In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
its all wishfull thinking about a meaningful third party. most people elected from a third party are one hit wonders or people who really arent what they claim to be such as wrestler/actor/governors.
the parties have a lock on the big money by having convinced people that its a wasted vote if you vote for someone that ideologically agrees with you. compromise is the name of the game and i see it here all the time. an example: you dont like gw enacting the donut hole drug plan(that actually doesnt help the poor, but will get out the aarp vote),it would be worse if we had a dem in office so compromise and vote him in again.
folks the big winners of elections are the media that make more money than the superbowl from it. the corps that get benefits like laying off american workers and hiring chinese so the ceo and cfo can get a fat bonus. oil rich countries around the world that we donate $20b to..... the losers said before. the american worker. the american taxpayer. the american schoolkid who gets something resembling education lite.
now ive gotten to see greenspan on tv saying that i dont deserve social security benefits when i retire but i should continue to pay into the system so guys like him that have already paid should get theirs. they say i should put 4-5g a year into an ira for retirement for both me and my wife because ss wont be there for me or maybe will kick in when im 80 if i live that long. after i'm done with the bills and after im done with the few nice things that i like its hard to put away 8-10g a year for 2 people. if theyre that worried about it why dont they remove the cap on what people pay in? or maybe allow me to invest it on my own even if its required to be invested in t bills at least its mine. now if i die, all that money ive handed over gets me a 255 death benefit,what the heck is that good for? i never hear this being addressed i hear tax cuts for whatever, but theyre taking my money all the time, giving it away and changing the rules on me getting it back. is it legal to opt out?
quote:Originally posted by armed_ female
well this is just my opinion..you can vote for socialist party A (democrats) or socialist party B (republicans) or you can choose to go out on a limb and vote for the candidate that believes the Bill of Rights is the Supreme Law of the Land. That would be, hopefully, Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Candidate for President.
-
But armedfemale, that is just the point. The great majority of voters will not "go out on a limb" and expend their one vote voting for a 3rd party candidate, no matter how wonderful that candidate is. It has not happened within our lifetimes and it will not happen until we change the structure of the voting process. Even in my case, I cannot afford to risk letting the Democrats win big. So I have no choice but to play it safe, and vote for the lessor of two evils, the Republican. Because if I spend my one vote on the alternative party candidate, it is 90% certain that I have wasted my one vote.Give me the right to vote for more than ONE PARTY and I will first vote for the best 3rd or 4th candidate that is fielded, then to hedge my vote I will also vote for the Republician candidate. I can not understand why more people have not voice an opinion that in any electtion, the odds are automatically stacked against any 3rd or 4th party candidate. This needs to be changed to give the Dems and Reps. some much needed and healthy competition.
LT. RRG
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Originally posted by jpwolf
I wonder how congress would react if a third party were elected to the executive.
a) We'll teach those voters not to mess with the system!
b) Oh Crap! Maybe we better staighten up.
??
__
Wolf. I am sure that when the first alternative candidate wins, there will be resistance and hostility from the Dems & Reps. But don't forget that this voting change will apply not only to the US Presidential race, but to every membe of Congreess also. And hopefully those Dems & Reps. members who decided to act in such as way as to give the 3rd party candidate problems will soon recoginze that they are causing problems not only for that 3rd party candidate, but for their own country and their own future. And hopefull the voters/citizens will also be watching the show.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Originally posted by 2gun
its all wishfull thinking about a meaningful third party. most people elected from a third party are one hit wonders or people who really arent what they claim to be such as wrestler/actor/governors.
2Gun. The present and long term election situation will USUALLY discourage the best and brightest 3rd or 4th party candidate. Would you spend a lot of time or effort competing for a job that you were pretty sure you could not have? I know I wouldn't. So the very situation discourges the best and only (in MOST cased) are the second best left to make their attempt at winning political power from the Dems. & Reps.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
btt...........Third Party CAN be meaningfull...if just in the numbers.Go back in History...they tried to appease the third party to get "swing"votes etc.Third Party CAN have an Impact.With this plan on this thread it could be a real serious impact....
This is a great idea, but it will never float. Hate to be the naysayer again, but elections have very little to do with what we want, in my view.
