You call this an election?

[mqbush]

How can anyone have the effrontery to say the US is a democracy? If two dozen people run for president, first they split into enemy camps to preclude rational evaluation of any candidate. Then the media,-the media! not citizen voters, but the media,-decides who will be considered; the rest are excluded from debates and called crazy without any explanation. Then caucuses in a handful of states finalize the media's picks. During the party nominating conventions, the little choice left is eliminated. The people are not left with a selection, they are left with a "choice" between one power-structure-picked candidate or the other. Even then, the popular vote doesn't count, only electoral numbers. From beginning to end, the process of ramming a dictator down our throats is tightly controlled, as tightly controlled as Stalin's elections, and I say that quite seriously, not in exaggeration.

We need to revolt. Completely remake the system. No parties, so no party machines acquiring vast war chests for influence-buying and rigging and propaganda and armies of dirty-tricksters. All candidates are allotted identical TV exposure, and no other political ads are allowed. All candidates appear on the ballot on election day, in alphabetical order. Fraud-free voting method. Popular vote decides the winner. Any elected leader who doesn't do as the people say is removed from office and is put in prison. Enough of the old power structure snickering at the rubes believing we have a voice in who controls all those nukes, all that IMF/WTO/corporate total economic stranglehold over the world. Ghandi's insurgency was good. The insurgency in Vietnam was good. The insurgency in Iraq is good. The nascent insurgency here and in various places throughout the world,-it's a start. The people of the world have to go on strike, everywhere, on the same day, to signal the beginning of the end of the old way of empire, military and economic empire, the cruel and anti-social control by selfish, greedy, Viagra-chomping sociopaths. It's coming.

[MNDemNY]

1. The U.S. is NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

[Demeter]

3. It Ain't Neither No Constitutional Republic,Anymore

It's a dictatorship with Potempkin elections, Potempkin economy, and Potempkin laws. All for show or prpaganda purposes, only. Totally non-functional.

[bean fidhleir]

5. Indeed the US isn't a democracy, but not for the reason you seem

to be implying. 'Democracy' and 'republic' are not opposites.

[MNDemNY]

8. Nor are they synonyms.

[JackRiddler]

23. It doesn't matter since it's no longer republic or democracy

It is an oligarchy of hyper-concentrated wealth.

The bulk of the power in society and economy resides with large interlocking corporations who are owned by the oligarchy and financed by the same banks.

In government, policy-making power has devolved to extraconstitutional, privatized parapolitical structures (e.g., contracters at the Pentagon and in the "intelligence community"). They now operate under the cover of a "unitary executive" that falsely invokes the Commander in Chief clause to openly declare that the rest of the Constitution no longer applies, as there is a permanent state of emergency due to terrorism. Whatever Madison and Franklin and Jefferson warned against when they decried emergency rule and the willingness to give up liberty for security has happened.

In elections, it is roughly as described by the OP: both the formal procedures and the spirit of republicanism have been superceded by the media corporations, who in turn are an arm of the oligarchy. They decide the allowable candidates in advance, based on a) the harmlessness of their program and b) how much money they get from the oligarchy. A president comes fitted with a leash.

[TahitiNut]

18. It's becoming a Banana Republic.

[leftofthedial]

20. it hasn't been that either, not since at least Eisenhower

it's a corporatist oligarchy

[earth mom]

40. I'd say the correct description of the U.S. is FUBAR.

:grr:

[GodlessBiker]

2. Your nuts. You are going to prohibit people from forming alliances (parties)?

[mqbush]

4. "You are going to prohibit people from forming alliances (parties)?"

People can form whatever alliances they want, but these parties won't have any official or legal or societally acceptable role in elections. Audits will try to assure that these gangs don't apply unauthorized spending on candidates.

[mondo joe]

14. If you don't think the electorate is capable of making a choice despite political

parties, what makes you think the electorate is capable of making a choice at all?

Are we children who need to be protected from information or distraction by those who think they know better?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. ...

:crazy:

[HughMoran]

27. ...

yep :banghead: , don't worry, now that you commented on this, you can read about it "over there" :spray:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. Indeed.

People can form whatever alliances they want

Rebel Alliances, AMC/Renault Alliances, Alliance of Lierary Societies - all STILL LEGAL.

but these parties

Which are now called "alliances"

won't have any official or legal or societally acceptable role in elections

Gotcha. Why did we form these alliances again?

