Forum Thread

Interesting how things have changed

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 22 of 22 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I think all of our problems can be fixed by an engaged public that takes responsibility to really understand the issues of the day and vote intelligently. I know that is a big hurdle in itself, but not as big as calling a Constitutional Convention and start from scratch.

    The 21st Century Declaration of Independence does not suggest that we "start from scratch." It suggest that we amend, revise, update and improve the Constitution, and to do that would require putting an end to the presidential form of monarchy and an end to the divisive competition for the throne, and replace the chief executive with an executive council to be nominated and elected directly by the people utilizing the write-in ballot. But all items in the Constitution would remain intact if they didn't need revision, clarification, updating, etc.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Interesting. People typically don't like change. Elected people change sometimes but to change from an individual to a group or panel at the top of the Executive branch. If such was bipartisan it might be even more interesting. Usually we are used to a winner and a loser every 4 years.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Interesting. People typically don't like change. Elected people change sometimes but to change from an individual to a group or panel at the top of the Executive branch. If such was bipartisan it might be even more interesting. Usually we are used to a winner and a loser every 4 years.

    Yes, the present political electoral system makes us either winners of losers -- and too often the majority winds up the losers while increasingly the winners are the wealthy forces of greed and self-interest, whether the official "winners" of an election are Democrats or Republicans. (Since Bill Clinton ran to the right of middle due to the popularity of Reaganism, most Democrats have gone along with Reaganism, essentially. Even Obama invoked Reagan's name of several occasions.)

    The new Declaration suggests a new system that would make it so there would be no divisive competition, and no monetary influence (no paid political ads, etc.). And the winners of an election for the executive council would not be those who sought personal power and campaigned for it. They would be those who are essentially "drafted" by the people who nominated and elected them. Those who would be thus nominated and elected could accept their calling or not. And, being named and chosen by the people, they would naturally represent the largest blocks of voters and be bipartisan (a term that would eventually be outmoded as society gets used to having a real Democracy of, by, and for the people).

    Giving the people the equal opportunity and the free choice to name who they want to represent them would both liberate and empower the people.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Maindawg Wrote:

    The constitution is fine. An amendment may occur , but that is all ever needed. I am terrified by the idea of a constitutional convention . The Rethugs are like one state away from getting 32 states needed to amend the constitution or even tear it up and rewrite it. Did you know that ? They are. It can happen. Hell Putin might be at the meetings ! Way things are going , we may as well live it up like it's 1999 because pretty soon we may be dealing with a whole new alternate reality. But right now , in spite of the fat idiot, government is functioning. Barely.

    Odd that you would admit that government is barely functioning and yet say the Constitution is fine.

    Granted, part of the reason things have gone so wrong during the last four or five decades is because the extreme right has distorted the meaning and intent of the Framers of the Constitution to suit their own purposes. Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United and McCutcheon are examples of that, and there are many more in congressional legislation and in court decisions.

    But that proves the need for constitutional reform. Part of the reason the Constitution is so easy to distort or misinterpret is that it needs clarifications, revisions, updates and improvements. It is not "fine" as it is, even though it could be if all politicians and all citizens actually understood the real intent of the Founders and Framers. But they don't, which is why it is so easy to either dismiss or ignore or distort the Constitution.

    The Supreme Law of the Land was intended to be a living document, to be improved and updated as needed, which is why Article 5 was included in it. And while Republicans could do what you fear, that wouldn't happen if there were a populist grass roots uprising that I believe is coming. After all, if all those who have voted Republican learned the truth, the Republican base would diminish down to about 20 percent. But it's up to us to get out there and help people learn the truth.

    "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." -- Thomas Jefferson

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Reading the reply's then I shake my old head. Why does not anyone adapt an voting system which "works"? (As in Europe)

    No "electoral college"; just "votes" should count; no outside "money" involved ( except real cost to do the voting paid for by the government (tax money); no adds; no "rally's shouting B.S. just only "platform" discussions) Just straight forward voting based on "qualification" nothing else. Also as in France an 48 hr. "dead zone" before the election itself. Stop all the "jerry mandering" and "redistricting" as well voter restrictions and voting booth location tampering etc. Of course strict laws about how someone can get elected based on solid qualifications. Like showing "mandatory" (should be a rule) tax returns ; an extensive mental evaluation; government experience and knowledge of this country (history) as well the world; be impartial related to "religion" or "peoples color" or ethnic background etc. Should have no conflict of interest whatsoever; should only do the job he/she is elected for; nothing else.

    Let's start with that; should not be that difficult to put that into law.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Reading the reply's then I shake my old head. Why does not anyone adapt an voting system which "works"? (As in Europe)

    No "electoral college"; just "votes" should count; no outside "money" involved ( except real cost to do the voting paid for by the government (tax money); no adds; no "rally's shouting B.S. just only "platform" discussions) Just straight forward voting based on "qualification" nothing else. Also as in France an 48 hr. "dead zone" before the election itself. Stop all the "jerry mandering" and "redistricting" as well voter restrictions and voting booth location tampering etc. Of course strict laws about how someone can get elected based on solid qualifications. Like showing "mandatory" (should be a rule) tax returns ; an extensive mental evaluation; government experience and knowledge of this country (history) as well the world; be impartial related to "religion" or "peoples color" or ethnic background etc. Should have no conflict of interest whatsoever; should only do the job he/she is elected for; nothing else.

    Let's start with that; should not be that difficult to put that into law.

    Originally, the first president, George Washington, was elected by popular vote, and he was elected because he was by far the most popular choice. And the person who got the next highest number of votes was automatically elected as Vice President. There were no partisan political parties. It was a popularity contest.

    As I've already said earlier, the first partisan political party was founded near the end of Washington's term, in 1793, and its opposition party was founded not long after that. And the electoral college as we now it didn't come into existence until 1804 with the Twelfth Amendment. All that could be changed.

    You mentioned Europe, and I wonder if you know that Switzerland is governed an executive council? Of course, they allow interest groups or parties to promote and advocate candidates for the council, but I don't see much wrong with that. The message I promote even suggests that here in America different interest groups could advocate for or recommend potential candidates for an executive council, so long as there are no paid political ads and all political advocacy is done through free public service type forums in the print and broadcast media, voter pamphlets, etc., not more than three months prior to elections. And all political advocacy would be positive, recommending potential candidates' qualifications and views, with no negative comments about anyone else.

    And by the way, we could insist that Article 6 as it is be honored and obeyed -- so that everyone understands there must be no religious test or requirement to hold public office.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Thanks Guy; the most important thing what you forgot to mention is "no outside money" should be involved. Here it is pure bribery with the "super pacs" etc. Sorry this "banana republic" is super corrupt, ask Trump.