How to Break the Two-Party System… with One Law

Washington warned in his Farewell Address that, among many other things that could destroy America, bipartisan politics was among the foremost. He foresaw that the two-party system would create career politicians who cared more about their party’s goals than their duty to uphold their oaths of office, and he believed such a system would shift the balance of power away from the people to the self-interested deal-brokers of party committees. Well, he was right.

What’s the big problem with the two-party system? Well, there’s an old saying that to escape a bear, you don’t need to run faster than the bear… you just have to run faster than whoever’s with you. And politicians know this better than most. You don’t have to uphold the Constitution to win an election, and you don’t have to adequately represent your constituency either. You just have to be more Constitutional and more conscientious than the guy you’re running against. And right about now, that’s a pretty low bar. Pretty much everyone in the conservative camp is crying out “Anyone But Obama,” and that means the RNC really doesn’t have to offer a presidential candidate of any significant distinction to escape the bear.

So how do we fix it? Most people believe voting third party is throwing away your vote, and they’re pretty much right. Aside from the fact that you might be able to rest easy at night knowing you “voted on principle,” a third-party candidate probably won’t ever win in the current political environment. Whether it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy or a case of media manipulation is irrelevant. I think the real answer is deceptively simple… if it could be implemented, which would be quite a legislative chore. It would involve changing the law on how we vote for candidates, but it would not fundamentally alter the voting process for those that are happy with the illusion of choice provided by the existing system. It’s a nascent idea at this point, and so I’m happy to entertain any possible complications or glitches the reader might foresee.

Here’s how it would work:

  1. Rather than voting for only one candidate, every voter would have to vote “yes” or “no” on every available candidate on the ballot, with the option of writing in a yes for a candidate that doesn’t show up on the ballot. If a voter thought every candidate met his criteria for the office, he could vote “yes” on all of them. If he thought none of them were sufficient to the task, he could vote “no” on all of them. Every “no” would cancel out a “yes,” and the candidate with the most net affirmations in the end would win.
  2. If any candidate received a net vote of “no” (the negatives outnumbered the affirmatives), he would be disqualified from the race.
  3. If no available candidate  achieved a net positive affirmation from the voters, all the candidates would be scrapped for that election cycle and the available parties would have to provide new candidates (who would already have been selected as alternates) until at least one of them achieved a net positive.
  4. If less than thirty percent of voters voted yes or no on a particular candidate, that candidate would also be disqualified (so no, you couldn’t vote a person in on one yes vote if all the other candidates ended up getting disqualified in a war of attrition).

It would be difficult to  implement this nationally, but it is not a terribly complicated system. If you wanted to vote for your two-party candidate, you could. This wouldn’t change anything for you. The beauty of the system, though, is that it would change things for voters that are not satisfied with either of the candidates the two parties provide. This allows the effectively disenfranchised to vote on an office even if no one they like is running for it. You could presumably vote “no” on every candidate. You could be entirely and completely fed up with the system, and yet still have a voice. It would also mean that voters would not need to vote for one candidate as a way of voting against a less desirable candidate. We could keep voting no until we got people that accurately and actually represented us. In other words, we could eat all the slackers, not just the slowest one.

I believe that, as trivial as this voting law may seem, it would actually break the two-party system. We might even be able to get some politician to sponsor it, if only we could convince him it was harmless.

0 responses

  1. According to you, Mike Minekoff, there are only two parties on the ballots, making the elections a “bi-partisan” affair. I have lived in three States where I was a registered voter during my residency. In each State, there were at least FIVE candidates for the Presidency, among them are the Libertarians, Liberals, Communist, Socialists, and a newer one called the Green Party. We don’t really hear much, if anything, at all where the other candidates are concerned until the votes are counted…the lesser parties do get the votes, but it is well below 15% of the total tally. I would disagree that we have a “bi-partisan” ballot when so many others are voted for, even if they are among the losers. There are now about 16 States where yet another new party is rising–it’s called the Constitutional Party. Where I live now, we don’t get any news about them because they aren’t on the ballot; the candidate they support is an unknown–if you want further information, just use your search engine and type in: constitutional party. I wish they were listed in our State so I could register with them instead of having the only choice of being either a democrat or republican.

    • The system is effectively two-party, no matter who’s on the ballot. Because most people feel they have to vote for one or another in order to have a voice in the election. I wasn’t saying there aren’t more than two parties on the ballot, however. I don’t think my system would be that cumbersome, either. After an election cycle or two, parties would figure out exactly what it is the local constituencies are looking for, and they would stop nominating duds. That swings the power back to the people. I fail to see your point about the electoral college, as it protects more local communities from being tyrannized by more populous, but generally more liberal, urban communities. What does it have to do with this?

      • In answer to your question. Quite simply, do you WANT those highly populated “Urban Communities” affecting the OUTCOME of an election? For example, only 13% of our total population are blacks … but where they are concentrated they have a tendency to OVER COMPENSATE in the Electoral Votes. You only have to look at a few states to SEE what I’m talking about. For example, we may NEVER get Virginia back … because of the RAMPANT and unequal HIRING of blacks into government positions since Obama took office!!

      • You seem to be well-read, Mike, but in the event that you have forgotten, it is the Electoral College that selects our President and our election history tells us that the EC has voted against the populace on 7 occasions, which includes the Bush/Gore campaign. I thought that the EC always cast their vote for the populace winner–until I started looking things up–and what a surprise! The neat thing about the EC is that the State has the right to regulate how those votes are cast. Unfortunately, 47 States have NOT regulated how the votes are cast for their State; they may vote for whom they prefer to be in the White House. Three States specifically tell the EC they must cast their votes for the popular winner of their State; the other 4 can split their votes, but only as the law dictates. Consequently, the EC is a major consideration–and your plan does not provide for that aspect of the voting process. It is highly conceivable that the popular vote goes to the Republican candidate, but the EC decides we should have 4 more years of obama—This will always remain a possibility until each State regulates how those EC votes are cast. To answer your final question: The EC has everything to do with the voting process and must be considered in any reformation because the EC is a Constitutional entity with a strong State’s Right agenda..

    • With all the sophisticated technology out there, if the technology was programmed in an honest manner, (that would have to be verified by all candidates), it would not take months or years to find out who, if anyone, won. I would MUCH rather have this method than endure FOUR LONG YEARS of a Communist or Muslim in office as our President. I think it’s a FANTASTIC IDEA! Do you have a better idea?

      • Really Anon? Those voting machines are supposed to be a part of the “sophisticated technnology” that you speak of–and they were proven to be rigged in NV so that reid could return to the Senate. You say the plan presented by Mike Minkoff is doable “if programmed in an honest manner.” So, who would be the over-seer of this progamming? How do we know they are trustworthy? I know of student testing where macines are used actually change the student’s answer–tell the proctor and they get angry because the providers of the machines “would never do such a thing.” The ‘sophisticated technology’ you speak of is only as good as the person who develops the machine–I am not convinced I should trust the developers or the person designated to record the votes. And speaking of sophisticated technology, how are you dealing with the contracting with Spain to count our 2012 Presidential votes–and by a company that is owned by none other than george soros? You trust Spain? I sure don’t–they have nothing to do with our government or our country.

  2. ” …the Constitution compels people to (hopefully) elect the best of the
    worst. It also necessitates political parties that are not only
    unbiblical but whose platforms are invariably ungodly. Political parties
    are the mechanism by which Christian constituents are offered up on the
    altar of WE THE PEOPLE.

    “After every election, regardless who’s elected, Americans
    eventually have cause for regret (Proverbs 29:2). And yet, every four
    years, they march right back to the voting booths with eternal hope (or
    is it merely short-sightedness?) and do it all over again. Elections
    provide us with a lose-lose proposition. On the other hand, when we have
    two or more Biblically qualified candidates, we end up with a servant
    of God, regardless who’s appointed….”

    For more see Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

    Also don’t miss our Constitution Survey in the right-hand side column by which you can receive an 85-page “Primer” of the book mentioned above.

    • I laugh – many of the “founders” were not “Christians” they were deists – and they weren’t interested in Christians being in charge – they were tired of the STATE running the religion.

    • If you’re not going to participate in planing the menu, don’t complain about what’s served for dinner. Showing up at the Polls on election day is too late to expect a candidate you like. We get the kind of candidate and government we deserve.

      • Theoretically, what you say is true. However, I have been involved in my party and the ability to affect the party’s positions and policy is woefully absent. Power brokers exist at every level. It isn’t only the uninterested public that is frozen out of the candidate selection process.

        • Maybe your ideas lack support of other party members. Numbers, NUMBERS ! A Party’s platform is determined by a majority. Ever been to a caucus?
          PS – the uninterested public is NOT “frozen out”. The uninterested public is just NOT interested.

        • He speaks the truth – even at the local level – those in power RUN the politics.

          They are kind of like a homeowners association gone wild – it can be cured – but the tenants have to really show up and vote the bastions that run the association out, put in new leaders, then call for the home owners association to be dissolved – if you had the votes for the new leadership – you should have the votes to wreck the wrong.

        • I tried as well, and got nowhere. All I can do is sit back and watch the movie unfold per the predetermined script. Its all about THE PERTY THE PARTY, and winning. Never about WE THE PEOPLE. I attended our last State Republican Convention as a delegate…. the circus and side show were disgusting. All they want is my party “membership” fee to help pay for the gala convention, I refused this time, having learned my money got nowhere. The ruling elite does what THEY have determined will happen. They put in a Senate candidate who was a slick politician, had name recognition, and lost to the rotten incumbent. We had a great grass-roots candidate, honest, a strong constitutioinalist, FOR the little guy and against big government… but he got squeezed out by the party ruling elites. Same situatioin again this time, not sure who they’ll get behind but I’ve a sick feeling we’l end up with the corrupt incumbent for ANOTHER six years. Sick………

      • I surly didn’t deserve the one we got. I didn’t vote for the imposter. People voting black have set us back.

        • Tony, color is not the issue. We have had several good candidates who were black, The names Cain and West come to mind and there are several running for state offices that also are highly qualified. Being 80 years “young”, their names slip my mind.

  3. I’m not sure how effective your idea would be, at least it sound neat. I suspect more people would vote 3rd party or whatever if they did not FEAR the greater of the two evils would win. I so many people express the idea of voting for the lessor of two evils. Some have said they did not vote as neither candidate is good, so what does it matter. I do wish there was a better way.

  4. if just getting a valid ID is to much to expect a person to do to vote,.. then law proposed is way to complicated for many to understand.. but would work well for the primaries..

    a simpler method would be an automatic runoff if the winning candidate failed to get 51% of the vote.. or if less then 50% of the registered voters for any one candidate there would be a runoff..

  5. The 3rd reich was a one party system, so was the USSR a one party system. King George of Enagland was a one party system. Iran has a one pary system, the Shia religious party. NO thanks to a one party system run by the TP Religious racist one party.

  6. Washington, along with the other Founders, was prescient beyond belief. The current “government” no longer works because the Founders said that they created a government suited only for a religious and moral people. This nation no longer can claim that to be true. And liberals are the (justifiably) self-loathing vermin that have brought us to this point of destruction. If they would merely confine their hatred to themselves I wouldn’t mind; but their brazen disrespect for everything that was good about America is palpable and it is tearing apart this nation. THAT outcome is what Ayatollah Obama meant when he said he would fundamentally transform America. He meant it. But his vision of America is a hellish, subsistence existence, where everyone is “equal”. Equally miserable, except for himself and fellow elitists.

  7. I have a better idea: NO politician can have more than two terms in office. Once you served your two terms, you retire from public service. That would be enforced by the States disqualifying anyone who has served two terms in any office from running again. Yes, that means the States will have to take back power over who they allow on their ballots, but that is the point: the ballots belong to the States, and they should govern who appears on those ballots.

    • Daddy always said any politician who couldn’t steal enough money in two terms to retire on wasn’t worth a damn anyway.

    • That isn’t a better (or a novel) idea. And it doesn’t change the fact that the parties still control our choices and most party leadership is entrenched and corrupt.

      • Pearl, you need to think about this some more. The key is to take power away from Washington. Putting full control of who is on a state ballot back into the hands of the States will create a fundamental change in the parties, since the state parties would have to carry most of the election weight. It would also encourage the growth of new parties that better reflect local concerns.

      • The “Party” is supposed to be a collection of citizens who support the party platform. How would you go about selecting the party leadership? Some democratic process by which the majority rules?
        Quit whining and get involved. Otherwise, wait until election day and write in the name of your guy.

        • but they are not – they are career political hacks – who make their living running the party. They are like the County Manager that can run the county any way they want, overturn any County Commission law – right up until they are fired.

          • If they are “career political hacks” they are allowed to be so by a majority of the politically active and influencial. And no, they cannot run the party anyway they want without support.

    • How about a 12 year limit for any given office? 3 terms for a president, 2 terms for a senator, and 6 terms for a congressman. A legislator can then be allowed to be elected to another office if favorable to the people. This would keep the power to elect our legislators in the hands of the votors.

      • I thought of that, but the truth is I felt it was simply too complicated. We have seen how, with the slightest wriggle room, these politicians worm their way around the law and convince a generally confused public that they are actually obeying the law. I do not want them to have that chance, so I think 2 terms in office and out is the way to go. To further tighten the loopholes, any portion of a term counts as a term. So, if the vice president serves 1 term as VP, and the president dies during the last month of his second term, the last month during which the VP serves as president counts as term 2 for the VP and then he is out. Not fair? No, it isn’t fair for the politician, but then that is the price of fame and power. It will protect the People from career politicians and the growing imperial nature of the two parties, and that is more important than being fair to some political hack.

        • Truman took care of the term limits for the Presidency–that’s why a President cannot serve more than 10 years. It’s the term limits for congress and the Federal Courts that needs addressing. A senator serves a term of 6 years; two terms is sufficient. A representative serves a 2 years; three terms would be sufficient in this case. Federal Court judges are appointed; because the Constitution does not set a specified term, it is presumed that such appointments are for life. However, it is a tradition that allows them to remain in office and not a mandate of the Constitution, per se. It would not be unreasonable to set a specified term of 20 years as opposed to setting a retirement age (which would be unconstitutional). As it is, removal of a federal judge is based on his/her behavior (which would include a federal judge using foreign law to render a decision–our law is from the Constitution, which the Founding Fathers specifically stated is the Law of the Land) or diminished physical/mental capacity that would prevent them from doing their job. The only other specification for the Federal judges is that they be given a salary for the time they have served, which implies that these appointments are NOT for life. Setting reasonable term limits would prevent career politicians from achieving the stranglehold over the Nation as they are doing now, yet allow them sufficient time to carry an important project through. Supreme Court judges do need more years of service because it is their job to assure that both the Federal and State governments adhere to the Constitution. The lesser Federal Court judges could be appointed for a term of 10 years with a congressional review to determine if they should be reappointed for a second term. Once those 20 years are up–they need to retire or find another job. Any Federal judge who served a term of appointment may NOT be considered for a position on the Supreme Court bench.

          • You are right. The Presidency has been taken care of, now we have to limit Congress. The Federal Courts I am a little leery of since the idea of a lifetime appointment is to insulate the judge from political pressure. However, defining “lifetime” as a specified term of years as you suggest would be doable.

            My issues are that the limits be administered by the States, NOT by the federal government, or by the People at the State level. Further, the system has to be so straightforward, so devoid of exceptions and grey areas, that no one can get around it. Finally, we need to break the culture of the career politician at all levels of government. After all, we have seen what kind of a mess these so-called “qualified” people have made of things. Now it is time to try some regular folk in the halls of power.

      • I would rather have one six year term for the President with a chance to run for another after a term off. This campaigning for two-years like Obama did prevents him for getting any work done. Also 4 yrs for Congress ~ 2yrs is just nuts because all they do is fight each other for camera time ~ again no work done.

        • Prevents him from getting any work done??!! – the boy has not been sitting on his butt, so much as on the golf course, but he has achieved more than fifty percent of his goal. He’s getting all his work done – because – it’s true just as he says – this is a do nothing congress – he likes it that way – it lets him do whatever he wishes by executive order and putting in unconstitutional regulatory czars – where is the Cabinet – besides the infamous Marxist Socialist Hillary who walks around the world doing her best to put the United States under the control of the United Nations.

    • Term limits sound nice but really don’t do anything other than hurt the States with smaller populations. In California, New York, Florida and Texas, which have populations ranging from 18-37 Million there are undoubtedly thousands or possibly tens of thousands of people truely qualified for public office. Somewhere around half that number would be willing to serve at the Local, State, and National levels.
      Wyoming, Montana, N Dakota, S Dakota, Delaware, Vermont, and Alaska each have less than 1 million residents, based on the law of averages that means we are looking at only a few thousand or possibly just hundreds qualified people. How do those States, and the other 18 States with 1/10th the population of the big 4, manage to fill their CIty, County, State, and National positions with qualified people?
      Think about it in terms of Golf (or what ever your favorite sport is). If you have a regional team with 400 possible players and they field a team against another region with 40,000 possible players are both regions fairly represented? Now lets toss in an added requirement, each player can only play two years, even though Golf is a sport you can play at competition level for more than a dozen years.
      The top ten population States (156 Million people) essentially control the House despite the fact the other 40 States have almost as many people (124 Million) which is why the Senate is a flat 2 Senators per State. Toss in term limits however, and now the 40 States are struggling to find someone who can and will do the job properly.

      • To begin with, we are discussing Washington, not the States, counties, municipalities, etc., though the idea would be good for them as well. After all, how much longer can California tolerate Leftist control in Sacramento? Next, the trick is to find good people, not so-called “truly qualified” people. After all, we have been sending the “truly qualified” to Washington for years and look where it has gotten us. Now it is time to send regular folk who care more about the people back home than they do about power and pleasing the Washington elite.

      • I don’t believe anyone is “qualified” for public office. Too much opportunity for personal gain (corruption) in government. This is why I believe government should have a MINIMUM of responsibility and authority over our lives!!!! This I believe is true at all levels of government.

    • go on, keep beating this dead horse. whining will get you no where. Our system is what we have to work with. Unless you, the states citizens in majority, can find honest politicians who will swear that when they get to Washington will put in term limits, and vote for them – you are not ever going to get term limits. and we all know what any politicians oath is worth.

      • You need to think more before you post such defeatist propaganda. The key to making this work is taking the choice out of the hands of Washington politicians and giving it to the States, or better yet, by referendum, to the People. I know it would be a rogue act of democracy, something practically unheard of, but you need such acts sometimes to preserve freedom.

        • You can only take the choice out of Washington by doing what you accuse Obama and his minions of doing – throwing away the Constitution. It does no good to posture when you are not going to win. this is not a poker game where you can bluff your way. WE the People are as constrained by the Constitution as the federal government is supposed to be. You would have to CHANGE the constitution – and when you open that bag of tricks – it may not be a treat you get – look around you – who is in charge today – and there is no Jefferson, Madison or Adams to keep it on the straight and narrow. Defeatist propaganda – you would defeat the Constitution. The ONLY way to “fix” Washington is a revolution – either a political revolution – which is what we have going on now and the “bad guys” are winning it – or you have a bloody revolution and you will destroy the fifty United States of America – because, in spite of you believe – the Constitution will NOT be saved – but the winners will want to start rewriting it – and you’ve no clue what will be in such a new constitution.

          • Your answer sounds like something right out of the DNC talking points manual. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional in what I am arguing. Had you actually read the document and considered the law it espouses, you would understand that. Instead, you argue for a head in the sand approach, predicting dire consequences if the system, which now clearly favors Washington’s leftist elite, is tampered with.

            I am suggesting that we go back to the government that our founders envisioned, returning power to the states and the people, and keeping the federal government small and focused on the few tasks it is authorized to do by the Constitution. For example, we should return to the system where the State legislatures elected senators. That made those in the Senate answerable to their State leaders, NOT to their party leaders, since they could be easily replaced. That move alone would take much of the wind out of Washington’s sails. Elections are already run by the States, so there is precedent for having them make rules as to who can and cannot be on a ballot. Again, nothing unconstitutional.

            We can change the system, and preserve our Constitution. It takes guts and determination. You are a defeatist. Go sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way while the rest of us work on the problem. Don’t worry, you will benefit as well.

      • There’s nothing wrong with the system. IF the state’s citizens in majority, can find honest politicians there’d be no need for term limits.
        There is no fool proof automatic process by which We The People will be governed by honorable representatives EXCEPT by full participation of, hopefully, those who believe in America’s constitution and freedom, and those old fashion ideas of honor, duty, and loyalty.

    • The responsibility to impose a term limit belongs to the electorate. If the electorate chooses to keep a politician in office for life don’t blame the politician.

      • Just because a politician can remain in office, election after election, for years, it doesn’t mean that he should. In fact, we can see clearly that career politicians and the current restrictive 2-party system, are as toxic as our founders said they were!

        The electorate has fallen into a sleepy complacency regarding the system. It needs to be educated and inspired to act. I think, in a way, Obambi and his socialist cohorts in Congress, has done some good for the nation in that the electorate is beginning to wake up. The People have to understand the damage that the two parties have done, the damage they will continue to do, and the solutions that can be put into place to stop them. Only then will the electorate be wise enough to make a choice.

        • The politicial is re-elected election after election. Why? Because “The electorate has fallen into a sleepy complacency…..”, especially when anyone dead, alive, or non-existent can vote as often as they like. Exactly why Minkoff’s idiotic idea won’t work any better than the system we have now.

          • OK then…since you know what will not work, enlighten us all and tell us how YOU would solve the problem.

  8. The Republican Party didn’t offer up, the voters in the Republican Primaries and Caucuses chose their Nominee. There is not elitist Republican “chosen one”. The RNC doesn’t run ads for one candidate against the others. The RNC doesn’t run ads until they are running against Obama. In fact, these other parties have a selection process as well and I would suspect they are less democratic in nature and more of a group of people Party leaders deciding who will represent them.

    The two party system or the 5 party system are basically the same. Each party gets a chance to nominate someone and they all make it on the ballot in November providing they follow the rules of each state. (The Constitution allows the States to determine ballot eligibility). We the people get to make our selection. The only questionable flaw is the majority is not always reached because of the Electoral College, ie. 1992 and 1996: Bill Clinton won both times with less than 50%.

    The only way to get a better candidate is to get involved. Romney was not my choice in the beginning. My candidates kept self destructing. So, when it comes to July, I will whole heartedly support Romney because he supports the Republican Platform (which I do) and he is BETTER THAN OBAMA. One of those two WILL be elected. Our job is to determine now which one it will be. Our chance to pick a better candidate is now behind us. If we stay at home, one of those two will probably be elected…probably Obama.

    The ball is in our court.

    • Our country simply CANNOT AFFORD to allow Obama to be re-elected. In four short years he has dismantled our country. Four more he would FINISH the work, and this country WILL be transformed into a Socialist County .. WITH Shariah Law!! Does ANY American really WANT that!? I think not. Those 43% who THINK they should support him .. just do NOT know what the H___ they are doing!!

      • I would like for every newspaper in the nation to carry Derek’s offering as a huge headline, first page. I’d love to watch TV to see which politicians endorse it. Of course, the liberals would label it as “offensive” or “racist.” Nancy Pelosi would respond with “We’ll just have to wait and see what happens under socialism and Shariah……”

    • What you say is blatantly NOT true – yes – but the RNC dramatically dissed any candidate except the one they wanted – and they did it the way you that does it best – one candidate at a time. Mitt Romney was tapped to be the nominee before the very first primary – after that – anyone else that even tried was fed quickly to the alligators. We have a milk toast nominee – one that the RNC believes they can control if elected – and probably can. You don’t even have to look far at state Republican Committees to see how they threw the primaries to Mitt and threaten any delegate who doesn’t SWEAR to vote for him – even if he didn’t get all of the votes.

      • We expound no end on how busted the system is, then folks trot out their opine that it is all decided beforehand. I guess we just need to stay home. Come to think of it, if we all did that ……… WOW! Think about it! NO TV forecasts, no election-night reporting, no next-day analyses! Obama, of course, would decide that “a tie (o-o) goes to the president.”

  9. Interesting concept. The issue is getting congress to pass such a bill, and getting it signed by a president. It is nearly impossible to get anything fair to to the people through congress, let alone get the sitting president to sign it. That would mean they would have to be moral, and actually care about the welfare of the people.

  10. Make it even easier…place their name on the ballot with the position chosen by lottery…with no party affiliation. This would be done on the general election. If the party wants to have a primary…they can do it, but no gov’t funded election.

  11. What has America become?

    Has America become the land of special interest and home of the
    double standard? Let’s see: If we lie to the Congress, it’s a felony
    and if Congress lies to us it’s just politics. If we dislike a black person,
    we’re a racist and if a black dislikes whites, it’s their 1st Amendment
    right. The government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and
    they do almost nothing for the victims. In public schools you can teach
    that homosexuality and lesbianism is ok, but you better not use the
    word God in the process. You can murder a child in the mothers womb,
    but it’s wrong to execute a mass murderer. We don’t burn books in
    America, we now rewrite them. We got rid of the communist & socialist
    threat by renaming them progressives. If you protest against Obama’s
    policies you’re a terrorist, but if you burn an American flag or George
    Bush in effigy, it’s your 1st Amendment right.

    You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not
    put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas. In America,
    criminals are now called sick people. The government takes money
    from those who work hard & gives it to those who are lazy. Parenting
    has been replaced with Ritalin & video games. The land of opportunity
    is now the land of hand outs.

    And how do we handle a major crisis today? The Government
    appoints a committee to determine who’s at fault, then threatens
    them, passes a law, raises our taxes, then tells us the problem is
    solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.

    • I think you’re mixing metaphors and being unfair to the things you don’t agree with, Raymond. I’m going to go through them point by point:

      1) Lying to Congress: This part is true, so no complaint.
      2) Racism/1st Amendment: Both races are called racist in these cases, and both are protected by 1st Amendment Rights. You are picking out the part that makes your side seem marginalized.
      3) Rehabilitation of Criminals: This part is true, but that’s the nature of society. We have to fix the bad elements, right?
      4) Sex Ed/God in schools: These have no relation to each other. Religion has no place in public schools, and sexuality is science. What’s your point?
      5)Abortion/Capital Punishment: No relation, but this is a States’ Rights issue, not a federal one. Aren’t you a States’ Rights advocate?
      6) Burning/Rewriting: …?
      7) Progressives: There are so few communists and socialist in the government today, even all the way down to the local level, that I doubt you could name a single one. This is extreme rhetoric that is the root of the bi-partisan problem we have right now.
      8) Where has anyone in the real world referred to protesters against Obama as “terrorists?” If they have, it’s more extreme rhetoric. It is a 1st Amendment right, just like flag and effigy burning. May I remind you of the stink, however, raised when HBO’s Game of Thrones had a decapitated “head” of George Bush as a prop? If dissenting opinions is all it takes to be labeled terrorists, then it swings both ways.
      9) This is a bad metaphor. You cannot film a porn scene in a public park either. You CAN have a nativity set on TV or the Internet. You are not comparing anything here.
      …I’m done.

        • There are fertility symbols that were/are considered religious icons from all over the world for thousands of years that prudes will refer to as “pornographic”.

          • “Prudes…” There’s a word I have not heard in years. Calm down and take your meds. There is enough legitimate, flesh and blood pornography to be found on any internet search, to not concern yourself with what “prudes” think of stone statues.

      • 2. Don’t be obtuse, they are not treated the same.
        3. If the rehabilitation was effective I would agree; however, we spend $53B annually on rehab and have a 43% recidivism rate. The program need an overhaul.
        4. Why does religion have no place in a public school? They States are not prohibited from any religious activity. The restriction is only the Federal Government may not establish a religion. Also sexuality is not a science to be studied in primary schools. You were probably referring to reproduction which is a subject of health class.
        5. They are morally equivalent when one group supports taking the live of one for convenience sake and argues against the execution of the other.
        6. Now you are just being dense.
        7. Walks like a duck…
        8. Look up H.R.347 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Protesters have been arrested during the NATO summit and charged with terrorism only to be released later. That is a far cry for some little dust up over a silly cable series.
        9. The “Freedom from Religion” group is built on a false premise. There is no such protection for a minority in the Constitution and as mentioned before a State of local municipality may display whatever religious exhibits they wish on public land. They just need to stand up to these idiots in the Courts and force them to use the Constitution instead of erroneous precedent case law.

        You may have been done, yet you were also wrong.

