the $800 mil for dems is from corp PACS? I have been hearing Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and every other liberal say the money is going to the republicans. You mean this was all a lie, and the dems are really getting the money.

On a special note; I heard today that the union rank and file, by 60%, are angry at their union bosses for wasting their money on democrats.

Posted by: Beretta9 at October 27, 2010 10:24 PM
Comment #311465

Baretta9, since your comment is clueless on the facts, I suggest you visit the FEC site, or some watchdog group that tallies such numbers. Conservative charities and PACs are spending close to 50% more on political media advertising than liberal charities and PACs, which has a direct relationship on how much money each group is raising.

Don’t confuse charitable political and PAC advertising dollars with contributions made to the Parties or Party Candidates, that is another whole ball of wax, thanks to the conservative court’s abominable ruling in Citizen’s United v. FEC. And I say that as president of a PAC, myself.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 5:51 AM
Comment #311469

I work for a foreign company (84% state owned) and we have a PAC. It’s funded by the 5,000 U.S. employees that work here. Not sure this is as big a boogey man as it is made out to be.

GE, Westinghouse, Chrysler, lots of good U.S. companies that have been bought by foreign interests over the years.

Posted by: George at October 28, 2010 7:00 AM
Comment #311473

David Remer, thank you for the explanation. Should we now refer to you as president david remer?

Posted by: Beretta9 at October 28, 2010 8:45 AM
Comment #311476

The AFSCME, public employees union is the largest single political contributor to the democratic party. And they are using tax payers money to fund democrats; in turn democrats support the employees unions. It is a never ending cycle.

Federal employees should not be allowed to organized unions, for national security reasons. What we are seeing take place in Europe is the sesult of public employees being unionized.

Posted by: Bill at October 28, 2010 9:45 AM
Comment #311485

George, understatement of the week fer shure. I would assume your Corp. pays for the administrative cost of your PAC. Of the 5k participating do all donations go toward getting candidates elected from just one of the two parties?

Worth looking at a PAC as to controversies, big donors and how they allocate donations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

PAC’s came into existence in 1944 thru a union organization. Corp’s began PAC’s in the 60’s to fight fire with fire. Congress started their own ‘leadership’ PAC’s in the 80’s to distribute campaign funds to each other

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Political_action_committee

IMO, the wholePAC thing is like ‘children in the sandbox or a ‘fairytale plan’ on how to circumvent democracy or good government.

The Supreme Court recently made it legal for ‘unknown’ donors and certain foreign entities to play in the sandbox.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/outside-groups-spend-millions.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/25/102568/campaign-spending-by-outside-groups.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101701916.html

A number of foreign owned companies lobbied to defeat the Disclose Act which would have limited the number of foreign PACS and make donors known to the public.

http://patdollard.com/2010/10/democrats-have-raised-1-million-from-foreign-affiliated-pacs/

IMO, PAC’s assoc with foreign owned corp’s is like laying a cocked double barrel shotgun on a table in bar - - just a matter of time. I’m a one-man-one-vote kinda guy myself and would like to see donations limited to that given by the people, a check on their IRS tax form, placed into one account managed by the IRS and disbursed to the FEC in block amounts to viable political parties and/or candidates. Of course, real campaign finance reform will never be considered until Corporate Personhood and Money Is Free Speech law is abolished. All spelled out on Republic Sentry’s agenda page.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 28, 2010 11:23 AM
Comment #311490

Bills, only AFSMCE breaks your threshold for harmful political influence?

One watchdog I noted is saying we should expect $4B to be expended on influencing midterms. Does that make sense to you? And, the fact that it’s repeated ever coupla years strongly suggest it is paying off in some degree for those doing the donating.

Also, seems outright voter fraud is on the rise this year. If we lose integrity and confidence in the election process we are done as a country, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 28, 2010 11:50 AM
Comment #311511

Roy said, “A number of foreign owned companies lobbied to defeat the Disclose Act”

The elected representatives of those foreign companies were successful in filibustering the Act and defeating it in the Senate.

Do you really think that illegal immigrants are going to vote in droves? I don’t. Most of them keep a low profile and they really don’t have anything to gain. I think comprehensive immigration reform is something that Obama and the Republicans can come to an agreement on. Don’t you?

