A call for political independence and informed voters

[Mike Smash!]

I'm creating this thread because we're heading into a Congressional mid-term election year where alot of people will simply vote blindly for the candidate in the party that their parents have always voted for or without a real grasp on the candidates' real platforms and records or even if they remotely live up to your standards, values and principles.

This thread is a call for all you to be principled, informed voters.

I'm asking you to shuck aside "lesser evil"ism, defeatism, and uninformed voting and really take initiative.

Now this doesn't mean that you have to volunteer or get involved in a political campaign -- though that would be awesome -- I'm asking you to do more than be passive and check off boxes on a ballot on Election Day.

And I'm asking you to look past party labels and right now, grab a piece of paper and jot down the Top Five Issues that are most important to you. Whether it's the war, abortion, immigration, civil liberties, healthcare, foreign policy...etc.

And jot down your ideal stance for each of these Top Five.

Now write a short letter to every candidate that appears on the ballot running for your U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senators and local State Representives and very simply ask them what their stances are on these five issues are. And mention that you'll be showing their responses to everyone you know who's going to be voting.

In your letter, be brief, to the point, polite and don't kiss their ass or bite their head off. If they think that you're undecided, you're more likely to get a response.

And before you groan about what a pain that is, how long does it take you to write a lengthy post? Like ten minutes? That's about the time it would take to type this letter out and make the minor adjustments for each candidate.

And now mail it -- not email it -- to their campaign offices as written in their statements in the voter's pamphlets or on their websites and wait.

Note who writes back and who doesn't and tell your friends, family and neighbors who won't even bother to answer five brief questions to an undecided voter.

Now judge their responses, especially if they give you a bullshit form letter that barely touches on what you asked or if they gave you a short, personal response.

Now go through the responses and vote based on this, plus how much their stances match the ideal ones that you jotted down before. And do not be afraid to vote for a third party or independent (ven if they don't win, a high vote total can pressure the other candidates to adopt their issues and stances if they prove popular enough) or even for a party that you'd never imagined you might be voting for!

Plus, check out great nonpartisan sites like http://www.vote-smart.org and learn where all of the candidates stand on the issues and how they've voted and if they've refused to fill out the Vote-Smart issue position survey, pressure them to do so in your letter!

And be sure to share what you've learned with friends, family and coworkers, especially people who are undecided. Sometimes a simple fact like who bothered to write you back and who snubbed you can make all the difference.

Now we can spend hours on CBR posting and debating, is it really that much work to spend perhaps a grand total of one hour this year being an educated, active and informed citizen and helping your friends and family be better citizens?

Who will pledge to do this along with me?

[pennywisdom]

ZZzzzz...Zzzz....... *huh* What? Are you finished?

Just kidding. I'm down for it. It sounds like a much better idea than simply wandering around the internet, looking for information. If you're running for public office, you should at least care enough to answer my letter, right?

[Mike Smash!]

ZZzzzz...Zzzz....... *huh* What? Are you finished?

Just kidding. I'm down for it. It sounds like a much better idea than simply wandering around the internet, looking for information. If you're running for public office, you should at least care enough to answer my letter, right?That's the general idea.

This is much less work than most people work it up to be.

[Dennis K]

Keep tilting at windmills Mike, I admire your dedication.

[Tridge]

personally, i believe there is no independence in party politricks.
voting, for me, is akin to supporting the foundations that i'm kicking.

[StoneGold]

Screw that noise. I'm sticking to my tried a true method. Hasn't steered me wrong yet.

http://www.free-clipart.net/gallery99/clipart/Hands/Coin_Toss.jpg

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Screw that noise. I'm sticking to my tried a true method. Hasn't steered me wrong yet.

http://www.free-clipart.net/gallery99/clipart/Hands/Coin_Toss.jpg

Lets see......" Heads or Tails for President. Heads for Republican in 2008....Tails for Democrat. " :D

[Mike Smith]

Lets see......" Heads or Tails for President. Heads for Republican in 2008....Tails for Democrat. " :D

Too bad it's one of those new weighted Florida quarters. Looks like Jeb wins.

[gary bolt]

Here in Canada it looks like Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are about to form a new government. I know it goes against the Mike Smash! approach to voting but I was planning to vote for the Liberals (current government) because they are the only party with the numbers to prevent the Conservatives from getting in. Now it looks like the Conservatives are so far ahead in the polls that they will get in no matter what. I must now educate myself about the New Democrat Party and the Green Party because one of them is getting my vote. I place the environment high on my list of things I want my politicians to protect and nurture and so far in this campaign the subject has hardly been mentioned.

[Cephus]

And I'm asking you to look past party labels and right now, grab a piece of paper and jot down the Top Five Issues that are most important to you. Whether it's the war, abortion, immigration, civil liberties, healthcare, foreign policy...etc.

Which would be fine if we could trust any of the politicians running to do more than pay lip service to anything that's important. All you're doing is giving them talking points and the ability to make empty campaign promises that they have no intention of keeping.

So long as politicians are more concerned with being elected than actually doing anything, we're screwed, and with the American short attention span, unless they manage to really screw up something seriously, they're going to keep getting re-elected again and again and again. And they never have to actually do anything.

[Noah Johnson]

Which would be fine if we could trust any of the politicians running to do more than pay lip service to anything that's important. All you're doing is giving them talking points and the ability to make empty campaign promises that they have no intention of keeping.

If you think politics don't make a difference, or are falling for the "both parties are the same" nonsense, try and imagine if the Florida votes had been properly counted and Al Gore had been allowed to assume the presidency that he did, in fact, win. And consequently he had been in power the last five years, and not Bush.

If you don't think this would be a tremendously different country, you haven't been paying any attention at all.

[The Humanist Hero]

If you think politics don't make a difference, or are falling for the "both parties are the same" nonsense, try and imagine if the Florida votes had been properly counted and Al Gore had been allowed to assume the presidency that he did, in fact, win. And consequently he had been in power the last five years, and not Bush.

If you don't think this would be a tremendously different country, you haven't been paying any attention at all.
Exactly. All this talk about there being no difference between the parties is BS. If Gore gets elected there's no useless war and the Republicans don't get to nominate two more conservatives (so far) to the Supreme Court. That's two BIG differences right there.

[Charles RB]

or are falling for the "both parties are the same" nonsense

Over here, they are both the same. They're both right-leaning, they're both incompetent, and they both have track records of screwing the public up the arse.

So balls to "both parties". Next election, I'm voting for the one of the other parties like I did with the last one.

[J Dog]

Sorry. Can't vote now.

If you're running for something in 08, I might help you there 'cause I'll be 18 then.

[Boldido]

Great Idea Mike!!! This is going out in tonights mail.


January 18, 2006

Representative Jim Davis
3315 Henderson Boulevard, Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33609

Re: National Political Awareness Test

Dear Representative Davis:

I am writing to ask why you are not participating in the National Political Awareness Test despite being asked to do so by respected officials on both sides of the aisle, such as Senator John McCain and former Democratic Presidential Candidate and Governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis. Given the current situation in Iraq and a burgeoning in Iran, the increased threat posed to our civil liberties by such legislation as the Patriot Act and the political shift evident on the Supreme Court, now, more than ever, it is important for the electorate to pay attention to the stands and positions taken by our elected officials. As one of your constituents, I urge you to please participate in the NPAT.

I would also appreciate any information your staff can provide on where you stand on the following issues:

Gay Marriage
Troop withdrawal from Iraq
National Sales Tax or Flat Tax referendums
Abortion
Marijuana Legalization
Eminent Domain Abuse

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Sincerely,



Roger J. Breit


Let's see what he says.

[SOGG]

Keep tilting at windmills Mike, I admire your dedication.

I wouldn't say that those are windmills he's tilting at.

[Dennis K]

I wouldn't say that those are windmills he's tilting at.

and I'd say informed voters more than qualifes.

[Adam Crocker]

Here in Canada it looks like Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are about to form a new government. I know it goes against the Mike Smash! approach to voting but I was planning to vote for the Liberals (current government) because they are the only party with the numbers to prevent the Conservatives from getting in. Now it looks like the Conservatives are so far ahead in the polls that they will get in no matter what. I must now educate myself about the New Democrat Party and the Green Party because one of them is getting my vote.

Something I need to add that was overlooked about voting strategically last election is that it really depends on your riding. In my riding, Saskatoon Humboldt, NDP was actually the best choice to vote strategically for last election since they were the main competitor's to the conservative candidate. But the vote was split on the left between the NDP and the Grits the Conservative candidate won. But that's my riding.

In any case I was still planning to vote NDP, will vote NDP, and would have voted NDP in any case.

Exactly. All this talk about there being no difference between the parties is BS. If Gore gets elected there's no useless war and the Republicans don't get to nominate two more conservatives (so far) to the Supreme Court. That's two BIG differences right there.

Maybe, of course I suppose part of the reason for this perception of the two parties in the U.S. is that they don't differ that far on policy otherwise. And in Iraq's case the Dems went along with it completely, only turning on the administration when it seemed politically convenient to do so. A lot of this perception is directly the responsibility of the Democrats for basically showing that they're not much of an opposition party.

[SOGG]

and I'd say informed voters more than qualifes.

Fair enough. But I guess what I was trying to say was that, if people realise how much is at stake, then the informed voter creation process becomes almost viral.

[The Humanist Hero]

And in Iraq's case the Dems went along with it completely, only turning on the administration when it seemed politically convenient to do so. A lot of this perception is directly the responsibility of the Democrats for basically showing that they're not much of an opposition party.
Perhaps so, but had it not been for the Republican in the White House initiating it, there wouldn't have been a war in Iraq.

[Marcus Antonius]

I don't think I'll write letters to the candidates but I'll definitely promise to find out the candidate's positions through reference to Project Vote Smart and other sources of information.

[Alex]

I'm creating this thread because we're heading into a Congressional mid-term election year where alot of people will simply vote blindly for the candidate in the party that their parents have always voted for or without a real grasp on the candidates' real platforms and records or even if they remotely live up to your standards, values and principles.

And yet more people won't vote at all because it's the midterm elections that are notorious for low voter turnout?

[SOGG]

And yet more people won't vote at all because it's the midterm elections that are notorious for low voter turnout?

Then that's exactly what the rock-the-vote types should market it as: Low voter turnout = higher chance that you're making a difference.

[Alex]

Then that's exactly what the rock-the-vote types should market it as: Low voter turnout = higher chance that you're making a difference.
Mike isn't doing rock the vote, rock the vote actually supports the kind of thing he's against, ie, uninformed voting.
Rock the vote type events don't take place during the midterms, because they aren't as sexy, and because college kids find it harder to get laid through rallying against a congressman.
Because congressmen just don't have the same umph a president does.

[SOGG]

Mike isn't doing rock the vote, rock the vote actually supports the kind of thing he's against, ie, uninformed voting.
Rock the vote type events don't take place during the midterms, because they aren't as sexy, and because college kids find it harder to get laid through rallying against a congressman.
Because congressmen just don't have the same umph a president does.

my my. I learn something new every day. That's pretty terrible. I thought that rtv was about getting people to, you know, participate.

[Mike Smash!]

Keep tilting at windmills Mike, I admire your dedication.When simply sending out perhaps four copies of the same short letter is considered a daunting task, something is seriously wrong.

People on here at the very least spend more time bitching about IDENTITY CRISIS than in a simple act to make themselves better citizens and their country a better one.

When asking people to take an hour tops out of their year to be informed and to actually walk all of the big political talk they share on here and see them squirm away from actually backing it up sort of disgusts me.

[StoneGold]

People on here at the very least spend more time bitching about IDENTITY CRISIS than in a simple act to make themselves better citizens and their country a better one.

That's because Dan DiDio is raping my childhood! George Bush isn't raping my childhood. He's raping someone else's. But that someone else is a small Iraqi child, not me!

[Mike Smash!]

If you think politics don't make a difference, or are falling for the "both parties are the same" nonsense, try and imagine if the Florida votes had been properly counted and Al Gore had been allowed to assume the presidency that he did, in fact, win. And consequently he had been in power the last five years, and not Bush.

If you don't think this would be a tremendously different country, you haven't been paying any attention at all.No, I don't think we'd have seen alot of this garbage under Al Gore. Not because Al Gore is that great, but because Bush is that bad.

I doubt that many of the economic, environmental, military or civil liberty policies that Bush has implemented could have been pulled off had Clinton/Gore not help set the stage for them, by rolling back on progressivism themselves with NAFTA, membership in the WTO, Pulling out of Kyoto, lowering fuel efficiency standards, "Don't Ask Don't Tell", The Defense of Marriage Act, sanctions and bombings that killed countless Iraqis and other policies that Bush can use as a springboard for much worse policies.

Could a Republican have pulled off Clinton's welfare reform or in fighting back against gay marriage rights or in helping large corporations at once outsource American jobs and exploit foreign labor in one fell swoop.

Don't tell me that Bush could have taken this as far as he has, if he couldn't point to a Democrat setting the stage for him, allowing him to run even *farther* Right.

Don't get all misty eyed about the idea of a Gore presidency, because it was Al Gore that ran a weak campaign against a man who can't adlib a complete sentence and allowed it to become a close race. It was Al Gore who couldn't win his home state when even Walter Mondale could. It was Al Gore who refused to take the election he won and it was a Democratic Senate that refused to challenge voter fraud in Florida.

It was a Democratic Senate majority when the PATRIOT Act passed in 2001 and could have stopped it but didn't. Don't tell me that a united Democratic Party calling Bush on his lies before the war and demanding real evidence of WDM or ties to Al-Qaeda rather than cheerleading for the invasion as John Kerry did could have stopped this war by opening a real substantive debate instead of one-sided jingoistic rhetoric we got pre-invasion.

I've never said that the Democratic Party and the Republicans are "the same", but that the results sadly, are.

What is the difference, for example, between a gang member who shoots a convenient store clerk as part of an initiation and goes kill-crazy and laughs about it with his friends later and a gang member who does it because he doesn't want to be called a pussy and feels horrible about it later? Do you think the clerk's family cares?

One could say the same of every victim of the USA PATRIOT Act currently being held without legal counsel or charge in Gitmo. Does knowing that spineless Dems felt really bad about supporting the policies that have him rotting in prison as an "enemy combatant" really put his mind at rest?

There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, but not enough of one and many Dem leaders today could have easily been called Republicans thirty years ago and some of these Republicans would have been totally unelectable.

So, please stop putting words in my mouth and start instead making real demands of your elected officials, Democrats included, which is precisely why I started this thread.

[Mike Smash!]

Which would be fine if we could trust any of the politicians running to do more than pay lip service to anything that's important. All you're doing is giving them talking points and the ability to make empty campaign promises that they have no intention of keeping.

So long as politicians are more concerned with being elected than actually doing anything, we're screwed, and with the American short attention span, unless they manage to really screw up something seriously, they're going to keep getting re-elected again and again and again. And they never have to actually do anything.This is why I'm asking you to push them instead of just throwing up your hands and complaining about how hard and futile this is.

It's only hard because people think it is. The more people get involved, the more power people will have. Giving up is exactly what they want you to do.

[Mike Smash!]

Perhaps so, but had it not been for the Republican in the White House initiating it, there wouldn't have been a war in Iraq.Which is making excuses for the Dems now instead of holding their feet to the fire.

And we've been at war with Iraq since 1991 and have bombed the shit on it and imposed sanctions that have killed its people while the cameras were elsewhere.

If the Dems were the genuine opposition party, Bush couldn't have gotten away with a quarter of what he has and would have easily taken both Houses back in 2002, what with the Enron scandals then had they taken up the banner of fighting corporate crime then and now they'd be sailing to victory what with failures in Iraq, the Downing Street Memo, the Valerie Plame leak, illegal domestic spying, the fuck up with Katrina and countless others.

Reality is kicking Bush's ass right now and the Democrats are playing dead on the sidelines and hoping to win by default instead of offering an alternative vision and showing any leadership.

But this thread isn't really about ideology or even policies, it's about informing voters and empowering them, regardless of political affiliation or ideology.

I want informed conservatives as well as liberals, because the smarter we are, the harder it is for the bastards to lie to us.

[Mike Smash!]

And yet more people won't vote at all because it's the midterm elections that are notorious for low voter turnout?But an exciting election with a real choice of multiples candidates doesn't make that a reality all the time.

Remember that the 1998 election that made Jesse Ventura governor of Minnesota got a higher turn out in that state than the 1996 Presidential election between Dole and Clinton.

[Mike Smash!]

I don't think I'll write letters to the candidates but I'll definitely promise to find out the candidate's positions through reference to Project Vote Smart and other sources of information.Marcus, I bet you that you've spent more time than it would take to write these letters writing about various comics on other boards since you posted this.

It takes ten minutes and you can simply use the same letter twice, if you like.

Don't be lazy, please.

[Mike Smash!]

Great Idea Mike!!! This is going out in tonights mail.


January 18, 2006

Representative Jim Davis
3315 Henderson Boulevard, Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33609

Re: National Political Awareness Test

Dear Representative Davis:

I am writing to ask why you are not participating in the National Political Awareness Test despite being asked to do so by respected officials on both sides of the aisle, such as Senator John McCain and former Democratic Presidential Candidate and Governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis. Given the current situation in Iraq and a burgeoning in Iran, the increased threat posed to our civil liberties by such legislation as the Patriot Act and the political shift evident on the Supreme Court, now, more than ever, it is important for the electorate to pay attention to the stands and positions taken by our elected officials. As one of your constituents, I urge you to please participate in the NPAT.

I would also appreciate any information your staff can provide on where you stand on the following issues:

Gay Marriage
Troop withdrawal from Iraq
National Sales Tax or Flat Tax referendums
Abortion
Marijuana Legalization
Eminent Domain Abuse

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Sincerely,



Roger J. Breit


Let's see what he says.Great job, 'Dido!

See how little effort this took? Not much.

And make sure that you remember to send it to all of the Congressman's opponents once they announce their candidacy. And an excellent list of issues and alot of them are ones that alot of candidates would try to dodge if you just follow their own websites or mainstream media coverage.

Report back if you get any word from the Congressman or his opponents!

[leigh_ann1982]

The only thing preventing actual democracy from taking place in this country is the belief that it's not possible. What Mike's proposing isn't that radical. A country where people make informed decisions about their political leaders, where people vote against a system that's not working for them instead of supporting it blindly, doesn't have to some pipe dream, that's the way it's supposed to be. Not informing yourself, not voting, is what's propping this establishment up, because stupid, lazy subjects are much easier to control than ones who are noisily clamouring for change.

Change begins with an informed proletariate; our power is in our numbers. And with only 10-12% of the population currently turning out to vote, we have the power to affect real change if we can only organize and inform people and galvanize them to come out in droves and vote. If all the registered voters who didn't bother voting in the last election and all those disgusted with the two party system took the time to fill out an absentee ballot and actually voted their consciences instead whining and nay-saying, we could've had a landslide victory.

Really, there's no excuse for not being informed. Most people probably spent more time reading consumer guides before their last electronics purchase than they did considering who would be leading our country. If you refuse to arm yourself with information or even execise your right to vote, you don't have much license to bitch when you don't get what you want.

[Noah Johnson]

If all the registered voters who didn't bother voting in the last election and all those disgusted with the two party system took the time to fill out an absentee ballot and actually voted their consciences instead whining and nay-saying, we could've had a landslide victory.

With respect, if all the non-voters in the country jumped up and down on the San Andreas fault at once, California would slide into the sea. If all the non-voters in the country were piled on top of each other, the top guy could headbutt the moon. If all the non-voters in the country formed an enormous daisy chain and achieved simultaneous orgasm, the resultant surge of blue orgone energy would reverse global warming and raise Atlantis.

Politics has consequences in the real world. Basing political choices on self-congratulatory hypothetical scenarios is... well, it's what the Bush administration does, and we can see how well that works.

[Cephus]

If you think politics don't make a difference, or are falling for the "both parties are the same" nonsense, try and imagine if the Florida votes had been properly counted and Al Gore had been allowed to assume the presidency that he did, in fact, win. And consequently he had been in power the last five years, and not Bush.

If you don't think this would be a tremendously different country, you haven't been paying any attention at all.

It might have been different, but I really don't see it being all that much better off. Bush is a moron. So is Gore. Bush probably is a bigger moron, granted, but neither of them represents my interests at all.

I'd rather have Charlie the Tuna running the country.

[Cephus]

This is why I'm asking you to push them instead of just throwing up your hands and complaining about how hard and futile this is.

It's only hard because people think it is. The more people get involved, the more power people will have. Giving up is exactly what they want you to do.

