Does the word "fixed" have any meaning in regard to a Political Party's actions? Should it?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thank you MME, at last someone addresses the point.

The Presidency is the only elected office that represents all of us. While your suggestion is far too democratic for the tastes of some ... anything that takes power away from the elites and restores it to the people is a step forward in my book.

The idea in this day-and-age that we cannot all have a secured National Citizens Account that we can log onto and vote for President (as well as for repeal, initiative and recall in my dream scenario) is really absurd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Which is why both parties are imploding. But in the last election, this action is what caused the democrats to be hurting worse than the republicans. The republicans were in tatters, they were in worse shape than the democrats are now. That's how bad this screw up is, and they keep getting worse. Trying to force Hillary into the white house has decimated the democrats, especially with the underhanded techniques done to try and do so.

Getting rid of the two party system would be awesome, but... I'm not sure how to do it. I've tried arguing ways... I've seen one option I like temporarily to get people out of the habit of voting only one party or the other.

A multi-vote system, where people get to vote for multiple candidates in order of most wanted to least.

As is lots vote R or D as a lesser of two evils cause they fear one side too much.

If everyone had multiple votes maybe we'd start getting others. Like...

2 = Candidate you want most
1 = Candidate you want second most
-1 = Candidate you fear most and are most opposed to

2 = two votes worth
1 = one vote worth
-1 = negates one vote from said candidate

This means in theory we're less likely to get a lesser of two evils candidate thanks to the down votes and more likely to get a candidate both sides can more easily live with. It will also encourage candidates to be less divisive as thanks to the down vote will become political suicide.

Just a two second thrown together idea in the last 2 minutes.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Put away the partisanship. Fair enough. How do we do that?

If I could figure that out, we'd already be a Communist nation.

a reply to: Puppylove

That's a really interesting approach.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The idea in this day-and-age that we cannot all have a secured National Citizens Account that we can log onto and vote for President (as well as for repeal, initiative and recall in my dream scenario) is really absurd.

I like the idea of voters having greater power.

I would add a receipt system to your proposal...or some way to recount other than just an audit.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I changed my mind instead just two +1 votes and one negative vote. This way everyone gets a net positive vote of one and the two most divisive candidates can kill each other off due to negative vote cancel.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Much ado has been made over the ongoing fringe theory that somehow Bernie Sanders was "cheated" or that the Primary-Caucus process was "fixed" in the 2016 Democratic nominating process.

These are clearly statements of pure emotion, but we shouldn't disregard them or discount them out of hand.

The Two-Party system in the US is not featured in our Constitution. President Washington in his Farewell Address counseled us AGAINST political parties.

Sadly, upon the inauguration of John Adams, we saw some of the very worst political polarization in our history displayed in the Alien and Sedition Acts, sponsored, notably, by a President and his allies in Congress. (Sound familiar?)

Thankfully, the Republic survived, and has continued on through our history mostly intact -- certainly not exactly what the Founders initiated, but still, intact.

Why do I say that? The idea of Party is completely inimical to the idea of the Republic ... out of many, one nation ... etc.

Back to the Democratic nomination process in 2016.

Bernie Sanders is and always has been a left-leaning Independent who has "caucused" with the Democrats on most issues.

He was not and is not a Democrat. He became a Democrat only for the short period of time he was running for the nomination.

Now, what do we know happened in 2016? It came to light last week that the election of 2012 had basically left the DNC deep in debt.

An agreement came to light between the Clinton campaign and the DNC that the debt would be cleared and operating funds would be provided by the Hillary campaign to the DNC in exchange for some controls over how that money was spent.

That's it. Secret or not, that's the "big scandal." The DNC was broke, and Clinton bailed it out.

In terms of "Sanders being cheated" ... how did that happen again? That requires some action against Sanders (yes, I know that DWS and company wrote a few nasty little emails) that was taken to diminish his equal chances?

What were those? Was he excluded from any debates? Was he kept off of Primary or Caucus ballots? Were votes illegally attributed to Clinton that were cast for Sanders? Were the election totals fraudulent?

No ... we have zero evidence of any of that happening.

Well, some would argue, there were superdelgates that were "in the bag" for Clinton. Yes, there were. The DNC has the right to set up its nominating process as it wishes. Sanders was aware of the existence of Superdelegates when he "joined" the party for a few months.

As I have argued this across several threads ... it became clear to me that a basic understanding of what a Primary or Caucus is seems to be lacking on the part of many ... these are PARTY elections.

They are intended for members of a political PARTY to voice their opinions for a certain candidate. The fact that party leaders are involved and have a disproportionate effect on the outcome is not unethical or illegal or even questionable ... because those factors are functions of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

The Two Party system is the issue.

Yet, the Two Party system is unavoidable under our Constitution The First Amendment guarantees a right to association.

So how do we defeat a system that we all in our guts know is not in the best interests of the American people?

Eh, you don't want to know the truth.

