With less than 20% happy with congress, now is the time to change some basic, antiquated aspects of our democracy.
LEt's face it, a lot of people would dump BOTH the Democrats or Republicans if they had other viable choices. But it is very rare that third party candidates are seen as having any chance at winning. So people don't pay serious attention to them, let alone vote for them.
Now is the best time in a long time when there is an opportunity to change the rules so third party candidates have a better chance. This would be a huge boon to democracy-- to re-energizing, modernizing and improving the health of our democracy.
1- treat all candidates equally, not favored treatment for democrats and republicans
2-now that we have computerized voting, all elections should be instant run-off-- you pick your first, second and third choice and gradually elliminate the ones with the least votes until someone wins with a majority. Never allow someone to win with less than 50%.
3-take big money out of election campaigns-- polls show a big majority of Americans want this.
4-Take the biggest cost out of elections. Require local media AND national media to GIVE free ad time-- TV and radio-- to every qualified candidate.
5-institute term limits for congress- no more than 8 years for any senator or congressperson, and change senate terms to four years.
6-Make a law that legislators cannot become lobbyists-- ever.
This op-ed started out as a letter to CNN, in response to their broken government series. So I left out number four, about forcing the media to give free ad time. I knew they wouldn't run my comment if I included it. But it's one of the biggies. We need to take the cost out of elections and since We The People OWN the airwaves, we have every right to require something from the media we freely loan them to.
* * *
How do we make these things happen? In states where possible, get the people directly involved-- use proposition or similar direct ballot initiatives.
Otherwise, we need to start a national movement that pushes for these changes. You can still be a Democrat and support ALL of them. These will make for a healthier democracy and will force candidates to more clearly define their positions on issues.
We can do this. We need to do it. Don't expect the biggest liberal blogs to help much. They're too committed to the Democratic party. The Dems are currently the best thing we have to chose from in terms of viable candidates. But we can do better. I expect, if all the changes I call for came about, there would be plenty of Democrats I'd support, maybe even some Republicans-- because there would be Christicans and Corporacrats who would represent other constituencies who would push the Dems and Repubs to other positions.
Let's make it happen. It's a bipartisan project that even the far right might get behind. If it works, we'll see a much more diverse congress that works by coalition building, like we see in parlaiments in nations with more contemporary democracies. Who knows, we might even add a seventh change
7-The president must hold a majority of the support of the congress to stay in the presidency.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
This is a special sore point with me. We can never have a real representave democracy as long as it cost's millions of dollars for a congressional seat and tens of millions for a senate seat and hundreds of millions for a Presidential bid. The campaign reform laws were just pap. The soft money from the 527's contribute BILLIONS to campaigns. The 74.6 million dollars in campaign matching funds were turned down by Kerry and Bush. They spent over 300 million in donations from corporate and special interest groups and PAC's. That doesn't count the 527's. How can a candidate match that? How can a political party be started with such big money campaigns? Unless we all clamor for real campaign reform that is based on some of what you outlined, we will be ALWAYS voting for the lesser of two evils. I have submitted many articles about campaign reform to the "so-called liberal websites" and they refused to publish them. Anytime I identified myself as Chairman of The Liberal Party of America, I coudn't get a link to my blog or to our party's webpage. You are completly correct in your assumption that these sites are all run by Democrats, not liberals or progressives. If I ever saw a "think blue" banner on a website, I knew that it was pointless to try to get anything published on that site. This is why I love OpEdNews, you can be sometyhing other than a Democrat and still get a fair shake. The Liberal Party of America was a great party with a great mission statement. We were blackballed on every major "liberal" site. Even the Liberal Party of New York let us post. What a shame it never got a chance. I regret that, we put a lot of work into that party. Something has got to give before we lose our Democracy.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 12:52:49 PM
As a radical socialist, I'm in agreement with your 1st 6 ideas. I'd like to see & hear about idea 7. It offers a much quicker & less expensive way to remove presidents like W & Nixon from office than the exceedingly costly, excessivly time consuming & always polarizing impeachment process. But what a president who is neither corrupt or incompetent & simply is unlucky &/or unpopular?
The jury is still out about Bill Clinton who has never been convicted of corruption & much too wily to ever be considered incompetent. Being fellated in the Oval Office & other erotic activity with a consenting adult isn't treason. The case of Jimmy Carter, like Clinton's, is moot.
