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.

 

Term Limits For All, Even Local Judges. Abolish Electoral College, Debate Thread.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
In My opinion, these 2 things if added to the Bill of Rights, under a name such as "Proper Representation for Citizens" would be the true game changer in our defunct election processes.

Life-long politicians and civil servants would cease to be as their current get-nowhere existence. In their place would be productive candidates, whom if they did not do as promised would not be re-elected to their next terms.

Also, popular vote really needs to be at the fore-front. The argument will be but more people live in "blah place" that's not fair. Well my argument is your place while smaller in population, seems to have a louder voice than the many more citizens in my place.

A True Democracy is the Will of the people, every single one regardless of borders, electors and parties.

Lastly, Tired of only 2 choices for your political views? These term limits for everyone, and abolition of Electoral College would ensure more view points to be represented do to the short life of an ineffectual political representative, be it Congress, President, or Judge.

Handle Yourselves appropriately here, wear you big-boy and big-girl pants here.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by matthewgraybeal
 


Couldn't agree more.
SF



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Agreed! Term limits for all.

incidently, how long has Ron Paul been in politics?




Point being, what if its actually a good politician that is actually working for the people...



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by matthewgraybeal
In My opinion, these 2 things if added to the Bill of Rights, under a name such as "Proper Representation for Citizens" would be the true game changer in our defunct election processes.

Life-long politicians and civil servants would cease to be as their current get-nowhere existence. In their place would be productive candidates, whom if they did not do as promised would not be re-elected to their next terms.


I'm all for it! Sign me up!


Also, popular vote really needs to be at the fore-front. The argument will be but more people live in "blah place" that's not fair. Well my argument is your place while smaller in population, seems to have a louder voice than the many more citizens in my place.

A True Democracy is the Will of the people, every single one regardless of borders, electors and parties


You had me at term limits but lost me at this one. You can't ignore what you termed "blah place" just because you feel it's not relavent.


Lastly, Tired of only 2 choices for your political views? These term limits for everyone, and abolition of Electoral College would ensure more view points to be represented do to the short life of an ineffectual political representative, be it Congress, President, or Judge.

Handle Yourselves appropriately here, wear you big-boy and big-girl pants here.

I haven't worn big girl pants since that night at the fraternit- never mind.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


If a politician were successful, and popular they could become the chair-person of a new party named after them so folks know whose ideals will continue past the life-time of their limited term. As a for instance "The Romney Party" or "The Obama Party" Call it whatever you want but I would suspect this would be the Easiest way to identify the style of governing you liked.

No Longer Just Democrat or Republican.

Does this make sense to you?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


According to to support for current Electoral college as not broken don't fix it. The strength of the Electoral college was to ensure that smaller states with less population had a fair share of their voice counted towards popular election.

As of now, with federal government being so large, states while they get their electoral vote, are underrepresented by average citizens. Disenfranchisement has kept the average citizen from voting.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
If and when, I start in Politics, this would be my platform.

2nd line



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by matthewgraybeal
 
Honesty, I think general apathy has kept people from voting.

2 cents.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Term limits seem like a good idea on the surface but with them in place what's to stop these elected officials to vote more opportunities for themselves into existence. There's already insider trading issues going on in our government but at least now they want to be re-elected so they kind of keep themselves in check. With someone knowing they're not coming back for a 2nd term whats the motivation to not try and set yourself up for after your term.

I don't really see how we could get more candidates up in front of the population for scrutiny, getting rid of political parties might be a good start. For some reason we like to limit ourselves to 2 choices for President as it is right now. Divide and conquer?

They don't really seem to accomplish very much that I can see that benefits the average person, more time is spent on inflating egos then solving problems. I can't see much of a change taking place without a more radical re-design of our voting system, we're going to be limited in our choices by how much airtime they get on Fox News or CNN. We'd basically have the same people looting and pillaging in a shorter time.

Getting rid of the EC is also going to be necessary, we need to be able to come up with some way of making all important decisions up for public vote. The logistics would be a chore no doubt but not impossible. Everyone already has a cell phone anyways, how about personal voting devices.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuestionsEverything
Term limits seem like a good idea on the surface but with them in place what's to stop these elected officials to vote more opportunities for themselves into existence. There's already insider trading issues going on in our government but at least now they want to be re-elected so they kind of keep themselves in check. With someone knowing they're not coming back for a 2nd term whats the motivation to not try and set yourself up for after your term.

per matthewgraybeal in response to QuestionsEverything.

It wouldn't, unless a provision were to be drafted by the people to prevent it. That would be Democracy by Citizens through their duly elected representative. The voters would catch on quick, and would be able to respond to stop it. Leaving the power back in the hands of the voters. If said unjust law would be enacted, then another would be able to undo it.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by matthewgraybeal
 


The term limits could be debated a few different ways. But one thing I would like to add whether there are limits or not, is no retirement package. They get a salary and insurance while they're in office, and that's it. Nothing when they get out. Except knowing they have served the American people.

Secondly, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. You know, "I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands...

We live by the law of the land, not by mob rule. Don't get rid of the electoral college. Make it law they must vote the will of the people. And if they don't, make the penalties stiff.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
i think the popular vote is now very appropriate to put in place. no longer are we as a society bound to or local medias and small towns. everyone in the US pretty much gets the same news sources and i honestly think a popular vote would work and could work.

the electoral college IS out of date and antiquated.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by matthewgraybeal
 


Isn't democracy by our duly represented officials basically the same thing we have in place right now. As far as voters catching on quickly if their representatives aren't working for them, your far more optimistic of the reasoning skills of your fellow man then me. They've basically been having a garage sale with our country being sold piecemeal to whoever has the money to buy.