Unfortunately, that's wishful thinking. Politicians don't really care what the common man thinks, they are bought and paid for by special interests who give them millions of dollars for their campaigns, and like it or not, the only thing most voters care about is a pretty face on TV and sound bites. At the moment, it is futile because you're not going to get the majority of Americans, or even a tiny minority, to get out of their chairs, turn off the TV and think for themselves. Americans have been mis-educated to be cattle by the political parties who know that's exactly what they need: mindless sheep who do whatever they are told by the boob tube.

It's an admirable idea, but it's futile. We're going to need a revolution in the way we, as Americans, think and that's not going to be happening any time soon.

[Adam Crocker]

Perhaps so, but had it not been for the Republican in the White House initiating it, there wouldn't have been a war in Iraq.

Perhaps, but what does that tell me about the major opposition party when it can only prevent a disasterous and poorly planned war unless they were somehow in power.

But they weren't and they went along with it. Raising the possibility of Gore being in the White House strikes me as pretty moot considering that they still allowed it to happen. And the Dems only turned on the administration when it was convenient to do so. That tells me that the politicians in the party and its upper echelons are a bunch of spineless bottom feeders afraid to actually take a stand on something. Why do they deserve anyone's vote?


Basing political choices on self-congratulatory hypothetical scenarios is... well, it's what the Bush administration does, and we can see how well that works.

And how is Mike's point in anyway similar to either the scenarios you offered or those of the Bush administration? People were giving reasons why Bush's claims don't actually work, can you give a reason why Mike's don't? Particularly when the problem at hand he is trying to address is the lack of active and informed voters? The Democrats basically lost the last two Presidential Elections because they couldn't motivate enough people to vote for them. And as near as I can tell far too many people don't vote because they feel there is a lack of acceptable choices among the big two and won't vote for a third option.

Unfortunately, that's wishful thinking. Politicians don't really care what the common man thinks, they are bought and paid for by special interests who give them millions of dollars for their campaigns...

I believe that the point he has been making in this thread is that this is percisely the case because voters aren't really active, do not vote or vote passively. Thus the two main parties feel their place is assured and can afford to ignore voters.

(This can also apply to other forms of civil political action as well.)

...and like it or not, the only thing most voters care about is a pretty face on TV and sound bites. At the moment, it is futile because you're not going to get the majority of Americans...

At the moment yes. But that's expecting such change to be immediate. Yes that isn't going to happen realistically, then again I haven't seen Mike promising that. He's merely said that if more people would vote politicians would be more accountable, particularly if they voted for options outside the big two.

Moreover, only way a revolution in the way Americans think about voting (or political activity in general) is by talking to more and more people about voting, showing them alternatives, and getting them to approach the issue differently until you get some momentum going. And Mike's trying to do his part via this thread and his work as part of the Seattle Green Party.

[The Humanist Hero]

Perhaps, but what does that tell me about the major opposition party when it can only prevent a disasterous and poorly planned war unless they were somehow in power.

But they weren't and they went along with it. Raising the possibility of Gore being in the White House strikes me as pretty moot considering the reality. And the Dems only turned on the administration when it was convenient to do so. That tells me that the politicians in the party and its upper echelons are a bunch of spineless bottom feeders afraid to actually take a stand on something. Why do they deserve anyone's vote?
While what you said is true, that doesn't disprove my original contention, that there are major differences between the two parties. Now, you and others may not care that Bush got elected and is packing the Supreme Court with conservatives, but I do. That has a great chance of impacting my life and the lives of the people I care about. And that wouldn't have happened had Bush not won.

The same can be said for the war, though I am much less concerned about that now than I was a year and a half ago. After all, if the people who are being forced to go over to the shooting gallery that is Iraq and give up their lives for nebulous political goals saw no problem with voting for the man who was sending them, so be it. I guess that's their problem.

It's all well and good to advocate for more democracy and more political parties, but meanwhile, its business in usual in Washington D.C. and for someone who's liberal, like me, there is no other choice but to vote for the Democrats (as imperfect as they may be) since they are the only party who has any chance of stopping the conservatives from getting their way.

[Shellhead]

It was a Democratic Senate majority when the PATRIOT Act passed in 2001 and could have stopped it but didn't. Don't tell me that a united Democratic Party calling Bush on his lies before the war and demanding real evidence of WDM or ties to Al-Qaeda rather than cheerleading for the invasion as John Kerry did could have stopped this war by opening a real substantive debate instead of one-sided jingoistic rhetoric we got pre-invasion.


My memories of late 2001 are different than yours, apparently, because at that time, it seemed like a lot of people who are normally moderates were suddenly in the grips of a patriotic fervor that demanded security and vengeance. Remember the flag-wavers on the freeway overpasses? Remember the people stocking up on gas masks and duct tape? Remember that first month after 9/11 when so many people were afraid to even laugh?

A united Democratic party calling Bush on his lies before the war would have taken great risks with the voters, especially in a mid-term election year when all the House seats are up for grabs. Just because you might have rejoiced to see one of the two major parties destroyed doesn't mean that works as an incentive for their mass political suicide. Sure, we all have 20-20 hindsight today, but in 2001 and 2002, the average American was angry and afraid, and anybody who stood in the way of that would pay a price.

[berk]

Here in Canada it looks like Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are about to form a new government. I know it goes against the Mike Smash! approach to voting but I was planning to vote for the Liberals (current government) because they are the only party with the numbers to prevent the Conservatives from getting in. Now it looks like the Conservatives are so far ahead in the polls that they will get in no matter what. I must now educate myself about the New Democrat Party and the Green Party because one of them is getting my vote. I place the environment high on my list of things I want my politicians to protect and nurture and so far in this campaign the subject has hardly been mentioned. I had been considering voting Green but after doing a little research I've bcome very disillusioned with the way the party is run. In many ways they don't seem to be Green in much other than in name. So I'll be voting NDP again.

I don't see much hope for Canada's future right now: both of the main two parties are right wing sycophants of American and corporate power, the Cons openly so, and the Liberals in a behind the scenes manner. And the names we're seeing bandied about as possible successors to Martin as Liberal leader are very scary - John Manley and Michael Ignatieff, each of whom is solidly behind the Bush agenda. Canadian voters aren't left with much of achoice unless the NDP can somehow break out of its "3rd party" status and convince the public at large it's a serious alternative. But it's run a fairly inept campaign IMO, failing to demonstrate how it's different from both the Grits and the Tories, instead falling into the Tory trap of emphasizing Liberal corruption.

[Mike Smash!]

Unfortunately, that's wishful thinking. Politicians don't really care what the common man thinks, they are bought and paid for by special interests who give them millions of dollars for their campaigns, and like it or not, the only thing most voters care about is a pretty face on TV and sound bites. At the moment, it is futile because you're not going to get the majority of Americans, or even a tiny minority, to get out of their chairs, turn off the TV and think for themselves. Americans have been mis-educated to be cattle by the political parties who know that's exactly what they need: mindless sheep who do whatever they are told by the boob tube.

It's an admirable idea, but it's futile. We're going to need a revolution in the way we, as Americans, think and that's not going to be happening any time soon.This is more defeatism. We can move politicians, but it means getting off our asses and holding them accountable.

The only thing that overrule organized money is organized people. What bothers me most is that you accept the reality of the situation but do nothing about it and rationalize it as futile.

We do have power, we're just not using it. It's like a baby circus elephant. At a very young age, it has a heavy chain tied to its leg on a stake. Naturally, it fights like hell to escape for a while, pulling as hard as it can before giving up. It's made to believe its weak and simply stops trying. As an adult, they can simply put a plain rope around it's leg and it's been conditioned to not even try, because it's been made to believe that it can't.

People can beat big money, but it means getting off their asses, to stop bitching and moaning about hard work or futility and just do the work to fix our democracy.

[Mike Smash!]

My memories of late 2001 are different than yours, apparently, because at that time, it seemed like a lot of people who are normally moderates were suddenly in the grips of a patriotic fervor that demanded security and vengeance. Remember the flag-wavers on the freeway overpasses? Remember the people stocking up on gas masks and duct tape? Remember that first month after 9/11 when so many people were afraid to even laugh?

A united Democratic party calling Bush on his lies before the war would have taken great risks with the voters, especially in a mid-term election year when all the House seats are up for grabs. Just because you might have rejoiced to see one of the two major parties destroyed doesn't mean that works as an incentive for their mass political suicide. Sure, we all have 20-20 hindsight today, but in 2001 and 2002, the average American was angry and afraid, and anybody who stood in the way of that would pay a price.If a party that claims to represent civil liberties, working people and social justice refuses to fight when it's politically dangerous to, they have no right to bitch when playing dead or playing along leaves them in the situation we're in now.

Patriotic outpours and political unity doesn't desolve the DNC's responsibility as an opposition party to make sure that in the pursuit of justice that we ourselves do not act unjustly.

I'm sorry, but "C'mon...everyone was doing it and they'd have called me a pussy if I hadn't joined in" just doesn't fly with me, especially with so many of these Dems in such gerrymandered districts that it's nigh impossible for many of them to lose. Historically, it's times like post-9/11 that many of history's worst monsters grab power to little resistance.

It's at times that are most dangerous that we must stiffen our spine the most. Being a fair weather civil libertarian and supporter of the Constitution means just about nothing.

[Mike Smash!]

While what you said is true, that doesn't disprove my original contention, that there are major differences between the two parties. Now, you and others may not care that Bush got elected and is packing the Supreme Court with conservatives, but I do. That has a great chance of impacting my life and the lives of the people I care about. And that wouldn't have happened had Bush not won.
And the Democrats aren't doing anything to stop those conservative justices from taking the bench. Diane Feinstein already announced that they weren't going to bother with a fillibuster for Alito. And considering that both Kerry and Gore voted to confirm Scalia and Thomas, why should we believe their Supreme Court fearmongering.

Every election they tell us that if we don't vote for them, the worst case scenario will come about and the GOP will put people on the Supreme Court. And then when the GOP does win, they do little to nothing to stop that worst case scenario that they practically screamed about before.

There are differences between the parties and aside from a small handful on either side of the aisle, they aren't nearly different enough, apart from a lot of the rhetoric.

The DNC today would have been the RNC of yesteryear and the RNC of today would have been unfathomable a few decades ago.

