Good Morning Middle America, main stream news reports are that it is Thursday, March 13, 2008, I’m following up on that.
Here’s the joke of the day. The Democrats can create election corruption without having another party involved. I don’t care who you are; that’s funny. Hillary Clinton is losing and now wants the banned states of Florida and Michigan counted (where she won but didn’t count). Imagine how many rules she could change if elected president?
This whole mess with the Democrats answers an important and long pondered question; Is it possible to have one party totally in charge (without an opposition party to blame) and still have discourse and corruption? Well sure!
These are the people that I have been warning you about. Some of the ranking Republican leadership is now saying that John McCain may be more dangerous to America than Hillary. That’s what I like to see, unity. Perhaps a lottery system is what we need rather than an electoral college.
We could simply put the names of everyone who wants to be president in a hat and draw out the lucky winner. And for the 535 members of Congress? Get a bigger hat. This system would eliminate campaign finance problems and could be administered for about $500.
We could actually make money on the deal by running a national lottery on who is going to win the lottery.
As a safety feature to guard against an undesirable person winning one of the coveted seats (such as the present 536 undesirables, counting dead-eye Dick Cheney), we could conduct an internet poll each and every year to determine approval ratings. Anyone with less than 50% approval would be gone the next day and a new name drawn from the hat. Okay, I see you laughing.
What’s the worse that could happen? I suppose such a system could lead to a never ending war. Maybe even throw the country into recession. Or perhaps even create diminishing living standards? Could the dollar fall in value? What about creating a dim economic future for our children and grandchildren? I suppose the borders could potentially break down. Would such a system diminish moral standards to the point of officials using an escort service or having an affair with an intern? There would of course, be the potential risk of introducing corruption into the political system.
These are important questions that one should ponder before adopting LESS (lottery election simplified system). After all, we certainly wouldn’t want to create a system that would result in mismanagement.
I considered the possibility of developing a new voting machine that would accept a quarter and have the appearance of a slot machine. This would provide entertainment while voting as one would simply put in a quarter (campaign finance) pull the lever, and whose ever name came up the most would win.
The problem that I encountered on this method was that Diebold would probably win the bid to make the voting slot machines and they could be rigged. In the end, the lottery idea is probably the best.