        • Recidivism is the tesult of being a convicted felon. Convicted felons can’t find legitimate employment, so they continue to be criminals. Public schools recieve federal money, so religion in schools of w federal issue. Also, 50 some billion dollars I’d a drop in the ocean when it comes to federal spending, doo it’s not worth addtessing any more per se, but this country is the world leader of “civilized” nations when it comes to the number of citizens incarcerated, which is a whole other issue that does need to be addressed

      • I won’t waste words on you. YOU’RE AN IDIOT. Go back to your progressive group and absorb some more maure.

      • We all know what kind of person you are by your response. You appear to be happy with the way things are. Raymond may not have been comparing absolutes but it was a point well made. Unless of course you are happy with the way things are.

      • You need to quit parroting the liberal line and do some study on the founding of our nation. We were founded with exactly the opposite of the liberal philosophies by men who were devout Christian. (Do not tell me they were not. Read their writings and their bios)

          • This is an overused, and tired and faulty maxim. Did you know that even Benjamin Franklin, who in his writings never purported to be a Christian, gave glory to God for the outcome of the American Revolution. Because he had seen first hand the miracle that occurred when a tiny outnumbered band of barefoot rebels were able to defeat the greatest, most well funded army in the world. By Franklin’s deepest conviction, it could only have been the intervention of “divine providence.” And Deists do not believe in divine intervention. God is not involved in the affairs of men according to deism. George Washington was a Reformed Episcopalian which by today’s standards would make him a conservative presbyterian. I don’t think Christians can claim Thomas Jefferson, but even he edited his own version of the Bible. Both Adamses, Patrick Henry, were Christians and attended church. John Witherspoon an ordained minister was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. You need to clarify what you mean by Founding Fathers. Because by your comment you are claiming that they were ALL Deists. Clearly they were not all Deists, most particularly George Washington, our first president, was a devout protestant Christian.

          • The overused, tired and faulty maxim that “America is a Christian nation” is counterfeit. It is as ubiquitous as a penny but with less value. Many erroneously point to the Puritans arrival and subsequent establishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony as their having founded the United States. This is post hoc ergo propter hoc, the fallacy that since A precedes B that A, then, causes B.

            To show how ambiguous the label “Christian” could be, let’s consider the example of Pres. James Madison’s cousin, James Madison. He was a consecrated Episcopal bishop of Virginia in 1790. Even though he shepherded one of the most populous Episcopal dioceses in the country, he was criticized even during his lifetime for being something of a freethinking Deist. Clearly influenced by the Enlightenment’s emphasis on natural science, having taught the subject at the College of William and Mary for years, Madison, as one of his fellow bishops delicately put it, was thought to “philosophize too much on the subject of religion” to be entirely orthodox. Despite his Anglican connection he was also a patriot during the revolution championing political equality and democracy.

            The Founding Fathers were not ALL Christian. Of course, some were. For example John Hancock and Sam Adams were Congregationalists, John Jay and Patrick Henry were Episcopalian, and were all devout and pretty conventional Christians. But the big players in the founding of the United States; John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and probably Alexander Hamilton, were not. Each one was much more comfortable with a deistic understanding of God than a Christian one. For them, the deity was an impersonal First Cause who created a rationally patterned natural order and who was best worshiped through the exercise of reason and virtue (two qualities today’s “Evangelicals seem to tend to eschew). While most may have admired the ethical teachings of Jesus (although Paine pointedly did NOT), they all loathed and rejected the superstition they associated with Christianity.

            It is a bit of a stretch to call the founding fathers Christians. Some were even openly contemptuous such as Thomas Paine with Jefferson not too far behind. In fact, Jefferson was attacked as an “infidel” by the Federalists in the 1800 and 1804 elections for not being “Christian” enough. More pointedly, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli specifies that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty sealed a routine diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and the Muslim state of Tripolitania. It was not only ratified UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate, it was signed and publicly endorsed by Pres. John Adams. It passed without debate or dissent. Clearly, neither the president nor senators found its denial of a Christian foundation to the nation objectionable.


            One could take a less obscure and more direct approach to the subject.

            The first three words of the Bible are, “In the beginning…”

            The first three words of the Constitution are, “We the People…”

            Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of God, Jesus, Christ, Christianity or religion except to forbid there being any religious test to work for the government. This is the ONLY clause mentioning religion in the document. And, no, I am not forgetting the First Amendment.

          • I disagree with you on George Washington. There were other treaties that cited the trinity. You are free to interpret your evidence as you wish, I will feel free to do the same. There is plenty of evidence that you are ignoring. So be it.

          • Of COURSE he made some citations of the trinity. He was politically astute. An accurate examination of his opinions and activities, however, will show a more Deist philosophy. Believe what you will.

          • Read Pete Lillback’s book George Washington’s Sacred Fire. He spent years researching this man’s life in minute detail, and presents ALL the availble evidence. Not just the more recent “revisionist” stuff. Get the book and read it. THEN come back and tell me he was not a christian.

          • Anything pushed by that inveterate liar Glen Beck is suspect due to his proven extreme aversion to reality. I’ll pass.

          • John Hancock and Sam Adams were Congregationalists, John Jay and Patrick Henry were Episcopalian, and were all devout and pretty conventional Christians. But the big players in the founding of the United States; John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and probably Alexander Hamilton, were not

            Hancodk and Sam Adams were absolutely key to moving ahead the founding of our nation. Further, your statement that George Washington was NOT a christian is absolutely false. As mentioned he was a very devout christian, and lived as such, encouraging his men in the field to do likewlise. What was his first act after being inaugurated President? And his stated reason for it? That might give a clue as to his values and personal convictions.

          • I’ll repeat:
            To show how ambiguous the label “Christian” could be, let’s consider the example of Pres. James Madison’s cousin, James Madison. He was a consecrated Episcopal bishop of Virginia in 1790. Even though he shepherded one of the most populous Episcopal dioceses in the country, he was criticized even during his lifetime for being something of a freethinking Deist. Clearly influenced by the Enlightenment’s emphasis on natural science, having taught the subject at the College of William and Mary for years, Madison, as one of his fellow bishops delicately put it, was thought to “philosophize too much on the subject of religion” to be entirely orthodox. Despite his Anglican connection he was also a patriot during the revolution championing political equality and democracy.

          • Two were deists, the rest were ALL christians of one denomination or another. No matter, they ALL held to, and lived by, biblical moral standards, and used biblical principles in drafting our founding documents. Read the book “the Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence”, Nearly every one of those fifty four men were ministers, minister’s sons, most had been to christian colleges or seminaries, many more were elders, deacons, etc, in their churches… in short, almost all were not just christians but were leaders in their churches of one sort or another. That book was written about 1848, if memory serves, relied on original source material in researching the lives of these fifty four men. It has been republished by Wall Bullders, is available from them or on Amazon. Not a pllug for anything other than you having an accurate resource to set your misinformation straight.

          • The Wall Builders? Seriously? A discredited apologist organization dedicated to “proving” that America is supposed to be a Christian nation? I won’t even get into their “prophet” David Barton’s antics and revisionism.

        • He has made the claim about “communists”. All he has show is that he’s an idiot. He has said all manner of stupid things like:

          “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine.” The link to Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945, drew criticism from several members of Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and others. This, of course, completely ignores the GOP’s use of this tactic which actually predates the Nazis.

          In July 2011, West responded to a perceived slight from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (R-FL) with a nasty letter in which he threatened her and scolded, “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!” West later lied saying that he had apologized. Wasserman-Schultz says she has not received one. So much for military integrity and honor.

          Speaking at the Palm Beach County GOP’s Lincoln Day Dinner, West said of liberals, “Take your message of equality of achievement. … You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.” West later tried to walk back the statement, claiming he was only referring to “the message” and not liberals themselves. Right. Yet another example that would make Goebbels swell with pride.

          There’s more. A helluvalot more. A ridiculously large amount more. I hope you all get the idea. He is without honor and deserves to lose his next election in his new district.

      • George, YOU are the one off base…

        I think you’re mixing metaphors and being unfair to the things you don’t agree with, Raymond. I’m going to go through them point by point:

        1) Lying to Congress: This part is true, so no complaint.<<>>
        2) Racism/1st Amendment: Both races are called racist in these cases, and both are protected by 1st Amendment Rights. You are picking out the part that makes your side seem marginalized.<<>>
        3) Rehabilitation of Criminals: This part is true, but that’s the nature of society. We have to fix the bad elements, right?<<>>
        4) Sex Ed/God in schools: These have no relation to each other. Religion has no place in public schools, and sexuality is science. What’s your point?<<>>
        5)Abortion/Capital Punishment: No relation, but this is a States’ Rights issue, not a federal one. Aren’t you a States’ Rights advocate?<<>>
        6) Burning/Rewriting: …?<>>
        7) Progressives: There are so few communists and socialist in the government today, even all the way down to the local level, that I doubt you could name a single one. This is extreme rhetoric that is the root of the bi-partisan problem we have right now.<<>>
        8) Where has anyone in the real world referred to protesters against Obama as “terrorists?” If they have, it’s more extreme rhetoric. It is a 1st Amendment right, just like flag and effigy burning. May I remind you of the stink, however, raised when HBO’s Game of Thrones had a decapitated “head” of George Bush as a prop? If dissenting opinions is all it takes to be labeled terrorists, then it swings both ways.<<>>
        9) This is a bad metaphor. You cannot film a porn scene in a public park either. You CAN have a nativity set on TV or the Internet. You are not comparing anything here.<>>

        Seems it is YOU who have things upside down, Raymond (I’ve no idea WHO he is, so don’t think I”m defending HIM.. but I AM defending his principles, he has the right of it.

      • Progressives: (Or should we say socialists)…let met see…so few???
        This is extremely easy to answer….Let’s see:
        1.Barack Obama
        2.Hillary Clinton
        3.Valerie Jarrat
        4. George Soros
        Should I go on for another hour or so.
        We can find them thruout our government  under Obama…our labor unions
        our universities, etc, etc.
        WAKE UP AMERICA, before we lose our country!!!!

