Soft Money and Voter Registration
I thought of this not so new idea reading through the comments on votere registration
1. Contributions (funds, time, etc.) may only derive from those who have a geopolitical interest as evidenced by inclusion in a voters pamphlet and ballot.
2. The political interest is ability to vote.
3. The geographical interest is the precinct, special district, county, state, or nation.
4. Entities such as Political Action Committees, Corporations, Unions, foreign countries and the like have no franchise,m cannot vote, therefore cannot contribute.
3. The value amount that may be contributed per proposal, measure, or candidate is (fill in the blank I'm not doing all the work) by any registered voter.
4. Funds or other of any value may only be collected within the geographical area described in the voters pamphlet and ballot.
5. Funds and other values may only be spent for the measure, proposal or candidate specified by the donor.
6. The voters registration card is used to participate.
7. A political group selects it's own candidates and supports it's own measures by methods of it's own choosing in the Primary Election or at any time the group or party or coalition so chooses. All of the offerings must be listed in the General Election.
8. All registered voters must be offered a chance to participate in balloting in any special, primary, or general election or the results declared null and void.
9. How you marry all that information up and cross check it against registrations, death certificates, birth certificates, military service is up to the computer age but is no more difficult than than instant purchasing by credit or debit cards.
10. None of the Above must appear on every ballot for every measure, proposal or candidate meaning of NOA receives 50% of those voting plus one the entire proposal or slate of candidates goes down. The race is run again with fresh ideas or candidates.
Solves more than one problem.
Puts power in the hands of the individual voter even where the candidate or measure is pre-packaged some where else such as in National or single candidate elections such as local Judge or other races.
Figure the rest out for yourselves. It isn't rocket science.
1. Contributions (funds, time, etc.) may only derive from those who have a geopolitical interest as evidenced by inclusion in a voters pamphlet and ballot.
2. The political interest is ability to vote.
3. The geographical interest is the precinct, special district, county, state, or nation.
4. Entities such as Political Action Committees, Corporations, Unions, foreign countries and the like have no franchise,m cannot vote, therefore cannot contribute.
3. The value amount that may be contributed per proposal, measure, or candidate is (fill in the blank I'm not doing all the work) by any registered voter.
4. Funds or other of any value may only be collected within the geographical area described in the voters pamphlet and ballot.
5. Funds and other values may only be spent for the measure, proposal or candidate specified by the donor.
6. The voters registration card is used to participate.
7. A political group selects it's own candidates and supports it's own measures by methods of it's own choosing in the Primary Election or at any time the group or party or coalition so chooses. All of the offerings must be listed in the General Election.
8. All registered voters must be offered a chance to participate in balloting in any special, primary, or general election or the results declared null and void.
9. How you marry all that information up and cross check it against registrations, death certificates, birth certificates, military service is up to the computer age but is no more difficult than than instant purchasing by credit or debit cards.
10. None of the Above must appear on every ballot for every measure, proposal or candidate meaning of NOA receives 50% of those voting plus one the entire proposal or slate of candidates goes down. The race is run again with fresh ideas or candidates.
Solves more than one problem.
Puts power in the hands of the individual voter even where the candidate or measure is pre-packaged some where else such as in National or single candidate elections such as local Judge or other races.
Figure the rest out for yourselves. It isn't rocket science.
In any case the time for embracing the Constitution is long past. Should have thought of it before voting to replace it. You all got what you asked for and voted for. How? Did you not vote to send the exact same people back into office from the exact same party no matter which of it's faces you proclaimed the lesser of two evils? Congratulations you are a supportrer of evil.
For some of us there was and is always a better choice than supporting those who say one thing and consistently do another..
Back to the conversation which still isn't rocket science. The point is to engage in conversation and show there are ways to control soft money and elections. None of them are free or perfect. None of them are discussed. Why?
Which was and is the whole point. Why are solutions that support any view other than government control of citizens suppressed? Why is citizen control of government such a scary concept?
Maybe they have a point. After all they get one hundred percent of the vote every time.
Enjoy the converrsation. But seizing on the thin patina provided by a largely ignored document seems a curious way to feel protected. Personally I think Neapolitano was entirely correct. Though I also fully believe it was a planted statement meant to engender yet another crisis.
Home study for this time - Cycle of Repression Tupamaros Carlos Marighella - What single chang allowed that strategy to win this time.
I think I owe some more defintion corrections.
Enjoy the discourse. There's not much else left.
As you said Establishment Republicans are the Right Wing of the Left and the Establishment Democrats are the Left Wing of the Left.
When you realize the Center is not the Center of the Left but the Constitution much that was inexplicable makes complete sense. It was simply a matter of picking up the signpost marked Center and moving it to the Center of the Left.
The proof is in what they do not what they say.
The common goal of course is a neo-feudalist ''establishment'' of an elitist class with the purpose of establishing Government over Citizens. In the old days that was known as divine right expressed as God-King-Country-Citizens.
The activities of 1776-1789 for the first time in the world put to work the notion the formula of God-Citizens-Country-Government.
So what is the true Right? Those who believe Citizens should control Government which fits for two reasons. First it is their 'divine right' under the older definition. Second it is an empty space not currently used.
The extremists of the true right would be anarchists and the extremists of the true left would be fascists which include the failed experiments of Nazi-ism and Communism. Both of which were founded on representing the people and both of which along with our own version ended up with a class society with a self perpetuating class of 'leaders.
No government has lasted two hundred years without that being the result.
Using the correct definitions explains much and is a start point to whatever lies ahead.
The missing element are citizens who have and welcome both rights and responsibilities in equal measure.
Hard to arrive at in an atmosphere of propagandists posing as media and numbering educators as well as reporters in their pro-establishment group.
Enough....who defined the three parts of the left and what are those parts? Why are all establishment politicians fascist in nature?
Establishment politicians are fascist because they derive their power from control over subjects.
The other side of that is the meaning of fascism is control of the population by any and all means necessary. The essence and final argument of those who choose government control of citizens, or members of any group.
By their own choice the left added the need for an elite and self perpetuating class of leaders and in doing so have now blended the very worst of socialism with the very worst of capitalism with the very worst of political ideology.
This began in the late 1800s and begat the Socialist Wars of the twentieth century as each version sought supremacy. Granted the US system is the best of the choices. But it was never the only choice. There remains Citizens controlling government something which Neapolitano referred to in her remarks about the military being a danger to the government meaning the Government Party. Or the remarks about enhancing the current Schutzstaffel to equal the power of the military. Incrementalism is still at work. Quietly munching away.
Three parts of the group in power with three addittions. Government (Statists) Big Business (Corporatists) and Union Leaders. The additions are control of Media, Education and a public willing to be easily subjugated. Think not? Which of the hand picked candidates of the Government Party will you pretend to vote for or against and does it make any difference other than demonstrating your choice of a greater or lesser evil? (The author of that triad definition was Benito Mussollini who defined a modern National Socialist Fascist state versus the International aims of the Communist version.) Our version is a much softer version. It's still left wing fascist socialism.
I submit there is or at least was always a better choice. For me I'm stuck with my oath to the Constitution increasingly asking what does that have to do with the Government? But then I'm old enough for it to matter little more than that.
No contradictions is my comfort zone.