Would you support a truly "Independent Party" , the only party with Integrity!

The "Independent" Party.

The Independent Party, the only party with integrity.

All candidates must sign an integrity pledge that commits them to only voting the way they have stated in their individually published platforms, which will be consistent with the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. (Because they must swear to uphold and defend the Constitution when elected and integrity is the cornerstone of the Party)

Candidate responsibilities and platform: Integrity is the foundation of the party. The Independent Party member will say what they mean, and mean what they say. They are respectful of people with differing values, goals and policy positions that are well thought out and are consistent with the American Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and all policy positions must be publicly argued with constitutionally sound arguments.

The Independent party does not have a cohesive platform. The goal is people can be Independent and run as Independents with independent values, goals and promises, and be held to them in order to gain party support. Candidates can differ in their values, goals and promises, and be truly Independent and let the voters decide who they wish to choose.


The only requirement for the Independent party is that as a candidate you have clearly stated goals, platforms, and values and must publish them publicly. Then you must adhere as strongly as possible to your pre-election promises and statements or be removed from party support for the first offense and kicked out of the party for the second offense.


No candidate would be allowed to run without a publicly published outline of their values, goals, and policy positions.

No elected official would be allowed to stay in the party if they blatantly vote against their published positions.


The Independent Party, the only party with integrity.

So, they would still be able to accept "gifts" from lobbyists? If the lobbyists were wanting the same thing as what the Rep wanted?

Because that throws integrity out the window right there.

grandmakdw
No elected official would be allowed to stay in the party if they blatantly vote against their published positions.

i can see many problems with that part.
bills would be made with 1 part favorable legislation, and thats what is advertized to the american public. to force that politician in the vote.
then it would also include 1 part bad legislation contrary to that politician's platform.

reply to post by chiefsmom


They can accept campaign contributions (not bribes) from anyone who chooses to give it to them. That is the law of the land.

You are talking about bribery, no that would not be allowed.

reply to post by Bisman


The rule is to adhere as much as possible. There are times when what you mentioned comes up.

The integrity part is to balance what they promised with what they disagree with. A defense is allowed if the elected official feels that a certain bill upholds their promises to constituents more than it harms their constituents based on their published platform.

i think all bills in the future should only be 1 page in length. to force them to use simple language, and make simple points.

and perhaps only have 1 point in the bill to vote on XD

gives politicians time to actually read things. and would be very hard to add all sorts of pork to cheat the process.

There is actually no such thing as an independent voter.

There is not one person who doesn't lean either to the left or to the right, only those that don't want to admit their tendencies or those who are unaware that they are either more conservative or more liberal.

And a new party is not the answer because the parties are not the problem. It is the system.

I can guarantee you that if you were to throw out the democrats and the republicans and give a brand new party the control that very quickly they will fall into the same behavior we have today.

This is because its how parties have to operate, within our system, to get anything accomplished. We run on a two party basis and until you change that you will always have this division we see so much of now.

As for politicians that do not keep their word, what's to guarantee that this new independent party will keep theirs? Oh you will vote them out if they don't you say?

Why not just hold our current politicians to that same standard then? Demand they stick to their platform and vote them out if they deviate from it.

The Tea Party does this with the people they support you know.

Bisman
i think all bills in the future should only be 1 page in length. to force them to use simple language, and make simple points.

and perhaps only have 1 point in the bill to vote on XD

gives politicians time to actually read things. and would be very hard to add all sorts of pork to cheat the process.

I've helped put together legislation during the writing process and what your asking for is impossible simply due to all the legal aspects that need to be addressed.

If you limit a bill to 1 page in length what do you put in after the cover page?

lol

Bisman
i think all bills in the future should only be 1 page in length. to force them to use simple language, and make simple points.

and perhaps only have 1 point in the bill to vote on XD

gives politicians time to actually read things. and would be very hard to add all sorts of pork to cheat the process.

Excellent point! However, our current legislators want to hide what they are doing and that's why such convoluted and excessive bills.

That is why we need people in office whose main responsibility is to uphold integrity.

reply to post by Spookybelle


What you say has a lot of truth in it. The current elected officials are all corrupted by "the system".

The Tea Party has been so maligned by the media that it doesn't stand much of a chance of succeeding. The Tea Party has been unfairly maligned and so badly misused, on purpose, by Dems and some Reps and the major networks who have brothers, sisters, spouses of top executives literally on Obama's staff, that the uninformed average American has a distorted picture of the true objectives of the Tea Party.

I am proposing a fresh start, a party that welcomes social liberals and social conservatives, but stands where no other major party stands, on integrity.

I am proposing a fresh start, a party that welcomes social liberals and social conservatives, but stands where no other major party stands, on integrity.

This is the problem though. How will you ensure that the politicians in this new party respect integrity? The current politicians say this also yet many of them do not.

If you can't keep the current bunch in line how are you going to do it with the next batch?

Will you vote them out?

Why don't you vote out the guys now then?

Its like being afraid of getting lung cancer from smoking Marlboro's so you switch your brand to Camel lights. Your still inhaling smoke even though its under a different name.

I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.

Spookybelle

Bisman
i think all bills in the future should only be 1 page in length. to force them to use simple language, and make simple points.

and perhaps only have 1 point in the bill to vote on XD

gives politicians time to actually read things. and would be very hard to add all sorts of pork to cheat the process.

I've helped put together legislation during the writing process and what your asking for is impossible simply due to all the legal aspects that need to be addressed.

If you limit a bill to 1 page in length what do you put in after the cover page?

lol

It think the better solution is out law adding anything other than the original issue to the bill. For example you can't add anything concerning the environment on a bill regarding education.

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.

That's not really how campaign contributions work.

Many people incorrectly assume that politicians are empty slates that the highest bidder gets to fill in as they want and anything is further from the truth.

Most politicians have an agenda they do want to work for and people that contribute to their campaign are trying to help ensure their election because it would be beneficial to them as opposed to the other guy. If an oil company looks at a congressional race in a certain district where the outcome will have a direct impact on their profitability then they will support the person who most aligns with their interests.

If what you were saying is true we would see big oil companies simply sending people from their corporation to run in elections to ensure they always get favorable outcomes and this does not happen.

Do some politicians sell-out?

Absolutely but this mostly occurs after a person has been in office for a very long time and has usually gained some prestige in the job.

A junior senator is not going to have lobbyists approaching him because he has no power yet but I can guarantee you that people like McCain or Reid have them camped outside their office doors. I doubt if a person running for their first term, from a non-essential district, could attract a lobbyist if they wanted to.

calstorm

Spookybelle

Bisman
i think all bills in the future should only be 1 page in length. to force them to use simple language, and make simple points.

and perhaps only have 1 point in the bill to vote on XD

gives politicians time to actually read things. and would be very hard to add all sorts of pork to cheat the process.

I've helped put together legislation during the writing process and what your asking for is impossible simply due to all the legal aspects that need to be addressed.

If you limit a bill to 1 page in length what do you put in after the cover page?

lol

That is good in theory but in practicality it simply doesn't work for this reason. The amount of legislation that Congress has to deal with requires them to group stuff together in order to get it through the procedural process. If they did each item separately they just wouldn't have enough hours in the day to get it all done and many of the things we need passed, just to keep the government running, would not be finished when they need to be.

Look at the defense appropriations for example, if every single item that Congress funds had to have its own debate and vote it would take literally a year to get that one bill through Congress.

They have to add multiple items to bills but because of this we end up seeing congressmen taking advantage of it by adding in stuff that really doesn't need to be there. This is an issue (pork) that certainly needs to be addressed.

edit on 16-10-2013 by Spookybelle because: (no reason given)

Spookybelle

I am proposing a fresh start, a party that welcomes social liberals and social conservatives, but stands where no other major party stands, on integrity.

This is the problem though. How will you ensure that the politicians in this new party respect integrity? The current politicians say this also yet many of them do not.

If you can't keep the current bunch in line how are you going to do it with the next batch?

Will you vote them out?

Why don't you vote out the guys now then?

Its like being afraid of getting lung cancer from smoking Marlboro's so you switch your brand to Camel lights. Your still inhaling smoke even though its under a different name.

