The Best Way To Deal With The Current Crop of Politicians

[MarcATL]

My brother g5000's thread made a good point, we are at a stage where we have terrible politicians in office.

However, where I disagree is in how to respond to that. The response is not to not vote, that accomplishes nothing. The reason being is that votes are the ONLY thing that these people respond to. They are spending an increasing amount of money, for a decreasing amount of votes.

What does that tell you?

Here's a few things.

1. There is a EXTRAORDINARY amount of value placed on votes.

2. The American People are genuinely, and rightly frustrated and increasingly so

3. There is an increasing number in the silent majority.

There's a lot of potential and a lot of power within these facts. Remember the Tea Party Movement? Remember the Occupy Movement? BOTH of those movements got attention of politicans and swayed their actions.

The people have power, they've just been conditioned not to realize it.

My solution would be instead of not-voting, go out and vote, and write in something like "none-of-the-above" "waiting for a better candidate" or something like that.

What's the point you ask? It's simple. It records the numbers of disenfranchised on paper. It will be reported and you will let each other know that you are out there. That alone will or could help catapult a movement that could be the roots of a genuine third party with power. It will take some election cycles, but as the number of "non-confidence" votes increase, the message will be sent. Social Media is very powerful and it will help this sort of movement tremendously.

The worst thing to do is not vote, because then you're not heard, then the politicians can continue to ignore and pretend the facts aren't so. They can continue to pretend that there aren't a VAST number of constituents unhappy with them, unhappy with them enough to come out to the polls and vote their A$$es out of office.

That;'s the only thing these people understand...power. The People have the power. It's only to realize that fact and apply it.

Vote.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I can't believe that politicians would care. As long as they stay in power they won't care how many less votes they got, or how many were "no confidence". If the winner of an election only received two votes, while the loser only got one, does the position they were elected to hold any less power?

 

[Mac1958]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

While I don't have a problem with term limits, it basically says "The people of the US are too damn stupid to stop voting for the most corrupt people they can find".

 

[Wacky Quacky]

The only way to deal with the current crop of politicians is to hold them accountable for their actions. If they do the country wrong, get them out of power. Unfortunately, that will never happen as long as a majority of the voting populace keeps believing the "lesser of two evils" bullshit. To them, stopping the other party is more important than holding a politician accountable. So we have the government that we currently do.

A government of partisan bickering and corrupt power-mongers. This is what the american people want.

 

[MarcATL]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

1. I'm with you on that.

2. The American People won't go for it. They need to be able to elect who they want to and how often/long they want to.

3. I'm with you on that.

There's simply no political will for any of the above.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

1. I'm with you on that.

2. The American People won't go for it. They need to be able to elect who they want to and how often/long they want to.

3. I'm with you on that.

There's simply no political will for any of the above.

Yeah, agreed. My little, personal pipe dream.

.

 

[MarcATL]

I can't believe that politicians would care. As long as they stay in power they won't care how many less votes they got, or how many were "no confidence". If the winner of an election only received two votes, while the loser only got one, does the position they were elected to hold any less power?

They care about numbers dude. They have access to a lot of information we, the public, don't always have access to, like the polls. And I'm talking about more info than the polls we have access to in the news. They do extensive research to get the details they need.

Why do you think the smart ones know when to bow out? How many old school politicos have made the announcement "I'm not going to run next election b/c of "x?" It's because their research has informed them they have no chance in heck to win...so they bow out in lieu of getting kicked out.

The only way to deal with the current crop of politicians is to hold them accountable for their actions. If they do the country wrong, get them out of power. Unfortunately, that will never happen as long as a majority of the voting populace keeps believing the "lesser of two evils" bullshit. To them, stopping the other party is more important than holding a politician accountable. So we have the government that we currently do.

A government of partisan bickering and corrupt power-mongers. This is what the american people want.

Yah, but this is exactly what we have now. Not only is the lesser of two evils things in play, but people really love their own politico. Voters are all bashing every other Senator but their own. Everything is pork, except when it's your district.

Basically, everyone is spoiled. The partisanship is keeping the baddies in power, because no matter what the politician does, when they are called to task or even attacked by "the other side" here comes the calvary, to their defense, as a knee-jerk reaction to "the other side" attacking their guy "unjustly."