There's also campaign finance geared to help establishment candidates, complicit media, etc.

No objective person would say that it's a fair race nor that true outsiders have a good chance of getting elected. In fact, establishment parties often do everything they can to shut out outsider or third party candidates. This happens at a national and local level. I used to be an educator professionally. Even local SCHOOL board races had outside dirty money being poured in, often from out of state which is insane.

I really think that most people don't know how politics actually works in this country. They have an 8th grader idealized view of US democracy.

Weekend debates when nobody will watch, only a handful of debates, shady dealings going on in the back room, yea nothing to see here folks.

a reply to: Puppylove

The problem in the last Presidential election was that the Democrats fielded one of the most unlikable candidates in history that has had two decades of negative coverage and fringe theories promoted by "both" sides of the press.

... and that candidate STILL beat Trump by almost three million in the popular vote. Yes, I know that doesn't elect Presidents but it does tell just that in almost every state, with a few notable exceptions, the votes were nearly even.

None of that is the real issue here. I don't want to preserve the Democratic Party. I hope it blows itself to high heaven.

I want there to be a return to the people directly electing their representatives based on those representatives abilities not their bank accounts.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, it's not ever been a "fair race" in any election in which there are political parties involved; that is the point of this thread.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The idea in this day-and-age that we cannot all have a secured National Citizens Account that we can log onto and vote for President (as well as for repeal, initiative and recall in my dream scenario) is really absurd.

I like the idea of voters having greater power.

I would add a receipt system to your proposal...or some way to recount other than just an audit.

The problem is, of course, is that we're all too easily convinced at this point that computer systems will be hacked ... that and actually having secure systems would require technology that most would consider overly invasive.

I'd love to think we could throw tech at the problem, but we can't. The only solution, one in which I have zero hope at this point, is that the people themselves would start THINKING CRITICALLY again, rather than lapping up what the media spoon feeds us.

Notice how this thread is already dead. Heaven forbid we all discuss how to fix things and leave the partisan bickering behind. If we're not attacking each other like rabid animals and are actually trying to work together to correct the corruption and fix our government discussion drops dead pretty much instantly. Makes one wonder what the real goals of everyone on here is, since fixing things apparently isn't it.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Notice how this thread is already dead. Heaven forbid we all discuss how to fix things and leave the partisan bickering behind. If we're not attacking each other like rabid animals and are actually trying to work together to correct the corruption and fix our government discussion drops dead pretty much instantly. Makes one wonder what the real goals of everyone on here is, since fixing things apparently isn't it.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Notice how this thread is already dead. Heaven forbid we all discuss how to fix things and leave the partisan bickering behind. If we're not attacking each other like rabid animals and are actually trying to work together to correct the corruption and fix our government discussion drops dead pretty much instantly. Makes one wonder what the real goals of everyone on here is, since fixing things apparently isn't it.

I saw how it was going and stopped posting. Apparently, there are folks who like to chase me around the forums to remind me that I'm a good-for-nothing Hillary lover libard fascist communist ... well, you know, SSDD. I probably should have known better than to start a thread in the current climate. We already saw that the actual question I asked was totally discarded, and twisted (by almost every one except a few wonderful members) to the regular BS.

I saw today that new polls say that both the Democrats and Republicans are at all time lows in polled approval. Yet, come this time next year, we will still more than likely have two evils, no lessers, and if you're like me, you'll have to vote AGAINST someone rather than for them.

I'd love to vote FOR someone that I believed in wouldn't you?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes I would thus why my two positive votes +1 negative vote idea.

It would pretty much destroy the republican and democratic parties and reduce divisive policies.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes I would thus why my two positive votes +1 negative vote idea.

It would pretty much destroy the republican and democratic parties and reduce divisive policies.

I think your idea had great merit. I believe we should add a few more changes:

1. Federal law banning political lobbying.
2. Term limits.
3. Contribution limits.
4. Constitutional amendment establishing the right to plebiscite including initiative (proposing legislation) and recall removing figures from office (beginning with the President).

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure but the hard part is getting all this in place.

Walk away from the big 2 and find a better path is how the people need to do it, almost half of registered voters are independent anyways.

If you cannot find a third party that you like, start one if a bunch of disgruntled veterans can get a third party going a bunch of over educated liberals should be able to do so with ease. (just a little fun poking)

As long as people keep punching the ticket by the letter next to the name rather than the actions of the person we are screwed that is the only narrative we need to focus on to change.

ETA: without an option in congress that breaks the current stranglehold we will not be able to enact real change.

a reply to: Irishhaf

People keep doing so because of the fear instilled in them for what the opposing side will do. Is why I gave two positive votes and one negative vote. Oh and only one vote per candidate. It allows people to vote away their fear and due to two votes even if so scared they feel the need to vote thier letter they can still with their second vote, vote for anothet candidate they don't fear as much. As long as the fear of the greater evil winning is so strong people will keep voting the same.