Balance the budget: abolish elections.

I have seen something in American politics lately that I never thought I would ever see. I honestly believe it's about time we simply abolished elections.

Every two years, we spend massive amounts of money to try and convince the public to vote. We spend massive amounts of money to staff polls and enforce voting laws. Politicians spend vast amounts of money to try and convince the public their candidate is the best. All that money, and what do we get for it? We used to get some choice in who won... not a lot, of course, because so many people either voted for a party regardless of what that party wanted to do or who they chose to run, or because the media kept harping on stories designed to sway public opinion, but still we had the power to come together and change our government if we could do so.

And in 2016, we did just that. The American people elected Donald Trump as President.

Now, in a free and fair election, there would have been complaining and griping, certainly. It was a heated political campaign in a deeply divided country. Complaints were expected, just as there were complaints in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected. But this time around, there was more than complaints...

Instead there were organized protests of "Not My President"...


There were calls to violence to remove the newly-elected President...


There were calls in the US Congress to impeach him, starting before he ever took office...


There was even a special investigation into an apparently imagined collusion between Trump and Russia... that is still ongoing a year later with no actual evidence Trump was involved in anything like that.

All of these had one thing as a goal: to remove a duly-elected President and thereby invalidate the votes of those who voted for him. This is different than simply trying to convince a sleepy, gullible public to vote a certain way; this was an attempt to overthrow the election after it happened, by force of law and possibly by force of violence.

Friday, something similar happened. In Alabama, a special Senate election was approaching. On one side was the Republican candidate, a well-known, locally-admired, nationally-hated ex-Supreme Court Justice named Roy Moore. On the other side was a relatively unknown US Attorney named Doug Jones. The election polls were giving Moore a wide lead, some would say an insurmountable lead, over Jones... until a story broke in the Washington Post that Moore had assaulted a 14-year old girl back in 1979. The woman, now 53, had a history of leveling similar charges, a history of divorce, and a history of bankruptcy and financial issues. A twitter post accused the Washington Post of paying her for her story.

In a just world, there would have been no real jump to conclusions at this point. He said, she said, no real evidence, all allegations, suspicious timing from a suspicious source, but a serious charge and a believable story... Maybe it would have swayed some voters, maybe it wouldn't have swayed others. Maybe it would have changed the results of the election, maybe it wouldn't. But that wasn't what happened.

Instead, sitting Senators are now calling for Moore to be expelled from the US Senate if he wins a free and fair election in the face of these unproven charges. The video below is from Rep. Adam Kinzinger, but there are plenty more.


And ironically, many are the same people who called for the special investigation into Russian collusion... yet are now happily colluding with a Washington DC newspaper in an Alabama election.



The special thing about the United States of America back in 1776 was that, for the first time in history, a people threw off the yoke of life under nobility and instead chose to govern themselves. They believed that all men were equal under the law, a major departure from past governments. The nations of the world were ruled by kings accountable to no one.

A king could order a person executed without cause. A king could confiscate property without reason. A king owned the land, the wildlife, the rain itself. A king decreed laws by himself, with no concern for a legislature/parliament or a court. Life under a king was either wonderful if one was in the king's court and in favor, or terrible if not. The peasants toiled to please the king on the king's land with the king's tools and produced goods for the king, in return for the right to live in the king's kingdom. Food was bare essentials, typically bread and water. Speaking out against the king in any fashion was typically met with harsh punishments, even death. In short, life in many ways was quite similar to what we today consider a third-world country.

In contrast, the United States had a President. He was restricted from performing certain acts that would infringe on the people's rights, and was bound by the decisions of the Congress and the Courts. The Courts were bound by the decisions of the Congress, but were appointed by the President. The Congress was bound by the decisions of the Courts and tightly controlled by the people, and usually needed approval from the President to pass laws. It was a complex process, but it worked. The people were free to pursue their own destinies... and by doing so, this rag-tag association of 13 poor colonies became a world superpower with a standard of living for its people unequaled in history.

As other countries saw the result, their people rose up and emulated the USA, adding their own special touches to the idea of democracy. France took this path shortly after we did, in the wake of the French Revolution.