Progressives lose by voting for the lesser evil and giving them permission to move farther Right, while the Republicans -- always labeling even the worst of Democrats as "far Left" -- have the freedom to move even farther Right to contrast them.

The same can be said for the war, though I am much less concerned about that now than I was a year and a half ago. After all, if the people who are being forced to go over to the shooting gallery that is Iraq and give up their lives for nebulous political goals saw no problem with voting for the man who was sending them, so be it. I guess that's their problem.This is bullshit. No one deserves to die in this war, regardless of political affiliation, not to mention innocent Iraqis that are dying over there.

I'm disgusted with your "they voted for Bush, so fuck 'em if they die" attitude. They're human beings too.

It's all well and good to advocate for more democracy and more political parties, but meanwhile, its business in usual in Washington D.C. and for someone who's liberal, like me, there is no other choice but to vote for the Democrats (as imperfect as they may be) since they are the only party who has any chance of stopping the conservatives from getting their way.But they don't win and they don't stop the conservatives. They've been slowly losing House, Senate and Governorships since 1994.

And you have plenty of choice. Because when you tell them that they have your vote and support without conditions, do you honestly think they'll ever get any better?

[Tadhg Adams]

Good luck Mike, apathy is probably the hardest thing to combat. I don't really need to write a letter since I've already spoken to my congressman multiple times and already know I'll be voting for him.

[Mike Smash!]

On a side note, it wasn't my goal to turn this isn't a partisan battle. This was about empowering voters and giving them the initiative to educate themselves.

I want conservatives to do this as well. Remember that to a lot of people, the Republicans are the lesser evil and many of them have put up with a lot of shit or are simply misinformed on Bush's stances.

In many polls, many voters who said they were voting for Bush assumed that he had the opposite stances on many issues like drilling for Oil in Alaska that he actually had.

This education is for them too. Because I believe that if you lean liberal and you like the war in Iraq, like the PATRIOT Act, like CAFTA than go right ahead and vote for Democrats who supported them. Otherwise support Democrats, Greens, Libertarians or even Republicans that made the right choices and hey, do a minimum of research that requires so much less than you're already giving CBR in this thread alone and start demanding your officials do their job, because as far as they're concerned silence in consent.

But I've seen far too many instances of Congressmen or State Reps changing their vote after an outpour of anger or support for a particular issue.

[Mike Smash!]

Good luck Mike, apathy is probably the hardest thing to combat. I don't really need to write a letter since I've already spoken to my congressman multiple times and already know I'll be voting for him.Good! Talking to them is even better!

Don't forget to contact your State Reps as well, because so much that affects our lives is done at the state level that most people just don't pay attention to.

[The Humanist Hero]

I'm disgusted with your "they voted for Bush, so fuck 'em if they die" attitude. They're human beings too.
I couldn't care less if you're disgusted or not. They had a choice in the last election. If they were against the war they could have voted against the person that started it. But they didn't. Nor is there any kind of protest coming from any branch of the military. Just a few people here or there who make a stand, but the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq want to be there. What good does railing at Bush about dead soldiers do when the people who are dying want to be there?

And, as I said before, while you're spending your time trying to turn this into a more progressive society, the Republicans are doing a far better job of pulling it in the opposite direction. The Green party can't even be elected to one statewide office; meanwhile, Bush just keeps making appointments to the Supreme Court that will keep handing down conservative rulings for decades. You say the Democrats don't do enough to stop him. Well, the Green party sure as hell isn't.

Its easy to point out the flaws in the Democratic party. How about providing a viable alternative? And a party that has ZERO seats in either chamber of Congress and absolutely no say in what goes on in Washington is hardly a viable alternative.

[Tadhg Adams]

I couldn't care less if you're disgusted or not. They had a choice in the last election. If they were against the war they could have voted against the person that started it. But they didn't. Nor is there any kind of protest coming from any branch of the military. Just a few people here or there who make a stand, but the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq want to be there. What good does railing at Bush about dead soldiers do when the people who are dying want to be there?




Wow. That's impressively presumptious.

[The Humanist Hero]

Wow. That's impressively presumptious.
In what way? Nothing I read indicates to me that the military has a problem with the war. In fact, when push comes to shove, the war is nowhere near as unpopular as it should be, either among the military or the general population.

[Charles RB]

the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq want to be there.

The vast majority of the American army want to be away in a foreign country where people are trying to kill them? You have to be taking the piss.

You say the Democrats don't do enough to stop him. Well, the Green party sure as hell isn't.

Wow, the less-powerful third party isn't able to do enough because it hasn't enough seats. I bet that totally excuses that the most powerful opposition party, which is actually in a position to heavily oppose the Conservatives, isn't doing enough.

Oh wait. No it doesn't.

Its easy to point out the flaws in the Democratic party. How about providing a viable alternative? And a party that has ZERO seats in either chamber of Congress and absolutely no say in what goes on in Washington is hardly a viable alternative.

OK, there is this amazing thing called "voting". In it, you vote for a politician who is a member of a party and if enough people vote for members of that party, they get many seats.

So, yes, the Greens are a viable alternative because if enough people vote for them, they get seats. Just like how the Democrats do it. Personally, I don't get the logic that says "this party doesn't get enough votes, so I shouldn't vote for it but instead should vote for the party which gets lots of votes". Other way round, surely?

[MatthewC]

Plus, check out great nonpartisan sites like http://www.vote-smart.org and learn where all of the candidates stand on the issues and how they've voted and if they've refused to fill out the Vote-Smart issue position survey, pressure them to do so in your letter!

According to this site, my representatives all favor keeping funding the same or increasing funding for just about everything, while simultaneously reducing most taxes and keeping the rest as-is.

The apparent contradiction... not explained. And these are Republicans, supposedly the party of small government.

I could blame politicians, but it's really the voters who are to blame. Because that's what the people want to hear, whether it makes sense or not.

[SOGG]

I'm thinking that this is a comfort level issue. I apologise in advance for any people that might feelinsulted by this.

Societies progress through various stages of kleptocracy. From chiefs to presidents and whatnot. In each stage, there is redistribution of common wealth.

Good chiefs (from a societal perspective) redistribute this wealth almost evenly. Bad chiefs turn into robber barons. What kept robber baron behaviour in check was the threat of revolution. And what usually caused this was unfair distribution of communal wealth.

Nowadays, it's more like the perception of wealth distribution. IMHO, exacerbated by credit cards. Need to live like a rock star? Charge it. Although there exists a true amount of completely dispossessed people, they are too few and powerless to instigate meaningful revolution. The fact that most of them are in jail helps too. Wealth trickles down just enough to
keep us, as Vic Sszass would say, 'like housepets'.

I clued into the other half of USAmerican politics via Mike Smash and saw politicians that gave me hope for the world. It's hard to say more without jeopardising my stay in this country.

Listen to Nader's speech to Emory. Read Kucinich's website.

You guys are so lucky to even have people like this. People who aren't looking for their turn as the top guy.

There are people in the world who have to dodge bullets to vote. There are people who KNOW their vote won't count, but do it anyway because they "want the system to know that they've tried it their way.".

I would kill to be able to participate in a political climate like the USs' bullet free one.

Keep it up, Mike. You're not talking into air.

[spoon_jenkins]

Note who writes back and who doesn't and tell your friends, family and neighbors who won't even bother to answer five brief questions to an undecided voter.

Now judge their responses, especially if they give you a bullshit form letter that barely touches on what you asked or if they gave you a short, personal response.

I think how you gauge response is a test that's biased in favor of third-party candidates. I do think, though, that using the NPAT at vote-smart.org is a good recommendation for evaluating candidates though.

Why do I think the response test is biased and not necessarily a good way to compare candidates (especially third party candidates)? Well, let's look at my district. My Congressman (Frank Pallone) received 153,981 votes in 2004 to win. By contrast, the best showing by a third party candidate in 2004 in my district was Libertarian Virginia Flynn with 2,829 votes. Taking votes as a rough proxy for supporters, that would mean that Democrat Pallone has more than 50 times as many supporters as the most popular third party candidate. Thus, one may expect the Democrat to receive roughly 50 times as much correspondence as the Libertarian. In fact, it's probably an even greater disparity, because as an incumbent, Pallone probably also gets a lot of correspondence from non-Democrat constituents.

So if Democrat Pallone sends a less detailed response than Libertarian Flynn, it could be grossly inaccurate to take this as evidence that Flynn cares more about the public than Pallone. If we assume that Pallone and Flynn spend the same total amount of time communicating with partisan supporters, then based on votes as a proxy for supporters, Pallone would only be able to dedicate less than 2% of the time to each Democratic supporter that Flynn would have for each Libertarian supporter.

By all means, people should be engage and contact the campaigns. I just want to point out this big methodological flaw that may inaccurate portray third party candidates in a relatively better light.

[Mike Smash!]

I think how you gauge response is a test that's biased in favor of third-party candidates. I do think, though, that using the NPAT at vote-smart.org is a good recommendation for evaluating candidates though.

Why do I think the response test is biased and not necessarily a good way to compare candidates (especially third party candidates)? Well, let's look at my district. My Congressman (Frank Pallone) received 153,981 votes in 2004 to win. By contrast, the best showing by a third party candidate in 2004 in my district was Libertarian Virginia Flynn with 2,829 votes. Taking votes as a rough proxy for supporters, that would mean that Democrat Pallone has more than 50 times as many supporters as the most popular third party candidate. Thus, one may expect the Democrat to receive roughly 50 times as much correspondence as the Libertarian. In fact, it's probably an even greater disparity, because as an incumbent, Pallone probably also gets a lot of correspondence from non-Democrat constituents.

So if Democrat Pallone sends a less detailed response than Libertarian Flynn, it could be grossly inaccurate to take this as evidence that Flynn cares more about the public than Pallone. If we assume that Pallone and Flynn spend the same total amount of time communicating with partisan supporters, then based on votes as a proxy for supporters, Pallone would only be able to dedicate less than 2% of the time to each Democratic supporter that Flynn would have for each Libertarian supporter.

By all means, people should be engage and contact the campaigns. I just want to point out this big methodological flaw that may inaccurate portray third party candidates in a relatively better light.First of all, ideological support can't accurately be based on votes, since alot of people go the lesser evil route or don't even hear about the third party guy or figure, he can't win, so why bother (a self-fulfilling prophecy).

And this wasn't a scheme to make you guys vote third party -- though I'd be happy if you did. My goal was to make people much more informed and demanding citizens and seeing who even bothers to write you back.

