It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OK, wild idea on election reform.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Anyone cognizant of the picture of the political system in the US today knows that it's merely 2 sides to the same coin. So basically you're voting for the same "party". It's just what party is going to be the voice of the MIC.

People have been putting forth the idea of a 3rd party, Ie: Libertarian. I've got a different idea. Reduce the parties to ONE. No Republicans, no Democrats, let's call it America's Party. Everyone belongs to it, kinda like China's Communist Party. Just vote for your guy and keep him accountable.

I think this would work but I have NO illusions that the PTB are going to actually do anything that would actually put the power back in the hands of the electorate. Or is this just a WILD idea.

Edit: This is for Congress as well.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by intrepid]




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

If there's only one party, then there's only one candidate.
So your function at elections is to cast your vote for the only candidate on the paper, the person the party has chosen for you.
How does this give you any control?
How does this make the politician more accountable?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


To start with it takes party politics out of the equation. Candidate A says.... Candidate B is for.... You vote for the person, not the party.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Intrepid, I don't see this as such a bad idea. There could be even three or four people running, then have a run-off.

I will be interested in reading others opinions on why this won't work, and I suppose it could diminish our position as a republic/democracy in some ways. Not sure.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting supposition.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

OK
Constituency 1, you choose between A and B
Constituency 2, you choose between C and D
Constituency 3, you choose between E and F

As it happens, the views of A,C, and E are very similar.
Under the present system, they are allowed to express this by declaring membership of the same party.
Presumably, under the one-party system, that will not be allowed.

So what will happen?
In practice, A,C, and E will continue to work together. They will, for practical purposes, be a political connection. If they and people with similar views form a majority in Congress, they will try to control the business of Congress.
If they're allowed to describe themselves as a political connection, then parties have come back.
If they're not allowed to describe themselves as a political connection, they will just be a secret political connection, and conspiracy theorists will have to spend hours trying to work out which politicians are working together.

I don't think you can take party politics out of the equation. If you try, you just drive it underground.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I like the idea Intrepid, but I prefer to have NO party.

Just independants, all fighting for the rights, wants and needs of their constituents.

You'd also have to remove the 17th Amendment in order for things to make sense state wise.

When people are given the opportunity to band together as politicians, they undermine the very systems put in place to make sure they aren't representing their own ideals and values.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I like the idea Intrepid, but I prefer to have NO party.

When people are given the opportunity to band together as politicians, they undermine the very systems put in place

But the problem as with the original idea, is that you cannot possibly stop them banding together.

The choice is;
a) They band together publicly
b) They band together secretly



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I like the idea Intrepid, but I prefer to have NO party.

When people are given the opportunity to band together as politicians, they undermine the very systems put in place

But the problem as with the original idea, is that you cannot possibly stop them banding together.

The choice is;
a) They band together publicly
b) They band together secretly


That's true, but it will still be VERY apparent once you had bills on the floor to vote for.

It's very easy to see whose all happy with each other based on what kind of language is in the bill. This sort of system also encourages a ridiculous ammount of transparancy, because you can call back your Senator or representative at ANY time if you don't like something they did.

No waiting till the next election cycle. Immediate recall.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

No waiting till the next election cycle. Immediate recall.

If that's the solution, surely it can be put in place without attempting to abolish parties. My point was simply that abolishing party names, on its own, gets you nowhere.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I disagree, party's have convoluted the system. It's created a system where the people aren't in control and it's not the will of the people being represented.

It's the will of the "party". You can't have a system IMO where people are subscribing to just ONE ideology like GOP or Democract.

And for the solution I stated, check out the link in my first post about the 17th amendment, it's really shocking.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I think a more interesting election reform would be to elect people randomly according to Social Security numbers. Everybody from your local dog catcher to the President of the United States. That way, nobody is going to spend a lot of money campaigning, nobody is going to owe anybody political favors, and everybody gets an equal chance.