Beretta9, 60%? Where did you here that?

I am sure that quite a number of the rank and file are unhappy about the unions becoming little more than rhetorical flunkies of the Democratic Party but, do they really want to give money to Republicans, vote for Republicans, cut their own throats?

I’m not planning on holding my breath till the Republican Party becomes pro union. Collective bargaining may not be at the top of the Republican/tea party list of unconstitutional acts, but it is in the top ten.

Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2010 2:13 PM
Comment #311516

What most people are missing is that even money does not buy the American Vote. True, you can put a lot of misinformation over the air or go totally negative; however, does the money these groups send on the election benefit or hurt their cause?

No, given the track record over the last decade I wonder if $8-12 billion will be enough to teach a Lufe Lesson. For why I’m sure most Americans would agree that $800-1,200 Billion dollars on election advertisement might be extreme, but who is to say it would be wrong to spend a million dollar per citizen in an election cycle?

A long way from the hamburger and fries spent today; nevertheless, only when the Boards and Stockholders of the groups wake up to the fact a politician will take their help and still vote against their pet projects does the average American stand a chance.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 28, 2010 2:50 PM
Comment #311519

Roy-

You can go to Open Secrets and see what any PAC is doing. Our full report is posted on the company Intranet for us insiders.

I’m sure we leverage the PAC expenses somehow but the whole effort isn’t a lot of money. We are a $2B/yr company in North America (U.S. and Canada) and the PAC is around $200k/yr.

We gave 2 to 1 Democrat last year in the House and Senate was split evenly between the parties (plus 1 independent). It has more to do with where our facilities are located than party politics. I think you’ll find, when it comes to foreign owned companies (formerly U.S. owned in our case) “all politics is local.” State Dept. stuff isn’t in play.


Posted by: George at October 28, 2010 3:27 PM
Comment #311522

Baretta9 wrote: “David Remer, thank you for the explanation. Should we now refer to you as president david remer?”

I don’t care what folks call me. Doesn’t change who they are or who I am. I have been working very hard for years now to do something to improve America’s future. That’s all I need to know about who I am. If job titles bother you, don’t use them. Words are just words. Actions will always speak volumes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 4:02 PM
Comment #311526

Roy said: “IMO, the wholePAC thing is like ‘children in the sandbox or a ‘fairytale plan’ on how to circumvent democracy or good government.”

You may not be aware of the unconnected and independent PAC’s, which have no affiliation at all with political parties, and make no donations to political parties or candidates. VOID is that kind of PAC. In addition, VOID does not accept donations from unions, or corporations. VOID only accepts donations from individuals or sole proprietor businesses.

Not all PACs are the same, legally, ethically, or politically. There are a number of PACs seeking only to improve the way America does things, but, even amongst those, VOID is fairly unique, and new.

Lumping all PACs into the same group fails to appreciate their significant group differences. Leadership PACs are associated with Parties and/or Candidates. Connected PACs are associated with larger parent organizations, often charitable, and these days, often the charitable organization is a ruse and circumvention around Leadership PAC restrictions. Then there are the unconnected PACs, which raise their money from direct solicitations to the public, and among these, there are sub-groups depending upon their focus and issue orientation.

PAC’s have gotten a bad reputation of late by the actions of those which are money generating fronts for the Duopoly Party and their candidates. Not all PAC’s reflect the political party interests. Some actually reflect American citizen interests with no ties to any political party or their candidates. IMO, these PACs or more in line with a democracy of, by, and for the people, as opposed to of, by, and for a piece of the federal budget pie or the Parties and their wealthy special interest puppeteers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 4:39 PM
Comment #311530

David,
I agree most PACs do in large educate the American Voter pro or con about the issues; however, I cannot help but wonder if it is in their best interest to do something about the “Swiftboat PACs” who are more interested in misinformation, oppression, and representation of the issue.

