Problem solved

[elwood127]

I came up with a brilliant thought. Let's remove the "D" and "R" and "I" suffix from all candidates names so that morons that vote for the "R" for the sake of the "R" and so on, have to actually look into the beliefs of the person running. I'm sure turnout would be single digit. Last nights turnout proves that the last election was about being part of the herd and not about politics. Very few young or blacks bothered to show up. What do you think?

[merrylander]

Virginia has been a red state for a long time, no surprise and Deed ran a negative campaign so lost the independents. NJ was over the corruption more than anything. New York was the telling result, Beck and Limbaugh are pushing the party so far right that they will likely spend the next forty years wandering in the wilderness.

But yeah, remove all party affiliation from the ballots, in fact remove it from the voter regiistration. Hell even the dog catcher is identified as R or D.

[Boreas]

I came up with a brilliant thought. Let's remove the "D" and "R" and "I" suffix from all candidates names so that morons that vote for the "R" for the sake of the "R" and so on, have to actually look into the beliefs of the person running. I'm sure turnout would be single digit. Last nights turnout proves that the last election was about being part of the herd and not about politics. Very few young or blacks bothered to show up. What do you think?

I think removing the party labels would reduce turnout. Frankly, the labels are what a lot of folks use to decide who they're going to vote for. Remove them and some people will find it too hard to figure out who to vote for.

Last nights turnout proves that the last election was about being part of the herd and not about politics. Very few young or blacks bothered to show up. What do you think?

First, it's only the two governor's races. Nationwide the score is Dems 8, Reps 2 and Ind 1. The only races the media are talking about are the two Republican wins. They're spinning it into a "sea change" in favor of the Republicans. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I think the turnout says more about a lack of organization for the Dems. Hell, the DNC Chairman is Tim Kaine. He's the outgoing governor in Virginia and he couldn't even deliver his own state and his own job.

Also there were a hell of a lot of newly minted Independents, all those folks who won't call themselves Republican any more.

I want Howard Dean back!

John

[merrylander]

I think removing the party labels would reduce turnout. Frankly, the labels are what a lot of folks use to decide who they're going to vote for. Remove them and some people will find it too hard to figure out who to vote for.

John


Are they not the very people we want to stay home?

[BlueStreak]

The wingnuts at work were gloating last night.
One of them said,
"Now I don't have to worry about any of MY money going to pay for some other assholes health problems."
I asked, "You have insurance?"
Him, "Yeah."
Me, "Dumbass."
Him, (Insert blank stare.)

Dave

[BlueStreak]

However, I do think Elwood has a gem of an idea. No more political parties. Every candidate must run solely on their own merits, by their own means.
It would be a very interesting experiment.

Dave

[Boreas]

Are they not the very people we want to stay home?

Well, yes. I thought about that as I wrote but one of Ellwood's concerns was low turnout. I was addressing only that.

John

[d-ray657]

I'm afaraid that eliminating party affiliation would make it even more of a money game. The indiidual with the best finances will be able to contol the agenda, label the opponent, and not be subject to effective rebuttal. At least with party affiliation there is some sort of brand identification. The GOP is becoming more and more of a fast-food chain store where the party tastes and looks the same wherever they are found. I would like to be aware of that brand when I vote, because I don't like that flavor.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

One thing that probably affects turnout is that AFAIK there is no law stating that employees must be given XX hours in which to vote while the polls are open. In Canada people had to get a 3 hour window in which to vote.

[Boreas]

One thing that probably affects turnout is that AFAIK there is no law stating that employees must be given XX hours in which to vote while the polls are open. In Canada people had to get a 3 hour window in which to vote.

There are some countries where national elections are held on Sundays. That way people's work schedules present less of an obstacle to voting. I suppose the Fundies would scream bloody murder if we tried to do that here. Observing the Sabbath and all that.

John

[d-ray657]

In Missouri, if you don't have something like a three hour block before or after work in which to vote, the employer is required to provode time off to vote. It's even a little more dificult to get time off in Kansas, but at least both states provide for it.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Kansas also offers advance voting, including Saturdays. It was for at least two or three weeks before the election - I think maybe more. I took adantage of it, and Kansas ended up with close to record turnout.

Here are the procedures: http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_registration_voting.html

A little over half of the 72%+ who voted voted in advance. Those who voted on election day appreciated the short lines.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Grumpy]

Removing labels would require people to think. Dem's would not know what the hell to do then :)

[Boreas]

Removing labels would require people to think. Dem's would not know what the hell to do then :)

I guess you mean to say that Democrats all need to see that "D" in order to know who to vote for. Well, look at the Virginia governor's race. Deeds ran as a Democrat but his campaign positions on key issues were virtually indistinguishable from McDonnell's. Rather than vote for Deeds on the strength of party, Democrats stayed home in droves. The turnout among Virginia Republicans was very similar to that in the November elections but the Dem's numbers collapsed.

[Grumpy]

I guess you mean to say that Democrats all need to see that "D" in order to know who to vote for. Well, look at the Virginia governor's race. Deeds ran as a Democrat but his campaign positions on key issues were virtually indistinguishable from McDonnell's. Rather than vote for Deeds on the strength of party, Democrats stayed home in droves. The turnout among Virginia Republicans was very similar to that in the November elections but the Dem's numbers collapsed.


The same thing happened here for Detroit's mayoral race. No one showed up so they drew straws. Does not matter. They both will run the city the same way as the last.

All those young, hip, super cool kids who voted in obie wan could give two craps about their local gooberment.

[Boreas]

The same thing happened here for Detroit's mayoral race. No one showed up so they drew straws. Does not matter. They both will run the city the same way as the last.

All those young, hip, super cool kids who voted in obie wan could give two craps about their local gooberment.

You seem to be suggesting that voter apathy was the problem in Detroit and you may be right but the situation in Virginia was different. There the Democratic candidate literally betrayed his base by reversing long-held positions on key issues after he'd secured the nomination. Democrats stayed home as a result and, really, who can blame them? They had nobody to vote for.

John

[elwood127]

I wonder if Government is still mandatory in schools? Civics as well. THey should be.

[Boreas]

I wonder if Government is still mandatory in schools? Civics as well. THey should be.

I believe a lot of school systems have dropped it.

John

[Charles]

You seem to be suggesting that voter apathy was the problem in Detroit and you may be right but the situation in Virginia was different. There the Democratic candidate literally betrayed his base by reversing long-held positions on key issues after he'd secured the nomination. Democrats stayed home as a result and, really, who can blame them? They had nobody to vote for.

John

I can relate to that, I have nobody to vote for either.

But I always find someone to vote against.

Chas

[tincat]

get rid of the political parties altogether. randomly select a certain number of citizens to run for a particular office. give each access to various media to make their case-if you opt out or fail certain qualifying criteria(plain and simple restrictions on major criminality or disabilities), another random choice replaces you. winnow this initially somewhat large pool down via electronic 'voting' to a three person race wherein each contender gets more media time and scrutiny(no private funding). winner is biggest vote getter w/runner up as back up in case of probs or as vp in the national election.
ok, yeah, lots of stuff to be worked out here, but the one thing this does is eliminate the current hegemony that money and cronyism has over the governance of this country. don't blather on about somehow 'tweaking' the system; it is thoroughly corrupt and broken and should be abandoned. the elected, by the way, should serve as conscripts, with their needs provided(well-being, security, housing, etc., as well as access to all objective information available on any topic germane to their deliberations) and their choices well publicized. the job should be seen as a duty, not a prize, and you shouldn't get to bring all your 'homies' w/you, though a certain number of assistants(vetted to some degree) could be of your choice-they too, would be 'conscripted' to 'serve' as a 'duty'.
what we've got going on now is beyond a joke, and bears little resemblance to a true democracy, for which we are paying a continuing price in lives and treasure; i would much prefer that the 'authorities' be persons who come from the world in which i live and not from some gang which has succeded in manipulating the system to its own ends.

[Grumpy]

IMO the start to fixing our problems lie in term limits.

One no matter what office, one term. No exceptions

No paid politicians. End of story.

No bennies. Nope not even insurance.

Would this ensure no crooks got in ? Nope but its a start to getting people in who really care and want the job, not the money, power and lord knows what else they can pilfer while in office.