Everything in this country is about money. The government is owned by rich Capitalists. The guys that get elected get there by having more and/or richer rich Capitalist buddies. The more money, the more ears their promises reach. The Dems and Reps have their finger on the pulse of the largest voting bloc- the folks that are either too stupid or too busy trying to become rich capitalists to see what's going on. The stupid (poor) hear "we'll take care of you...we'll take money from the rich capitalists and give it to you..." they vote for the Dems. The workers trying to get to be RC's hear "we'll lower your taxes...we'll keep interest rates low...you can afford more cars, better homes..." they vote for the Reps. The independants, people like us that are fed up, tell it like it is, tell the truth, but they don't have much money backing them, not many ears hear them, or there just aren't enough ears able to. The RC's don't like them, because they'll take control away from the government, which costs them lots of money. So the independants are branded "extremist". "Too far right to serve the needs of everyone". Of course the vast majority consists of the really stupid, out of touch types (or are they the smartest?), that don't trust any of it, don't vote at all, just float along with the tide.
Rocklobster: everything you say could be 100% true. But I can also make a statment in one sentence that is 100% true. And here is: WHAT WE HAVE HAD FOR SEVERAL GENERATIONS IS NOT WORKING WELL FOR THE COMMON CITIZEN. So at least less try something different. A simple inexpensive change in the voting law for Christ's sake. I'm not advocating over-throwing our government, merely a simple voting change. Instead of voting for only one political candidate, you can vote for as many of them as you like. Of course you are unlikely to have more than 3 candidates offered to you, but that is another problem for someone else to deal with. And there are several hoped-for good effects that might come out of this change. #1, it would make the Democrats and Republicians clean up their act immediately becaue they would be worried about competion for the first time in over 100years. #2 If this change finally gives a 3rd or 4th party candidate a real chance, it might, just might actually bring out some really good 3rd or 4th party candidates for a change. I see no downside to this idea, and only potential upsides.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I would like to see the election of the Congress and Senate be done the same as jury duty. You get a letter that says you are to represent your district in the congress for the next two years for lousy pay and stay in a cheap hotel. After your term in congress your name goes into the hat for senator. All senators serve a four year term fo a little better pay and an extra pillow in the cheap hotel room. After your senate term your name goes in the hat for president or vice president. Same principle for the supreme court except they would serve for only 2 years. Anyone expressing a desire to govern or run for office should be lined against a wall and shot right away.
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
I vote for Bigdaddyjunior, for Dictator for life and Supreme Politician Executor! I have no desire to run for office, but i do want to be on your staff![;)][:D][:D][:D]
BigDaddyJunior: I especially like your idea of having the supremes serve for a limited number of years. Then they would have to abandon their elite position and live in society like the rest of us and under the same laws and restrictions they put on the common citizens when they had their power and prestige.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I see those Talkin money and politics here and you r right.......However you r WRONG about one thing.It is OUR government and they need to give it Back! We cannot just lie about moaning about what a sh**brick life is.What in God's name are we teaching our children?????What are we leaving them to? What have all those before us sacrificed for ?........
Longhunter: I especially like your comment "It is OUR government and they need to give it back". You are so right that the sleazy politicians have long ago stolen our government and they need to GIVE IT BACK!
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Any plan to alter the way in which the government is formed would have to be voted into being by the very people it would likely displace. They are not noble enough gentlemen to do that and we all know it. A third party would have to be formed that had an appeal to the disenfranchised voters to compel them to financially support the third party enabling it to grow. Maybe an internet campaign could be started to promote sign in candidates for state level elections and eventually national level offices. I wonder what would happen if the day after an election some guy no one ever heard of had 60 million votes from the gun owners of America to be president and the same for 80 or so senators ,a couple hundred congressmen etc.. Do you think for a minute the powers that be would honor the results and relinquish the reigns of power? They would contest it up to the supreme court who would then rule it an unconstitutional act and give the seats to the second place candidates. Then we would find out who in the military knows what they swore to uphold and defend.
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
Any plan to alter the way in which the government is formed would have to be voted into being by the very people it would likely displace. A third party would have to be formed that had an appeal to the disenfranchised voters Maybe an internet campaign could be started to promote sign in candidates for state level elections and eventually national level offices. I wonder what would happen if the day after an election some guy no one ever heard of had 60 million votes from the gun owners of America to be president and the same for 80 or so senators ,a couple hundred congressmen etc.. Do you think for a minute the powers that be would honor the results and relinquish the reigns of power? They would contest it up to the supreme court who would then rule it an unconstitutional act and give the seats to the second place candidates.
