We need an anti-extremist PAC

[paperburn1]

But how do we get any changes to the voting system with out current political environment? The existing PACs would certainly fight such a change tooth-and-nail. An anti-extremist PAC could also campaign for voting system changes such as these...

People talk about that all the time without understanding how the base government of the USA functions. We're not a democracy, the people do not vote for federal laws or anything federal for that matter. Each state has a certain amount of sovereignty and part of that sovereignty is to determine how it's electoral votes are counted. ~You~ do not vote for the President, your state does. Your voting to indicate to your state which option to take. This framework is part of the US Constitution, would take an amendment to change and even then it's doubtful. Essentially no state can tell another state how to vote. Citizens of California can not tell Citizens of Mississippi how to vote. The fact that the federal government has been massing far too much domestic power for the past 70 years is something that's been worrying me. Our entire government system is designed for the states to wield the majority of domestic power with the federal government overseeing power over foreign affairs.

Exactly the real problem. People do not understand that we are a republic biased in democracy. That's why we have an electoral college, three branch system and all the other original enumerated powers. IT is not a majority rule. they intended states rights to be the lead not federal law. Now I am afraid we are so far down this road we will never find our way back.
This explains it all very well , it simplifies for the masses but is very accurate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw most people that make comments on elections do not ever realize this how it works.

[paperburn1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
and here is some of the problems with the proccess

[Diogenes]

Well it was only a minority of the republicans in the house that wanted it anyway. I think that if they had brought the latest compromise to a vote, the law would have passed with enough votes from republicans and democrats. Thanks to the Hastert rule, now a minority is holding the rest of the house, the rest of the country really hostage until they get their way. I do not think that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.

They aren't YOUR founding fathers, and it pisses me off that a F***ing Austrian feels the need to opine on United States politics. At the time of the Founding (and for nearly two hundred years after) only TAX PAYERS were permitted to vote. The founders did not give a flying f*** about the opinions of non taxpayers (or those of f***ing Austrians) who can be counted on to vote for the Democrat Santa Claus.


The Founding fathers would have long since had a revolution and hung from lampposts the current crop of Socialist/Communists. Thomas Jefferson had a particular hatred for government Debt.

[Diogenes]

Late joining this party. The way to eliminate the most extreme is to allow full option voting, a system wherein the voter can vote either for or against a candidate. If there is no one to vote FOR, there is always someone to vote AGAINST.

There was a book I read long ago that discussed various manifestations of the voting process and worked out the benefits and detriments of each approach. (I believe it was this one)




The Conclusion of the book was that the most efficient and accurate system would be to vote based on numerical preference rather than simply up or down.

Your preferred candidate gets a "1", and your second choice gets a "2". Your third choice gets a "3" and so on.

If the main candidates get a plurality the election defaults to the second tier. (and so on.)

No need for runoffs, and no worries of creating a plurality leaving the elected official without a mandate of the Majority. It accomplishes the objective you mentioned as well.

[Diogenes]

The fact that the federal government has been massing far too much domestic power for the past 70 years is something that's been worrying me. Our entire government system is designed for the states to wield the majority of domestic power with the federal government overseeing power over foreign affairs.

I think the Civil War was the beginning of over extensive and overbearing Federal Government. Certainly the Federal powers expanded more at that time than any time previously.

Roosevelt (teddy) also greatly expanded Federal power, as did Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt then expanded them even farther, then LBJ went to even more extreme lengths.

The point at which the United States committed suicide was when they added those last three words to the 24th amendment. "Or other tax."

A system whereby their is no negative pressure for increasing taxes and spending is a system which cannot survive.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. "

(attributed to Franklin and Tytler)

Positive feedback will destroy any system.

[Stubby]

Wrongfully attributed

Do you have in print or electronic form something called The decline and fall of the Athenian Republic (1776) by a supposed Edinburgh University History Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler (Lord Woodhouselee)?
I've heard of a quotation by Alexander Fraser Tytler about the lifespan of democracy. Was it in The decline and fall of the Athenian Republic?
Edinburgh University Library occasionally receives enquiries, particularly from North America, about this particular work. However, this title is not in our Library holdings, nor does it appear in the stocks of the other major research libraries in the UK (according to the 'union' catalogue COPAC)...
Locally, the chapters of Tytler's General history ... (which we DO have) has been checked on the off-chance that The decline and fall might have been a chapter title... but it is not...

particularly from america eh? hmmm

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority of the money discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury (in the form of defense contracts, prison contracts, charter schools etc). After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. "

(attributed to Franklin and Tytler)

Positive feedback will destroy any system.

GO CORPORATIONS!
GO CITIZENS UNITED!

http://www.WOLF-PAC.com

ooops wrong domain

[Diogenes]

Wrongfully attributed

If you would have bothered to look at the link you would have noticed that it led to a website where the Tytler Provenance was called into question. Whatever may be it's actual origin, it has long been attributed primarily to Tytler, correct or not. Also, the fact that I had stated that it had been attributed to Franklin as well as Tytler was in fact a notation that it's provenance was in question.

Once more you have provided us with a demonstration that there is no detail so trivial, that you will not seize upon and trumpet it, if the alternative is having to say something sensible regarding the salient point; That a system without negative feedback is inherently unstable, and that this lesson of history applies especially to the financial systems of governance.

So how much time did you spend on addressing the actual topic and how much time did you spend looking for information which I had already provided to anyone wanting to look at it? More importantly, why would anyone think you are intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough about anything, such that they would want to talk to you?

GO CORPORATIONS!
GO CITIZENS UNITED!

http://www.WOLF-PAC.com

ooops wrong domain

How about you concern yourself with Canadian laws? Hmm? Last I heard, Freedom of speech was illegal up there; Prosecutable, and Civilly Liable even. It takes a pretty D@mn presumptuous Canadian to tell us how we ought not to allow it in our own country. F*** You. Down here it is a Fundamental Civil right, and i'm simply not interested in hearing the opinion that the fundamental right which is Freedom of Speech needs to be controlled by Government.

Till you get YOUR COUNTRY straightened out, you can go f*** yourself before I have any interest in hearing your opinion about what MY COUNTRY ought to do.

[Stubby]

not really talking to you "diogenes",
but if venting here keeps you from going postal, have at it.

you used the pseudo 'attribution' to lend respectability to the statement.
in fact no one seems to know the author or the context in which it was uttered.
the statement could conceivably have been quote-mined from an islamic homosexual liberal from mexico whose views are antithetical to your own. That would be extremely funny.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority of the money discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury (in the form of defense contracts, prison contracts, charter schools, health insurance etc). After that, the majority of the money always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing (repeal of Glass-Steagall and 2008 financial meltdown being the first examples), always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. "

It is extremely funny how much you people project your flaws, actions on to others when what you really need to do is look in the mirror.

The corporations (a.k.a. majority of the money) and since the CU ruling this includes the PACs, have purchased both parties and the SC. They really don't care which party is in power.

[Diogenes]

Not even going to read it.

[hanelyp]

Is Stubby bucking for a ploinking?

[Schneibster]

Is Stubby bucking for a ploinking?

Is that what you do to the sane people when they get "uppity?"

[Stubby]

Is Stubby bucking for a ploinking?

wtf is ploinking?

some sort of redneck cross burning?

[Schneibster]

Is Stubby bucking for a ploinking?

wtf is ploinking?

some sort of redneck cross burning?

[Stubby]

is that what you mean hanelyp?

[Schneibster]

We need an anti-meshback PAC.