If idea 7 flies, bothe the valid & invalid objection to idea 7 will hit us like multiple & unending tsunamis.
by
larry278 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 3:15:43 PM
I re-read your article and I saw the words "bipartisan support". I just want to point out that the GOP and the Dems have nothing to gain by supporting this. They are far too entreanched and comforable in their own little world (besides making tons of money). We would be better off if we could make it a media litmus test like abortion or another subject. Those that answer that they don't support it get blackballed, pure and simple, but it would have to be a grassroots effort and have to have media involvment which would be hard because they make so much on campaigns.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 3:33:12 PM
you correctly noted that neither of the two major parties have anything whatsoever to gain from your proposals, all of which I support wholeheartedly, by the way.
I cannot envision a scenario in which a Repug or a Dem works to weaken their respective strangleholds on the election process and their own power bases. I do believe that such reforms are way overdue and necesary but they will have to come from the leverage of the third parties themselves.
The only way I see to accomplish this is to abandon the two parties, Tweedledem and Tweedlegop, and work for the growth of a third party. Votes count, even when they are cast in losing efforts. The pollsters do track how votes are cast and the more of them falling to third parties the quicker folks will become aware of alternatives. At the very least it would make both parties more responsive to the agendas of those who vote third party
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 7:23:26 AM
Rob, The Electoral College has a "trickle down" affect. Getting rid of the EC will enable instant run off elections. As long as we don't vote directly for president, as long as the MSM talks like there are only two political parties in existence, as long as we refer to states as "red" states or "blue" states, as if there are no other colors in the spectrum, as long as people in power are in the best position to initiate a constitutional amendment and as long as those people are the people who, at least indirectly, benefit from the existence of The Electoral College, those who "serve" will be chosen from among people who possess obscene wealth.
We're very close to a point where we have to convince the portion of middle class America who make up law enforcement and the military that their backing the wrong horse and protecting wealth from people who are much more like them. Writing to your congress person is an ineffectual waste of time and believing professional politicians is the epitome of naiveté.
Expecting them to do the right thing, be they Republicans or Democrats, is a pipe dream. For example, it's so soothing to know the Nancy Pelosi has already said that Democrats won't entertain impeachment if she becomes Speaker of the House.
Their all in this together.
I'm all for the changes you suggest, I just don't think that they'll be able to be made very easily and very possibly not using the political system that your article admits is a broken system. In fact, that such dramatic change doesn't happen under our system is one of its sicknesses.
Michael Bonanno
by
Michael Bonanno (92 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 126 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 3:37:14 PM
The states that allow the people to directly create ballot initiatives well go first. Really, there should be a bill that requires all states to allow propositions, so the citizens aren't held back by self-interest driven state legislators.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 9:16:49 PM
"We have it in our power to begin the world again."-T. Paine
I wanted to run for House of Representatives in District 5 in Florida, my home district, but HELP was no where to be found!
I support the current House Resolutions calling for
CLEAN ELECTIONs, House Bill No. 4251, which is a total overhaul of the current system that allows corporations to buy democracy in the USA.
HR 4251 is a system of public financing for elections that can cut the ties between politicians and the big-money special interests and lobbyists [-there are 64 lobbyists PER Congressional Rep!] who currently fund their campaigns. It's called Clean Elections, and it's already working in seven states and two cities across the country.
I support abolishing the IRS in favor of the Fair Tax Bill H.R. 25, which is based on consumption-the more you spend the more taxes you pay and the poor will get a rebate.
I still want to serve my community, state and nation by running for House of Representatives because I believe the well being of every resident in Florida is connected to the well being of every American.
The well being of every American is also connected to the well being of every human being and every form of life on our planet.
One must act locally and think globally, and to whom much is given, much more is required.
I want to work to protect the environment, the nurturing of children and the building of Habitat for Humanity homes.
If I were elected to the House, I would donate up to one half of my take home pay to Habitat for Humanity homes in my district.
I would seek to reconcile and mend foreign relationships and uphold the spirit and intention of the Constitution of America that successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the central and state governments.
I am an Independent Tom Paine kind of American and would serve the public, NOT seek to be served.
ANYBODY out there with connections, experience and the desire to HELP me "begin the world again."