Audits will try to assure that these gangs

They're called ALLIANCES. Unnoficial, illegal, societally unacceptable ALLIANCES.

don't apply unauthorized spending on candidates.

I'll go you one better - get rid of the CANDIDATES and you won't need the audits.

[Kazak]

12. Whose nuts?

:hide:

[Lilith Velkor]

60. OUR nuts!

:yoiks:

[leftofthedial]

22. it's not the concept of political parties that is the problem

it is the institutionalized (completely non-constititutionally institutionalized) two-party system


(actually one party, with two factions perpetually locked in a scrimmage game)


BOTH parties represent the corporations.

[Two Americas]

29. five corporate parties?

Would five corporate parties be an improvement over two? How about we return the Democratic party to supporting labor and the common people rather than big money interests? How about we think in terms of working up from the local level, instead of obsessing over the choices we have up at the top? Look at the models of the Liberal party in New York, and the Democratic Farmer Labor party in Minnesota. They both have influenced national politics over the years. They are not part of the Democratic party, but are not in opposition necessarily to the Democratic party either as spoilers or failed third party efforts. We don't need a label or a club, we need a voice. There is nothing magical about the number of national parties that ensures us, or denies us, a voice. Wealthy and powerful interests suppress our voices, not some neutral and impersonal system. To regain our voices, we must fight for them against those who would deny them to us. There is no way to avoid that, and discussions about tweaking the system can often be a way to avoid facing that.

Just some thoughts for your consideration, leftofthedial, I am not disagreeing with what you said.

[leftofthedial]

41. by not limiting the number of parties

labor could certainly form a party

greens could become viable in national elections

it is not the number--it is that the two we have have become enshrined via the electoral process. third (or fourth or fifth or sixth parties can exist, but they have no hope of winning more than one or two token congressional seats every generation or so.

[dorkulon]

6. "All candidates" could mean thousands.

If you're looking for a better elections process, check out the parliamentary system in Europe, Canada, etc. Public finance, multi-party, and it's over in a month. No need to reinvent the wheel.

[mqbush]

7. "If you're looking for a better elections process, ..."

Great! I'm game for that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. ...

:crazy:

[conspirator]

55. In Europe is the same shit two moderate parties illegally funded by big money

alternate in power, 1 more leftist and the other more right wing. The small parties who trully represent the people, but are small because they have no money don't stand any chance.

[Blue Congress]

9. They cannot leave such an important thing up to chance

Why are we letting proven liars of the corporate media make our decisions??

Who decided we needed voting machines which rather than help the process, hold up the process, make lines longer and make it easy to steal?


http://peacecandidates.com/

[mondo joe]

10. The people of the United States don't want a revolt. nt

[Two Americas]

31. of course they don't

People never do. That doesn't tell us anything. It is a last resort, when all other avenues are closed to people. If those avenues continue to be closed - and the Republicans are busy doing just that, with an unfortunate degree of compliance and complicity by Democrats - sooner or later some sort of public uprising becomes inevitable. To think otherwise is to believe in American exceptionalism and think that we are somehow immune to the forces of history.

I am not so sure you are right, anyway. Poor people and blue collar people I talk to - by the thousands - are as ready for revolt as a people can ever be. Those controlling the discussion within the Democratic party don't want profound or radical change, that is true. But they represent a relatively small and fairly well-off demographic.

[mondo joe]

32. I'd think if a people were realy ready for a revolt there'd be some signs. Like

riots, civil disobedience. I don't know about the thousands of people you talk to, but I think that most people want stability, some security and some hope for the future that their families can be self sufficient and happy.

[Two Americas]

35. we have those

We have had more people in the streets over the last few years than we have in over 30 years. We also have a battle raging for the heart and soul of the Labor movement, and we have a battle raging for the heart and soul of the Democratic party.

The people lack leadership, and the main reason that they lack leadership is because those people with the verbal and organizational skills who could provide that leadership are all missing in action, comfortably doing pretty well in professional careers, and vehemently advocating for caution and compromise.

Of course people want stability, some security and some hope for the future. Fewer and fewer people have those things today, and it is reaching crisis proportions. Unfortunately, those who could be advocating for the people are themselves pretty stable, secure and hopeful - the 10% or so who could still be called middle class - and they don't give a damn what happens to the bottom half. The poor and struggling people are left without anyone to speak for them, without anyone to lead them.

It is contrary to the spirit of the Democratic party to denigrate the everyday working people, and to sit back watching for "signs" that they will do the dirty work for us.