BigDaddyJunior: You of course have some very valid points. It is true that the voting changes suggested by this letter/petition would have to be physically implimented by the very people in power now who could stand to lose big if this change takes place. But in a way this situation can be used to the advantage of this new voting procedure idea. The more BOTH the Democrats and Republicians fight against this idea, the more American citizens will hopefully start to see that, if the proposed change is bad for BOTH the Dems and Reps, then it must automatically be GOOD for the citizens. So wwith in mind, if the great majority of Americans start pushing for this voting change I for one believe it can and will happen. Because I still believe that if the vast majority of Americans want something to happen in this country, then that which is wnated WILL happen. No matter if that which is wanted by the vast majority is more gun rights and less overly restrictive guns laws, or honest government,or an end to over taxation and govt. spending, etc, etc. If the great majority truly want it, WE SHALL HAVE IT.
And a good 3rd party could offer fresh, honest and CONSTITUTIONAL ideas and hopefully get immediate support from many Americans.
And yes, if 3rd party candidates sweeps an election, the jaded, intrenched (Ed Kennedy for example) politicians will hate giving up power. But I believe that the majority of Americans believe in obeying the law. For example, America is one of the few places where a car driver will usually stop for a red light at 3:00 AM on a deserted stretch of road with no cop in sight. Plus this country has a long and unblemished record of the party in power handing over power after the election and I want to believe that would not change.
Might be a good idea you mentioned to start this voting change idea on a local level and maybe only in a couple of states. Then if it is truly a good idea, like concealed carry, it could and would spread to other states and finally to the federal level.
I don't see how the powers that be or the supreme court could interfere with a 3rd party winning the election UNLESS it was super close such as Gore and Bush in Fla. But if we are presently being governered by people who would be so quick to act like criminals then all the more reason to get rid of them.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
the reason why the supremess are appointed for life is so that noone will be beholden to a party in that office. the supremes speak their mind while we may not like it. i think we'd be better off mandating that noone may serve in political office more than 10 years total excluding the office of the president. that would give us back a citizen govt of people who need to live under the rules they create rather than an elite class of people who can get away with murder if they so choose(right teddy?) but that might be unconstitutional since if we dont like em we should vote em out not term limit them.
2gun, that is a good point. We should expect an incumbent to be voted out. I think it should happen much more often then it does, but once in office they legislate new laws allowing them a tremendous advantage in any election. This has been going on and building on itself for so long that once elected a fellow would have to do something very foolish to loose that seat. Constant mailings to the voters at tax payers expense and free access to the media makes it a very expensive proposition to oust an incumbent. The newly passed and supreme court approved campaign finance reform laws make it illegal to even mention an incumbent or his voting record by name in the months leading up to an election. I haven't read where this applies to a citizen running to oust an incumbent. So, presumably one could say whatever they wanted to denegrate the office seeker while being prohibited from doing the same to the office holder.
I'm not grasping the benefit of the multiple vote plan either. Say you vote for party three and also the republican candidate. Your neighbor votes for the democrat and party three. The staunch party members will still vote for their respective candidates and no other, so the outcome of the election would be the same. Though the number of votes the third party member may recieve may send a message, there has to be someone willing to recieve the message. Having witnessed elections won by a few percentage points called "a mandate from the people" I doubt the message would have the desired impact. Still, if it could be a rallying point to generate active participation by more citizens in the process, I suppose it would be worth doing.
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
I do not believe they will "give" it back.
I think we will have to "take" it back.
The subject of this thread, is a means to that end.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
You of course are correct here.........be it at the ballot box or otherwise.But as BDJ says I do not believe that they will go away quietly or willingly....But that would be the tear with the people.......They would at once see them for what they truly are...,lying,self-centered,self rightious,callous pieces of dog-dung......that need to be replaced!...............The change would have to start small...I think that is wise.....the smaller parties would be open to that I would think,the larger would laugh at it....
BigDaddyJunior: As you said, we need to "try something different" because what we HAVE been trying isn't working all that well.