    • Looked up the words ‘welfare’ & ‘entitlements’ in thesaurus…they are NOT interchangable…But our politicians do not use word ‘welfare’ anymore..Examples of welfare are food stamps,obamaphones, housing assistance, etc; social security & medicare are entitlements..

  12. Right now we’re stuck with voting for which we think are the lesser of two evils. Period. I think this is worth pondering. If we didn’t like either one, we vote NO on both and then we get more to choose from.

  13. From a practical standpoint, I’m not so sure of this, but from a functional standpoint, I think it’s brilliant, and I, for one, would love to find a way to implement it, at least as an experiment to see how well it works.

  14. I find this idea amuzing… Minkoff assumes the population of voters will be educated enough to vote within the proposed guidelines…. right the now the nation argues of valid ID’s, disenfranchising the elderly and ignorant, hanging chads….. keep it simple!

  15. I believe the two-party system is helpful in giving candidates a platform to run for office. But I am a firm believer that once a candidate successfully wins an office, whether it be the presidency or a seat in Congress, he should cease behaving as a party member. He/she should no longer consider himself a Democrat or Republican and consider every act to be in the best interest of the America they are supposed to be serving, not as a means of furthering their ideology or enriching/empowering themselves or some “special interest” group. I also believe there should be some way to screen all candidates for national office to assure that they are Americans first and foremost, they know our history and traditions and they will uphold our Constitution and respect our democratic republican form of government.

    • What we need badly are term limits for EVERYONE in any executive position in government, no matter what party he/she belongs to. Also , take away their special health care privileges, and massive pension plans. THAT by themselves will make them think twice before running for a second term. They are NOT special, they ARE just like you and I , and probably much worse .

      • One of these days I want one or two of you term limit screamers to tell me just how you are ever going to achieve term limits? I’m tired of the whining. IT cannot be done, the members of Congress will NEVER pass such a law on themselves nor will they take away their perks/benefits/pensions nor the ability to tax you and give themselves pay raises. You keep beating this dead horse until it rots – you are not ever going to get term limits out of congress. Sure, they could impose it on the President – they have the power to overturn his veto – and trying to get the Supreme Court to undo the overturned veto – hah. But then you should try to term limit, age limit, or education limit on the Supreme Court Justices. Let’s suppose you could get Congress to write the law, the President to sign it – the Justices would laugh – because they have the last laugh – unless you start mucking around with the Constitution – and when you do that – you just THINK that you will get just what you want – more likely in todays climate – you’ll get more of what you don’t like – as in the 2nd amendment being amended.

        • I agree, Term Limits are the responsibility of the people.
          If the are too starry-eyed with their candidate to vote him/her out the rest of us have to deal with it by putting stronger leaders in office.

        • 44rd11, oh yea of little faith! There are two avenues open to Amendments to the Constitution, Article V, states congress can do it or the state legislative bodies can do it. I agree that congress will fight the issue tooth and nail, but most states are beginning to see that something has to be done, else this great country will soon cease to be a Constitutional Republic and if that happens, both the state and federal legislative bodies will either change significantly or dissapear altogether; and I anticipate it would be the latter in that all control may well be in the hands of a few pseudo religious fanatics.

      • we already HAVE term limits… its called the ballot box. Just because we fail to make that work does not mean the system is faulty. got a rat? Vote him out. Got a good guy? Vote him antoher term. I’d hate to think where we’d be had Ron Paul not been returned to the House for so long…..HE has singlehandedly put the issues of sound money and constitutioinal reform back on the table. Term lmits would have silenced his voice decades ago, and we’d never have seen the House vote to audit tie Fed. Look how Reid, the King of the Senate, is responding.. he is outraged, and has pledged to prevent the matter from even coming up for a vote. How is it that ONE MAN can determine the course our government will take? But, the people of Nevada returned him to his Senate seat in 2010, perhaps by a majority of dead and/or bought votes, but returned he is. A sad day……..

        • Tionco, I agee with “Armyof 69”. Our present system just does not work. It was never intended that there would be “career” politicians, especially ones that could set their own salaries and benefits, Our Constitution is fine but it is those career people (and the unions) , that make our Constitution ineffective. I suggest a single 4-year term for the House, Keep the present 6-year term for the Senate, also for one term and one 4-year term for the President. We would lose some experience and continuity but those would be offset, by far, by a significant reduction in the greed, corruption and power issues that now plaque us. I would allow a house-member to run for the Senate but only if they resign their house seat first. A Senator should not be allowed to run for a House seat, Both could run for the President, but again, only if their resign their current seat. None should be allowed to serve in government after their tours, for at least a period of 4-years. Salaries should be paid by the States they represent and pay should be capped at double the annual median income of their respective state citizens—when their citizens make more, congress can make more. The states would pay for the in-state office-rent and staff and the Feds provide the office space and staff in Washington. I would also recomend that federal housing be provided in Washington. Equally important, the citizens should be permitted to vote “out” any elected congress person, that they elected to office at any time they collectively see fit. Pensions should be a fully transportable Federal Defined Contribtion Plans, with several investment options and one’s pension being that to which each individual’s fund will support at retirement The congressional voting and communications systems need revamped so that congress can stay in constant contact with their Washington office and vote on any and all issues by secure communications. In these current world-wide tensions, combined with missles and WMD, this immediate communications process is urgent. It should also restrict the President from declaring martial law for a period greater than 24 hours without a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Most all military activities have such alert/recall systems in effect already

    • State they are serving, not Nation. They are elected to represent their State in the National arena, with the obvious exception of the President. There will of course be times when a National project which could have been done in their State will go to another because it is in the best interest of the Nation. The slipperly slope starts when we put needed projects in places to “make things fair”. It paves to the path to the “sort of” neccessary project being given to State “X” because there isn’t anything else to make up for a real loss to that State, and ends with the “truely pointless” project given to the State who already got a nice big fact piece of the National pie for “no reason at all”.

      • With the 17th Amendment – approved by the majority of the then states – states gave up their right to be represented in the government and turned them over to be representatives of the people, just like in the House of Representatives. and what really happened, because of our “Party” system – they became elected to their chair on whichever side of the aisle their party sat.

        We the people are not being represented by those we elect. those people only represent their Party’s ideology and are under the thumb of the senior Party leader in their respective part of congress, House or Senate.

        • So true. However, one must remember the 17th Amendment was a result of the outcry by the citizen of the corruption in the methods of electing Senators through corruption, special interest groups, and cronyism. You would think I was referring to the present environment, yet this was the turn of the last century and the majority of States were in the Union by its passage in 1913 (48).

          It does make one wonder if we are better off or are We the People just being lazy in doing our duty by being informed voters.

    • So you would have your elected representative jump through the hoops and perform the song and dance of the Party Platform until he is elected, then he’s free to wing it.
      It amazes me to discover that so many on this blog are so totally ignorant of our political system. And in how many simplistic alternative systems are proposed which require little or no participation by “The People”.
      Get off your deadass and get involved at the Grass Roots.

    • My wife and I are both Vets and had Top Secret (TS) clearances.
      If they had screened Obama, he would not have qualified even for a Secret.
      A TS with an in-depth background check should be passed before any candidate can even apply for any Federal elected office. It would stop all these leaks also if we jailed the idiots like Armed Forces members who lose classified documents.

    • Bill, you do not comprehend the meaning of the words representative and delegate. Elected persons go forward and “represent” those who selected them. Delegates, either elected or nominated, have the same responsibility. Neither has the freedom to “vote one’s conscience”, if it differs from those who sent the person to “represent” them. Check any good dictionary or with Google. True, political parties have bastardized that definition but the premise remains. Of course it is imposible to support every voter’s desires, but one should not ever become a RINO/DINO. The present Libertarian party (or at least Dr. Paul), have branwashed their followers that if designated a delegate, they can and and are expected to vote their conscience (as long as the vote is for their libertarian candidate). Also, most Libertrians I have talked to refuse to accept that in today’s political envionment, a third-party vote is, in effect, a vote for the Democratic opposition.

  16. People get the government they deserve.
    Get involved in, or at least conscious of politics and vote in the primaries.

  17. There is one problem. Your system would work but it needs to work within our electoral system. You re introducing a nationwide popular vote. This means that voters from highly populated places like big cities who have more votes would have more influence than rural voters. This would then mean that rural voters would not get represented properly in government. So then rural voters might not be allowed to kill a chicken they raised for food because city dwellers think it is wrong and make laws against it. In fact this applies across all demographics. That is why we have an electoral system. The electoral system is to help protect the rights of its citizens including minorities. Very few people I talk to understand this concept.

    • It also works in reverse … high populations of minorities get CONTROL … and the Electoral Votes then SKEW the election! The idea of “Fairness” no longer applies. I would be in approval of just using the Popular Vote!! We could also ELIMINATE the entire Electoral College system, and save TONS of MONEY, with all those DELEGATES, their travel etc. A complete waste of money, since we no longer NEED that!!

      • The US Constitution provides for the EC to prevent those practices Waiter speaks about. EC members in Ohio can ONLY SPEAK FOR OHIO..and no other State. The US Constitution allows for the State to regulate how their members vote for their State. 3 States specifically limit their delegates to cast their vote for the popular winner of that State–if your State has no law to regulate how the EC votes, then you need to address your own State Legislators. Allowing the EC to cross State boundaries is like turning the wolf loose in the hen house.

    • Already, rural states, smaller populated states only have one place where they can actually count – and that is the Senate – and the states gave their right to be represented in the government away when they agreed to the 17th amendment of the Constitution.

      It’s funny – the chicken plucking – that’s already a done deal. when animals are given human rights – you get just what we have now. People mostly have no idea where their food comes from besides the grocery store. Milk is squeezed from cows, meat calls for the killing of whatever animal or bird, butchering, fruit is grown on trees or plants, many of our crops have poisons of one kind or another used on them to keep the bugs from eating them before you get them. And even worse than we don’t know where our food comes from – as long as it doesn’t happen in THIS country, it can happen in Mexico, Chile or China – that’s ok.

  18. We could stop the Communist muslim grip they have on Washington quicker by Voting for the Only Proven Honest Christian Patriot running for President Dr.Ron Paul and his Son Rand Paul as VP !!!

  19. This is similar to progressive voting where you rank the entire ballot in order of preference. I have supported that idea for many years. Interestingly, when I discuss it with liberal acquaintances they are horrified by the idea but never have a logical reason why.

  20. That suggestion is too complicated for the majority of voters who don’t pay any attention to the election until nearly the last minute. A real solution is to simply not vote for any Republican or Democrat for any elected office but for Libertarian, Constitution or Green Parties. The Demopublican Party would begin losing financial support immiedately and be forced to either start listening to the people or become extinct.

    • Rocketman maybe, certainly not rocketscientist.
      The “system” is designed to select populist candidates. That “majority of voters who don’t pay any attention to the election until nearly the last minute” get exactly the candidate they deserve. How can any party listen to “the people” when the people say nothing until election day?

  21. One other problem is that our present commander in chief has proven that our constitution does not matter. Not even congress matters. He does not have to follow the constitution and he does not even have to enforce the laws made by our congress. Congress voted to to have our borders protected yet he flat out refuses. His party refuses to on principle make him obey the law until it is changed so his party is also complicit. So what I see happening right now is no government at all. Our Constitution has been made irrelevant, our congress has been made irrelevant and our supreme court votes how they feel instead of supporting the constitution as is their duty. I just hope he leaves the white house and concedes power if he loses in the next election. I will vote in the next election but at the moment I really feel like it is pointless when the Constitution and laws don’t have to be followed anymore.

    • Not voting, is NOT the way to go ! We must do our best to find the candidates who each one of us truly feels is the pick of the litter and by doing so, doesn’t guarantee that that pup won’t, some day, turn on, and bite us. Get to know the candidates to the best of your ability and make a list of your important questions to ask him, such as his views on the constitution and the amendments, etc.Write your questions down on paper, as you think of them, well before campaign time. The most guaranteed way to get the guy into office you didn’t want there, is to not vote at all !!!

      • They ALL turn and bite you. You are not allowed to “find” the best candidate – you are given a table with the food already on it – and you only get to pick from the items on the table. And just like choosing food that’s good for you – you are most often going to pick what you like over what is really best for you.

      • The media steers you to who they think is your right choice. They are steering you to Romney this time. Why? The world government in place now can control Romney just as well. The socialist’s who own and run the media like Romney. They blacked out the one I liked. Why? He still is my pick. He would have really brought hope and change. Ron Paul

    • I wonder what would happen if a million irate citizens showed up on the capital steps.
      Voting on election day is not enough. Too busy? No time? That’s how our present commander and chief gets away with his shenanigans.

      • They would call out the Army and run you off – that is what would happen. of course – you really have to find a million people that would go first. All these “million” man marches at best usually turn out to be not more than 100,000 if even that. Look at ALL of us that showed up on the capitol steps before ObamaCare was passed – what happened – we met a bunch of nice people that thought like us – Congress – it was just a great big gaggle of geese on the lawn that would go home the next day and they could go about doing what Congress does. YOU have no power to move Congress nor the President nor the Supreme Court once they are in position – they care only about two things – 1st is your money and second is your vote. and since you willingly, year after year give your money to their Party’s, and they know that your vote can be bought with their pork and whoever can shout the loudest because they can raise the most money or have the biggest backing by the media – they have what they want from you – “now, you peasants go back to your homes and let us do what we are going to do”.

        • There were not a million Tea Party demonstrators but still a couple hundred thousand I believe. They were not “run off” by the army or any other whatever. Carp and whine all you want, only action and involvement will cause change.

          • No, we were not run off – simply ignored. but go check out, do a little research, on the bonus army and see what MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton did. and “run off” is what would happen if a million came and actually threatened the government – the Congress or the President.

          • and I’m neither carping nor whining – but facts is facts. action and involvement is what we do – besides sit here and blather. being involved – I went – I voiced my desires – I “wasted” a lot of good money and time for what I got.

        • They thought they got my money.
          All they know about is my Navy pension and VA Disability.
          If my Government refuses to enact the laws, I refuse to pay.

          • and so they do have your money – but that’s not the money I was referring to. I was referring to the money you give “willingly” to their Party or their campaign. the other money – they simply take that. and while you may cover your “other money” when and IF they find out – they’ll take all of that and you will get to see what the inside of a federal prison is – unless you are Timothy Geithner or Rangel – and I don’t think they were in the Navy.

    • Nullification of executive orders. nullification of laws we don’t agree with. Stand up for your tenth amendment rights. Make your state senate and house do the same. Hold rallys and tell people you’re fed up. Political lawyers are our worst nightmare. One word can make or break a law.

  22. They try to push this system of voting in ‘local’ areas. This way they can concentrate on eliminating those who are not ‘left enough’. They pretend it makes for better representation to ‘groups’ of people. Even in local elections each candidate must receive ‘votes’ from a majority of the segments of the population. It ‘encourages’ each interest being represented.
    This weighted system allows the dedicated to take over the system. And when they do they use any means to impose their ‘system’ of others.
    The thing to remember is there is no underlying commitment to YOUR freedom of speech, thought, peaceful protest.

  23. A viable third party represented in the House and Senate would force the Dems and Repubs to learn about “compromise”. Ok. they currently know how to compromise their moral and legal obligations, but, hopefully you know what I meant. No more 1 man controlling either House or Senate — a chance for actual debate on issues; a worked out viable solution that passes or fails on its merit, not just because 1 man controls the issue. Ok. yes i just got up so maybe i’m still dreaming.

    • Compromise sucks.
      A three party system allows 34% of voters to determine winner.
      America’s a Republic, not a democracy. America’s democracy comes in during the process when candidates are identified and elected by a majority.
      It’s not a new system America needs. It is full participation in the current system by its citizens.

      • You are assuming that each party has the same number of members. This is not rational. One party will always have a majority, and there are always people who jump party lines, for whatever reason.
        My dad was a staunch democrat, it took me YEARS to finally show him that the democrats/liberals DID NOT have his best interests in mind, and as a matter of policy, were detrimental to his way of life.
        Sometimes, he would have to hold his nose when he voted, but he finally saw that the Republicans were much more attuned to his philosophy.

        • No, I’m not assuming that each party has the same number of members. A three party system theoretically allows 34% to prevail. Besides there already is more than two parties with candidates on the ballot where requirements are met.
          Yes, there’s a lot of staunch whatevers. Most are staunch whatevers because it’s easy to sit back and trust parties don’t change; it takes no effort or involvement other than checking the box on a ballot.

  24. “Every nation has the government it deserves”.
    All politicians are corrupt by their nature. A person who doesn’t desire to control other people’s lives would not become a politician. It doesn’t matter whether there are two or twenty two parties present, politicians and the government will always be as much corrupted as people who vote will allow them to be. Obama must be defeated for two simple reasons: first, it will send the message to the new politicians that WE THE PEOPLE still value our freedom and the Constitution and will remove from their positions any one who disrespects these values; second – if Obama will get re-elected in 2012, who told you that there would be any other elections after that?

    • I respectfully disagree with some of your points. All politicians are NOT “corrupt by their nature” nor do some enter the arena to become controlling individuals. Spurious people like obama do achieve high positions within our government, but it is because the screening process is either not being used or it is being abused so that these nits can gain power. I agree that WE THE PEOPLE still value our freedom and the Constitution, but because there are corrupt individuals holding those positions, it has proven difficult to remove obama from the position of the Presidency. One reason that the minority groups have achieved what they want is because they have presented an organized, united front–and the MAJORITY of WE THE PEOPLE have yet to do so. It is one thing to join forces on forums such as this, but it does lack the teeth necesary to break the government bondage we find ourselves living in today. What do we need right now? Organization in the form of a STRONG FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA LOBBY—how do you thnk the homosexuals, unionists, and anti-American black power groups got their way? The Tea Party has the right idea, but they remain too politically correct because the fist they show sorely lacks the power punch to the government’s glass jaw. And you are so correct when you state if obama is re-elected in 2012, we just may not have another election in the future because that IS his plan.

      • I was born and grew up in USSR with one party and absolutely corrupted government, because, yes, this government had absolute control; I lived in Israel for awhile with many parties and still corrupted government, which became less corrupted when they started to lose some of their control to private sector. America used to be the place with the strongest democracy and one of the least corrupted governments because majority of Americans valued personal freedom more than convenience of government redistributed wealth and didn’t allow their government to control their lives. It was before Americans invented political correctness which was the first step Americans took on their road toward totalitarianism. And then came politically-correct definitions of social injustice, racism, sexism and the right of people to defend themselves. If people who still values freedom and respect the Constitution are still majority, the first step they should do is to refuse be politically-correct and stop allowing brainwashing their children with politically-correct BS. It will not happened if these people will decide to not vote because Romney is not good enough.
        By the way, statistically, white straight men who work for their money ARE minority in this country, so maybe it’s time to them to start fighting against discrimination of this minority group.

  25. I think this idea is a winner. Of course, the criminals currently occupying all the offices of the federal govt are not going to assent to this attempt at giving the power back to the voters.

  26. Term limits would be great! What we really need is a good vetting process for every public position. If the person has failed to pay taxes, fails a drug test, abuses family and friends, and/or commits a criminal-feloney act during their life time, etc they cannot run for any public office, federal and/or state. Oh, one more thing, if any politician accepts anything of value from lobbyist, he or she, will be fired and could never serve in any government and/or bureaucracy office.

    • You’re talking about restoring Honor. Honor, not only in elected representatives, but honor in the public media we once depended on to do the vetting. What are you, one of those “crazy” Beck Heads?
      Regarding term limits – who’s fault is it that the incumbent is re-elected year after year?

  27. Former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura an independent, said it eloquently. “We are taught in school that america has a two-party system. Guess what. That gives us exactly one more candidate than the soviets had.” The fact is that there are at least six, or seven active political parties on a national scale; Plus more regional parties. Except for the democratic party and the republican party (listed in alphabetical order), the other parties are forced to use limited resources petitioning to get on the ballots. This article makes valid points about the electability of third party candidates. Still, the best solution would be the strick application of the system stated in Artice I of the Constitution. Education of the american public accordingly might be the best solution.

  28. This still would not work because of one FIXED problem. It’s called the “Electoral College System” where we don’t elect candidates from each state. We elect “Representatives” who then go and submit the number of electoral votes accorded to that individual state. Most states award ALL the electoral votes, but some award them in a ratio. Now keeping in mind this system was initiated to allow for “Fairness”. A state with a large population somehow got MORE electoral votes allotted. But herein lies a problem. A state with large urban populations have a tendency to be with more minority population. Which in effect SKEWS the results. It is NOT representative of the entire country. Unless this system is removed, your voting for a person would not change the outcome.

    • Derek N: The US Constitution merely provides for the Electoral College’s (EC) existance, it does leave how it operates to the State. Of the 50 States, only 7 have laws which regulate how the EC members cast their votes; of that 7, 3 specifically say that the EC members must cast their votes for the popular winner in that State and the remaining 4 have limitations on how the votes can be cast. There has been no less than 7 occasions where the EC voted against the popular vote nationwide; the last occurrance was in the Bush/Gore election (do an internet search with your favorite search engine like I did). The problem here is the fact that 43 States have failed to exercise their right to limit what the EC membership can do. To rectify this, contact your State Legislator and ask them what they plan to do about it– just remember: the selected EC delegates from your State can only cast their votes for your State whether or not the State regulates how they cast that vote. Specific limitations would effectively reduce the skewing, if not eliminating it entirely.

  29. Too complicated and open to manipulation… Just put in TERM LIMITS! Then watch the rats leave the sinking ship….

    • Let’s beat this dead horse one more time. YOU are never going to get term limits from Congress – and that is the only place they can come from. IF you want term limits – talk to all of your voters and tell them not to give money to or vote for anyone who has already served two terms – that WILL get you term limits – and nothing else ever will.

  30. I do think that a third party could stand a chance of making a differance in an election.. Say the third party did carry one or two states, giving them some electorates. This party then could sway a party with a promise of votes if certain request are made. It’s very likely that neither party would have the 240 votes required. This might just be wishful thinking but we do need a third party and a good, well known leader could just make it happen.

  31. how about we go back to the original system here in America? only property owners vote.
    if you and your spouse are both on the deed you both vote, only one name on the deed, only one vote. since property owners pay more taxes, they are a bit more informed as to how money is spent. what i like about that system, the welfare group doesn’t get to vote for increases to their benefits and so America wins. yes, i know i’m going to get rat packed by all the libs…bring it, it’s a semi free country, feel free to express your less than intelligent thoughts.

    • angry voter: I am far from being a “lib” but I take issue with the notion that people who rent don’t pay property taxes. YES THEY DO!! The actual owner uses those rents to pay his/her property taxes..quite a few who didn’t use their proceeds to pay the property tax have been relieved of their ownershp for failure to pay the State its due. And if the person who rents out his/her properties draws in enough coinage, it is the renter who has paid ALL th property tax. What you are doing is asking for taxation without representation–or privileges for a select few. If there is any “less than intelligent thought”, it must be coming from your compromised brain.

    • Nope. I’m not into “fair”, I’m talking to there are many people, most matter of fact, that do not own property (real estate). I’d go with a person must be paying taxes (you know, have a job or income on which they pay taxes).

  32. excellent idea. Burt only one problem- our judicial and government system are so corrupt the law would never pass.

  33. This would be a stupid long drawn out way of choosing a Pres. It would lead to anarchy. The present system works well as the party that has nominated and has elected an idiot, should suffer the consequences at the next election……as such as now.

    • Anarchy would be preferable to the mess we have now. The communists in our government won’t rest until they are in power for life and the people are subject to their demands.

  34. If you want to break the two party system, you do away with party primaries. All legally-filed candidates will appear on a ballot that is voted upon by all legal registered voters. If no candidate receives 50% + 1 vote, there is a runoff between the top two.
    If you want to reduce the centralized power of the national (no longer federal) government, you return to the states the ability to select Senators who represent the interests of the individual states, rather than the parties.
    If you want to restore the sovereignty of the states, you proportion federal funding among the states based on the population percentages established by the last census.
    These are three things we altered in our Constitution that have saddled us with serious unintended consequences.

    • Not on the population of the state, on the citizen population of that state – would you like to see how fast California would run off the illegals and even the non citizens that they so willing tax themselves into poverty for?

  35. Why break the two party system and have a minority elect our Republic’s representatives?
    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the two party system and the processes by which candidates are selected. The problem is lack of participation by the electorate.

  36. This single party idea has some merits, but could never be implemented short of a total revoloution, tear down and restructure of government and politics as we know it today. Sure could solve a passle of problems though.
    Meanwhile, we’ll just have to settle for, as usual, the lesser of two evils as offered by the elite in the background of all politics and government.
    surviving urban crisis

  37. Maybe an automatic “evaluation” after say 1 or 2 years in office held like an election only with this format. Questions like did (office holder) OF follow the constitution? Did OF obey oath of office? Did OF keep campaign promises? This would give the dissatisfied a real chance to by pass the power brokers and put the pressure on politicians to actually live up to their responsibilities.
    Teachers have evaluations and they don’t work because it is teachers evaluating teachers. Same with government workers. This should work because it is the actual Boss “We The People” doing the evaluating.

  38. That has been my mantra for a long time… Let’s get rid of the bums; reps and dems alike. It is time to look for real patriots anxious to put America back in a position of world leadership.

  39. It is about time that we face up to the fact that there needs to be change starting with term limits and taking to heart that George Washington’s foresight is right on. I find the Democrats are Progressive Socialists = Fascist Despots and the Republicans are not Constituionalists they are revisionists in supporting nation building and supporting our enemies in maintaining the U.N. in this nation and supporting it. Washington warned us of being involved in the web of tyranny that exists, in their corruption that has infiltrated the fiber of this nation with multiculturalism and diversity that is now eating them alive with Islam out producing them in their birth rates. The U.N. is pulling AMERICA down to their level as they are trying to move up to the level of America. The objective is to tax American tax payer to elivate the poverty of the third world.

  40. Good LUCK with that plan. I am STILL firmly convinced that this election will NOT come to pass. Even if it does and Obumbles&co. (reid,pelosi, and all the other communist minions) LOSES they will conjure up a manufactured ‘crisis’ and declare martial law, BURN the US Constitution and make slaves of everyone that doesnt have a gun to defend themselves. I am not a soldier but I’ll die to stay free as long as I can.

  41. The Democrats has become, in particular, the voice of the disenfranchised and the special interest groups. That is the real problem. They pander to those and they say I will give you what your group want is you will vote for me. But do not pay any attention to what is happening with the other groups, you are the only one you have to be concerned with. Then after they get their votes they give them nothing. Nada, zilch. Some in particular, we call them Rinos, have joined in with them to get elected. We need people the believe and will uphold the constitution which is what they were elected to do. The problem is that that sounds nice does not work out. If you do not believe me look at Obama. Hew is full of flowery speech but not substance. He has made 100 campaign stops and not one meeting with his committee to create jobs. But on and on he continues with his rhetoric.

  42. Michael, I like your ideas. I doubt career politicians would ever allow elections like this so, I believe chances of implementing any of it has the same chances of a snowball in a blast furnace. I believe term limits would be another answer but the chances there are also the same as the poor snowball. The citizens are almost out of any say one way or the other. If our politicians suddenly said there would be NO elections, what would anyone do about it except complain?

  43. You know…this “way of voting” makes sense, but it would cost 3 – 10 times as much to reach a conclusion. Good stab, but the key to any system is INTEGRITY, HONOR, DUTY TO COUNTRY and for me BELIEF IN A HIGHPOWER…aka GOD! Unfortunately, you can’t buy any of these with money and so long as “money talks”…politicians will be eager listeners until that well runs dry.

  44. While Failure to Vote IS wasteful, Voting for a third party is NOT. Every day, Every American is required to make a multitude of choices based upon their morality or lack there of. Like prayer the results may not be apparent day to day, but, in the long term the measure of one’s success or failure earned is linked to those choices. Setbacks and difficulties are part of life and how one manages those challenges is the measure of character. Giving in to easy paths or solutions short term always increases the number, size, and complication of future challenges. Proper solutions are usually fraught with hard decisions but seldom require repeat visitation of the same problems and on those occasions the correct decisions are always easier when one has learned not to make the same mistakes over and over.
    Unfortunately, the lazy, uneducated, or immoral Voters just can’t be depended upon to change their stripes.

  45. I’ll vote for that! I’ve said all along, for years now that the two party system is K I L L I N G America. It’s all about the Party, not about the citizens or states they are supposed to represent to the government.