We had a four way race for Mayor in my city last year (two Republicans, a Democrat and a Libertarian, all on the city council). Only one of them bothered to write me back to my four simple questions and it wasn't the Libertarian, it was the Democrat.

The candidate's campaign manager not only gave me a brief letter about where the candidate stood, but asked me if I'd like to set up an appointment to meet with the candidate and get more detailed answers personally.

I didn't find the time to take them up on that, but it impressed me a great deal and the people that I spoke to about it. I think this simple story even influenced the votes of a few people I knew, as well.

This is about making us all better, active and informed citizens, which in turn gives us better and more responsive and accountable public officials, which of course is what this country was built on.

[Mike Smash!]

I couldn't care less if you're disgusted or not. They had a choice in the last election. If they were against the war they could have voted against the person that started it. But they didn't. Nor is there any kind of protest coming from any branch of the military. Just a few people here or there who make a stand, but the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq want to be there. What good does railing at Bush about dead soldiers do when the people who are dying want to be there?Alot of those troops and their families want to come home and end the war. Alot of them didn't vote for Bush.

And again, no one deserves to die in a war, no matter how much I loathe their politics.

And, as I said before, while you're spending your time trying to turn this into a more progressive society, the Republicans are doing a far better job of pulling it in the opposite direction. The Green party can't even be elected to one statewide office; meanwhile, Bush just keeps making appointments to the Supreme Court that will keep handing down conservative rulings for decades. You say the Democrats don't do enough to stop him. Well, the Green party sure as hell isn't.Bush is able to pull as far as he does because the Dems aren't pulling back and in their laziness and capitulation, they're making it harder and harder to fight back in the future.

I've pointed out how the Democrats could have stopped his election, could have fought him early, could have challenged him on the war, the PATRIOT Act and offered an alternative vision for America but didn't.

And remember that the Greens are fighting in a political system where the rules are written against us. Where we have to convince people who already agree with us completely to vote for us, where we have to clear unfair hurdles for ballots access, access to the media and debate participation. In a system where the Dems and Republicans have built in donors and voting bases and we're starting from scratch. In a system where we don't have Proportional Representation or Instant Run Off Voting that would break the glass ceilings for alternative parties. In a system where both major parties will team up to try to gerrymander us out, when we DO win... We typically have to work twice as hard for half as much.

And to blame us, who have considerably less power than the Democrats cannot make the changes we're willing and ready to, while the Dems are able, but not willing.

Its easy to point out the flaws in the Democratic party. How about providing a viable alternative? And a party that has ZERO seats in either chamber of Congress and absolutely no say in what goes on in Washington is hardly a viable alternative.You're asking for instant gratification, us popping into existance with big money and name recognition and "heriditary voters" and seats in Congress.

Well, it's not gonna happen. But it can, if you get us into office. If you force real election reform that would break up a two party duopoly.

And it's not just flaws with the Dems, it's that -- aside from a handful of exceptions -- they just plain suck. We are providing a viable alternative, but the only way we'll get into office is if people who believe in our vision of America vote us into office -- and there are over 227 elected Greens across teh country, including Mayors, School Board Presidents and a State Rep.

If we had now what the Democrats have, I guarantee we'd do a helluva lot more with it, instead of being the "We're Not the Republican Party" Party, we have a clear vision for where we want to see this country, and we can start pushing for it if we get into office.

But to say "I won't vote for you because not many people vote for you" isn't an excuse and it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Like what we have to say, then vote for us and get other people to vote for us.

Hell, we almost won Mayor of San Fransisco in 2003 and only lost by 6%. We even just won a Mayorship in Marfa, Texas and some School Board spots in Nebraska, in places where Democrats have historically lost again and again.

[spoon_jenkins]

First of all, ideological support can't accurately be based on votes, since alot of people go the lesser evil route or don't even hear about the third party guy or figure, he can't win, so why bother (a self-fulfilling prophecy).
I think you totally miss the purpose of my reference to support, since the above statement you made sort of bolsters my point. I'm saying that the level of actual active support that a candidate has is relevant to the volume of mail he/she will get. Thus, the proxy that I chose is good. It's not terribly relevant to mail contacts if a voter is really ideologically closer to a Green than a Democrat but doesn't even realize it. If said voter incorrectly (for the sake of argument) believes the Democrat is his guy and votes for him, then the Democrat is the guy he's likely to write to as his guy.

And this wasn't a scheme to make you guys vote third party -- though I'd be happy if you did. My goal was to make people much more informed and demanding citizens and seeing who even bothers to write you back.

We had a four way race for Mayor in my city last year (two Republicans, a Democrat and a Libertarian, all on the city council). Only one of them bothered to write me back to my four simple questions and it wasn't the Libertarian, it was the Democrat.

The candidate's campaign manager not only gave me a brief letter about where the candidate stood, but asked me if I'd like to set up an appointment to meet with the candidate and get more detailed answers personally.

I didn't find the time to take them up on that, but it impressed me a great deal and the people that I spoke to about it. I think this simple story even influenced the votes of a few people I knew, as well.

This is about making us all better, active and informed citizens, which in turn gives us better and more responsive and accountable public officials, which of course is what this country was built on.
I do think it's a good idea to write your Congressman, read about their record, be engaged in the campaign, etc. I don't want to dissuade any from doing that.

I just question the wisdom of weigh the length/nature of a personal response very heavily in one's vote choice (especially if you can ascertain issue positions otherwise). Because, as I've demonstrated, a third party candidate may have a huge amount of more free time (because they receive less mail, etc.), a more detailed response from a third party candidate very likely shows merely than the third party candidate has more free time on his/her hands, not that he/she is more caring.

[Mike Smash!]

I think you totally miss the purpose of my reference to support, since the above statement you made sort of bolsters my point. I'm saying that the level of actual active support that a candidate has is relevant to the volume of mail he/she will get. Thus, the proxy that I chose is good. It's not terribly relevant to mail contacts if a voter is really ideologically closer to a Green than a Democrat but doesn't even realize it. If said voter incorrectly (for the sake of argument) believes the Democrat is his guy and votes for him, then the Democrat is the guy he's likely to write to as his guy.


I do think it's a good idea to write your Congressman, read about their record, be engaged in the campaign, etc. I don't want to dissuade any from doing that.

I just question the wisdom of weigh the length/nature of a personal response very heavily in one's vote choice (especially if you can ascertain issue positions otherwise). Because, as I've demonstrated, a third party candidate may have a huge amount of more free time (because they receive less mail, etc.), a more detailed response from a third party candidate very likely shows merely than the third party candidate has more free time on his/her hands, not that he/she is more caring.Third party candidates do not have more time on their hands. If anything, they have less.

Since they usually don't have a full time paid staff, they have to do alot of extra things themselves. I've gone with candidates to hammer in signs or turn in paperwork for ballot access or in countless other tasks that your average major party candidate has an army of volunteers and paid staff members to do for them.

While Democrats and Republicans don't have to worry as much as donations and interviews for endorsements or with the media, we have to proactively call and schedule and double check that we haven't been un-invited.

Democrats and Republicans can count on areas that vote heavily one way or another to safely stay that way. If we have an area that votes heavily Green, we have to work twice as hard to keep in that way year after year, making sure that our candidates and volunteers knock on as many doors as possible and talk to people personally to keep that personal connection going.

Trust me, we're not sitting around, drumming our fingers, waiting for your letters. We're busy as hell.

[Charles RB]

We even just won a Mayorship in Marfa, Texas and some School Board spots in Nebraska, in places where Democrats have historically lost again and again.

Out of interest, how did the Green Party manage to win those seats?

[Mike Smash!]

Out of interest, how did the Green Party manage to win those seats?We hit the populist button and hit it hard.

When you come out hard in support of protecting family farmers and against the corporate factory farms that are killing them and bring up environmental issues in the context of their own back yards, it resonates with a lot of people.

We can win in areas that Democrats can't, both because of the "I'll never vote Democrat" factor and because we're not afraid to piss off those same corporate and special interests or take their money.

It's amazing how Progressivism can take in places that Liberalism won't.

[Mike Smash!]

Listen to Nader's speech to Emory.Here's that speech (http://realaudio.service.emory.edu/ramgen/ETHICS/nader1.rm).

It's very good and speaks on a lot the ethics of being active, involved citizens and why we need to stop rationalizing how futile getting involved is stopping us from rolling up our sleeves and making this country what it should be.

[Charles RB]

When you come out hard in support of protecting family farmers and against the corporate factory farms that are killing them and bring up environmental issues in the context of their own back yards, it resonates with a lot of people.

And the Democrats haven't been doing this?! :eek: If I was leader of the Democrat Party and I saw we were never winning over these states, I'd be doing that!

[Mike Smash!]

And the Democrats haven't been doing this?! :eek: If I was leader of the Democrat Party and I saw we were never winning over these states, I'd be doing that!Alot of them use the rhetoric, but are afraid to turn it into a clear policy change and take a real stand that may cost them big money donors.

Like "healthcare is a right, not a privilege", but they don't call for Universal healthcare which is logical extension of that statement.

With factory farms, the Dems won't come out and say they will pull all government subsidies for corporate factory farms and reserving them for family farms, because they don't want to lose donations from big agribusiness.

Plus, as I've learned from doorbelling for the Greens, that alot of people will vote for a progressive third party that will have never voted Democrat.

I've knocked on doors and had people suspisciously ask me, "are you a Democrat or Republican?" and when I answer "Neither, I'm with the Green Party", they unclench and without a preconception, even staunch conservatives are willing to listen to what I have to say. I've had self described Republicans even agree with me on issues like voting reform, universal healthcare and publically funded elections.

That's an open mind they would have never given a Democrat, because they've been told their whole life that the Dems are the bad guys and to never vote for them.

[Cephus]

At the moment yes. But that's expecting such change to be immediate. Yes that isn't going to happen realistically, then again I haven't seen Mike promising that. He's merely said that if more people would vote politicians would be more accountable, particularly if they voted for options outside the big two.

The biggest problem here is that the only people who can realistically help you change the system are the politicians, the people who benefit from the way the current system works. It doesn't matter who you put in office or what claims they've made, once they're part of the system, they're going to do everything in their power to stay there. It doesn't matter if you vote Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Spongebob party, they're all the same.

