Would holding a referendum on US government be ok?

[pvsi]

President, Senate, Congress....

I believe the easiest way for independent parties to win elections and replace the establishment is to ad a negative vote option as in a referendum, because far more people dislike our politicians than they like them, and when they go to vote, they simply vote for the lesser of two evils, because they dislike the other politician even more, since the media, which can reach out to the whole nation, knocks it into the nations head for months and sometimes years in advance that no candidates other than their selected candidates have a chance to win anyway, so why walk to the voting booth and waste your vote for a candidate who has no chance to defeat the bad guy?

But the government will never create these types of elections, because they understand full well that they are disliked by the public. So if we organize independent parties to conduct elections with a negative vote option, or an outright referendum, would it work?

You'll have to amend the constitution for that.

Do you think independent parties that can not win elections could be united to pass such an amendment? That's what we need to do.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
-Ronald Reagan

 

[kaz]

democracy works


our system works


we just need to stop the republican party from limiting who can vote

Legal, living people voting once as themselves with a valid ID to prove it is a completely reasonable limit.

 

[pvsi]

How is it people think independents won't too be dependent on big money from the wealthy and from corporations. K Street manages America's political parties today, that's not going to change unless the rules and the supports are changed. And then there is this mystical belief that if you add independent to the person they become a sort of super politico? Consider independents such as Rand Paul as an example, you really think him different? I don't, he sings the same song as the others.

I agree completely, but you are missing the point - it's about identifying fraud from genuine leaders, and genuine leaders will not be afraid of a negative vote option, because they are not afraid to lose, while fraud will complain about establishment, but will attempt to play the same game, needing same funds and donations - I talk about that in pretty much every one of my speeches.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just stop voting. Once enough people stop voting and realize we are nothing but slaves to the system as it is the sooner we can throw the monkey off our backs and reinvent things the correct way.OR vote for gridlock! That's even more fun.

Is that the Iranian plan?


see folks..... some of these righties who HATE our government want this Union DEAD

Say what? I hate this government, yes. Do I want this union dead? No. It's people like you who advocate excess government that endanger the health of this union.

 

[dcraelin]

it always frustrating to see people who want a smaller government praise to no end the "founders"and the Constitution. Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution precisely because he saw how it would create a group of elitists, isolated from the people.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...re5999-ph-speech-against-consitution-pic1.jpg

We do need a national initiative option, such as Switzerland has, to bypass the crooks that always seem to get elected to Our Congress.

 

[Votto]

Decentralization is a process. The more it occurs the more with wealth within society.

I don't quite understand what you mean.

The more people that need to be bought off the better the money is redistributed. I thought that is what everyone likes.

As I said, it is a process. I would like to see local governments gain more power than they ever had before. Such a government is much more representative than a populace than Obama sitting in his office deciding what doctors we see and how our children should be educated.

 

[Moonglow]

This is why I oppose a two party system only, it leaves out an option to remove corrupt or inefficient parties in power....which is why our form of govt. moves at a snails pace...

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Just stop voting. Once enough people stop voting and realize we are nothing but slaves to the system as it is the sooner we can throw the monkey off our backs and reinvent things the correct way.OR vote for gridlock! That's even more fun.

Is that the Iranian plan?


see folks..... some of these righties who HATE our government want this Union DEAD

democracy works


our system works


we just need to stop the republican party from limiting who can vote

So you want a one party state? Interesting.You whine that I want an "Iranian way of doing things" yet I am not Iranian. White American born and bred in the south my boy.I want a dictatorship with me as head!

Just stop voting. Once enough people stop voting and realize we are nothing but slaves to the system as it is the sooner we can throw the monkey off our backs and reinvent things the correct way.OR vote for gridlock! That's even more fun.

That's what happened in USSR as I explained, you're right. what do you mean vote for gridlock?

I mean vote for the most extreme SOB you can....with a democrat for president right now NOTHING a republican congress wants will get signed into law...if democrats can manage to take back at least the senate or house in 2016 with a republican president it will continue.

 

[Votto]

Just stop voting. Once enough people stop voting and realize we are nothing but slaves to the system as it is the sooner we can throw the monkey off our backs and reinvent things the correct way.OR vote for gridlock! That's even more fun.

Is that the Iranian plan?


see folks..... some of these righties who HATE our government want this Union DEAD

So you want a one party state? Interesting.You whine that I want an "Iranian way of doing things" yet I am not Iranian. White American born and bred in the south my boy.I want a dictatorship with me as head!

Just stop voting. Once enough people stop voting and realize we are nothing but slaves to the system as it is the sooner we can throw the monkey off our backs and reinvent things the correct way.OR vote for gridlock! That's even more fun.