Sure, by a roll of the dice you might come up with some real losers. But would they necessarily be any worse than the people we get anyway? I think this is particularly true for the President. They have to go through all kinds of training by the bureaucrats who run everything, anyway. An average person could do it. Probably even below average.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Political parties are not mandated by Constitution. There is absolutely no need to belong to a political party in order to be elected. In George Washington's Farewell Address he gave dire warnings to the evils of political parties. No one listened to him then, and no one is really listening now. I have posted quotes from his Address in other threads, only to see that ignored. People want their political parties so quit being such a party pooper!

The real problem is that the people have come to believe that the only authority they possess is in voting. Voting is the very least one can do to protect freedom and if the government isn't about protecting freedom and the inalienable rights of all people then exactly what good does that government bring?

Every individual has the inherent political power within them. Political power functions best when it is evenly spread among the people, and I am not talking about democracy, which is just another mechanism for voting, I am talking about each person living their lives as they see fit, functioning with in the legal parameters of respect for inalienable rights. People do not need governments telling them what they can do, and frankly they don't need governments telling them what they cannot do. If respect for inalienable rights is the paradigm then it is self evident what can be done, and what cannot be done.

A government set up to establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and and ensure domestic tranquility should mean simply making sure that courts of law are available to prosecute those who have abrogated and derogated the rights of another, as well as ensuring the courts are available for a redress of grievances, and that a remedy is available for such grievances. That government should have the ability to provide for the common defense, which does not mean empire building, but means defending the nation against invaders. The general welfare is best protected when all people are free to do what they need to do to ensure life, liberty and property, and without this freedom, there will not be any domestic tranquility.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Intrepid,

Good idea, for a start. We also need to abolish ALL career politicians. They should be the way they were back when the country was founded. The politicians should all be average Joes'. Just people with normal jobs who care enough about this country to be willing to serve there country in the political positions for no wage. No amassing political favor, no campaign contributions, zip.

Let the people who LIVE in this country, and LOVE this country, RUN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!

That way the country is in the hands of the people who know what is going on in the country and know what this country needs, not a bunch of preppy, dipsticks who's only idea of living in and knowing this country, was the rhetoric that was forced on them in some prep school, that teaches that it is a crime to think for yourself, unless it's how to get more for yourself.

If the men who founded this great nation, and fought for its independance could travel through time and come to this time now, I feel that they would call for a armed uprising to throw off the bondage that the government has become. (At the very least they would probably go up to the current and past presidents, that are still alive, and probably deck them. Knock them smooth the hell out, and voice their dissaproval or the current situation. I know I want to.)

I love this country, but the way it is going now, it makes me ashamed to be an American. I understand that we have all of these modern conveniences and freedoms, but they don't mean anything if the freedoms are an illusion. This country is no longer a democracy, it is becoming a socialist republic, and I for one want the Democracy that my forefathers fought for BACK. NOW!

Sorry for the rant, I get started and I come un-hinged.


I agree that this should go for every elected official, from the President, down to the local Ward Alderman. Every political office.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Ghost of Chewie]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
To actualy have a democracy that is worth anything is too make the proces of party political donations illegal, also the use of your own personal funds.

IF you wish to run for office on a local or national level you must sit a series of exams proving you are intellectualy sound to do so.

And this process should not be easy, upon qualifying this exam it should require years of intensive study in a specialised center of learning such as a university where you would be required to learn a trade, requiring to gain experiance in the work place. Earn multiple degrees in areas of science, history, geography. Perhaps even national service should be required for qaulification.

Upon completing what would be the equivalant of several degrees in varying fields the nation would allocate yourself and any other candidate with equal funding provided by the tax payer to use however you see fit in your election campaign.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
i'm in the process of writing a post for a thread in the metaphysical forum, here, that has to do with this topic, or rather this topic is a part of my idea...


and i opted for a NO party system, too - for all the reasons expressed here.

my initial thought was a one-party system but i decided that leaving the idea of partisan politics accessible, so to speak, by retaining one party, would eventually lead to a split back into a two party system.

at first the split might present as just a little disagreement amongst the members but as we all know, any kind of discord in politics usually gets worse rather than resolved because the path of least resistance is one of heated discussions and passionate debates.