I strongly object to the prevalent notion among too many activists that the people are just interested in material well being, and that if they weren’t all such losers they could be middle class just as we are. That is a morally depraved cop-out—and excuse for not being involved and an encouragement to callous and inhumane attitudes. I am not saying that this is what you are promoting, but that is the danger I see in what you are saying.

[mondo joe]

38. You must be living in a different United States than the one I'm in.

Furthermore, I didn't say people are "just interested in material well being".

[Two Americas]

44. that could very well be

As Edwards says, we have two Americas.

[mondo joe]

45. In this instance, real America and fantasy-rebellion America. NT

[Two Americas]

46. the usual misleading argument

There is a lot of territory between the way things are and rebellion. Almost the entire political spectrum, in fact, falls between what we have now and rebellion. This is the perennial right wing theme - anyone critical of the way things are, especially when it comes to economic justice - is dismissed as advocating rebellion. It is a fear mongering tactic.

[mondo joe]

52. Make sense of these two statements.

"Poor people and blue collar people I talk to - by the thousands - are as ready for revolt as a people can ever be."

"This is the perennial right wing theme - anyone critical of the way things are, especially when it comes to economic justice - is dismissed as advocating rebellion."

[Two Americas]

58. do you mean reconcile them?

I don't see any conflict or contradiction between the two.

The right wingers want to scare people away from any efforts at fighting back against the wealthy and powerful and discourage them. Portraying any and all left wing ideas as dangerously extreme or as advocating violence is a way to do that. Historically those in power have always done this to the powerless. Buy characterizing any talk of reform as though it were dangerous or futile, people are discouraged and frightened. That is what the second statement means.

The first statement describes the mood of the people, who despite the suppression and fear mongering, are never the less so distressed that they are ready to fight back, whatever it takes.

Where is the conflict you are seeing between the two statements?

[mqbush]

48. Actually...

I was thinking real America and your-likeminded-financially-comfortable-friends-don't-talk-of-revolt-so-therefore-nobody-does America.

[mondo joe]

51. Another idiot post.

Wanting your family to be safe and healthy isn't about being "financially comfortable".

You are without a clue.

[mqbush]

56. You can't BE safe and healthy unless you're...

fairly well-to-do. And if you're that, you don't want anyone rocking the ever so tipsy boat, even if it's to try to make a progressive country that assures that millions of people don't get tosed to the gutter because they've been sucked dry and aren't worth mugging any more.

[mondo joe]

57. That's simply untrue. And those who are on the margins most often

are the people who most strongly feel the need for security.

I don't think you have any clue what it means to be a low income person.

[mqbush]

47. The finest statement I've seen around here in a while. Thank you.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. "All candidates appear on the ballot ... in alphabetical order."

This actually gives an unfair advantage to candidates with names near the beginning of the alphabet. Each ballot needs to have its own random ordering of names to be completely fair.

[The Magistrate]

13. And A Rash Of 'A. Aardvark' Style Name-Changes, Too, Sir

Oh, it would be fun enough all right....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Did You Really Just Say That The Insurgency In Iraq Is Good?

What an absolutely insane and disturbingly asinine statement to make.

That whole OP is nothing but lunatical rambling.

[mqbush]

50. When Chinese troops are kicking down your door...

don't you think you'd resist this occupation by foreigners? Just because the US is the foreign occupier in Iraq doesn't make the resistance by patriotic Iraqis any less worthy of our respect. We're not at war with the Iraqi people, they're not our "enemy" (How the US so desperately needs enemies, an endless supply of enemies, more enemies than all the other countries on the planet put together have, you have to ask why it's essential that we always have enemies...) So, yes, the Iraqi insurgency is good. It resists foreign military occupation.

[bryant69]

19. And DAMN IT, everybody should get a Pony.

Power to the People!

PABST BLUE RIBBON!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Selatius]

21. Some of your reforms are extreme. I am fine with political parties; however,...

I believe that a system such as proportional representation or even a mixed system will prevent a situation where one party can end up dominating all branches of the government. I trust parties to behave like any party behaves, but I don't trust any party enough to give them control over all the branches of government. That way lies corruption and tyranny. We don't have proportional representation. We have constituent representation where the winner is selected using first-past-the-post voting. Even in France, which uses constituent representation for the General Assembly, they use a two-round voting system to avoid the problem of a winner emerging who wins less than half the votes as seen under first-past-the-post and to avoid a two-party oligarchy from emerging. With proportional representation or some mixed form of representation, parties are more likely to be forced to compromise.

