Halt the continued spread of Karl Rove style politics. Slander, libel, misinformation and distortion are noxious. Eradication Time is coming! Let this be the last of the tabloid election cycles. The only way to stop the republican attack machine is to get mad if you need to, get energized and get involved by waking up long enough to participate.
Step one, get Obama elected, Step two, start pressuring electeds for legislation to support a “truth in campaigning” reform act. We have a right to expect and a duty to demand fact-checked information presented to the American people before it comes out of the mouths of candidates and their official surrogates.
Please help by joining the campaign, volunteering, raising money, donating or by helping in any way that you can.
Thank you.
Why doesn’t our Platform on Electoral Reform include doing away with the Electoral College? I can sort of understand past arguments made that the Electoral College protects the rights of smaller states, but it does seem inherently undemocratic.
I started thinking about this today when I heard Barack was going to make an appearance in Houston. I thought to myself; “…that’s strange – why would he come here since this isn’t a battleground state?”
At the risk of sounding envious, it doesn’t seem fair to me that the swing states get so much attention (of course, I’m sure to some it is considered a nuisance). Might presidents show favoritism toward swing states after an election in order to shore up the base in a given state - making it easier to win again the next cycle? Their familiarity with the needs of certain states would naturally be much greater than with others.
Bush bullied his way into our collective national disaster (with the assistance of a Conservative majority on the Supreme Court) because of this system. But this wasn’t the first time a candidate receiving the plurality of the nationwide popular votes has lost the election; it’s happened twice before.
If the candidate receiving the majority of popular votes had been elected, we would have had President Samuel J. Tilden instead of President Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), a second term of President Grover Cleveland instead of Benjamin Harrison (1888), and President Al Gore instead of George W. Bush. I’m not sure about the first two, but having a President Gore sure would have saved us all a lot of grief!
I personally believe it would be better if candidates felt free to travel all over this country to gain their support. Why not choose now to eliminate this antiquated system? I’m really curious what others might think.
I AM FROM MICHIGAN.
I HOPE MY HALF VOTE WILL ELECT OBAMA IN NOV.
I SUGGEST REGIONAL PRIMARIES.
MAYBE, NORTHEAST REGION, EAST REGION, SOUTHEAST REGION, UPPER MIDWEST REGION, MIDWEST REGION, CENTRAL REGION, SOUTH REGION, NORTHWEST REGION, SOUTHWEST REGION,
THE REGIONAL PRIMARY DATES WOULD BE BY LOTTERY BY EACH REGION.
THIS WOULD GET THE PRIMARYS AWAY FROM THE WINTER.
FIRST REGIONAL DRAW WOULD GET 1ST TUE IN APRIL,
SECOND REGIONAL DRAW WOULD GET 2ND TUE IN APRIL
ETC, CONCLUDING THE 1ST TUE IN JUNE, AS IS TODAY.
DO AWAY WITH CAUCUSES DUE TO THE PARTY INFLUENCES ON THE VOTER.
HAVE ONE SET OF RULES THAT ALL VOTING PLACES WILL USE NATIONWIDE.
MAYBE NEXT TIME I COULD GET A WHOLE VOTE!
Although it pained and re-angered me to watch it, this HBO movie was very well done!
It captures the frenzy, frustration, and failure of the system in the 2000 Presidential election. Of course it is told from the Democratic viewpoint which I think has the right to be heard on this. The actors cast were made to truly resemble the actual "players" in 2000.
Having been a resident of Florida at the time, I was so ashamed of my state for the covert and overt blunders and manipulations that made us a national laughing stock which soon turned into something to truly cry about!
We need to organize for November -- They (Republicans) will try this again --- why shouldn't they? It worked then and too many states have turned to those non-paper-trail Diebold machines. How do we prevent another White House Robbery?
------------map--------}}
Perhaps you are aware that Indiana is one of the states at risk for invalid elections and no way to check that because we don't have a verifiable paper trail for our votes. Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation magazine, has posted some comments about Rush Holt's efforts to try to counter this before the Nov. elections. (I'm disgusted that we haven't corrected the problem well before the primaries!) Thought you might want to take a look at this and spread the word. Mary
The Nation BLOG | Posted 04/08/2008 @ 6:19pm KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL
Rush to Pass This Bill ...an important pro-democracy effort continues to be waged at home by Representative Rush Holt. In January I wrote about his Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 (HR-5036). Last week, the House of Representatives Committee on House Administration approved the bill without opposition. Now it's up to Leadership to bring it to the floor for a vote.