Moreover, only way a revolution in the way Americans think about voting (or political activity in general) is by talking to more and more people about voting, showing them alternatives, and getting them to approach the issue differently until you get some momentum going. And Mike's trying to do his part via this thread and his work as part of the Seattle Green Party.

Well, it's wishful thinking, but it's better to do something than nothing at all, I suppose.

[Cephus]

My memories of late 2001 are different than yours, apparently, because at that time, it seemed like a lot of people who are normally moderates were suddenly in the grips of a patriotic fervor that demanded security and vengeance. Remember the flag-wavers on the freeway overpasses? Remember the people stocking up on gas masks and duct tape? Remember that first month after 9/11 when so many people were afraid to even laugh?

And Bush capitalized on that when he rammed through the Patriot Act early in the morning, using his rah-rah language on politicians who largely hadn't even read the thing. It wasn't until later that what they had done sunk in and they realized their error. That's why the Patriot Act isn't going to be renewed, it was bad legislation before, it's still bad, but at least they've had a chance to read it and understand how bad it is.

[Cephus]

This is more defeatism. We can move politicians, but it means getting off our asses and holding them accountable.

If we can, sure. But politicians know that the majority of Americans don't care, so long as they get their McDonalds greaseburgers and American Idol. Most Americans don't know, don't care, and have no interest in finding out what's going on so long as their own little lives are decent. As laudable as your goal might be, it's also unrealistic.

The only thing that overrule organized money is organized people. What bothers me most is that you accept the reality of the situation but do nothing about it and rationalize it as futile.

I'm a realist. I know the system has to change, but the only way to change the system is to have it changed by the people who currently benefit from the system. It's like changing the legal system, which badly needs it, but it's controlled by the lawyers who benefit from the way things are. It's nice to say that we should just vote better people in, and I agree, but I don't think that anyone who runs for office really deserves to be there. They're the ones who seek power and control, they do not have the best interests of the people at heart.

Personally, I think that all political jobs should be unpaid. You get free food and housing and clothing, you get your basic needs met, but you don't get paid. That way, the political hacks out to make a buck wouldn't be interested.

[K'Nort]

Personally, I think that all political jobs should be unpaid. You get free food and housing and clothing, you get your basic needs met, but you don't get paid. That way, the political hacks out to make a buck wouldn't be interested.

No one makes a decent living from a politician's salary. More specifically, everyone who goes into politics takes quite a paycut. Think about the fact that most of them are attorneys.

It's the consulting and speaking fees afterwards where all the wealth comes. And while in office, it's the perks provided by the lobbyists.

People benefit financially by going into politics, but removing the salary won't impact that at all, because that's not where the money is coming from.

And on the downside, making it unpaid makes it all the more difficult for anyone who is not independently wealthy to consider running.

[Charles RB]

So, to sum up Cephus, you're saying that since pretty much all politicians are power-hungry arseholes, there's no point in taking them to account for being power-hungry arseholes and making it clear we're watching them & voting them out if they're power-hungry arseholes?

That's incredibly lazy, isn't it?

[SOGG]

The biggest problem here is that the only people who can realistically help you change the system are the politicians, the people who benefit from the way the current system works.


Very untrue. Ghandi changed the system. The people of the Czech Republic and the Philippines, through collective action, changed the system. The people living in tax-free Christiania changed the system. Only when politicians realised the futility of going against popular opinion did they chime in.

Want something closer to home?

Want to guess who was instrumental in passing the following acts?
-- Safe drinking water act
-- Creation of the Environmental Protection Agency
-- Creation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
-- Creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

and... you'll love this .. he did it for free.



It doesn't matter who you put in office or what claims they've made, once they're part of the system, they're going to do everything in their power to stay there. It doesn't matter if you vote Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Spongebob party, they're all the same.


I guess that's why Figueras dissolved Costa Rica's military and resigned from the Presidency when his reform work was finished. I also guess that that's why Kucinich, after spending his own money to run for president, continues his advocacy work and continues to do what amounts to political suicide.
I'm also sure that that's why Way Kurat continues to bike to work every day.

I never thought I'd be defending politicians, but some of them actually do mean well.


Well, it's wishful thinking, but it's better to do something than nothing at all, I suppose.

It certainly beats being defeatist.

[Mike Smash!]

The biggest problem here is that the only people who can realistically help you change the system are the politicians, the people who benefit from the way the current system works. It doesn't matter who you put in office or what claims they've made, once they're part of the system, they're going to do everything in their power to stay there. It doesn't matter if you vote Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Spongebob party, they're all the same.Not necessarily true, which is why Greens and others are fighting for publically financed campaigns and getting money out of politics, which is a huge part of the problem. Government won't respond the way it should to the demands of its citizens as long as it can be bought.

The Civil Rights Movement, the Labor Movement, the Abolitionist Movement, the Anti-Viet Nam War Movement, the Women's Suffrage Movement...all affected great change without being politicians. If anything, they forced politicians to represent them by making themselves a force and not by asking permission or whining about how powerless they are.

Well, it's wishful thinking, but it's better to do something than nothing at all, I suppose.It sounds like you're rationalizing your own apathy and laziness.

Abolishing child labor was "wishful thinking" at one point. So was a country where the people chose its own leaders and were protected by its own laws to criticize those leaders.

People have a lot of power and it means a lot of hard work to exercize it and make changes. We need to get off our asses or the "we can't do anything about it" becomes a reality.

There were plenty of people who felt that way about the British when we were a colony as well. They're so powerful and corrupt and people are so stupid. Why bother? Might as well learn to like it.

I can't think of a word kinder than "coward" for that sort of attitude.

I "tilt at these windmills" because I love my country and think it should be and deserves to be a helluva lot better than it is now. And because if I don't do this, I would have no right to bitch about it.

But hey, it's hard work and I'm going to lose a lot before I start to win, so I might as well just give up...

If you just sit on your ass, you have exactly the government you've earned.

[Fenris]

I think how you gauge response is a test that's biased in favor of third-party candidates. I do think, though, that using the NPAT at vote-smart.org is a good recommendation for evaluating candidates though.

Why do I think the response test is biased and not necessarily a good way to compare candidates (especially third party candidates)? Well, let's look at my district. My Congressman (Frank Pallone) received 153,981 votes in 2004 to win. By contrast, the best showing by a third party candidate in 2004 in my district was Libertarian Virginia Flynn with 2,829 votes. Taking votes as a rough proxy for supporters, that would mean that Democrat Pallone has more than 50 times as many supporters as the most popular third party candidate. Thus, one may expect the Democrat to receive roughly 50 times as much correspondence as the Libertarian. In fact, it's probably an even greater disparity, because as an incumbent, Pallone probably also gets a lot of correspondence from non-Democrat constituents.

So if Democrat Pallone sends a less detailed response than Libertarian Flynn, it could be grossly inaccurate to take this as evidence that Flynn cares more about the public than Pallone. If we assume that Pallone and Flynn spend the same total amount of time communicating with partisan supporters, then based on votes as a proxy for supporters, Pallone would only be able to dedicate less than 2% of the time to each Democratic supporter that Flynn would have for each Libertarian supporter.

By all means, people should be engage and contact the campaigns. I just want to point out this big methodological flaw that may inaccurate portray third party candidates in a relatively better light.

I'll bet the ratio isn't that bad. Pallone got fifty times more votes, but that doesn't mean that fifty times as many people sent him letters.

A large percentage of third-party voters are politically-active; that's how they ended up in a third party, after all. They're much more likely to send correspondance than the average two-party voter.

(Mind you, all of this is obviously speculative. It would be interesting to find some figures on mail to verify the question one way or the other.)

But, all that aside: I don't think it's a matter of fairness, exactly. A Congressman's basic job is to represent his constituents. If he doesn't have time to communicate with us- personally would be nice, but an informative staff-written letter would be fine- then his priorities are wrong, and need fixing.

Communication with voters is a high priority. That's why they get free postage; it's one of their fundamental duties as leaders of the Republic.

õ
But I doubt I'll ever vote Green, anyway! :)

[Mike Smith]

During undergrad I campaigned for both Hahn (due to him being an alumnus of my school) and Villaraigosa (for fraternity fundraiser). Villaraigosa had us come in to headquarters, get a brief lesson on basics of platform, then had us go through basically every nook and cranny of the city (frickin LA) on precinct walks in groups of two. We went through some impoverished area, mid-class, to upper-crust. There is one thing I noticed that held true through each demographic; people were very happy to discuss issues. I found this to be to the highest degree in the lower class areas. It was almost an attitude of pride from getting a voice and a chance to talk about concerns.

[Cephus]

Not necessarily true, which is why Greens and others are fighting for publically financed campaigns and getting money out of politics, which is a huge part of the problem. Government won't respond the way it should to the demands of its citizens as long as it can be bought.

I came up with a great system a while back but it would piss everyone off.

1. No one can contribute money to a particular candidate. If you want to support the political system in the US, you can contribute to a general pot. At a certain point in the campaign, all legitimately registered candidates get an equal cut of the pie. No one can use more money for their campaign than what they get from the general pot, even if it's their own. All campaigns are closely monitored by independent financial firms and all expendatures are published for the public PRIOR to the election. There are no lobbyists permitted at all.

2. No candidate can buy TV or radio time for advertising. All TV and radio stations, as a consequence of getting an FCC license, must provide, at no cost, political ad space that will be distributed to the candidates. Candidates can run as many different ads as they want, so long as they only use the alotted time.

3. All campaign promises are documented and must be acted upon when elected. You can't just blow empty promises out your ass, you have to actually make good on them.

4. Get rid of the silly electoral college. Popular vote decides who wins. If we need an international oversight group to keep things honest, get one. Hell, we think we can watch what everyone else does, why can't they watch us?

5. All politicians must spend at least 1 term in 4 working in the private sector. No more career politicians. That doesn't mean book tours or speaking engagements, that means having a JOB. Failure to comply makes you ineligible for public office.

6. Voting is mandatory to qualify for many government subsidies and benefits. If you can't get off your ass to vote, you can't have a welfare check.

7. Get rid of the primary system, anyone can vote for anyone.

There's probably a lot that would need to be done to make it workable, and no politician on the planet would ever allow it to happen, but we need a serious, complete overhaul of the entire political system, it's become completely corrupt.

[Mike Smash!]

I came up with a great system a while back but it would piss everyone off.

1. No one can contribute money to a particular candidate. If you want to support the political system in the US, you can contribute to a general pot. At a certain point in the campaign, all legitimately registered candidates get an equal cut of the pie. No one can use more money for their campaign than what they get from the general pot, even if it's their own. All campaigns are closely monitored by independent financial firms and all expendatures are published for the public PRIOR to the election. There are no lobbyists permitted at all.Basically publically financed campaigns would be cheaper than this. Word I've heard is that a publically financed system would cost every American an average of about 6 bucks a year a piece.

This way campaigns wouldn't be based on how much we donate, but since elections are the very cornerstone of a democracy, would be paid for publically. The standard for this would be to set a reasonable criteria to qualify for these funds -- the popular one seems to be any candidate that can get at least a 5 dollar donation from at least 100 people.

2. No candidate can buy TV or radio time for advertising. All TV and radio stations, as a consequence of getting an FCC license, must provide, at no cost, political ad space that will be distributed to the candidates. Candidates can run as many different ads as they want, so long as they only use the alotted time.Well, the public airwaves are just that. Public. Networks are really just renting them.

Under the systems that the Greens and many other third parties -- including Jesse Ventura -- is proposing. TV time would be free to all candidates and distributed equally based on equal time laws that were in place prior to 1960. This would also include equal access to candidates who mean minimum criteria.

3. All campaign promises are documented and must be acted upon when elected. You can't just blow empty promises out your ass, you have to actually make good on them.You can't always do that, especially since so many candidates are so vague about it. Besides, there are other factors that may make an old promise impossible, or the candidate may actually change their mind. I do believe something independent should be in place to call them on it, but I can't imagine any sort of legal repurcusions for broken promises.

4. Get rid of the silly electoral college. Popular vote decides who wins. If we need an international oversight group to keep things honest, get one. Hell, we think we can watch what everyone else does, why can't they watch us?I agree. The EC takes away the power from all voters outside of the swing states, is unfair based on different populations getting the same number of EC votes, electors not being legally bound to cast their EC vote for the winning candidate, situations like 2000 where the EC vote and the popular vote have different winners, all of a state's EC votes going to a winning candidates regardless of how close the race is....etc...

5. All politicians must spend at least 1 term in 4 working in the private sector. No more career politicians. That doesn't mean book tours or speaking engagements, that means having a JOB. Failure to comply makes you ineligible for public office.Some people have worked hard in government positions, besides most politicians do end up in the private sector. They're called lobbyists.

6. Voting is mandatory to qualify for many government subsidies and benefits. If you can't get off your ass to vote, you can't have a welfare check.I'm against this completely. Many people don't vote because they're intimidated out of it, lied to, are put on a felon's list or have to wait in ten hour lines. Many don't vote because they hate their choices or as an act of protest. If you want to make voting mandatory by law, at least give people a "None of the Above" option, but don't predicate social services on it.

7. Get rid of the primary system, anyone can vote for anyone.Anyone can vote for anyone now. It's called write-in. Valmore voted for Bill Bradley in 2000 with his write-in box. Loren wrote in a candidate for President this year.

Political parties have the right to choose their standard bearer as their official nominee, but we need a lot more parties. What we need is an IRV system that would allow as many willing candidates as possible to run in a race without "splitting the vote" and a PR system to reflect the will of the electorate in state Legislatures and the U.S. Congress.

There's probably a lot that would need to be done to make it workable, and no politician on the planet would ever allow it to happen, but we need a serious, complete overhaul of the entire political system, it's become completely corrupt.There are plenty of politicians that would like to fight for it. However, they're in major parties that won't give them the floor to share these views.

With more parties, more voices would be heard, than just the Hillary/Reid/Kennedy wing of the Dems and the Santorum/DeLay/Bush wing of the GOP.

[PatrickG]

Some states allow write-ins but don't tally them unless the "write-in" candidate is approved as a valid "write-in".

Tell me that's fair...

[Tages]

I'm not sure how political independence and voting at all are compatible concepts, so I don't quite understand what you're trying to do here.

[leigh_ann1982]

With respect, if all the non-voters in the country jumped up and down on the San Andreas fault at once, California would slide into the sea. If all the non-voters in the country were piled on top of each other, the top guy could headbutt the moon. If all the non-voters in the country formed an enormous daisy chain and achieved simultaneous orgasm, the resultant surge of blue orgone energy would reverse global warming and raise Atlantis.

And with respect, organizing and educating voters to make informed choices and to take political action is less of a pipe-dream than hoping a Democrat in shining armor will someday come riding in on a white horse and give up the interests of big money special interests in favor of the people out of the goodness of his heart without the people ever demanding or even expecting anything. You go on living in your delusional fairytale world, I'd rather take action.

Politics has consequences in the real world. Basing political choices on self-congratulatory hypothetical scenarios is... well, it's what the Bush administration does, and we can see how well that works.

But, hypothetically if the Democrats were in power right now, then we wouldn't be in the same messes we're in right now with the current adminstation? I was in grade school when Clinton was in office, but I seem to remember that we were still dropping bombs on Iraq (among other places), social programs like welfare were being cut while taxes went up, and NAFTA was setting the stage for our current economic recession and unemployment rate. If the Democrats had taken back power in 2004, I suppose you could've patted yourself on the back for getting the Republicans out, but the real world consquence would've been that not much would really be that different. Just because you don't like Stalin, don't get wistful for the czars.

[Fenris]

That's a neat set of reforms you're thinking of, Cephus! But (as you predicted) I don't like parts of it:



1. No one can contribute money to a particular candidate. If you want to support the political system in the US, you can contribute to a general pot. At a certain point in the campaign, all legitimately registered candidates get an equal cut of the pie. No one can use more money for their campaign than what they get from the general pot, even if it's their own. All campaigns are closely monitored by independent financial firms and all expendatures are published for the public PRIOR to the election. There are no lobbyists permitted at all.

2. No candidate can buy TV or radio time for advertising. All TV and radio stations, as a consequence of getting an FCC license, must provide, at no cost, political ad space that will be distributed to the candidates. Candidates can run as many different ads as they want, so long as they only use the alotted time.

This would pretty much trash the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is, first and foremost, about politics: citizens must be free to express their political views to the public. (And politicians, lamentably, are still citizens.)

As a practical matter, that also means they get to spend money on public presentations of those views. There's an enormous Constitutional difference between giving money to one candidate to help express his views, and telling another that he can't spend money to express them.


4. Get rid of the silly electoral college. Popular vote decides who wins. If we need an international oversight group to keep things honest, get one. Hell, we think we can watch what everyone else does, why can't they watch us?

Eh, it's not silly; it's an expression of the primal place of states in American politics. States aren't the nation-breaking bodies they were before the Civil War, but they're still valid political bodies. Saying that California should vote as a unit to elect the President isn't much different from saying that it should vote as a unit to elect its two senators.

But it would be really interesting to see how this affected campaign strategies.

6. Voting is mandatory to qualify for many government subsidies and benefits. If you can't get off your ass to vote, you can't have a welfare check.

Welfare voters would be one example; but the really-dramatic case is going to be Social Security. Virtually everyone over 65 would be a full-time voter; and the AARP would be a mighty colossus astride Washington.

(Well, assuming the ban on lobbyists didn't go through. If it did, the AARP would probably change into some kind of mail-generating off-the-beltway organization. Which is still lobbying, kind of, just not of politicans.)


There's probably a lot that would need to be done to make it workable, and no politician on the planet would ever allow it to happen, but we need a serious, complete overhaul of the entire political system, it's become completely corrupt.

Nah, just seriously corrupt. We still have a lot to lose, if we're not careful.

õ
But solutions are very interesting to me!

[Loren]

Some states allow write-ins but don't tally them unless the "write-in" candidate is approved as a valid "write-in".

Tell me that's fair...

It's fair. Getting write-in status is fairly easy. You file a couple of sheets of paper with the state electoral office, you arrange for a notice of intent to be printed in an adequate newspaper, and you're qualified.

As I see it, this serves at least two, interconnected purposes. One, it discourages people from casting ballots for persons who may not be interested in the particular office. Qualification ensures that the candidate is actively interested.

Two, it can save a lot of trouble on the part of the ballot counters. If the counters were required to tally every random write-in vote, no matter how obscure or silly, it'd frankly be a waste of their time.

EDIT: I forgot the third, and probably most important, reason for write-in qualification: it provides certainty as to the voter's intent.

Take, for instance, Virginia Governor Mark Warner. His name has come up as a 2008 potential, but let's say he declines to run at all. The general election rolls around, and you decide to write in "Mark Warner" for President.

Now, on the vote counter's side, how are they supposed to know who you meant? Sure they have a name, but there are hundreds of men across the country with the name "Mark Warner." Is the vote counter to take for granted that you meant the Virginia governor, simply because he's the most politically well-known? If you wrote in "Bill Gates," should the vote counter assume you meant the Microsoft guy, just because he's the most famous guy with that name?

As the 2000 election taught us, it's best not to have the vote counters doing too much assuming. Counting any and all write-ins, on the other hand, is rife with assumptions being made.

[Tadhg Adams]

I'm not sure how political independence and voting at all are compatible concepts, so I don't quite understand what you're trying to do here.

Are you just being snarky or do you really not understand what he's saying? I pray it's the former.

[Mike Smash!]

This would pretty much trash the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is, first and foremost, about politics: citizens must be free to express their political views to the public. (And politicians, lamentably, are still citizens.)

As a practical matter, that also means they get to spend money on public presentations of those views. There's an enormous Constitutional difference between giving money to one candidate to help express his views, and telling another that he can't spend money to express them.Not really. Money is not free speech. And the way that politics are these days is not about the will of the people, but who can get the most big name donors -- from among people that most Americans haven't even heard of -- to have the American people even hear about them in the first place.

This includes major corporate donors, donors who only give to one party, and people who wouldn't be likely to give money to people who say, want to eliminate all corporate welfare or call for something like Universal healthcare.

Presidential elections should be a battle of ideas, not of pocketbooks. After all, are my ideas more valid and popular if I get 20 $2,000 donations or if I get 500 $5 donations?

It has turned into a fight over who can woo the most rich donors instead of a fight for the best ideas. Start all candidates who meet the minimum requirements from an even platform and then let the voters decide whose ideas are best. Nowadays, they act that you're illegitimate if you haven't raised 50 million dollars, even though on Election Day, those rich donors only have the same one vote that the man who can't afford to donate has.