The biggest difference was the idea of free and fair elections. If a king did things that the people did not want, there was nothing they could do, but a President or a Senator or a Representative could be removed from office at election time and replaced with someone else the people wanted. The people were the ultimate check and balance, because in the end, their word was the final one.

However...

If Donald Trump is removed from office without proof of extreme misconduct, it will be the removal of the voting rights of approximately half of those who voted in 2016. If Roy Moore is expelled from the Senate over unproven allegations upon being elected by the citizens of Alabama, it will mean their right to vote has been usurped. And yet, these exact actions are being lauded not just by those in positions of power, but by average citizens.

Without the vote, change in government has always come at the end of a weapon of war... guns, swords, knives, even pitchforks. Governments always fall and are replaced as a society changes with time; the vote is what allows this to happen without bloodshed. Without that vote, all governments do and must end in violent massacres. So if the vote is to be removed from the people, their decisions subject to mere whims of those already in power (aka the nobility), then why spend money on the farce? The elections serve no useful purpose, because the people's voice is not heeded. All that money is being spent on a circus, not on a right.

So I say, no more elections! We can temporarily increase our spending power as a nation by putting that money toward more productive causes. The result will be the same, both in who controls the people and how the country fares in the future under a new brand of nobility.

What do you say?

TheRedneck

Its mostly Big Money pouring money into the elections.

Then there needs to be a 'replacement'....

a reply to: TheRedneck

What does our Constitution say about elections? Maybe we should just stick to the Constitution. Or, have another Constitutional convention.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The Citizen's United ruling has destroyed this country. Now that money has the same Constitutional Rights as Corporations the cabal of billionaires ARE the government.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Balance the budget....

Adopt the "penny plan".

a reply to: dfnj2015

Maybe we should just stick to the Constitution

That would be my first choice too, but it seems no one wants to. The Constitution says the people choose their representatives in an election, not that someone decides after the election if they chose correctly.

I just think we should be honest with ourselves. If we're not going to honor elections, why bother having them?

TheRedneck

We need to look at the problem as a whole. Getting rid of the elections would cause even more problems. What would happen if a "representative" decided that they wanted to be like Stalin or Hitler? How would we rid ourselves with such a dictator?

While I agree that something needs to change but I tend to lean more on the media and big business swaying people and their opinions.

To put it bluntly, people are gullible and believe anything that their media outlet of choice decided to show. This media outlet is a corporate conglomerate that has it's own agenda to serve.

There lies the complete problem. They have the ability to reach every single voter out there. The stories that are put out there do not necessarily even have to be true anymore, but since big money runs the show, which runs the ability to sway a voters opinion, nothing will change.

Big business ruined this countries ability to properly represent the people. Since media has become big business the process will continue to degrade.

a reply to: liejunkie01

What would happen if a "representative" decided that they wanted to be like Stalin or Hitler? How would we rid ourselves with such a dictator?

The same way Russia or Germany did... we wouldn't be able to.

Or the same way France rid themselves of King Louis XVI... by massacring the entire country.

That is where we are heading, though. It's what our leaders seem to want, and the people seem to be fine with it. So why keep spending the money on what we refuse to use?

This media outlet is a corporate conglomerate that has it's own agenda to serve.

I'm not as concerned with the media now as I am with our leaders and those who would support the removal of election results for political agendas.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not as concerned with the media now as I am with our leaders and those who would support the removal of election results for political agendas.

I just now seen on PBS news that a fifth person has came out against Moore.

How could anyone in a political stance be seen in a supporting position for a possible sexual predator?

If they do nothing then that also can be seen as a negative. I do not know the complete story with Moore but if 5 women came out and said that he had improper encounters with them when they were underage, what do you do?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Cant believe somebody, would side with the rich and powerful to help them achieve their goals which means they themselves loose more of their own rights and demoracy.

To paraphase: "I aint got no demoracy so i reckon they should take the last vestiges of it away from me and give me naked tyrrany instead."

Sheeple at their worst.

Common sense and logic would say well, if this is the probem then why dont I try to turn things around and fix this sitution.

What next? I rather lick their boots than bother trying to fix things I know to be wrong??

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not as concerned with the media now as I am with our leaders and those who would support the removal of election results for political agendas.