Currently, six states and a number of counties in 14 other states will be conducting completely unauditable elections in 2008. Shockingly, only about a dozen states will conduct audits. Holt's bill would reimburse jurisdictions that choose to implement voter-verified paper trails; help states move to an entirely paper-based system; and/or provide funding for audits of election returns.
The alternative? How many lessons do we need? The 2000 debacle alone should be enough to show the need for these changes. Want more? How about 2006, when 18,000 votes were lost by electronic voting machines in Florida's 13th Congressional District – in a contest decided by less than 400 votes. As a New York Times editorial put it, "The flaws of electronic voting machines have been thoroughly documented by academic studies and by voters' experiences. The machines are far too vulnerable to hacking that could change the outcomes of elections. They are also so prone to mechanical error and breakdown that there is no way to be sure that the totals they report are correct. In some cases, these machines have been known to "flip" votes -- award votes cast for one candidate to an opponent. The solution is for all votes to be recorded on paper records."
Holt's office believes the legislation will be brought to the floor in the next week or so. They are also optimistic about companion legislation in the Senate. But, as Holt said, "Time is of the essence to pass this bill. We need to make sure states have the opportunity to take advantage of the equipment conversion opt-in reimbursements, in addition to the audit reimbursements. We need to ensure that we protect our citizens' right to vote and assure them that their vote can be independently proven to have been counted accurately."
Let your representatives in Congress know – the time to protect democracy at home is right now.
I am a fan of simplicity. Politics doesn't seem to favor simplicity, it seems to prefer complex scenarios and it has always felt to me that it's like only a select few are allowed to understand and then they (MSM, lobbyists and money) can proceed to tell us (you know, the American People), or ordinary citizens what we should do. I have always diagreed with that approach and mean no disrespect to any one that feels differently about it. I would like reform that makes sense for Democracy itself. It seems to me, that a democracy, should be accessible to all the citizens to actively participate and that should not exclude by time of day, or create barriers that are ethnically based (days of worship or holy holidays, etc) or geographically based. If we have seen anything about this election cycle it would be that it not only needs an overhaul, but it needs to be done with some common sense.
First, the Primary Cycle
I think that any candidate wishing to run for office, cannot announce their candidacy until January 1 of the election year. Then after that, it is not about Iowa or New Hampshire, which I understand their placement in relation to history, but it is time to modernize our system as technology becomes a part of it. I think that there should be one primary, in mid June of the election year. I think delegates should go the way of the dodo, and super delegates as well, as a failed experiment in democracy. I think that it should be by popular vote, plain and simple; the one with most votes wins. I also think it should be a paper ballot, traceable, and in the standard election format, voting booths, etc. As for the Conventions, I think it's fine to hold a ceremony to formally announce the general election cycle. I think that, the convention should be moreso for the nominee to have a platform to speak about his or her policy positions and agenda, and present them to the United States as a whole.
As for fundraising, I think all elections should be publicly funded. I think at the time of the convention, if a party wishes to hold a fundraiser of sorts, would be fine, as long as it is individuals and not corporate interests or lobbyists. I think if individuals would like to raise funds for a party or a candidate, it should be done with their tax returns only, with the exception of the conventions. If corporations, lobbyists and millionaires want a say in the electoral process, then they can pay proper taxes and direct their contributions accordingly. There should be specific checks in place to make sure every donation is legitimate. I think 527 groups (swift boaters) should be a thing of the past. Simply put, they should be against the law. I understand we are a capitalist society and that we all have a right to support our candidate of choice, but common sense has taught us time and again, with emphasis, that private money does not belong in politics and there should be very strict laws that enforce just that. If Democracy is by the people and for the people, it should be up to the people, plain and simple.
When it comes to endorsements, I think if senators, members of congress, former presidents and vice-presidents and celebrities want to say they like, prefer or believe in a specific candidate is perfectly acceptable. It is the right of every American to make their choices publicly or privately. I don't know about all of you, but I don't vote for candidates because other people tell me to. I appreciate input, but I prefer to do my own research and pick my candidates that way. That being said, the internet should also be used as a tool for candidates to get their messages out. They, like this cycles candidates, should put policy positions and agenda online for all to view and decide from there. Is the establishment afraid we won't choose who they want? Of course they are! But for Democracy to survive, it needs to be simple, transparent, straight forward and honest.