I am ready and willing to DO SOMETHING to make these words of Tom Paine reality:
"Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine
by
Eileen Fleming (154 articles, 55 quicklinks, 268 diaries, 588 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 4:51:59 PM
Are there any European, or other countries, that have a fair and workable financial system re: elections and voting? Somwhow, just 'taking the money' out of the quotation seems a little vague, especially since there are so many covert elements and considerations.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 8:24:58 PM
All around the may berry bush the monkey chased the weasel...you all live in a fantasy, thinking that because a 2 party system is corrupt adding more is going to make it better?
You will refuse to accept that representative government is the problem. We need Issue Resolutional Voting in America. We as a people are and should represent our own votes. No one can steal them, hijack, or use our vote for their corruption.
We have a say where our tax dollars are directed and used, instead of placed in the Public coffers to be used in the military or for whatever discretion the ruling party deems its use to be used for.
Pull the log out of your eyes and you will see. Adding more only guarantees your continued blindness.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 3:57:32 AM
It is clearly time to re-think some aspects of our government and particularly of our electoral system. Instant run-off voting is a great idea for improving democracy and I generally like your other ideas as well.
However, your comment about computerized voting gives me some pause in my enthusiasm for instant run-off voting. If we really have to keep the computers then I am not sure that instant run-off voting is that good a trade. Computerized voting is corrupt voting and we need to get rid of it.
Also, the notion that a president must retain support of the congress needs some serious thought. For one thing, how would he be replaced? For another, would this encourage more wars? The easiest way for a president to maintain popularity is by keeping the country at war.
by
PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 395 comments)
on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 1:26:45 PM
I am certain that you will find, depending upon where you live, more than two choices of party affiliation listed there.
The question comes down to whether or not you recognise that voting Dem or Repub is pretty much the same vote and have the drive to change things by voting Green or Libertarian, or Peace and Freedom or whatever.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 7:28:03 AM
By all means, vote for a third party candidate. It will make you feel really good about being virtuous - if you don't care about consequences.
The consequences of voting for a third party candidate in almost all cases is the same as not voting. If we had proportional voting, or instant runoff voting, or a parliamentary system then voting for a third party would make good sense. The system we have, however, does not make allowance for third party candidates. Voting in this way is a matter of disregarding the rules of the game you are playing.
by
PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 395 comments)
on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 1:41:50 PM
but you are simply wrong. Do you not understand the culpability of the Democratic Party in the events of the last almost six years? Do you not clearly see that the two party system is a sham and a fraud with both parties far more interested in perpetuating power and raising money, mostly from corporate sources that then obligate them to those sources? Do you not understand that by ignoring the facts of the matter you help to perpetuate this fraud upon the American people? Why do you not ask about the easy acceptance by the Democrats of the theft of two national elections? Why do you not question the minimization of the progressive caucus and the black caucus within your beloved democratic party?
Look, I understand your sincerity and am not insulted by your formulaic response and refusal to engage on the issues in response to my position, all new ideas take time to win acceptance. Perhaps you are unaware that both parties look carefully at the polling numbers and, even if a third party candidate fails to win an election the number of votes cast for that candidate are still important in future positions by the two parties.
Neither party currently has a progressive agenda, in fact those candidates holding such positions endanger the monetary support they receive from the DLC led Democrats, perhaps you didnt know that either. It took many years for the Green Party to win major office in Germany but they finally did and became a loud voice for the progressives. It will take time here as well but it is the only hope for the left. We may differ in our vision as to what it is going to take to restore our nation to its place of honor in the world but that is no reason to be dismissive, especially when your party has failed you again and again and again. I wonder what it will take to convince you , perhaps, after the Democrats regain power this election cycle, their own actions will tip you away from the dark side...come into the light.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 8:36:13 PM
It's nice to be positive, but also to be realistic
While I may agree with you that the ideas of the Green party and the ideas of independents are often better than those of the major parties, just throwing your vote away is not a good response.
Your example of the Green party in Germany is a good example. That success did not occur in a winner-take-all electoral system like we have. Germany has had proportional voting for quite a number of years.
If third party progressive movements are to have any effect beyond electing conservatives to power it will be necessary to first change the electoral system. That system is rigged to permit no more than two parties. The founders were well aware of this problem, leading George Washington to warn the country against the development of political parties.
by
PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 395 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 2:52:08 PM
that you believe I throw my votes away when I vote for people who represent my wishes for the future of my nation or when I refuse to vote for those candidates who do not. I think I am casting my ballot correctly. I further believe that it is you who throws her ballot away by voting down the line for the Dems. Different strokes and all that.
Would you consider voting for local Greens, especially when you state that you concur with at least some of their positions? If you would but review the voting records of the democrats in the House and Senate over the last five years you might see, as do I, that the real wasted vote is the one cast for those who voted to invade Iraq, cheat our children (No Child Left Undamaged), destroy our rights (Patriot Act), allow offshoring of our jobs in greater and greater numbers, and, in far too many cases, side with the corporations and against the best interests of the working class, not exactly a Democratic tradition,huh. In every case above numbers of democrats cast their ballots for Bush and company and against the interests of the middle class.
So who is wasting her vote here is an interesting question...Perhaps we will debate this again in a couple of years, after the dems have been in control of the House and still things are horrific. I do thank you for your civility, it is hard to challenge folks' ingrained belief systems without anger manifesting itself, I get frustrated all too often myself.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 7:10:55 PM
I suppose it depends on what you want to accomplish
If you look at your vote as a means of self-expression then I suppose there is some value in voting for a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning. It makes you feel good and that has some value.
On the other hand, that is not how our electoral system is designed to work. It is not intended as an opportunity for self-expression but as a system of choosing political representatives. If any sense is to be made of our voting system it is that self-expression of the kind you seek is to be done at the primary elections. The purpose of the final election is to choose between the two front-runners. You may not like this system - I do not particularly like it, but that is the electoral system that we currently have.
Certainly, in local elections where I thought a Green candidate might have a chance to win, I have voted Green. I have voted for independent candidates who I thought had a real chance. If I lived in Vermont I would vote for Bernie Sanders without hesitation because he has a good chance of winning. In primaries I have often voted for candidates who have little chance, just to make a statement. I do think that this is a responsible use of my vote.
There may be another difference between us, however. I really do think that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. This does not mean that Democrats are perfect or that I entirely agree with their agenda, but I do think that leaving Republicans in power is seriously harmful to the country and to the world. I do think that putting more Democrats into office to replace Republicans would be a very good thing.
by
PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 395 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 9:10:10 PM
If I gave you two names would you tell me which is the better choice?
Ron Paul or Zell Miller, one a republican the other, though retired, a democrat. Which gave this nation a better service?
It really boils down to what you expect from those for whom you vote and what you perceive is the purpose of casting thatvote. You, and quite a few others, see voting as some measure of self, if one backs the winner one is somehow vindicated or elevated. I simply do not understand this reasoning. Electing those who will ignore you and betray you is not winning it is the worst kind of losing.
For years now Democrats have betrayed you and I, despite there being sincere and decent democrats in office, ones for whom I have voted, Barbara Boxer is one, Nancy Pelosi was once one. If you read the voting record of Joe Lieberman you might be astonished (or not) to see what a liberal record he has, but is he worthy of your vote now?
I hate to rehash this but I see the hope for a progressive agenda to lie outside of either of the two parties and that is where my efforts go. I just hope that you give more than lip service to your democrats, I hope that you work to alter the course they take and try to force them back to the light.
Again, thanks for the debate, it was fun but we will never agree. I do expect, with the next two years of democratic control, possibly in both Houses, that we may have this debate again heading into the national election in '08. Hopefully you will say,"I told you so", possibly it will be me saying that, we shall see.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 4:42:01 PM
True, we probably will continue to disagree on tactics, though we largely share the same objective. I would like to correct a statement you made, however.
(You) see voting as some measure of self, if one backs the winner one is somehow vindicated or elevated.
This is not at all true. I entirely agree with you that trying to cast you vote for a winner is not an objective worth spit. What I care about in this election is ending the one-party rule of Republicans. In nearly every case around the country the best way to accomplish this is to vote for the Democrat.
In my own state, a popular Republican Senator is up for re-election and will probably win by a large margin. She is widely regarded as a moderate Republican and really does some good work in Washington. However, returning her to the Senate will help re-elect Bill Frist to dictate which bills can come before the Senate. Her first vote in the new Senate to re-elect Republican leadership is, to me, more important than all the other votes she might cast and all the other work she might do.
Not only will I vote against her but I have written letters to newspapers urging others to do the same. I know she will probably win and I will vote for the losing candidate but I will do so anyway. I also know that the only candidate with any chance at all to beat her is her Democratic challanger. It would truly sicken me to think that my vote would diminish even that small chance.
by
PrMaine (11 articles, 9 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 395 comments)
on Sunday, October 29, 2006 at 7:16:42 AM