I believe federal elections should be publicly funded and that private cash is removed from the equation in as much as a candidate can demonstrate viability for his ideas. Each candidate that qualifies for public financing should receive the same amount as any other candidate who also receives public financing to ensure a more even playing field. Arizona, Maine, and other states are already implementing public financing reforms.

If you don't like politicians who make decisions despite what the people may feel, I don't believe they should be thrown into prison. Rather, a recall mechanism should be instituted to allow people to remove the offending politician in an orderly manner. It is the norm in developed, democratic countries.

[CarlWoodward]

24. So

So your solution is to basically tank the U.S. Constitution, tank freedom of speech, tank freedom of assembly. Nice.

[mqbush]

49. Assemble, speak freely, etc, but these organizations would be...

groupies, not running the show. These party machines guarantee that money, not ideas, carry the day.

[H2O Man]

25. Free Slim Whitman!

[NoFederales]

26. Oh, Shit! I remember ol' Slim. Put him on the ballot! nt

NoFederales

[HughMoran]

28. IOW

"my guy didn't win!"

[blondeatlast]

30. I love bad performance art. Pass the popcorn. nt

[blondeatlast]

33. any time is a good time for a lolcat:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

How can anyone have the effrontery to say the US is a democracy?

Ahem, let me give this a try:

America is a democracy.

If two dozen people run for president, first they split into enemy camps to preclude rational evaluation of any candidate.

No, generally they're members of a "camp" *before* they run for president, because they generally tend to agree with that particular camp's mission to some degree. Unless they're Zell Miller, and then they're just an asshole.

then the media,-the media! not citizen voters, but the media,-decides who will be considered;

Actually a great many factors go into deciding who is considered: Standing within the "camp" might be one of them. So might charisma, the ability to raise money, the ability to organize, and the ability to put forth coherent policy proposals. Good hair doesn't hurt, either. Of course the media plays (and overplays) a role, but it is only one role of many.

the rest are excluded from debates and called crazy without any explanation.

While I would enjoy a televised debate consisting of fifty crazed lunatics, I'm not sure how that makes for good democracy, either. And I'm not even sure how big of a role the debates play in the first place. Especially during the primaries, when most people don't watch them.

Then caucuses in a handful of states finalize the media's picks.

Well, actually it's a mix of primaries and caucuses, and again it's not the media's picks per se.

During the party nominating conventions, the little choice left is eliminated.

The party nominating conventions have been little more than advertisements for a long time becasue, get this, now we, actual everyday people instead of only the party bigwigs, get to vote! Would you prefer the former system where the conventions were the place where the party elite got to ignore the will of the primary (oh right, and caucus!) voters and impose their will on the party?

Even then, the popular vote doesn't count, only electoral numbers.

Are you suggesting that a nationwide primary would somehow be *less* influenced by the very same media you claim controls everything already?

From beginning to end, the process of ramming a dictator down our throats is tightly controlled, as tightly controlled as Stalin's elections

Yes. This is why the losers are frequently shot immediately after the convention.

We need to revolt.

Have you considered working for the Ron Paul campaign?

Completely remake the system.

As what, exactly? Oh wait, we're getting to that, aren't we...

No parties, so no party machines acquiring vast war chests for influence-buying and rigging and propaganda and armies of dirty-tricksters.

Right, because all of the mean, power-hungry people will just up and disappear if you outlaw political parties.

All candidates are allotted identical TV exposure

A decent light meter will sort that out without the need for any sort of abolition of political parties.

and no other political ads are allowed

Verboten!

All candidates appear on the ballot on election day, in alphabetical order.

Alphabetical by first or last name?

Would they be listed like this:

1) Michael Bloomberg
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Rudolph Giuliani

Or like this:

1) Hillary Clinton
2) Michael Bloomberg
3) Rudolph Giuliani

Or like this:

1) Bloomberg, Michael
2) Clinton, Hillary
3) Giuliani, Rudolph

Would they be numbered or un-numbered? Bullet-pointed? It hardly seems fair for Hillary or Rudy to be, well, #1. It could influence people.

Fraud-free voting method.

Show of hands?

Popular vote decides the winner.

Well yes, that certainly is more democratic than shooting all of the opposition, innit.