And without stating the obvious, the electronic voting machines (Diebold) should be destroyed and recycled. Also that no corporation that has anything to do with producing election equipment (ballots or readers) should be allowed to make any public or private statements about the candidate they want to win and cannot make donations to candidates or parties. I have nothing against the First Amendment, in fact, I am a very strong supporter of it, but if these private entities or corporations want the contract, that is the deal- period. Personally, I think that all election equipment should be produced by public government offices.
Debates
I think there should be separate debates throughout the primary season. I think there should be debates as follows; foreign policy (economical aspects, monies promised to assist other nations, etc.), domestic policy (economical aspects such as taxes, debt, jobs, deficit, trade policy and proper wealth distribution, etc.), environmental policy (green policies, some economical aspects, carbon tax and caps and innovation, as well as treaties and agreements with UN and G8, etc.), education (arts and music, testing, college accesibility and funding, teachers pay and benefits, etc.), health care (not just policy but medical specifics, growing autism, cancer rates, FDA and pharma industry responsibility and accountability, proper addressing of medical issues, long term care and impact, etc.), labor (unionizing, NLRB appointees, etc.), and infrastructure (includes government infrastructure and public infrastructure). Each debate should allow all candidates equal time to not only state their policy positions but show who they really are. Voting records should also be a part of debates as to show consistency or lack thereof. I also think each candidate deserves to have specific time in a one on one setting to discuss policy and agenda, etc. Also, on a sidenote, it should not be allowed for candidates (sitting presidents) to dictate the terms of the debate. It is our government, we make the rules!
The General Election
There is so much to say here about the way it is currently done, but instead of tearing apart the current system bit by bit, here's a simple idea; the electoral college needs to be abolished. It should be by popular vote, and again, the one with the most wins. There is no need to go through the trauma (or drama, which ever term you agree with) of the long awaited electoral vote. It really is that simple. In the event of a contested election, a recount should be able to be called by one candidate, or by the people. It should not be based on both candidates requesting it done- that makes any error in the favor of a less than honest candidate, too easy to ignore. It should also be funded by the public funds for election campaigns, to get past that rule of a candidate having to pay for a recount.
These simple reforms also do not need to apply simply to presidential elections, they should apply to presidential, congressional, senate, state and local elections. I also think for state and local elections that communities should utilize the internet (should be required) to put all candidate information out there so that one, the information needed is accessible and accurate. It should be done by local election boards. I think if we are truly going to be an innovative and Open Democratic Society, it should be a society that does not hide information, but makes it as transparent as possible.
These ideas have been on my mind for some time, but the specifics were inspired by Barack Obama's idea that all policy meetings should be open to the public via C-Span and the Internet. I think using the technology that we have and that will continue to develop, only makes the process better. I like the idea of making the process more public and for more people to get involved and maybe even more parties to get involved so that we are not stuck in a straight two party system. Or maybe this will change it into a two party system that we all can live with.
This is just my opinion. I think that our Founding Fathers would have wanted our government to become the dream they had envisioned, and frankly, it's about time!
VOTING REFORM:
Dear Sen. Obama:
Please come out with your ideas regarding Voter / Election Reform, as this country needs it, sorely. Also, Election Day should be a holiday!
PLEASE SEE BELOW... and therefore come out to help pay for a recount in New Hampshire! It is WORTH it -- because of accuracy, not because you might have won, only, although that is something to consider. It is WORTH it for US/ "WeThePeople" -- because accurate voting / counting -- helps insure a TRUE democracy. You do realize that the last two presidential elections were essentially stolen...?! The research is there about all the discrepancies and how 500+ votes divided Bush and Gore -- and what happened there!!!
------------
Please put some money out to pay for the recount in New Hampshire! Many people WANT A RE-COUNT and consideration for the machinery, etc. in New Hampshire! SEE BELOW, WHY....and you are mentioned:
Dear Friends and Activists,
We have two advocacy missions for our participants this weekend. The first is very easy and we are hoping everyone will do it, to submit an action to send a message to NBC demanding that they all remaining candidates back in the debates.
NBC Debates Action Page: http://www.usalone.com/nbc_debates.php (anyone can use this link)
Facebook Version: http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum776 (for this link, you must be a member of Facebook and logged in)
The second is to do anything you can to support the Kucinich call for a recount in New Hampshire, so please read on and we'll tell you why we think this is so important.
How Dare NBC Presume To Determine Which Candidates Are Worth Hearing From?
We are sick and tired up to here of having the corporate media with their fist on the scales during our election process. It is a self fulfilling fix to feature certain candidates over others in their coverage, and then crowd out those cheated of effective visibility in the first place.
All candidates who meet the criteria must be allowed to participate and be given fair and equal time. If candidates want to drop out, that is their personal decision, as quite a number already have. But it is outrageous, undemocratic and unpatriotic for NBC to play judge, jury and executioner at this still early juncture. We have ready seen multiple huge shifts in expected candidate rankings in just the first caucus and first actual primary election. They can project a winner in a particular race AFTER all the votes have been cast, not before.
If the voice who you believe best represents you on the issues is being excluded from the debates, we need to tell NBC to back off, and stop meddling with our democracy. So please submit the action page above, and you can also call their programming department on the phone at 212-664-4444.
Why A Recount In New Hampshire Is So Important
We've barely completely the first actual primary election in this cycle and already there are huge suspicions on the blogs and on the radio about the veracity of the results. Maybe it's because there is so must hard evidence after the fact that the last two presidential elections were stolen outright.
As reported by election protection watch groups, in particular there appears to be a consistent pattern of discrepancies between the optical scan counted and machine counted votes.
These doubts must be dispelled.
If we want people to turn out and actually vote in record numbers like a healthy functioning democracy, people must have confidence to believe that their votes will actually count. There must be a recount in this case, and every other such case, and one of two things will happen. Either 1) the count will be demonstrated accurate, in which case that confidence is enhanced, or 2) we uncover problems and we start fixing them now. Either way, this is a very worthy endeavor.
Only Dennis Kucinich has demonstrated the leadership on the Democratic side to call for this needed recount, even though another candidate, who we do not need to name, with tens of millions in the bank, could have it done for much less money under NH law because they were within 3 points of the declared winner. If you can do so, won't you make a contribution to help finance this recount.
Kucinich Donations: http://www.usalone.com/kucinich_constitution.php
The special edition Kucinich campaign pocket constitutions have arrived from the printer, they are just gorgeous, and we will be working all weekend to ship them out. You can have one too with your donation of just $100 on the page above. And if you can contribute $1000 Dennis will personally autograph your copy along with a personal thank you letter suitable for framing.
Yes, why is it that Dennis Kucinich and Dennis Kucinich only is out there demonstrating leadership on absolutely every issue? What would we do without him? Why don't we just all vote for the candidate we really like on the issues, and stop letting the corporate media pick the front-running horses before even the first race.
New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State, David M. Scanlan, was quoted yesterday as saying.
"Perhaps the best thing that could happen for us is to have a recount to show the people that the votes that were cast on election day were accurately reflected in the results."
We agree.
Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that every vote was counted, recorded and reported. Nothing will strengthen our democracy more than the certainty that the process is working and faithful.
And for those concerned about the expense, what is the expense of putting the wrong people in and getting saddled with a two trillion dollar (already) illegal and generational foreign occupation and quadrupled oil prices? We say election recounts are true democracy on the cheap.
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and distribute this alert to everyone you know.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.usalone.com/in.htm
Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm
usalone158b:108666
Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2007, Patent pending, All rights reserved
THANK YOU
julieannaactivist, writer so. californiau.s.a.JULIEANNAYOGA@SBCGLOBAL.NET
Iowa and New Hampshire are measuring how well a candidate can attract voters on popularity: how they look and talk to groups of people and to the media. How well this shows which candidate can work with the congress to create policy and legislation to help the people is not clear.
We the people need to communicate with our legislators to see that they support the ideas we want our Senators and Representatives to support. That is how we can help the president to work with the congress. We need to elect our legislators and we need to elect the president—at the same time.
Our nation is still using an unjust, unnecessary and antiquated eighteenth-century, winner-take-all method to elect its governing officials, which shows just how silly we are.
Proportional representation is based on common sense and allows groups of like-minded voters to win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote, which promotes more accurate, balanced representation of the spectrum of political opinion in a given electorate.
Forty-one well established democracies with at least two million inhabitants earn high ratings from the human rights organization Freedom House. But of these 41 nations, only three (the United States, Canada and Jamaica) do not use a form of proportional or semi-proportional voting systems to elect one of their national legislatures. The majority uses a full proportional representation system for their most powerful national legislature.
Had proportional representation been in place, we would have proportionally elected Ralph Nader along with Al Gore and King George II (Bush).
Everyone who deep down inside is concerned about safeguarding our environment and who wanted to vote Green (but did not because of the system) should give serious thought to at least talking about election reform and the possibilities that proportional representation would allow.
David Pearl, Salem, Oregon. Originally written April 13, 2002
For weeks I've been meaning to write something here about the need for Barack Obama to make reform a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Fortunately, he went ahead and did just that, without my prompting, at his Reform Town Hall Meeting in Iowa. So my post ends up being partly a pat on the back, but it's also a call for more.
Obama's speech was delivered at a middle school named for Theodore Roosevelt, and Obama took the opportunity to talk about how that old-school reformer helped break up monopolies and put an end to the "Gilded Age", in which power and money became concentrated in very few hands. Given Karl Rove's admiration of that era, Obama's casting himself as a modern Teddy Roosevelt is especially fitting.
I sincerely hope this wasn't just a speech for the occasion, though, because I would like to see Barack Obama make political reform his #1 campaign issue. He has a strong track record in Illinois and Washington of focusing on congressional ethics, especially with regard to gifts from lobbyists. Given the timeliness of that issue with the Abramoff case and the FBI just today searching Republican senator Ted Stevens's house, Obama's experience and credentials on this issue must be emphasized.
Reform is an issue where Obama has a strong advantage over Hillary Clinton. It was Obama who agreed with McCain to limit campaign spending in the general election. And it definitely means something that Hillary Clinton gets the lion's share of the $4600 checks, while Obama is vastly ahead of the pack in small donations.
Of particular importance, Obama refuses to accept money from corporate PAC's and lobbyists, while Clinton continues to take almost any kind of money she can get. I would like to see Barack Obama make a direct public challenge to Hillary Clinton on this point:
"Won't you join me in saying 'no' to corporate PAC money and donations from lobbyists?"
If she refuses, America sees that Obama has a clear edge in the clean fundraising department. If she agrees, Obama was the leader on this issue, Hillary the follower, and some of her dirty money edge is erased. Ideally, I would like to see this challenge made in a head-to-head debate, rather than through a press release, so the Clinton campaign has a harder time dodging the issue.
I would also like to see Barack Obama set forth a comprehensive blueprint for election reform and ethics reform - one that goes well beyond simply ensuring that votes are counted and that lobbyists aren't allowed to offer certain types of gifts. Obama should become the candidate who is serious about reducing the role of money in American elections, advocating the sort of "clean money" campaign finance reform that has worked in Maine, Arizona, and elsewhere. He's already a co-sponsor (with Feingold and Specter) of Durbin's Senate Fair Elections Now Act, which calls for just this type of solution. Here's a video of Obama explaining his support. All that's needed is to draw attention to Obama's leadership on this issue.
Obama's strength on reform has the potential to help him with voters from all across the policital spectrum, especially the independent-minded swing voters who have been drawn to candidates as diverse as Perot, McCain, and Nader in past elections. Obama is the Democrat who is best able to claim the mantle of reform, and this could be his greatest advantage in his quest for the White House.
"As a state Senator in Illinois during the 2002 session, Barack Obama introduced SB 1789 which would have adopted IRV for state primary elections, local elections, and special elections." fairvote.org
Will Obama bring fair voting to national elections as well?
Obama's lack of a clear message on the topics I'm interested in (the drug war and NAFTA) has sent me looking to other candidates, but if he supports IRV I will be all to eager to vote for him in the primaries.
Voting RightsThere is no more fundamental American right than the right to vote. Before the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes and property requirements disenfranchised many Americans, especially minorities. Senator Obama worked with civil rights leaders to help secure the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Also, working with such civil rights stalwarts as Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, Senator Obama has been a leading Senate opponent of onerous photo ID provisions that disproportionately disenfranchise the poor, disabled and minority voters who are less likely to have a drivers license or other government-issued forms of identification. Election Reform More than 40 years after passage of the Voting Rights Act there are still numerous obstacles to ensuring that every citizen has the opportunity to participate in our democracy. In recent elections we have seen political operatives purge voters from registration rolls for no legitimate reason, uneven distribution of polling equipment, and efforts to deceive voters about the time, location and rules of elections. A recent study discovered numerous organized efforts to intimidate and mislead voters and suppress voter turnout in minority communities. Few states have enacted clear and effective prohibitions against these abuses. Senator Obama introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act to enable investigations into deceptive practices. It establishes significant harsh penalties for those who have engaged in fraud and it provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote. Obama Legislation Would Protect Voting Rights
People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas praised Senator Barack Obama’s introduction of legislation intended to crack down on deceptive practices and bring greater accountability to the electoral process. Senator Charles Schumer is the principal cosponsor of the legislation. Neas issued the following statement: “In 2006 as in so many years before, we saw examples of unscrupulous political operatives trying to mislead and deceive voters, and attempting to hold down voter turnout for political gain. Some voters were told the date of the election had shifted. Others were told that their polling place had changed. Some were given misinformation about voter I.D. requirements. Others were the victims of inaccurate or misleading campaign flyers, or annoying robo-calls with deceptive information. “Enough is enough. Americans deserve elections that are clean and fair. We may not be able to stop dirty tricks in campaigns, but we can make it harder for them to succeed—and we can make the consequences very serious for those who carry them out. Senator Obama’s bill is an important step forward. His Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act proposes strong, effective procedures to prevent deceptive practices in the future, and to ensure that the individuals responsible for such practices are held to account. Senator Obama should be commended for introducing this legislation. “Senator Obama’s bill would criminalize egregious deceptive practices that keep voters away from the ballot box. It would provide immediate accountability before the election and encourage citizen participation by making it easier to report voter intimidation tactics and seek justice through the courts. And it would require the Attorney General to investigate every reported problem and make the findings public. The bill is an important component of the comprehensive election reform that Americans are demanding after suffering an avalanche of problems in the 2006 elections—most notably the inexplicable disappearance of 18,000 votes in a congressional race in Sarasota County, Florida. “I encourage all senators to take a close look at this legislation, and I hope that they will recognize, as Senator Obama has, the crucial need for reforms to ensure that every American’s right to vote is protected."
Vaughn Hopkins
We need look no further than the current administration to realize the process we use to elect our leadership is dysfunctional. We elected a president who nicely fit the images presented in his campaign commercials but had little understanding of national or world affairs and lacked the ability or inclination to thoroughly evaluate and think through the full implications of his decisions.
The Bush-Cheney-Rove team were masters of fund-raising and highly effective designers of sound-bites and commercials that undermined their opponents. If the American people really knew what Dick Cheney and George Bush thought; if we knew their style of leadership and their understanding of power; if we understood how they view the world and how they make decisions, they would have never been elected. Tens of thousands of people who lost their lives as a result of the Bush/Cheney Iraq adventure would be with their families today.
The most common issue that political analysts discuss in evaluating the potential of candidates is their ability to raise money. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on political campaigns but virtually none of the efforts funded with those vast sums truly helps the average voter make a clear and intelligent decision about who is most qualified to best lead our nation.
The stated purpose of political commercials is to form attitudes about candidates that are immune to discussion and debate. Psychological research shows that negative attitudes are more resistant to change than positive ones. Manipulation, distortion, and diversion have become the most effective campaign tactics. Candidates who are most negative and divisive are more likely to be successful than those who have a passion to unite and inspire. Achieving high political office is less a matter of cream rising to the top than how deep into the mud one is willing to sink.
In virtually every employment situation except politics, candidates are required to present a clear, factual, and verifiable accounting of qualifications and experiences. A responsible employer carefully screens and evaluates applicants according to their potential to effectively carry out the duties and responsibilities of the position.
Our election process quite simply makes no sense in terms of selecting the wisest and most qualified leaders. It is a house of cards built with thousand-dollar bills.
One courageous candidate can change the entire process. Set up interviews with teams of experts in economics, world affairs, health care and other areas of national concern. Do the same with business owners, workers, and average folk in every State. Allow the interviewers to evaluate, assess, and discern to what extent the candidate is qualified to lead our nation during this time of crisis. Allow the public to view and discuss the interviews with the candidate and each other.
Design meaningful commercials that expose how ridiculous, useless and wasteful most political commercials are in helping us make intelligent decisions. Provide information that helps people to see through political manipulation and misinformation. Recognize the intelligence and commitment of our citizens and respect the seriousness of their role in choosing the most appropriate leader. Avoid the political game of begging for enough money to sell yourself and simply start leading us.