This is why we need to get out of this partisan mindset, where my guy is an angel and your guy is the devil.

We all need to reject it with a passion.

Not until people start taking their OWN to task will we start to see change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My brother g5000's thread made a good point, we are at a stage where we have terrible politicians in office.

However, where I disagree is in how to respond to that. The response is not to not vote, that accomplishes nothing. The reason being is that votes are the ONLY thing that these people respond to. They are spending an increasing amount of money, for a decreasing amount of votes.

What does that tell you?

Here's a few things.

1. There is a EXTRAORDINARY amount of value placed on votes.

2. The American People are genuinely, and rightly frustrated and increasingly so

3. There is an increasing number in the silent majority.

There's a lot of potential and a lot of power within these facts. Remember the Tea Party Movement? Remember the Occupy Movement? BOTH of those movements got attention of politicans and swayed their actions.

The people have power, they've just been conditioned not to realize it.

My solution would be instead of not-voting, go out and vote, and write in something like "none-of-the-above" "waiting for a better candidate" or something like that.

What's the point you ask? It's simple. It records the numbers of disenfranchised on paper. It will be reported and you will let each other know that you are out there. That alone will or could help catapult a movement that could be the roots of a genuine third party with power. It will take some election cycles, but as the number of "non-confidence" votes increase, the message will be sent. Social Media is very powerful and it will help this sort of movement tremendously.

The worst thing to do is not vote, because then you're not heard, then the politicians can continue to ignore and pretend the facts aren't so. They can continue to pretend that there aren't a VAST number of constituents unhappy with them, unhappy with them enough to come out to the polls and vote their A$$es out of office.

That;'s the only thing these people understand...power. The People have the power. It's only to realize that fact and apply it.

Vote.

I think the best way to deal with them is to vote for other people. Unfortunately, we have way too many people like you who continue to vote for the current crop, and then talk about how unfortunate it is we have people like them in office.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

While I don't have a problem with term limits, it basically says "The people of the US are too damn stupid to stop voting for the most corrupt people they can find".

They elected Menendez even though they knew he was under investigation by the FBI for sleeping with underage prosititutes.

 

[g5000]

My brother g5000's thread made a good point, we are at a stage where we have terrible politicians in office.

Aw, shucks!

However, where I disagree is in how to respond to that. The response is not to not vote, that accomplishes nothing. The reason being is that votes are the ONLY thing that these people respond to. They are spending an increasing amount of money, for a decreasing amount of votes.

What does that tell you?

Here's a few things.

1. There is a EXTRAORDINARY amount of value placed on votes.

2. The American People are genuinely, and rightly frustrated and increasingly so

3. There is an increasing number in the silent majority.

There's a lot of potential and a lot of power within these facts. Remember the Tea Party Movement? Remember the Occupy Movement? BOTH of those movements got attention of politicans and swayed their actions.

The people have power, they've just been conditioned not to realize it.

My solution would be instead of not-voting, go out and vote, and write in something like "none-of-the-above" "waiting for a better candidate" or something like that.

What's the point you ask? It's simple. It records the numbers of disenfranchised on paper. It will be reported and you will let each other know that you are out there. That alone will or could help catapult a movement that could be the roots of a genuine third party with power. It will take some election cycles, but as the number of "non-confidence" votes increase, the message will be sent. Social Media is very powerful and it will help this sort of movement tremendously.

The worst thing to do is not vote, because then you're not heard, then the politicians can continue to ignore and pretend the facts aren't so. They can continue to pretend that there aren't a VAST number of constituents unhappy with them, unhappy with them enough to come out to the polls and vote their A$$es out of office.

That;'s the only thing these people understand...power. The People have the power. It's only to realize that fact and apply it.

Vote.

I like the "none of the above" option. I actually have voted on local measures and whatnot, leaving the top part of the ballot blank.

I think the best thing to do is to get active in politics. I have been giving it serious consideration. The state level GOP where I live is damn near comatose. It would be easy to take it over. And there are a lot of people pushing me in that direction.

 

[g5000]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

Number 2 and 3 can be made unnecessary with a ban on tax expenditures. Take away the incentive for special interests to donate money to an incumbent, and you level the electoral playing field considerably.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

1. I'm with you on that.

2. The American People won't go for it. They need to be able to elect who they want to and how often/long they want to.

3. I'm with you on that.

There's simply no political will for any of the above.