But we need to find an idea we like, or come up with our own idea, and work to get that idea implemented. In the case of this voting change idea, I am collecting as many signed letters/petitions (the "lessor of two evils" letter/petition at the top of this topic). After I get several hundred copies, I plan on boxing them up (have to make several copies of each one) and shipping them to as many of the already existing alternative political parties as I can afford to ship to. My reason for doing this is that I HAVE to have something to get those alternative party leader's attention. If I just approached them as a single indivudual who had what I thought was a good idea, it is likely I would be ignored. If I have several hundred signatures from good Americans who think this voting change idea is worth considering, I just might be listened to. It is worth a try.
The reason for first approaching the already existing alternative parties is because to launch this political battle, it makes good sense to first try and recruit a battle group that already exists, rather than trying to form one from the ground up. Then if a splash can be made with this idea, with the help of the already existing political parties help, hopefully this idea would snowball across the country to other citizens and other existing groups.
Doing this is better that continuing on as we have been because that is not working.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit".
We ned every letter/petition we can get mailed to us. But there is already a constitutional party that is one of the 40 or so alternative political parties just waiting (and have been waiting) on the sidelines waiting for a realistic chance to jump into the game and try to make a difference for America. we all need to work together to give them that chance.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Ok, before this topic dies entirely, I just have to say that I tried. I put out some effort to make it real easy for any interested party to help me make a real difference in our future. I was collecting signed letters/petitions and after I collected enough to be noticed, I was going to make copies and mail them to as many of the approximately 40 alternative political parties that I could locate and afford to mail to. My hope was that we could all work together to force a voting change that would break the strangle hold that the Democrats and Republicians have on us. But with little response to work with, I give up. I guess this forum really is just a play room with nothing serious ever being done. I bet the anti-gun people get quite a chuckle out of that.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I personally would prefer a runoff election system where the top two vote receiving candidates would face off after the opening round of elections. This system would also encourage voters to consider casting votes for a third party candidate, at least in the opening round. And it might stop the whining about spoiler candidates affecting elections.
"InterstatePawn: Good question of who I am. Will try to answer although I can't see why anyone is interested. I guess I'm just a guy who, though I try to deny it to myself, is just plain anti-social. Sorry."
Oh well then, we should get along just fabulously.[:D]
JC
Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
quote:Originally posted by interstatepawnllc
"InterstatePawn: Good question of who I am. Will try to answer although I can't see why anyone is interested. I guess I'm just a guy who, though I try to deny it to myself, is just plain anti-social. Sorry."
Oh well then, we should get along just fabulously.[:D]
Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
Yeah, but Interstate, if someone is anti-social, they aren't around to "get along fabulously" with.
JC
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit" quote:
quote:Originally posted by jl45
I personally would prefer a runoff election system where the top two vote receiving candidates would face off after the opening round of elections. This system would also encourage voters to consider casting votes for a third party candidate, at least in the opening round. And it might stop the whining about spoiler candidates affecting elections.
jl45
quote:
Well, if that is really what you prefer, then actually do something to make it happen. Use your creativity and find a way to get your idea rolling. Although I don't know why I encourage you to do that since it didn't work for me. Just a last, dieing reflex I guess. Sad.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Last and final update on the "Lessor of two evils" idea about the letter/petition which was posted with a request that every interested party sign and mail to the "Take Back America" address in Olathe. Due to a overwhelming lack of interest and response the idea and mailing address has been cancelled.
Since I spent time and money on this idea, I feel I have the right to throw a small editorial in. I don't believe any thinking American feels things are going well in regards to how this country is being managed by our various governments; whether they be Democrats or Republicians makes little difference. But the majority of citizens will merely gripe and complain about how bad things are and then maybe, just maybe, actually spend the time and effort to influence how their elected officals behave. And about half of the citizens will actually trudge to the polls to vote for "the lessor of two evils" canidadate. And that is all they will do. But they fail to realize that what they have been doing is what allowed the present undesirable state of affairs to happen. They also fail to realize that when you don't like an outcome of a procedure, but you continue on doing the same thing over and over, you are most likely to get the same old undesirable results.
This should tell you that you need to find some way to change your procedure. This idea of changing the voting rules to allow each voter to vote for each canidate that he/she likes, thereby giving a 3rd or 4th party a chance to give the present two parties some competition, may not have been the best or only idea on how to improve American politics. BUT AT LEAST IT WAS AN IDEA THAT HAD POSSIBILITES! And all it would have cost anyone was a 37 cent stamp and the time and effort to print the letter/petition and mail it to "Take Back America".