I just now seen on PBS news that a fifth person has came out against Moore.

How could anyone in a political stance be seen in a supporting position for a possible sexual predator?

If they do nothing then that also can be seen as a negative. I do not know the complete story with Moore but if 5 women came out and said that he had improper encounters with them when they were underage, what do you do?

I don't know much about Moore. I probably wouldn't support him even if there weren't allegations.

Having said that, the fact that the accusers are coming forward decades after the fact, and only on the eve of election, leads me to believe it's a smear campaign.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's not the elections, it's the way they're funded.

It's not the campaigning, it's the way they do it. Used to be a candidate traveled by train or another much cheaper method. Now they wanna be in far flung locations an home by dinnertime. The costs are driven up exponentially.

The whole idea of permanent "war chests" that exist even after a candidate loses?

WTF???

If the "gravy train" could be circumvented we'd see a big change. Instead each candidate builds these mini-corporations out of their election runs that continue on into perpetuity. Lose an election? Their "Pac's" and mini-orgs continue on.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Trump won't be removed without proof, and even then it's still subject to the whims of Congress. The only thing is, that proof is looking more and more likely. Remember, Nixon was a slam dunk case and that investigation still took two years.

It's pretty clear at this point that if Trump isn't guilty, that at the very minimum his administration and his children are guilty. I think it goes all the way to the top though. But, we should let things run their course and do them by the book. That's exactly what's happening.

That's what's happening with Moore too, no one is talking about criminal prosecution of him, but there's still a court of public opinion and the Republicans are beholden to that. If Moore turns out to be someone that's going to tank the Republican party, then they have every right to sideline him. Remember, Congress does have the constitutional ability to expel a member for poor conduct.

No one is talking about forcing him off the ballot either, he got the nomination and has the right to run in the general election. That doesn't mean that others can't call for him to step down though. This was already a topic before the now 5 women who have come forward and his history as a sexual predator became known. Even without any of that, his on the record conduct of ignoring Supreme Court rulings has created a serious question of his moral character and trustworthiness in office. How can we accept someone writing the laws who has deemed themselves above following them?

As far as the cost of elections go, Trump actually gives me hope... he won without spending nearly as much as Hillary did. I think we're going to see more politicians adopt his model going forward and the price should fall some.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: TheRedneck

Balance the budget....

Adopt the "penny plan".

The penny plan is one of the most extreme cost cutting plans ever proposed. It's for people who not only don't understand math, but want virtual anarchy and corporate rule.

The election process is the best you will ever have. The only problem (and it's the biggie) is who you vote for. Just because you're led down the path of party politics, ie Democrat or Republican etc. does not mean you cannot change the situation.
Come away from parties and vote for a person to represent you, not a party. Limit the terms they can sit to stop the pig snouts in the trough system and then you MIGHT get a semblance of a fair and just government.
It will be very, very hard as in the UK here the parties have a strangle hold on elections, but sometimes someone comes along to upset the apple cart.

a reply to: crayzeed

I think there's a way to improve on the idea of a legislature, and weaken (but not eliminate) parties. I wrote a thread on it the other day but no one was interested. I call it fractal government.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can read the thread for more details, but the basic idea is that we layer government such that each layer has the same number of people, and job duties appropriate to that scope. Then each layer votes for the representatives of the next layer up. Essentially, we eliminate the distinction of city/state/federal government in the legislative and break everything up into cells.

At the lowest level could be say a government for a city block, then a group of blocks, then an entire county, and so on up the chain. Among many other advantges which I list in my post, this would have the effect of making all elections local. Lets say we wanted 1 representative from every 55 people or so. That's a small enough chunk where you can meet everyone and elect a representative. In a small town of 20,000 people for example, rather than elect a city council where no one knows anyone, you elect out of a pool of 50 that you could know. Those 50 elect another body of 50 from their ranks. So your city legislature would have 20000/50 or 400 level 1 officials, and those 400 would then elect 400/50 or 8 level 2 officials.

The real beauty of such a system though, is that redistricting would be ultra simple, and couldn't be gerrymandered. We would never wind up with a situation like we have now where in some cases we have 1 person representing over a million people in congress because we could simply increase the layers of legislative jurisdiction until the number of members again became reasonable.