Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

When a vote shouldn't just be a vote

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I believe that with corruption and misleading promises by politicians destroying voter's faith in their nominated leaders, that every vote should be discounted as if it were a contract broken.

What I mean to say is this:

When you vote, you expect without fail for the politician to keep to his/her promises, or at least do their best to keep to them, and not make later unfounded excuses or deviating action that are not quite what they promised, even a "trojan" agenda.

This world needs voting to be attached to politicians promises, and those votes should sustainable as a standing retractable vote throughout the whole time spent of the individual being voted for until next election. it is the only way today that the public can truly be able to rightly control their government as is voted for.

I believe that today is a time when the public should have the right to attach conditions to votes, as we all know by now, an opinion by the public that is not heard, considered or even accepted by a 3rd tier government member creates the effect of no movement from an opinion at all. The working public simply do not have the time to be involved and to view all bills being processed, passed, rejected or adjusted, and a lot of the time they are often influenced by lobbying and the overriding interests and opinions of mega-organisations and financially influential, very connected individuals and groups.

Most of us know that to be heard these days and also have your say agreed to on a social online network of some kind, to join groups online, and protest on the streets, in fear of security services and militaristic suppressive, profit favoring policing.

Most people are too scared to speak out in fear of being criminalised or labelled a terrorist or anti-social in some way, being threatened with loss of reputation, character defamation, even jobs, lifestyles, and careers (Look at Snowden/Manning now, and what the media does to destroy people who are pushing a rightful humanitarian cause).

I also think that there should be categorised votes to show who voted (still respectfully anon), those who are financially bonded to the voters, which industry they are in, and what their class is, and this should be shown as mandatory.

How the media cheated Ron Paul:

www.youtube.com...

Also I believe that the media by law must display votes and all candidates according to at least top 5 voted for, things like that, with the penalty of fines according to viewer count, profits made that day, and a potential ban, including a front page, or headline story apology, even a ban on any publications related to voting.


What do YOU think?
edit on 20/10/13 by mrbeardo42 because: youtube playback error when played, added link




posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I think all major legislation should be voted on by .... voters, not politicians.

Federal, State, and local.

Don't know where to draw a line though.

Legislatures and laws need to be controlled by voters, not Lobbyists and politicians.

Maybe an annual referendum.


_____________

here's your video
edit on Oct-20-2013 by xuenchen because:

edit on Oct-20-2013 by xuenchen because:




posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Thanks for reposting video and your opinion!



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
How about we just repeal the 17th amendment. Using an article 5 convention.
And repeal the 16th while were at it.
And add a few more amendments bringing ultimate decision making back to the states where it should be anyways.
Say 3/5 of the states can throw out any law passed by the Feds.
3/5 of the states can override a Supreme Court rulling.
Term limits for congress and the courts.

I urge everyone to read and understand the constitution and it's amendments.
Most of the laws the Feds pass, they don't even have the authority to legislate.

The Washington rulers will never reform themselves.
We must do it for them. And under article 5 they have no say whatsoever over a convention.
No article 5 does not allow for a "constitutional convention".
It allows for a "convention for proposing amendments".

Article V
TextThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.





new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join