[JCricket]

get rid of the political parties altogether. randomly select a certain number of citizens to run for a particular office. give each access to various media to make their case-if you opt out or fail certain qualifying criteria(plain and simple restrictions on major criminality or disabilities), another random choice replaces you. winnow this initially somewhat large pool down via electronic 'voting' to a three person race wherein each contender gets more media time and scrutiny(no private funding). winner is biggest vote getter w/runner up as back up in case of probs or as vp in the national election.
ok, yeah, lots of stuff to be worked out here, but the one thing this does is eliminate the current hegemony that money and cronyism has over the governance of this country. don't blather on about somehow 'tweaking' the system; it is thoroughly corrupt and broken and should be abandoned. the elected, by the way, should serve as conscripts, with their needs provided(well-being, security, housing, etc., as well as access to all objective information available on any topic germane to their deliberations) and their choices well publicized. the job should be seen as a duty, not a prize, and you shouldn't get to bring all your 'homies' w/you, though a certain number of assistants(vetted to some degree) could be of your choice-they too, would be 'conscripted' to 'serve' as a 'duty'.
what we've got going on now is beyond a joke, and bears little resemblance to a true democracy, for which we are paying a continuing price in lives and treasure; i would much prefer that the 'authorities' be persons who come from the world in which i live and not from some gang which has succeded in manipulating the system to its own ends.

Very interesting ideas. I like.
I see some problems, but heck itstill sounds one heck of a lot better than what we have.

Kind of like serving on a jury trial.

I think if you couple this with a mandatory education in law/civics/history in school you might just be onto something.

[noonereal]

IMO the start to fixing our problems lie in term limits.

One no matter what office, one term. No exceptions

No paid politicians. End of story.

No bennies. Nope not even insurance.

Would this ensure no crooks got in ? Nope but its a start to getting people in who really care and want the job, not the money, power and lord knows what else they can pilfer while in office.

how long would the terms be?

[JCricket]

Question for you folks - in regards top Grumpy's poat about one term.

Is there a skill or knowledge level needed to be a good leader? I would have said good politician but that is an oxymoron. I like Grumpy's idea, but the first thingthat crossed my head was the cuban missle crisis. How does a leader learn to work in situatuins such as this. I garantee, you wouldn't want me in there. I wouldn't have a clue how to handle it "appropriately".
+I certainly see his logic in the idea, but I wonder about the shortcomings??

[merrylander]

Then we need to change some of our outmoded political concepts. For example, it has been nine months and not all 'appointments' have been made. Most Presidents spend their first year getting these approximately 8000 appointments made. Some because of other pre-occupations, some because of this dumb-ass idea that lets a Senator put a hold on an appointee simply out of pique. If a single term is the rule then we damn well better go to a parliamentary system were everyone below cabinet level is a career civil servant. Or shall we only allow them to serve for four years as well.

The Framers by and large did a pretty good job, but they screwed up royally when they let Congress make its own rules, guess they were tired after a long hot summer shut up in the convention hall and wanted to go home.

[Grumpy]

The Framers by and large did a pretty good job, but they screwed up royally when they let Congress make its own rules, guess they were tired after a long hot summer shut up in the convention hall and wanted to go home.

Congress is a bunch of inbreed morons who could not find their way out of a wet paper bag with a knife. In other words I agree with ya :)

One term should be something like 2-3 years. 4 is long enough to get this country in to serious trouble that could take 10 to get out of. As is proved by past and present elected officials.

[JCricket]

Warning, tyoping without thinking is about to occur........

Just a thought. IN addition to term limits, maybe political commitees. These would be teh groups taht actually wrote the laws. They are unpaid and unelected. Strictly volunteer. Furtehr, tehy have no say or popwer what so ever. More like a group of people who get together to brainstrom and come up with ideas. When they have an idea they can give it to the single term elected official. They asa group get to reveiuw, accept, change, reject, or whatever they want to do with the proposed idea - no strings attached.

Thus you might have a group of people who are skilled at coming up with ideas but have absolutely no power in the government. At least this is the goal of my idea.

[d-ray657]

Warning, tyoping without thinking is about to occur........

Just a thought. IN addition to term limits, maybe political commitees. These would be teh groups taht actually wrote the laws. They are unpaid and unelected. Strictly volunteer. Furtehr, tehy have no say or popwer what so ever. More like a group of people who get together to brainstrom and come up with ideas. When they have an idea they can give it to the single term elected official. They asa group get to reveiuw, accept, change, reject, or whatever they want to do with the proposed idea - no strings attached.

Thus you might have a group of people who are skilled at coming up with ideas but have absolutely no power in the government. At least this is the goal of my idea.

I would say that someone that has the ability to draft proposed legisation and has direct access to the public officials who pass the laws had considerable power.

Regards,

D-Ray

[elwood127]

Common sence and decentcy would be a good criteria for a politician. 3 years max. I like Lewis Blacks idea. Throw a monkey out of a plane and the first person he touches is president. Couldn't do any worse.