Unfortunately what you have under the current system is the rise of candidates who are much less likely to piss of big business even if they don't have much that they can excite the rest of us with.

Eh, it's not silly; it's an expression of the primal place of states in American politics. States aren't the nation-breaking bodies they were before the Civil War, but they're still valid political bodies. Saying that California should vote as a unit to elect the President isn't much different from saying that it should vote as a unit to elect its two senators.But the President isn't a Senator. He/she belongs to the entire country.

And right now California doesn't have any power in picking the President. They're a safe state for the Democrats and the GOP really doesn't give it much attention on the Presidential level. They won't win that state unless they get a freak Reagan level landslide, which we haven't seen in over 20 years.

As we stand with the current system, there are only 7-10 states that have any power in picking the President, leaving the concerns of everyone in Texas, California, New York, Washington DC, Wyoming...etc... to go piss up a rope.

Eliminating the EC would make the system a helluva lot more unpredictable and we'd see candidates going places that they wouldn't bother before. Like Democrats going into liberal oases in the deep South and Republicans going into California's more conservative areas. Right now, things are stagnant as hell and only third party candidates even bother to run full 50 state campaigns anymore.

Hell, Nader got 10% of the safely red state Alaska's vote in 2000 because he's the only one that bothered to show up.


Welfare voters would be one example; but the really-dramatic case is going to be Social Security. Virtually everyone over 65 would be a full-time voter; and the AARP would be a mighty colossus astride Washington.

(Well, assuming the ban on lobbyists didn't go through. If it did, the AARP would probably change into some kind of mail-generating off-the-beltway organization. Which is still lobbying, kind of, just not of politicans.)What current corporate lobbying really ammounts to is legalized bribery. Politicians should be accountable to only one thing: their constituents. What lobbyists and special interests have done is build a wall of money and favors between the constituents and their elected officials, making them a helluva lot less responsive to our demands, because they can use that money to run a flashier campaign and trust that we're stupid enough to vote them out for being irresponsive.

Get money out of politics, period.

[Cephus]

Basically publically financed campaigns would be cheaper than this. Word I've heard is that a publically financed system would cost every American an average of about 6 bucks a year a piece.

There are a lot of companies and wealthy individuals who want to be involved in the political process, thus giving them the ability to contribute financially without being able to buy influence. We could also do the publically financed campaign route, if necessary. In the end, this would help cut down on all the money begging and influence brokering that we put up with now.

Well, the public airwaves are just that. Public. Networks are really just renting them.
Under the systems that the Greens and many other third parties -- including Jesse Ventura -- is proposing. TV time would be free to all candidates and distributed equally based on equal time laws that were in place prior to 1960. This would also include equal access to candidates who mean minimum criteria.

I'd also like to see a restriction on negative campaigning. You can only talk about your own platform and what you'd do in office, you cannot refer to the other candidates in any way, shape or form. We don't care about the other guy, try telling us why you should be elected.

You can't always do that, especially since so many candidates are so vague about it. Besides, there are other factors that may make an old promise impossible, or the candidate may actually change their mind. I do believe something independent should be in place to call them on it, but I can't imagine any sort of legal repurcusions for broken promises.

It might be difficult, but we need to hold candidates accountable. Far too many promise things that they have no intention of carrying through on, just to get into office. And with the unfortunate short attention span of most Americans, they never remember they've been lied to the next time they go to the polls.

I agree. The EC takes away the power from all voters outside of the swing states, is unfair based on different populations getting the same number of EC votes, electors not being legally bound to cast their EC vote for the winning candidate, situations like 2000 where the EC vote and the popular vote have different winners, all of a state's EC votes going to a winning candidates regardless of how close the race is....etc...

There may have been a need for the EC at one point, but that's long since vanished. If we're going to elect politicians, let's elect them. It makes no sense to have an entire other organization in place to elect them after we vote for them. If the EC wants to elect politicians, let the rest of us know and we won't bother going to the polls in the first place.

Some people have worked hard in government positions, besides most politicians do end up in the private sector. They're called lobbyists.

Which is why I called for an end to lobbyists. I mean private-sector jobs, actually having to deal with REALITY as opposed to politics.

I'm against this completely. Many people don't vote because they're intimidated out of it, lied to, are put on a felon's list or have to wait in ten hour lines. Many don't vote because they hate their choices or as an act of protest. If you want to make voting mandatory by law, at least give people a "None of the Above" option, but don't predicate social services on it.

I think we need "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins, then we have another election in 3 months, but none of the people who are currently running can run again. If you can't earn the vote, then you can't run.

Anyone can vote for anyone now. It's called write-in. Valmore voted for Bill Bradley in 2000 with his write-in box. Loren wrote in a candidate for President this year.

But that's a protest vote that has absolutely no chance of winning. The purpose of winning isn't to protest, it's to get your candidate elected. All the protest votes in the world won't change a damn thing when the other guy gets into office.

Political parties have the right to choose their standard bearer as their official nominee, but we need a lot more parties. What we need is an IRV system that would allow as many willing candidates as possible to run in a race without "splitting the vote" and a PR system to reflect the will of the electorate in state Legislatures and the U.S. Congress.

I don't know that we need a lot more parties, I think we need BETTER parties. My wife and I were talking about it last night and realized that there isn't a single political party out there that we can support. They're *ALL* catering to extremists. We're moderates. There are no moderate political parties.

There are plenty of politicians that would like to fight for it. However, they're in major parties that won't give them the floor to share these views.

I'll believe that when I start seeing politicians passing laws to limit their own power. Then again, the political parties are a lot like the labor unions, they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

[Cephus]

As a practical matter, that also means they get to spend money on public presentations of those views. There's an enormous Constitutional difference between giving money to one candidate to help express his views, and telling another that he can't spend money to express them.

Unfortunately, that means that people get to buy their way into office. That's something the founding fathers had no way of forseeing and, frankly, there are parts of the Constitution that need to be rewritten because they are not applicable to the modern world.

Welfare voters would be one example; but the really-dramatic case is going to be Social Security. Virtually everyone over 65 would be a full-time voter; and the AARP would be a mighty colossus astride Washington.

AARP can't be allowed to turn into a massive PAC either. It's groups like this and the massive unions that are ruining America by forcing politicians to cater specifically to special interest groups.

Nah, just seriously corrupt. We still have a lot to lose, if we're not careful.

Unfortunately, Americans by and large don't care or understand. They're too busy watching American Idol and swilling Bud Light.

[Mike Smash!]

There are a lot of companies and wealthy individuals who want to be involved in the political process, thus giving them the ability to contribute financially without being able to buy influence. We could also do the publically financed campaign route, if necessary. In the end, this would help cut down on all the money begging and influence brokering that we put up with now.Unfortuntely, if you rely completely on rich and corporate donors, you're going to only get winning campaigns that cater to those very donors, as they do now. They're also not likely to want their money going to people like Ralph Nader, who want to raise the minimum wage, tighten corporate regulations and crack down on corporate crime and give us universal healthcare.

I'd also like to see a restriction on negative campaigning. You can only talk about your own platform and what you'd do in office, you cannot refer to the other candidates in any way, shape or form. We don't care about the other guy, try telling us why you should be elected.Unfortunately, to run against an incumbent, it's necessary to bring up why he doesn't deserve to be elected and examples of his or her record.

However, the two party system in place now really encourages nmegative campaigning, because with only two major options, you can just mudsling your opponent to death and hope to get those votes without providing a positive alternative.

IRV and PR are excellent systems for breaking this up. We saw examples in San Fransisco last year that negative campaigning was down on a ranked ballot system. Since candidates are worried about being their opponent's supporters' second choice, it's much less attractive to call him a moron.

Two like-minded citiwide candidates even campaigned together as opponents, telling their supporters to vote for them as their first choice and their opponent for number two.

It might be difficult, but we need to hold candidates accountable. Far too many promise things that they have no intention of carrying through on, just to get into office. And with the unfortunate short attention span of most Americans, they never remember they've been lied to the next time they go to the polls.I wouldn't mind having something in place to hold them to past lies, but it can't be a government agency given to partisanship.

Sadly, what should be doing this -- and sadly isn't -- is the American press.

Which is why I called for an end to lobbyists. I mean private-sector jobs, actually having to deal with REALITY as opposed to politics.Politics is reality, too. But heading up a company doesn't necessarily mean that you understand reality any better than a politician does. You can have that same disconnect.

I think we need "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins, then we have another election in 3 months, but none of the people who are currently running can run again. If you can't earn the vote, then you can't run.I agree. And before anyone complains about how that would be paid for, ask yourself this... if None of the Above won, don't you have bigger problems than cost?

But that's a protest vote that has absolutely no chance of winning. The purpose of winning isn't to protest, it's to get your candidate elected. All the protest votes in the world won't change a damn thing when the other guy gets into office.But this isn't a horserace. You don't win money if they guy you voted for wins. Sometimes it's about principle.

I don't know that we need a lot more parties, I think we need BETTER parties. My wife and I were talking about it last night and realized that there isn't a single political party out there that we can support. They're *ALL* catering to extremists. We're moderates. There are no moderate political parties.The Democrats aren't catering to extremists. I really don't think they're catering to anyone. That's why it's hard to get excited about most of them.

But there are Moderate or Centrist parties. Sadly not at the national level right now. The Reform Party was such a party before the 2000 Buchanan takeover, but right now all that's left is the Independence Party of Minnesota (formerly the Reform Party of Minnesota), which ran Ventura for governor and has a few seats in the State legislature.

And if you're not in Minnesota and this bothers you that much, think about starting a political party of your own. It's that or hate your options.

I'll believe that when I start seeing politicians passing laws to limit their own power. Then again, the political parties are a lot like the labor unions, they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.That's why third parties exist. Do you think that politicians close to big business wanted to abolish slavery or child labor? Push for a minimum wage or for overtime pay? For social security or the 40 hour work week?

Hell no, but people organized and politicians realized that they had to take on these reforms or people would elect politicians that would.

Really in the end, you can make politicians do anything if you put their job in the balance or show them that they can sweep elections by embracing your reforms.

Remember that term limits weren't a big issue until Ross Perot made them a cornerstone of his 1992 campaign and the GOP grabbed it up and made it a big part of their "Contract with America" and took the House in 1994.

They welched on their part of the deal, but had Perot already have the Reform Party formed and demanding those reforms, the Republicans would have had another party happy to take those pro-term limits votes if they didn't live up to their end of the b