Unfortunately you have a point. That is why there are penalties. First for grossly going against your stated platform a removal of party funds for a specified period of time. Second if lack of integrity continues, a total abandonment and admonishment from the party. Not only no money but not allowed to run as a member of the party.
At least there will be standards to uphold which are absent from the current major parties. Not social standards, but enforcing that one upholds their own stated standards which are clearly laid out for the voter. So the voter does not have to vote for a candidate if they feel the platform is socially or morally what they do not believe in.
But the standards set by the candidate will be the measure, the stick by which ones integrity is measured.

"Independent Party" is a bit of an oxymoron. The whole idea of independence is for you as an individual to do what you want to do. If you get a bunch of people together and get them to all act or vote in the same way, then where is the "independence?"

And even if you were able to convince people that they could be a part of a group and still act independently, the minute you get a lot of people doing the same thing, that's powerful, and the minute you get any kind of power, you'll get people wanting to control it. That's the way people are. And it would definitely the opposite of independence.

calstorm
I like the premiss, but they are a few kinks that would need to be worked out.
Campaign contributions for one. If they are getting more money from a wealthy person or corporation, what is to stop them from voting for laws that favor the wealthy individual or corporation over the needs of the general public?

Also if they are kicked out of the party if the go against their outline, then that prevents compromise which as current events show can be a necessity.

You misunderstand, compromise is ok as long as the elected representative can make a logical argument that the compromise upholds their promises/platform more than it goes against their promise/platform.

grandmakdw

Spookybelle

I am proposing a fresh start, a party that welcomes social liberals and social conservatives, but stands where no other major party stands, on integrity.

This is the problem though. How will you ensure that the politicians in this new party respect integrity? The current politicians say this also yet many of them do not.

If you can't keep the current bunch in line how are you going to do it with the next batch?

Will you vote them out?

Why don't you vote out the guys now then?

Its like being afraid of getting lung cancer from smoking Marlboro's so you switch your brand to Camel lights. Your still inhaling smoke even though its under a different name.

Unfortunately you have a point. That is why there are penalties. First for grossly going against your stated platform a removal of party funds for a specified period of time. Second if lack of integrity continues, a total abandonment and admonishment from the party. Not only no money but not allowed to run as a member of the party.
At least there will be standards to uphold which are absent from the current major parties. Not social standards, but enforcing that one upholds their own stated standards which are clearly laid out for the voter. So the voter does not have to vote for a candidate if they feel the platform is socially or morally what they do not believe in.
But the standards set by the candidate will be the measure, the stick by which ones integrity is measured.

And how do you propose to get social liberals and social conservatives to agree on a common platform when their ideals are so completely opposite?

Whichever way the party goes will leave one side out and they will simply abandon your independent party and go back to either the republicans or democrats and you'll be left in the same situation your in now.

Blue Shift
"Independent Party" is a bit of an oxymoron. The whole idea of independence is for you as an individual to do what you want to do. If you get a bunch of people together and get them to all act or vote in the same way, then where is the "independence?"

And even if you were able to convince people that they could be a part of a group and still act independently, the minute you get a lot of people doing the same thing, that's powerful, and the minute you get any kind of power, you'll get people wanting to control it. That's the way people are. And it would definitely the opposite of independence.

The point is for the candidates NOT to all act or vote in the same way. To allow the candidates to vote based on what they promised their constituents.

What an LA Independent Party candidate holds as values, goals etc that is best for their constituents and are strongly held values, goals of the candidate - may look very little like what an Alabama Independent Party promises their constituents.

The party members will in no way be obligated to vote on a party line, since there will be none, they are to vote the way they were elected by the people whom they are supposed to serve want them to.

Remember, elected officials are supposed to be OUR SERVANTS, not the other way around. I think the current elected officials and administration as well as prior ones tended to forget "their place". They were elected to serve the people who elected them into office..

Also, I see in your argument that you feel there is no hope, so why try. I assert that social psychology theory (systems theory) says that if just one part of the system (a new party) really tries, then all other parts (parties) will be affected and forced to react (change). The established parts (parties) will resist change but it will be inevitable. This theory is a social theory, psychological theory and an economic theory based on a great deal of research.

Yes, a well organized group committed to a value (integrity in politics) can change the whole system. I really believe that.