Apparently millions of Americans like to complain about politics but are too "busy" to sign and mail a petition along with the cost of 37 cent stamp. It would not have hurt anything or anybody and IT MIGHT HAVE HELPED.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Comments
the parties have a lock on the big money by having convinced people that its a wasted vote if you vote for someone that ideologically agrees with you. compromise is the name of the game and i see it here all the time. an example: you dont like gw enacting the donut hole drug plan(that actually doesnt help the poor, but will get out the aarp vote),it would be worse if we had a dem in office so compromise and vote him in again.
folks the big winners of elections are the media that make more money than the superbowl from it. the corps that get benefits like laying off american workers and hiring chinese so the ceo and cfo can get a fat bonus. oil rich countries around the world that we donate $20b to..... the losers said before. the american worker. the american taxpayer. the american schoolkid who gets something resembling education lite.
now ive gotten to see greenspan on tv saying that i dont deserve social security benefits when i retire but i should continue to pay into the system so guys like him that have already paid should get theirs. they say i should put 4-5g a year into an ira for retirement for both me and my wife because ss wont be there for me or maybe will kick in when im 80 if i live that long. after i'm done with the bills and after im done with the few nice things that i like its hard to put away 8-10g a year for 2 people. if theyre that worried about it why dont they remove the cap on what people pay in? or maybe allow me to invest it on my own even if its required to be invested in t bills at least its mine. now if i die, all that money ive handed over gets me a 255 death benefit,what the heck is that good for? i never hear this being addressed i hear tax cuts for whatever, but theyre taking my money all the time, giving it away and changing the rules on me getting it back. is it legal to opt out?
happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
well this is just my opinion..you can vote for socialist party A (democrats) or socialist party B (republicans) or you can choose to go out on a limb and vote for the candidate that believes the Bill of Rights is the Supreme Law of the Land. That would be, hopefully, Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Candidate for President.
-
But armedfemale, that is just the point. The great majority of voters will not "go out on a limb" and expend their one vote voting for a 3rd party candidate, no matter how wonderful that candidate is. It has not happened within our lifetimes and it will not happen until we change the structure of the voting process. Even in my case, I cannot afford to risk letting the Democrats win big. So I have no choice but to play it safe, and vote for the lessor of two evils, the Republican. Because if I spend my one vote on the alternative party candidate, it is 90% certain that I have wasted my one vote.Give me the right to vote for more than ONE PARTY and I will first vote for the best 3rd or 4th candidate that is fielded, then to hedge my vote I will also vote for the Republician candidate. I can not understand why more people have not voice an opinion that in any electtion, the odds are automatically stacked against any 3rd or 4th party candidate. This needs to be changed to give the Dems and Reps. some much needed and healthy competition.
LT. RRG
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Everything in this country is about money. The government is owned by rich Capitalists. The guys that get elected get there by having more and/or richer rich Capitalist buddies. The more money, the more ears their promises reach. The Dems and Reps have their finger on the pulse of the largest voting bloc- the folks that are either too stupid or too busy trying to become rich capitalists to see what's going on. The stupid (poor) hear "we'll take care of you...we'll take money from the rich capitalists and give it to you..." they vote for the Dems. The workers trying to get to be RC's hear "we'll lower your taxes...we'll keep interest rates low...you can afford more cars, better homes..." they vote for the Reps. The independants, people like us that are fed up, tell it like it is, tell the truth, but they don't have much money backing them, not many ears hear them, or there just aren't enough ears able to. The RC's don't like them, because they'll take control away from the government, which costs them lots of money. So the independants are branded "extremist". "Too far right to serve the needs of everyone". Of course the vast majority consists of the really stupid, out of touch types (or are they the smartest?), that don't trust any of it, don't vote at all, just float along with the tide.
We're doomed.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Well said[;)]
TOOLS
General TOOLS RRG
Don't go blaming the beer. Hank Hill
So much Ice, So much Beer. So little time. Shooter4
I don't have an anger problem. I have an idiot problem. Hank Hill
When I was a child, I thought as a child. But now that I am grown, I just wish I could act like a child and get away with it.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I think we will have to "take" it back.
The subject of this thread, is a means to that end.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
what do you think?