Any elected leader who doesn't do as the people say is removed from office and is put in prison.

If by "the people" you mean "yibbehobba" then I'm all for it!

Enough of the old power structure snickering at the rubes believing we have a voice in who controls all those nukes, all that IMF/WTO/corporate total economic stranglehold over the world.

Excuse me while I smoke a joint...

<time passes>

No, that still doesn't make a fucking bit of sense.

Ghandi's insurgency was good.

Ok.

The insurgency in Vietnam was good.

Right.

The insurgency in Iraq is good.

ENOUGH! We get it, already. Insurgency = Good.

The nascent insurgency here and in various places throughout the world,-it's a start.

NO! I thought insurgency was GOOD! GOOD!

The people of the world have to go on strike

Honestly, there's no such thing as a software monkey union so I think I'll have to pass.

everywhere

Including Antarcitca? It's mostly scientist down there. And it's cold. If they stop working for too long they freeze.

on the same day

Let me introduce you to my good friend the international dateline.

to signal the beginning of the end of the old way of empire

Insurgency = GOOD! Empire = BAD!

military and economic empire

We get it already! Empire = BAD!!!

the cruel and anti-social control by selfish, greedy, Viagra-chomping sociopaths

Bob Dole?

It's coming.

It'd better. He paid for that Viagra with his dignity.

[NeedleCast]

36. This is the Best Post Ever

There can be no argument on this.

[Robb]

39. I... I am in awe.

:toast:

[Winterblues]

42. According to my e-mails, with pills you can have vely good election

Make woman vely ploud....

[Romulox]

43. It's a plutocracy on the brink of fascism, imo. nt

[mwb970]

53. Remember 2000?

We elected Al Gore, and look at the stinker we got instead.

[wintersoulja]

54. taxation without representation

all the constitutional scholars can argue semantics, but who can say theyve been represented in this government? Law breaking war profiteers and insurance companies, thats who.
Thank God the clear thinking solid citizens supporting the electable candidates know we
shouldnt really expect to be served, just entertained by the dogs, ponies, bread crumbs and media circus.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

59. Simple

"How can anyone have the effrontery to say the US is a democracy?"

They did not actually read the constitution which lays out a representative republic *not* a democracy

"No parties"

Even the democracies of euorope have parties, they just have more than two of them

"All candidates are allotted identical TV exposure"

Really so if we have say 10,000 people who want to be president we can give each of them 8 seconds a day...

"no other political ads are allowed"

So we need a revolt to crap on the first amendment?

"All candidates appear on the ballot on election day"

A ballot as thick as a phone book?

"Any elected leader who doesn't do as the people say is removed from office and is put in prison."

Banning slavery was not a popular idea in the 1850's and 1860's. The people, for the most part, were saying either "yay slavery" or "not in my back yard". Democracy by your definition would make our rights meaning less as 51% of the populous could just say jump and a right for a group would be gone.

"The insurgency in Vietnam was good."

While US involvement in Vietnam was bad I very much doubt the folks of Laos or Cambodia who got to see what the Vietnamese 'insurgents' were like first hand in the late 70's would call their cause good.

--

The system is most certainly not broken, the *voters* who allow only two parties to exist are. A block of *10* senators or a handful or representatives from a third party could bring the two party system to a halt.

[mqbush]

61. The 10,000 candidates so many harp on...

needn't be any more likely to happen in a reformed system as it does now. To be a candidate you have to garner several thousand signatures, something that limits the number of candidates quite well. If you don't want reform, say so, don't make up imaginative objections. I was ranting, not detailing a final version of a new system. You can't love the current system. If you don't, do something about it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

62. Several thousand signatures?

Do you seriously suspect that would limit the number of people to less than say 10,000? are you saying there are not 10K people who cant get 10K signatures? Get real..

It is not fictitious to say that *some* kind of primary process among people with similar political leanings is better than a system where all I have to do is get 10K signatures to force myself on the ballot.

Reform might be a great thing, personally I think if you can get yourself on the ballot of enough states to win the EC you should be allowed in national debates. I also vote 3rd party more often than not in national elections.

THings are screwed up because of *US* not the system. I cant call myself a citizen without taking both the credit for greatness and the blame for failure that my nation is owed. If the voters fail to make sure that this two party oligarchy were living in how can you possibly blame the system.

Even now on DU there will be folks who still curse Nader for the fact he wanted to give people a choice and are hedging their bet with Republican Lite in the primaries..