OT: We the people?

Page 2 of 8  


How could I be outvoted if I never voted? 'I' am included in 'We', am I not?

Maybe if 'We' had a chance to vote he would have been. Aren't you making an assumption that the voters in Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire et al. are representative of the country?
Doesn't it upset you that only a few states get to decide the fate of the country? To get a vote I shouldn't be forced to move to Iowa.
Those that don't have the money to stay to the end, lose. I know I'm stating the obvious, but it is still wrong. Why can't all the states vote within a small time frame like the general election? Wouldn't this level the playing field more and give it back to 'We"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or make us like Italy with a hundred parties. Each one with "their" candidate.
If you will not accept the outcome of a democratic process, how can you claim you favor democracy?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never suggested that. You could keep the same number of parties, the difference is everyone gets to vote for their guy.

This democratic process that I favor doesn't always appear very democratic to me.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's democratic enough, if you're a multi-millionaire. I'm starting to slant towards the Brit system, with a 90 day limit on campigning before the election--actually, I started tilting that way years ago, and this frigging two plus year campaign puts the seal on it.
We probably need to stipulate, too, that any candidate who uses more than xx,xxx dollars of his own fortune cannot get money from anywhere else.
The problems we see with the Electoral College are those created by money, not built-in lack of choice, IMO. When it costs more than a quarter billion dollars (this time around, one helluva lot more) to win the Presidency, it's time to cheapen the process in just about every way possible. Sort of like making all Senators, Congressmen and upper level bureaucrats ride in nothing larger than Chevy Impalas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Part of the point being that if the hotshots can't ride in taxpayer supplied limos, they might act a touch more like people instead of bloated plutocrats, not make them easier to assassinate.
AFAIK, only a few o fthe limos are bulletproofed anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But I agree, there should be a way to make the House and Senate critters work for the good of all, rather than this narrow-minded I'll do something for your little group, but I expect you to do something back ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

$100 per year maximum to any candidate(s) or ballot issue or combination of his choice. This means no PACs, corporations, unions, church groups, bar buddies, etc.
"But HOW can I possibly be elected with so little money?!", he wailed. Well the entire campaign process lasts two weeks for the incumbent and four weeks for the challenger.
This means that I have as much access to a candidate as anybody. Oh and understand that the millionaire candidate can donate up to $100 per year to himself if he wants.     grumble,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This makes too much sense to ever be enacted.
How about an intermediate step? Disallow all campaign funding except from individuals. I see no reason that corporations, PACS, unions and other organizations should have any part in the elections. They don't get to vote after all.
Shorten the campaigning to two months for primaries and three months for the general election. And include ALL campaign advertising, including the "issue" ads that seem to sneak by the election reform laws.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Haar wrote:

Who speaks for minorities in all of this? If the only source of campaign funding is individuals and they can only pay a fixed amount then the majority will always have the power--like minded individuals who are in a minority won't have the option of banding together to support candidates who favor their interests.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Imposing the same low limit in those entities as on a natural person would suffice.

I have as much a right to tun an ad for whatever I want as any politician , party, corporation, or PAC. Just not as much money.
Sort of like it being just as illegal for a wealthy man to sleep on a park bench or under a bridge as it is for an indigent.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

This is one of those ideas that sounds good on the surface, but when you look at it in more detail, the end result will be to allocate an even greater amount of power to the main stream media elite crowd since they will be the only people by law allowed to publish "news" about these candidates and their positions. Now, I suppose that is OK if you are one of the "right-thinking" people who agree with the perspectives of Pinch Solzberger, Dan Rather, or Chris Matthews and want to make sure the majority of voters aren't exposed to any other facts or viewpoints that might possibly interfere with their right-thinking conclusions and mess up the election possibilities of their chosen candidates who support those positions. This will assure the election of the "right-thinking" candidates while suppressing the views and opinions of the majority of the citizens since multiple studies have shown that the media hold views significantly left of the mainstream of the population.

Yeah, let's make sure the voters have very little time to delve into details about the person who is going to lead the country for the next 4 years. I spend more time than that deciding what kind of table saw or router to buy -- and those tools aren't going to try to "re-distribute" my income by taking it from me at the point of a gun.

No, what it means is the candidate(s) are going to focus the short amount of time they have on those places with the largest electoral results. This will lessen, not increase candidate access.

Our first amendment grants all citizens the right to assemble and free association as well as to petition the government for redress. As the country has gotten larger than in the early days, the ability for one person to interface with all constituents has become unachievable. PACs, lobby groups, etc, are a means by which citizens with similar grievances or interests can pool their resources and provide a single point of contact with a candidate or government official. I would postulate that for almost any given issue, there is a group that would represent your interests, so rather than grousing that these groups exist, find those that support those interests you hold most dear and join with others who hold those views.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

You can certainly join any group you see fit and to pool your $100 fees. I am sadly not surprised when people advocate a system where vast sums buy access to a candidate. We seem to agree on most points except on what the dollar cap should be. My point is that if it is low enough, then Joe Sixpack has a shot at making a difference. Or at least to feel that he is.
We can boost the cap to perhaps $250 although this is above a lot of budgets. Extend the time limit? OK but understand that elections should be more important than the last minute electioneering (read cramming). Keeping up with current events and your elected politicians between election times is not all that difficult. An hour or so per day with a decent newspaper or the internet should more than suffice.
    jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's Robatoy to you, jo6hn.
burp, r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Again, the issue here is the definition of "decent newspaper"; you have 3 news organizations (Reuters, AP, and AFP) providing every newspaper in the country with the newsfeeds they use -- i.e, 3 organizations (in Great Britain, BBC could be added) are determining the news that's fit to print and how it is presented. It's been pretty obvious that all of those organizations have a specific bent, message, and agenda and they will mold the facts to fit the agenda. In many cases, the only recourse many people have is through the various PACS and other issue-driven organizations that can provide the alternate viewpoint to that of the "right-thinking" people in the media.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the first place, PACs /parties/unions etc. cannot vote. Joe six pack has as many votes as Bill Gates, which is to say one more than all the groups. He needs to exercise his franchise, and under current law has the opportunity to expand his influence by attempting to convince others instead of staying home drinking and reading the paper. All the shot anyone should need.
It's not money buying candidates that troubles me so much as candidates buying votes - with _my_ money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How is it your money? You either gave it away, or had it taxed away. Either way, once it's out of your possession, it's no longer your_money.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Law of the jungle, eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You forgot to add "at the point of a gun."
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Please, you're kidding yourself. All we get is "My health care plan this ..., his health care plan that..." We could get these 'details' mailed to us in a brochure or given in a few 60 minute debates. They don't need to tour around the country like some kind of hippy rock band to give us the 'details' we need.
Did we get all of the 'details' on W? Like the 'details' of his foreign policy?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.