That's what happened in USSR as I explained, you're right. what do you mean vote for gridlock?

I mean vote for the most extreme SOB you can....with a democrat for president right now NOTHING a republican congress wants will get signed into law...if democrats can manage to take back at least the senate or house in 2016 with a republican president it will continue.

Correction, we have a one party state. The beauty of a 2 party system is that each party can take turns attaining "political courage" to screw us all over as they take turns being elected into office to clean house.

At least John Boehner cries when he does it.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

True very true!

 

[Two Thumbs]

President, Senate, Congress....

I believe the easiest way for independent parties to win elections and replace the establishment is to ad a negative vote option as in a referendum, because far more people dislike our politicians than they like them, and when they go to vote, they simply vote for the lesser of two evils, because they dislike the other politician even more, since the media, which can reach out to the whole nation, knocks it into the nations head for months and sometimes years in advance that no candidates other than their selected candidates have a chance to win anyway, so why walk to the voting booth and waste your vote for a candidate who has no chance to defeat the bad guy?

But the government will never create these types of elections, because they understand full well that they are disliked by the public. So if we organize independent parties to conduct elections with a negative vote option, or an outright referendum, would it work?

I put up on another site years ago that I wanted the right to vote against people. It was a leftist dominated site, and I thought they would love the idea, or at least have a few laughs.

The vile they spewed at the idea was a bit alarming. More freedom is not something libs will support. They know how to win with the current system and will crush our freedoms no matter who has to go it alone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Would holding a referendum on US government be ok?

No.

That would be in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – and thankfully so.

 

[Avatar4321]

How could the government hold a referendum election when the Constitution does not authorize the government to do so?

If you want a third party to be successful, get a messag that resonates with people

 

[Avatar4321]

Would holding a referendum on US government be ok?

No.

That would be in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – and thankfully so.

Don't let TM hear you say that! We will never hear the end of it

 

[frigidweirdo]

The more people that need to be bought off the better the money is redistributed. I thought that is what everyone likes.

As I said, it is a process. I would like to see local governments gain more power than they ever had before. Such a government is much more representative than a populace than Obama sitting in his office deciding what doctors we see and how our children should be educated.

I'd prefer a system where you simply can't buy people off. Why do politicians need so much money. Why was $6.5 billion spend on the 2012 Federal elections by the political parties and candidates? It's insane, and a lot of this money comes from rich people with an agenda and they're essentially buying something.

In Africa it's called corruption, in the US it's called campaign financing or something. The only real difference.

If you had federal govt with many more parties, like with PR, it would also make it harder.

I don't necessarily have a problem with de-centralising powers, though i don't think it's the proper answer to your problem, I think there are better ways at stopping the rich from buying politicians. I think more de-centralisation will merely lead to money just going to different people.

 

[dcraelin]

Would holding a referendum on US government be ok?

No.
That would be in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – and thankfully so.

nothing about being a Republic prohibits referendums....republics thru the ages have had direct citizen lawmaking.

As do the states that are spoken of in Article IV, (which doesnt speak about the Fedreal government by-the-way)

see my pics for more addressing this topic

 

[The Rabbi]

It's easy. We go back to what actually worked for a hundred years:
Senators elected by state legislatures.
Franchise limited to landholders or those with a demonstrated net worth of, I dunno, $10,000. Or assets of 20k. However you want to define it.

Those two changes will change the entire balance. Elections will no longer be a contest of who can bribe more voters with other people's money.

 

[pvsi]

Just stop voting. Once enough people stop voting and realize we are nothing but slaves to the system as it is the sooner we can throw the monkey off our backs and reinvent things the correct way.OR vote for gridlock! That's even more fun.

That's what happened in USSR as I explained, you're right. what do you mean vote for gridlock?

I mean vote for the most extreme SOB you can....with a democrat for president right now NOTHING a republican congress wants will get signed into law...if democrats can manage to take back at least the senate or house in 2016 with a republican president it will continue.

Democrats and the republicans are a part of the same circus, I was under impression that you are aware of that

 

[hatman]

People are starting to wake up I give it until 2024(I hope sooner) before we start to see Democrats and Republicans thrown out of office repeatably. They won't go down without a fight and they will try to change laws to keep the Repubilcrats in charge.

How is it people think independents won't too be dependent on big money from the wealthy and from corporations. K Street manages America's political parties today, that's not going to change unless the rules and the supports are changed. And then there is this mystical belief that if you add independent to the person they become a sort of super politico? Consider independents such as Rand Paul as an example, you really think him different? I don't, he sings the same song as the others.

Ron Paul voted against the Republicans while running as republican on a lot issues for a lot of years so yes he was different.