Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Election Reform; controlled by the public.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
zacherystaylor Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 11:15 AM
Original message
Election Reform; controlled by the public.
The current election process is an absurd charade. This has nothing to do with democracy; the corporations have complete control of the process and they can veto any candidate that doesnt toe the corporate line. All they have to do is simply have the Mass Media, or should I say propaganda machine, ignore credible and sincere candidates for office in a large state or the presidency. This is routine and it is a pathetic excuse for democracy. A democracy is supposed to be for the people, by the people and of the people, which should mean that the people control it and those elected respond to the people.

A sincere election process that is controlled by the public should involve having job applicants, now referred to as candidates, that are required to fill out a job application which should be controlled by the public. They should also be required to attend a series of interviews also controlled by the public. The details of this reform need to be worked out of course. Right now this is hardly even being considered because those in power clearly dont want anything like this to happen; instead they want to hold onto all their power. I have written more about this in a more extensive blog at the following site in an attempt to work out some of the additional details.

http://open.salon.com/blog/zacherydtaylor/2010/08/02/el...

On another note; Im relatively new to this forum; although I created this account a while ago I havent been active until now. I have written more about preventing violence media reform and other issues if anyone is interested in the blog previously posted; it includes links to a table of context if anyone is interested.
Refresh | +2 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Cereal Kyller Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Kick
Good post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Daggoo Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. great idea!
"They should also be required to attend a series of interviews also controlled by the public."

great idea!

Also, maybe we should institute "preferential voting"--you rate each candidate in order of preference (instead of voting for just one). If your #1 candidate doesn't get enough votes to win, your vote then goes to your # 2 pick; and so on.

IOW, if you wanted to vote for Ralph Nader; or vote Libertarian; you could do so, knowing that your actual vote
would still go to count for Al Gore or George Bush (because neither Nader or the Libertarian candidates would
get enough votes to win). But you could vote your "heart"--or register a protest--and still not be throwing
your vote away. (Enough Florida voters chose Nader to have given the 2000 election to Gore, for example.)

As well, increase the size of the Senate and House. Let each state elect 6 Senators instead of 2. Right now we
have 100 (sometimes octogenarians) who sit there forever. Having a larger batch (300) gives a greater opportunity
for new ideas to be considered (ie, reduce the power of the "old boys" clubs). Ditto for the House.

At present, most congressional districts are so large that one has to run as a centrist--meaning that new ideas (greens, libertarians, socialists, etc.) haven't a chance. Smaller districts, and more offices, may mean the introduction of new blood--
instead of the perpetual politicians we have now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zacherystaylor Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Instant run-off elections
What you called "preferential voting" sounds like what some people have called Instant run-off elections; there have been some experiments with this in the past. I'm sure they had some problems; however I suspect these can be overcome and a sincere look at past efforts would help to overcome these problems. This would do a lot to enable lessor known parties to have a chance and it would break the duopoly we now have with the Democratic and Republican parties which are both controlled by the corporations. this is why they don't mention it and if necessary may attempt to ridicule or dismiss it.

It will be up to the public to stand up to the current politicians that try to demonize Instant run-off elections but if we do it will be worth it. I mentioned this and a few other ideas in the blog cited on the opening post if anyone is interested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC