I hate to admit it , but I don't think we are that far apart. I think we are both frustrated because we don't like the current situation, but don't know how we can do much of anything to improve it. We each try in our own ways, and that is important, I think.
As long as we keep trying (and I will always be trying), we and others CAN effect change.
Looking forward to seeing you at the annual picnic
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
WayneH wrote: The difference between you and I is I don't think they're doing it on purpose. The way Washington is set up, money controls everything.
I disagree - Washington power controls everything and money is what buys the power. Limit the power of Washington and you've taken the biggest step possible towards not getting very much in return for the money spent to purchase the power.
The parties control who has a chance to wield the power that has been consolidated in Washington. Limit the power of the party to determine the makeup of the ballot and you've taken the biggest first step towards taking away from the party the opportunity to decide who will wield the consolidated power of Washington.
Get rid of the 12th Amendment and let the executive be comprised of the top two picks of the people instead of the top two picks of the party. I've said it before, but who appears on the ballot in the state come election day should be decided by which of the candidates has garnered enough support from the people to appear on it. Our choices should not be limited by the results of primaries or caucuses that the parties conduct. If we had had a choice between Obama, Clinton, Biden, Edwards, McCain, Romney, Giuliani et al in the last election we would likely have much better people presiding over the executive branch of the government and the senate than we do today.
Each citizen gets to cast one vote for president. Those chosen to the EC cast two equal votes for President. Winner of the most votes in each state gets one vote from all the EC members of that state, runner up gets the other one unless the state decides to award the EC vote for a congressional district according to that district's vote results with the votes representing the Senators from each state going to the candidate with the most EC votes. Same thing for the federal Congress. We should have been able to cast a vote for Buck, Bennet, Romanoff or Norton with the winner of the most votes going to represent the state.
Take power away from the parties and from the government in general and you won't have to worry so much about money in politics because the expenditure of the money will buy a lot less.
WayneH wrote: The difference between you and I is I don't think they're doing it on purpose. The way Washington is set up, money controls everything.
I disagree - Washington power controls everything and money is what buys the power. Limit the power of Washington and you've taken the biggest step possible towards not getting very much in return for the money spent to purchase the power.
I strongly disagree. Limit the power in Washington, without doing anything about the special interests and you'll see the special interests move to the state level and pump money in there.
I've said it before, but who appears on the ballot in the state come election day should be decided by which of the candidates has garnered enough support from the people to appear on it.
That's the way it is now, at the state caucus level.
, but I don't think we are that far apart. I think we are both frustrated because we don't like the current situation, but don't know how we can do much of anything to improve it. We each try in our own ways, and that is important, I think.