Yeah, agreed. My little, personal pipe dream.

.

Instead of adding or imposing more regulations,
just enforce the principles already written.

For the concept of equal religious freedom and protection under law,
only recognize authority of those who respect the equal input and consent of others, and form solutions by consensus.

Hire mediators to facilitate and not lawyers to fight and bully.
Work across party lines to write your own LOCALIZED legislation by agreement among the constituents affected and represented.
Quit wasting resources hiring or lobbying for people to bully each other.

Read the laws, agree to uphold them, and enforce them together.
You won't need govt to tell you what to do, you will be telling govt what laws to endorse!

 

[emilynghiem]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

Number 2 and 3 can be made unnecessary with a ban on tax expenditures. Take away the incentive for special interests to donate money to an incumbent, and you level the electoral playing field considerably.

Regardless who contributes where,
shouldn't ALL govt officials make decisions that reflect/represent the entire PUBLIC not private or party interests? Isn't that the whole point?

What do we have to do, get all politicians and officials to sign in writing they will not pass any laws that favor one bias over a dissenting group, but only policies that reflect consensus solutions that satisfy all public and private interests equally.

And sign agreements that donors will not ASK or compel or coerce officials to favor one group or policy over another, and will not sue govt officials for enforcing the Constitution?

Should we start a citizens govt review to VOID any decision by legislative, executive, or judicial authority that carries a political or religious bias, and compel dissenting parties to MEDIATE and amend the ruling or order before considering it enforceable?

Divide and delegate out conflicting policies to the Parties that WANT to support or fund it, and only endorse the programs or policies that ALL people and parties agree to fund as govt.
So we don't argue over taxes going into things we don't agree to pay.
Just pay for the agreed parts as public, and keep the rest private through parties.
You can even set up any taxes paid over the agreed amount as LOANS to govt and charge interest as investors do through the Federal Reserve. Why not let all citizens invest or lend where we want and get money back for building more cost-effective sustainable programs?

 

[g5000]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

Number 2 and 3 can be made unnecessary with a ban on tax expenditures. Take away the incentive for special interests to donate money to an incumbent, and you level the electoral playing field considerably.

Regardless who contributes where,
shouldn't ALL govt officials make decisions that reflect/represent the entire PUBLIC not private or party interests? Isn't that the whole point?

Publicly funded elections would completely undercut freedom of association, a vital ingredient of our republic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but what the hell, here I go again:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Strict, short term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it the most.

.

Yes, you are, and for good reason…

A BBA would be a dreadful idea, it would be impossible to compose, much less enforce, with the politicians, public, and courts all in disagreement as to what constitutes an ‘exception’ to the balanced budget requirement.

There will always be some sort of crisis or emergency, war or natural disaster what will justify going into the red.

Moreover, there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with a deficit, it’s perfectly appropriate for a modern, industrialized, First World economy to go from surplus to deficit and back to a surplus again; the problem isn’t the deficit, it’s the size and duration of the deficit.

Last, a ‘top down’ solution such as a BBA is a poor substitute for voters holding elected officials accountable. Enacting a scheme such as a BBA because citizens are too lazy or otherwise disinclined to participate in the political process is clearly inappropriate and would be ultimately ineffective.

As for term limits, we already have those…they’re called elections; as with a BBA, that citizens are too lazy or otherwise disinclined to participate in the political process is no justification for ‘term limits.’

And one could make the argument that term limits are inherently un-democratic in the context of a republican form of government, where the voters of a given jurisdiction have the right to represented by whomever they wish, and for how long they wish.

As for publicly-funded elections, needless to say that would run afoul of Citizens United, where private corporate entities have a First Amendment right to participate in the political process, including the right to access the public media for the purpose of political advocacy.

***

The following is admittedly an oversimplification but is nonetheless the essence of the problem:

We focus too much on ‘democracy’ and not enough on the Republic; we’re overly concerned with ‘the people’ and not enough concerned about the law, and the rule of law in particular.

The Framers wisely gave us a Republic rather than a democracy, likely in anticipation of the many pitfalls inherent in democracies. In order for the Republic to work correctly, however, the people must be involved – the problem is lack of involvement at the very local level, not the politicians, a lack of term limits, or the deficit.