And though I realize it is not the job of us to protect the innocence; however, setting by watching those groups become ever aggressive every election I do believe Congress should pass Civil Laws that holds them accountable for the actions they create. Because just as it is wrong to yell fire in a builging, shouldn’t it be wrong to call for certian actions in an election that go directly against Civil Order?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 28, 2010 5:02 PM
Comment #311531

George, PAC’s that contribute to Government official’s Party or reelection campaigns, are unequivocally engaged in an effort to bribe government in their favor. There is absolutely no way around that reality. As much as corporations spend on PR firms to create an altruistic image of their corporation, the reality remains, their objective is profit, and giving away money without a quid pro quo expectation DOES NOT HAPPEN, and would violate their primary objective and raison d’etere. Corporate PACs are NOT philanthropic. Even corporate philanthropy has a Public Relations profit rationale in the tax code and mind of consumers. There is nothing altruistic about corporate PACs, just as there is nothing altruistic about Leadership PAC’s which exist for power, and only power, its acquisition and maintenance.

But, I again, caution against attempts to paint all PACs with the same wide brush. Some are better than others, and some are not based on securing a piece of the government budget and deficit paid for by tax payers, or special legislation that will profit their organization directly to the detriment of all tax payers, present and future.

The idea of corporations achieving historic levels of profits while at the same time increasing spending on lobbyists and PACs to achieve even greater profits, creates a choke point against the free flow of currency throughout the economy, and precisely explains what happened with the onset of the Great Recession brought on by the big investment banks, mortgage and insurance companies, hedge fund organizations, securities rating agencies, etc.

They got Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed under Clinton and proceeded to knock down oversight and check and balance regulatory activities, which brought our financial system to the brink of disaster, devaluing citizen’s assets, savings, and pension plans, forcing TARP to be implemented as a rescue by the tax payer’s dollar, not just this generation’s tax dollars, but, several to follow as well.

These corporate PACs were part and parcel of the cause of this Great Recession, and there is no getting around that fact, empirically, rationally or logically.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment #311532

Henry wrote: “I cannot help but wonder if it is in their best interest to do something about the “Swiftboat PACs” who are more interested in misinformation, oppression, and representation of the issue.”

There is no action which can be taken which does not carry with it, opportunity cost. Swiftboat PAC’s are the opportunity cost of the 1st Amendment. The benefits of the first Amendment outweigh the opportunity costs. The way to deal with Swiftboat type PAC’s, is 1st Amendment sunshine on them by the media and watchdog organizations. I have to hasten to add, however, that the media is rapidly becoming corporate in nature, and therefore, is abandoning its first Amendment mandate to investigation and factual reporting.

That is one of the most profound challenges facing our nation going forward. The internet however, is providing some small measure of compensation, but, a portion of the public is not interested in sifting the internet for truth, facts, and rational assessment. Like I said, there is no human action that can be taken that does not come with attendant opportunity costs. It is one of the few basic laws of the human psychological and sociological universe.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 5:12 PM
Comment #311534

David,
Would that mean a PAC or individual could get the names of the members and start talking trash about them and the affliation with such actions?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 28, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #311535

Henry, Of course. There is no such thing as free political speech if people are not free to trash their representatives. The media, however, has generally been held to a higher, self-imposed standard. A good deal of that standard has been compromised in the name of corporate media profits.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 6:35 PM
Comment #311539

Gee, I wonder how many Media Pundits will be loking for work next election?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 28, 2010 7:14 PM
Comment #311554

There will 5 applicants for every position. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 9:29 PM
Comment #311614

Seems China is coming on fast in the technical arena.

http://www.newsfactor.com/news/China-Claims-Fastest-Supercomputer/story.xhtml?story_id=13000DBLRL9I&full_skip=1

I agree there are some PAC’s that are useful but by and large they create more problems than they are helpful, IMO.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2490/

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 29, 2010 10:18 AM
Comment #311637

http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/watch-list/
What to Watch
Things to watch for during the election:

◦Buses arriving at the polling place (photograph or video the bus and follow if possible)
◦Multiple people being vouched for (does the voucher know the person?) A person who was vouched for cannot vouch for other voters.
◦Election Day Registrations completed with ID’s bearing visa expiration dates / “status check” – this indicates the person is not a citizen.
◦People with more than one ballot.
◦Voter harassment/intimidation – Harassing, impeding or intimidating voters is illegal. Be on the lookout for people standing in front of polling place entrances. Except for officially authorized people, it is illegal to linger within 100 feet of a polling place.
◦People getting assistance voting – are they voting for themselves, or is the helper telling them how to vote?
◦Assisted Living Facilities – Did the resident request an absentee ballot? It’s illegal to give an absentee ballot to someone who did not request one in advance.
◦Spoiled or duplicated ballots improperly handled (fed into machine, not put in the proper envelope, or altered)
Beware of distractions/diversions: When voter fraud is being attempted, there may be a diversion to draw attention away, or someone may attempt to obscure the view of poll challengers by standing in their way. If there is a disruption in the polling place, look around and see what else is happening.

After the polls close (for election workers and official poll challengers):

◦Verify that the number of signatures matches ballot counts
◦Verify that the machine count matches signature counts
◦Verify that all envelopes and ballot transfer cases are sealed and signed by election judges
◦Verify that summary statements are correct and not tampered with before being sealed in their envelopes
◦It is not legal to use ballot receipt counts to prepare official summary statements. Judges must count signatures (MN Statutes 204C.20, 204C.24 and 206.86).
What to do:

◦Take careful notes. Document names, and exact times of incidents.
◦Call the Election Integrity Watch Hotline 1-877-602-WATCH (1-877-602-9282) to report any suspicious activity. If needed, we will forward to the appropriate authorities.
◦Take photos or video of busses arriving at the polls. Follow them if possible, and document times. Email pictures with details to report -at- electionintegritywatch.org.
What Not to Do

◦Unless you are an election judge or officially authorized poll challenger, do not directly challenge voters you believe are ineligible. Instead bring it to the attention of election judges and/or the official poll challengers on site. If you have personal knowledge that a person attempting to vote is ineligible, an election judge will provide you with a challenge form.
◦Do not argue with election judges. They have the final say on what goes on at the polling place. If you are asked to leave, leave the building and move at least 100’ away from the entrance.
◦Do not linger inside or within 100′ of a polling place. When you go to vote, do be observant, but don’t linger.
◦Don’t ask voters for identification or question them about their eligibility. That’s the job of election judges.
◦Do not create a disruption in the polling place.
◦Do not take photos or video inside the polling place unless you are able to capture an act of blatant voter fraud. Under no circumstances should you photograph someone while they are voting or photograph a completed ballot.
◦Do not wear any candidate’s campaign attire, buttons or stickers to the polling place. Don’t bring any signs into or within 100’ of a polling place.
See here if you desire more details about what to do and watch for.
http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/watch-list/what-to-do-and-what-to-watch-for-in-detail/

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 29, 2010 5:55 PM
Comment #311659

Weary Willie,

What? No means of verifying if the programming inside the machine altered the voter’s selections? What a pathetic joke this is, in America. Voting without any accountability for how voter’s voted. Pathetic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2010 8:02 PM
Comment #311663

Does David R. Remer spell DUDE?! NO! But, DUDE! Where are you coming from with that one? I thought we agreed that every voting machine should have a verifiable “hardcopy” of the individual vote, verified by the voter and the process!

I hope I’m not giving you the “Willies” with my logic and common sense. :)


Anyway, my latest post is a third party text and I quoted the source. If you think it’s a pathetic joke you should contact the author. I’m sure they will be less than impressed with your arguement.

Unless it was just sarcasm.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 29, 2010 8:16 PM
Comment #316007


Centrism’s inherent genius is that it is so non-partisan in nature, playing all sides and having no extremes or loyalties to run to under any president. Centrism would be beholdent to the entire voting public because it is not favored nor specifically unfavored by any particular side of an argument. The only way a centrist politician could be condemned as a hypocrite is to say one thing before getting elected and doing the opposite right after – its definition. This type of hypocrisy might even be refreshing from the old style which condemns or praises policies based on who is enforcing it rather than how they would’ve criticized this same policy under a different ruling party. THAT is a deadly, intellectually starving cocktail of partisan loyaties with good old hypocrisy.

http://globefront.com/2010/12/embracing-centrism-the-answer-to-partisan-hypocrisy/

Posted by: Rick K. at December 29, 2010 9:43 AM
Post a comment