  46. I received 4,509 immediate Like hits on the Patriot page several days ago for my “PLAN FOR AMERICA”


    No money, only guts
    I am not a person of wealth to butt heads in political debates and to openly declare my aspirations for putting America back on course and gain back the respect of other nations. To do this, I will need the American people to back me wholeheartedly. I am an honest man and as my ex wife once told me that I would be a very rich man if I were not afraid to step on others. I have served my country honorably in three branches of service and wear my Korea Veterans cap to remind people we are not the “forgotten vets” as the media has portrayed us. General George Washington was a write in candidate for the presidency so there would be no precedent on my part if I were to win that seat.

    Following are my plans for my platform, ” A much smaller and smarter government”.

    Alright America, as to my plan to bring our country back to an even keel and gain back the respect of other nations who have been Kow-Towed to by our change and hope so called president. His change is for a predominately homosexual government body and his hope is for tyrannical rule over us.

    As our forefathers instruct us in the Declaration of Independence to oust a form of government harming the people and install a new form. With your help we can initiate a form of selection, not election that will have no need of the electoral college, the biggest political crooks. In this manner, those in their peak both physically and mentally in the age group of 30 to 50, the first year may or someone else can submit their name to their district office where as thousands of names will be entered if not millions. Year two they will be screened by a panel of clergy to eject all undesirables. Year three tested by experts in all fields with process of elimination to arrive with one person from each state. These fifty in year four will enter a large chamber and each to a cubicle with computer and video-cam. Computer has another series of tests more stringent than previously taken, video cam is for eyes of world to pan cubicles to view facial expressions and body movements of those being tested. Highest scorer is new president with each lessening of scores to fill new government cabinet. The forty nine will have access to a large computer bank and they will be advisors and afilliates to the president. None will have a personal staff.
    Benjamin Franklin during those four years will, with out a salary put America back on course. First to obliterate Obamacare and since we are not in Russia dump the czars. Next we ” can” T.S.A., E.P.A., N.E.A. and any other agency not performing a real service. Everyone will be placed on a 13% flat tax. Make a million, pay 13%, make a thousand, pay 13% , no tax shelters or credits. If you are being paid a wage, you pay taxes. This will result in approximately an 80% reduction in the I.R.S. compliment with an option to continue working in uniform with U.S. troops returned from policing countries unwarranted to police our own borders against illegal entry.
    To countries the present administration has indebted us to for billions of dollars, inform them that what has been received is partial payment of what they owe us from WWII and to write it off. And, to those corporations that took advantage of us through NAFTA to utilize slave labor leaving minimal employment here that if they manufacture in other countries, they sell their products in other countries, not here and if they opt to return and pay the American worker a decent living wage, they are welcome. Where there is oil, drill and some of the more abundant petroleum properties are federally owned going against the constitution whereas the government is not to own property other than property deemed by the American people to be a National park or monument. All other such properties will be auctioned to the highest private American buyer, no foreign entities allowed.
    Upon learning that the United Nations are the issuers of social security numbers and have complete domination over the I.M.F. and the I.R.S. with American taxpayers picking up the major funding for it’s existence and that now it consist mainly of Islamic nations who would enslave us, I feel it time to pull the plug along with our hard earned tax dollars funding these Godless Idol worshipers and turn over to U.S. agencies activities that should be performed by them such as the issuance of S.S. numbers by the Social Security Administration. It is no wonder illegals are able to draw benefits with out ever having worked here. However, I do feel that those having lived here for a period of five years and are contributing to our nation to be schooled for a period of six months on U.S. History, cultures and our language and then sworn in as American citizens. Refusals to be deported with families.
    Welfare to be enacted by certain churches in each community with subsidization from the government. For those who are qualified by a physician appointed by the church, will receive supplementary assistance, all others advised to seek employment. (There will be some exceptions)

    Mr. Franklin will serve his four years (without salary as did President George Washington) to implement his plan and when his term has expired, put a petition on the internet for America to sign to end the two party system on a National level while maintaining on local and state levels to preserve a balance. This action will send the career politicians packing making way for fifty honest people being groomed to lead the people, not rule with salary approved by the people to a more abundant and brighter future and at the end of their four years receive a generous severance package making room for next 50 being groomed.

    What I have written here to be executed by the powers of the office will in fact cause all worthwhile proposals by other candidates to fall in place without the expense of a huge war chest. All that is needed is for America to wake up and head us in the right direction for a more prosperous and brighter future for coming generations to seek Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    Taking note of the movie “Going Home”, that sometimes there is no home to go back to after returning from battle and no job. This has been ongoing for years, After returning from Korea I read in the want ads, “NO FEE FOR SPECIAL SITUATIONS”. The man had a long list of jobs that I was qualified for so I told him I was a Korea vet with a wife and two small children, would that qualify me for the “NO FEE”? He said it would not and that the no fee jobs were for relations out of work. After a few choice words with the fat slob, I paid the fee. If elected, I will have congress put into law that when a person is absent from employment due to deployment to foreign soil,his position to be filled by temporary employment until he is fully reinstated.

    Benjamin Franklin

  47. Interesting idea. Another option would be the option of voting 1st, 2nd, etc choice. I am not sure how you would score the votes, but at least you could say I prefer the ‘3rd party’ candidate, but I prefer ‘major party candidate A’ over ‘major party candidate B’. “Even if the ‘3rd party’ candidate loses, it could break the ‘self fulfilling prophecy’ aspect by showing how many people have SOME support for a third party.

  48. I always look forward to Raymond’s comment, 99.999 times he is absolutely correct. The one tenth is just a matter of speaking.

  49. Here is a better law. Make a law that you have to register to vote.You don’t have to vote just be registered. If you register Democrat and they win you pay what ever tax they need to pay for their programs. If you didn’t register with them you pay a flat 10 %. You would pay this tax as long as the programs can withstand without borrowing.
    I’ll bet the days of party voting and special interest would end by the next election.

  50. Why not just become politically active and involved in issues from the local to national level? You know, that stuff most people don’t do.

    We really don’t need yet another way for ignorant apolitical people to screw things up even more (by voting no against good and qualified candidates).

  51. That sounds a little like what I want. I want each party to have one primary on
    same day in all 50 States, that way you could vote for the candidate you want
    instead of voting for what was left over from the first 2 or 3 States that had
    their primaries before everyone else. That
    way you would have at least been able to vote for the candidate you felt
    represented your views and not have to pick from the leftovers.

  52. The Libertarian Party implemented such a system decades ago by always including NOTA (None of the Above) as the final choice on our (internal) ballots.

  53. Even simpler: Make national elections non-partisan. There is no indicatlon of political party on the ballot. Many municipalities and counties do this. The parties can continue to exist and provide candidates to be on the ballot but the party affiliation would not be permitted in campaign literature. The parties would continue to function just as the Moose, Elks, and Rotary do, as social or beneficent organizations. Nobody runs as a member of the Rotary and the Rotary doesn not claim discrimination or elimination of the right of assembly.
    This would also eliminate party caucuses in Congress. Seems like a good idea to me.

  54. There is a better approach called instant runnoff voting. It’s already been implemented in several localities in the U.S. Basically, it uses a ranked choice system with instant runnoffs based on second and third choices, until someone receives a majority of votes.

  55. Obama has divided the country racially, wealthy vs poor, gov vs people. This is what he is good at, nothing more.

  56. The division of Americans into so many groups have been going on since the turn of the century to the advantage of both political parties.
    We are now, Christians , Jews, Muslims, heterosexual, gay / lesbian/ transvestite, union members or NOT, white, black, brown, democrat/republican/independent, citizens, illegal aliens, handicapped, seniors., conservative, liberal, leftists, rightists. There goes more than 16 different categories that our political parties can cajole for votes , or NOT. We are so divided , that we can never UNITE again against the tyranny of our government..AND, both parties are the same. It’s the real Janus coin.

  57. As I understand, an election just in my area costs about $100,000. If we have to have a vote more than once (and with the candidates they throw our way inevitable) the local economies would suffer greatly. The problem is apathy. People don’t take the time to think. Whether it is about long term consequences or political actions or letting fear justify political actions that take away our freedoms we need to realize our freedoms are being removed in the name of protection. “England” is now in our government. By England I mean the power that stimulated the revolution because of the unfair controls over the colonies in the 1700’s. We think our freedoms can never be taken but like the frog put in warm water and then heated slowly we are gradually being “cooked”.

  58. “You just have to be more Constitutional and more conscientious than the guy you’re running against. And right about now, that’s a pretty low bar. Pretty much everyone in the conservative camp is crying out “Anyone But Obama,” and that means the RNC really doesn’t have to offer a presidential candidate of any significant distinction to escape the bear.”
    Evidently the writer was napping during the GOP primary debates. If Michael Minkoff had been awake (and aware) he would have realized that conventional, ‘gaming the system’ politics are not in play anymore. The electorate ARE awake, and aware (you have heard of the TEA PARTY by now, right?). Simply because a candidate takes the oath of office doesnt nessesarily mean he will be able to finish his term without the electorates approval. Dont believe me? Consider the current state of the Union and……….lets see.

  59. I think that the real problem with America is that there are way too many people who think that government control of everything is a good thing. The image of Big Brother micromanaging every aspect of their lives appeals to them. The corrupt bureaucrats and corrupt politicians gain wealth, power and control (dictatorship) over the masses by convincing them that they are dumb and that the government is smart. The bureaucrats and politicians rake in billion$ in tax money and dole out, relatively speaking, nickels, dimes and pennies to the gullible welfare/slave recipients. Economist, Milton Freidman, said that if the poor received all the money supposedly given to them, they would be rich. A lot of tax money is not only wasted, but STOLEN. Wise up, America! Stop the racketeering rip-off scams of communist/socialist policies!

Leave a Reply