in the guise of standing up for one's political ethics, stubbornness reigns and humility slips quietly out the door and escapes.

next thing you know, you're back to elephants and donkeys!

also, partisan politics are, i think, agenda-oriented and even keeping it one-party is going to retain that agenda attitude, which has no place in my own little scenario for my "idea." so i got rid of it.

good thread, Intrepid!
you've had quite a few lately that i've really enjoyed even if i didn't comment but just lurked.



yes i do lurk from time to time



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Another idea on the same page:

Vote when filling out yearly income tax returns.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


This idea is kind of like our system of selecting juries...it seems 'fair' but I rarely hear stories of people who LIKE jury duty.

reply to post by __rich__
 


If you look at the numbers, as I've stated in other threads, the number of people who vote is very close to the number of people who file income tax returns.

To the OP:
Not everyone has the same beliefs or ideals...running under the same banner does nothing for the apathetic, unenthusiastic voters we already have today. If given the option of 'liberal' or 'conservative' it at least narrows the choice down to whatever the voter feels themselves to be, in turn, to vote for who they believe is most in line with their personal beliefs...which is the basis for our democratic republic, as I understand it. If you take the options away, you're not going to see an increase in votes...if anything you'll cause a greater level of apathy and disdain towards politics, thus allowing for fewer and fewer people deciding who should run the country.

If anything I think we need more political parties. The population is too large for just two or three. The country is not divided on simple 'yes' or 'no' answers. I tend to vote for democrats but I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment...does that mean I should start voting for republicans? Even if I disagree with everything else on their platform?

Granted, an increase in political parties would cause serious issues with the electoral college...but in the grand scheme of things I believe we can start slowly. Your congressional representative is voted for based on your congressional district. If we can obtain more political parties through our representatives then, hopefully, after a while we can move on to senators and eventually the electoral college can see reform.

I don't recognize the problem in American politics as being that the two parties are the same, I'm seeing the problem as too many ideologies being represented by too few people. Democrats and republicans don't offer the most extreme believers to the public, they offer the person who can get as many votes as possible...as middle of the road as they can find, this results in the stagnant belief that both parties are one in the same.

If one candidate can get 51% of the vote, that's all the party cares about. That's all the candidate cares about. We'd have to change a few state laws, seeing as a lot of them require 51% of the vote for victory, thereby reducing the possibility of multiple candidates to accepting just two.

Losing options isn't the answer, expanding them is.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Stop voting for the two parties, vote for real candidates with real solutions. Then when time comes for re election, replace them with someone better. Keep replacing Congress till there is no one left in that has been in for decades. No one should be in Congress for decades.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Nah IMO the problem lies with the tendency a lot of Americans to think that there is the best or the highway so to speak . This leads to a lack of intellectual honesty . Rather then admit that the so called Constitutional Republic is not without its flaws but is the right system of governance for the US . Instead the people I am referring to which make the usual bogus unsubstantiated claims about there system of governance being king .

Myself I would never deny that the parliamentary system and a Constitutional Monarchy has its flaws but it is certainly the right system of governance for New Zealand . The Constitutional constraints on CFR and the quality of the Supreme Court in the US cannot be examined properly without the use of intellectual honesty.

The other crucial thing is that many Americans fail or are unwilling to understand is that solutions from three hundreds years ago will not in todays world . This sensible concept takes nothing away from the Foundering Fathers it mealy acknowledges that they belong to a different era .



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The single party would change anything.

It would take all of a minute and a half for the single party to devolve into "wings" with little groups and cliques.

Seems a most basic function of the stupid human is to group up then follow that group right over a cliff.

Race is the first group. Then religion. Then gender. And the "political" crap grows from the connections in all three sprinkled with a little financial gain for good measure.

Everyone is corrupt. Which is why no man should ever be above any other.

We have trickle up stupidity and dependence enabling trickle down totalitarianism. Not good. Anyway you slice and dice the "parties" you'll come to this eventually.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join