We haven't really been smart enough as a society to catch on up until now. Oooh look at the pretty celebritiiieeees what were we talking about?
edit on 2-2-2012 by QuestionsEverything because: clumsy fingers



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I think I'm going to cry, I'm not agreeing completely with beezzer! Maybe it's just my misunderstanding of the OP and the responses.

I'm assuming that everyone is paying due reverence to the idea that our country was set up in a certain way and major changes should be examined by microscope?

What does the OP mean by "defunct election processes?" That not all citizens choose to vote? Then why not just fine everybody who doesn't? Of course, ballots cast for Mickey Mouse would go way up, but we'd have participation.

I really like Senator "What's his Name." He's doing a great job for me and I respect him. You won't let me vote for him any more? If he stops doing good, I'll un-elect him. Life long civil servants go too? I want the person who sets up the table and protocol for state dinners to change every few years? I want a guy who has spent a lifetime studying Mozambique to be kicked out? We have to vote on every silly job? Or does the new president have to hire a whole fresh team, right down to the cleaning crew?

What do you do with the Senate, let the country has a whole vote on people and the top 100 vote getters become Senators? Same thing with the House?

And why the excitement over "A True Democracy" as the will of the people? What if they don't vote? Then it's the will of some people, just like it is now.

Eliminate the electoral college and go to one nationwide vote? It has been opposed from the start of the country, and attempts to change it have always failed. There must be one heck of a serious and immediate problem that needs to be fixed. Umm, what was that problem again? That it's not a true democracy? The country was designed especially to prevent it from becoming a true democracy.

We don't have only two choices for our political views. Isn't Bernie Sanders either an Independent or a Socialist?Lieberman was an independent. Perot ran as an independent. There must be at least half a dozen parties on every presidential ballot.

And no, I don't want judges elected by the people. Their job is not to represent the people in any way. They are to maintain and interpret the law.


Handle Yourselves appropriately here, wear your big-boy and big-girl pants here.
I put on my big boy pants as you suggested but when you said I also had to wear my big girl pants, I couldn't get them to fit over the big boy ones.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by QuestionsEverything
 


While it appears so on paper about our Democracy, how much say did the average citizen get in the 12.1 Trillion banker bail-out?

With these new changes in place, someone with the gumption could get massive signatures to enact a law to get that money back, and fund smaller insurance and bank companies for start-ups.

Another alternative, maybe not the best but a solution. If the representative did not follow through after these signatures, they wouldn't get elected again by the people who put them there. And if their term wasn't effective, then if they get elected again at some point in the future they have better have governed for the will of the people, or their reputation and their party would hold little weight in the real desires of the voter.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You make good points Charles. The current independents are stuck with no unified voice in the electoral college. This is why Ross Perot failed to become president. More people wanted him in as president, than the established amount of votes necessary for the win of the electoral votes.

There is no place to put the extra votes, once the cup is full to get the electoral nomination. That's how it is skewed towards Republican and Democrat.

This is why in my opinion Ron Paul went straight for the Republican party, because the original ideals of the Party were Libertarian in principle.

Now They are NeoConservative, both parties.

The Electoral college has only two ways to nominate, it appears. Republican or Democrat.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by matthewgraybeal
 


The average citizen has almost absolutely no say in anything that goes on at Capitol Hill, we have the illusion of electing officials to vote in our best interests. From what I've read about the 12 trillion dollar embezzlement that took place, they say they didn't have much of a say in it either. I've seen where a officials have said they were told martial law would be implemented if they didn't immediately pass it in closed session.

A large portion of our reps right now are in some way beholden to the big financial institutions that were the recipients of the bailout, the common citizen had nothing to do with their decision making process.

How about if they were found to have acted in self interest when voting on an issue they would be found guilty of conspiring against the United States. They have no problems making it legal to lock anyone up without a trial, why not add some teeth to the repercussions for them if they act to enrich themselves at the detriment of the public?

Anytime someone introduces a bill that would hold them to the same standards most regular people are held to in their professions, it simply gets buried. I'm referring to the recent bill about drug testing welfare recipients being dropped after it was amended to include members of congress in Indiana.

If they feel their tenure being threatened, they will enact or squash any law to keep the gravy train flowing.
I'm pretty sure the situation is beyond anyones ability to reign in at this point.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by QuestionsEverything
 


There will be a certain amount of chaos on a federal level, however State Level would mean so much more efficiency. If a certain state wants testing on welfare recipients that would be their right. not the federals. The federal has too much reach into the backyards of local and state governance.

Once a good "business model appears" in any certain state the governor can offer to share their ideaologies.

If it becomes un-popular, it will change. just like a fashion trend.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Democracy is mob rules. We have a Republic, you don't want to live in a Democracy because today you might be part of the mob and tomorrow the mob could be looking to take a bite from you!

As for the Electoral College, w/o the EC you realize that the only places that would get any attention would be the population centers right? The EC correctly gives all states an equal share into the election process. W/O it, I could win the election just by going to the few largest cities and having the PACs talk me up.

Factor that into the FCC relaxing the % of a market someone can control in a population center and you're looking @ a situation where elections will be fixed faster than a cat @ Bob Barker's house.

What we should do is eliminate the primary process as the first states end up picking who will be present in the fall. That isn't right, some axe grinding special interest in Iowa decides who makes it? Hardly fair and it is only done to weed out the ones who won't play ball. The season should start 6.21, you need to balance your budget to last through election day and spend wisely, but that is the easiest way to ensure a voice for everyone w/o giving TPTB the quickest way to rig an election--ending the EC.

Derek



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Excuse me, but the will of the people no longer is the guiding force of this country--if it ever was.

By what mysterious mechanism do you plan to get such changes enacted?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join