I'm not grasping the benefit of the multiple vote plan either. Say you vote for party three and also the republican candidate. Your neighbor votes for the democrat and party three. The staunch party members will still vote for their respective candidates and no other, so the outcome of the election would be the same. Though the number of votes the third party member may recieve may send a message, there has to be someone willing to recieve the message. Having witnessed elections won by a few percentage points called "a mandate from the people" I doubt the message would have the desired impact. Still, if it could be a rallying point to generate active participation by more citizens in the process, I suppose it would be worth doing.
I do not believe they will "give" it back.
I think we will have to "take" it back.
The subject of this thread, is a means to that end.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
You of course are correct here.........be it at the ballot box or otherwise.But as BDJ says I do not believe that they will go away quietly or willingly....But that would be the tear with the people.......They would at once see them for what they truly are...,lying,self-centered,self rightious,callous pieces of dog-dung......that need to be replaced!...............The change would have to start small...I think that is wise.....the smaller parties would be open to that I would think,the larger would laugh at it....
But we need to find an idea we like, or come up with our own idea, and work to get that idea implemented. In the case of this voting change idea, I am collecting as many signed letters/petitions (the "lessor of two evils" letter/petition at the top of this topic). After I get several hundred copies, I plan on boxing them up (have to make several copies of each one) and shipping them to as many of the already existing alternative political parties as I can afford to ship to. My reason for doing this is that I HAVE to have something to get those alternative party leader's attention. If I just approached them as a single indivudual who had what I thought was a good idea, it is likely I would be ignored. If I have several hundred signatures from good Americans who think this voting change idea is worth considering, I just might be listened to. It is worth a try.
The reason for first approaching the already existing alternative parties is because to launch this political battle, it makes good sense to first try and recruit a battle group that already exists, rather than trying to form one from the ground up. Then if a splash can be made with this idea, with the help of the already existing political parties help, hopefully this idea would snowball across the country to other citizens and other existing groups.
Doing this is better that continuing on as we have been because that is not working.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit".
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Great minds do think alike! Constitution Party is what I've been thinking too.
Now that put a smile on my face. Like this-[:D].
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
The gene pool needs chlorine.
jl45
Oh well then, we should get along just fabulously.[:D]
JC
Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
"InterstatePawn: Good question of who I am. Will try to answer although I can't see why anyone is interested. I guess I'm just a guy who, though I try to deny it to myself, is just plain anti-social. Sorry."
Oh well then, we should get along just fabulously.[:D]
Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.
Yeah, but Interstate, if someone is anti-social, they aren't around to "get along fabulously" with.
JC
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit" quote:
I personally would prefer a runoff election system where the top two vote receiving candidates would face off after the opening round of elections. This system would also encourage voters to consider casting votes for a third party candidate, at least in the opening round. And it might stop the whining about spoiler candidates affecting elections.
jl45
quote:
Well, if that is really what you prefer, then actually do something to make it happen. Use your creativity and find a way to get your idea rolling. Although I don't know why I encourage you to do that since it didn't work for me. Just a last, dieing reflex I guess. Sad.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Since I spent time and money on this idea, I feel I have the right to throw a small editorial in. I don't believe any thinking American feels things are going well in regards to how this country is being managed by our various governments; whether they be Democrats or Republicians makes little difference. But the majority of citizens will merely gripe and complain about how bad things are and then maybe, just maybe, actually spend the time and effort to influence how their elected officals behave. And about half of the citizens will actually trudge to the polls to vote for "the lessor of two evils" canidadate. And that is all they will do. But they fail to realize that what they have been doing is what allowed the present undesirable state of affairs to happen. They also fail to realize that when you don't like an outcome of a procedure, but you continue on doing the same thing over and over, you are most likely to get the same old undesirable results.
This should tell you that you need to find some way to change your procedure. This idea of changing the voting rules to allow each voter to vote for each canidate that he/she likes, thereby giving a 3rd or 4th party a chance to give the present two parties some competition, may not have been the best or only idea on how to improve American politics. BUT AT LEAST IT WAS AN IDEA THAT HAD POSSIBILITES! And all it would have cost anyone was a 37 cent stamp and the time and effort to print the letter/petition and mail it to "Take Back America".
Apparently millions of Americans like to complain about politics but are too "busy" to sign and mail a petition along with the cost of 37 cent stamp. It would not have hurt anything or anybody and IT MIGHT HAVE HELPED.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"