Jump to content

Represent Us


LoreD
 Share

Recommended Posts

Great videos!   

 

Here are my thoughts on their specific recommendations.

 

End gerrymandering.  A+.  I think everyone on this board agrees with that, so no further comment required.

 

Ranked choice voting.  A+.  This allows independents to compete in elections without being 'spoilers'.   I think it would also force some of the more radical candidates to moderate their positions and <gasp> possibly compromise.  There are many benefits.

 

Automatic voter registration.  A+.  I don't know of any practical concern that requires people request registration.  More people voting is a good thing.  I used to think only politically involved and motivated people should vote and therefore requiring a little bit of effort was a good thing.  But, now I think that if more people voted, they might take some time to think about who/what they were voting for.  Maybe easier voting would make for more involved citizens.  Maybe.  It couldn't hurt.

 

Vote from home.  A.   We just need to make sure it's secure against fraud and tampering.

 

End the revolving door between political office and high-paying private jobs.  C.  I'm not too sure about this one.  I know something needs to be done.  On the other hand, having people with actual knowledge about an industry in Congress shouldn't be a bad thing.  They can help craft laws in ways that are most effective.  As for going the other direction, if you make it so that ex-politicians can't get "high-paying jobs" after their terms are up, we will have fewer and less qualified people running for office (especially with term limits).   Our government was envisioned with 'real people' in Congress.  If we build a wall between private employment and public office, then how do you get real people to be politicians?    I need more convincing on this one.

 

Full transparency of political spending.  A+.  Why isn't it that way already?

 

Political donation vouchers.  B.  I understand the goal.  I don't doubt the positive effects this could have.  The only reason I don't give it an 'A' is a nagging concern about politicians passing a law to tax voters for money that can only be given to politicians to spend on getting (re)elected.  I'd give this one an 'A' if there are no restrictions on who I can give my political donation voucher to.   I should be able to contribute to anyone who officially files for office.  If it works like the Democratic debates where the only people eligible are people who have a certain percentage in opinion polls and campaign contributions, I wouldn't like it.  Even so, those with name recognition, like Biden, would probably rake in a lot of donations from this.  Is that OK?

 

If I had to vote Yes/No on the whole package, I'd give it a big thumbs-up.  

 

But, it'll never happen.  OK, maybe 30% probability it will happen (see the second video).

 

D's and R's won't let it happen.  R's won't do it in red states because it would make things harder for R's.  D's won't do it in blue states for the same reason.  Both parties will attack this as a plot by the other party.  "We can't do it in our state because they're not doing it in their state."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eye popping videos that capture the intense divide among the states, and among families. Do people want to trust something? Yes!

I would agree with the voting changes, and yes, we need to certify registration as well as voting from home, which would be a big time +++ ( the credit card companies can, so why can't we?)

Part of the divide, a large part I would say, is based upon false narratives - say a story is let loose in the news, a would be reporter is reporting what a politician is saying about his or her constituency  - which is based upon false news - which was suggested to be true by some unknown source - And then, to make things even more corrupted, the liar will say, don't trust the news media because they rely on unknown news sources... etc... 

 

If you read what is going down in the Ukraine, and it was corrupt, and still needs a lot of work. Well just imagine, big oil - Exxon Mobile, big Halliburton, Con Agra, Goldman Sachs, and more...

Yes, In A Gadda Da Vida - I imagine a diminutive economist - one Robert Riech 

https://prospect.org/politics/americas-next-president-warren-sanders/

 

Let's represent us all for once!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can't we get real. Big money got a hold of it. They sold God, you could buy a passage to God for a few bucks, ten percent of your income, only in America, only everywhere, only anywhere.

they should say, only anywhere you can't get a room for cheap where you can lay your head down and tune out, from Facebook, old old old - the kids don't even care about Facebook,

they are dying at the crossroads and they know it, their time at the time won't last due to the horrible demographics - it's a crazy fight / one walloped in ugly monetary gory 

cheapness / devoid of any value, Walt Whitman once said, in Leaves of Grass.

 

Can't we get any bona fide truth, is that an impossible in all the impossible things ever concocted by humankind. Isn't there someone in the next town who is smart as all get out who can make something work, who can even show you how it works, if you got the time? And they would do it for free because they are smart, that is what they like to do. They are free to be creative and to their ingenuity they are not oblidged to tax cuts or even an market, well heck, they would just carry on whether or not there was capitalism or downright socialism. 

But they don't matter when it comes down to free markets, no, they much never did.  

 

Leaves of Grass - that is how small, or how many never seem to matter, and yet, how most seem to know this life and how hard it can be.

So we know we are in great numbers, ubiquitous and in every way familiar.

 

Old Walt - back then, most people didn't even read.

 

Peace!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...